Dozens of rights groups are demanding a crackdown on an artificial intelligence system used to eavesdrop on U.S. prisoners’ phone calls, after a Thomson Reuters Foundation investigation highlighted the risk of rights violations.

Documents from eight states showed prison and jail authorities were using surveillance software called Verus, which scans for key words and leverages Amazon’s voice-to-text transcription service, to monitor prisoners’ phone calls.

California-based LEO Technologies, which operates Verus, says it has scanned close to 300 million minutes of calls going in and out of prisons and jails in the United States, describing the tool as a way to fight crime and help keep inmates safe.

But a coalition of civil and digital rights groups said the surveillance sometimes overstepped legal limits by targeting conversations unrelated to the safety and security of detention facilities, or possible criminal activity.

“This surveillance infringes the rights of incarcerated Americans, many of whom have not been convicted and are still working on their defenses, as well as those of their families, friends, and loved ones,” the groups wrote in a joint letter.

Four different letters were sent to the attorney general’s office in New York State, the state’s Inspector General and the federal Department of Justice (DOJ).

The DOJ provided a $700,000 grant to the sheriff’s office in Suffolk County, New York, to implement a pilot of the AI-powered voice-to-text surveillance system in 2020.

Undersheriff Kevin Catalina, who helps run the Verus program in Suffolk, told the Thomson Reuters Foundation that the system is crucial for alerting jail authorities to people who are suicidal and to identify gang members behind bars.

“It saves lives,” he said.

A DOJ official said the department is reviewing technology programs receiving federal funding to ensure they are enhancing public safety while respecting constitutional rights.

A spokesperson for the New York State Inspector General’s Office said in emailed comments that they would review the letter and “thoroughly investigate” complaints that are sent in.

More than 50 advocacy groups are part of the campaign, among them the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Worth Rises, the Innocence Project, and Access Now.

They also raised concerns about the prison phone call company Securus, and the possible recording of conversations protected by attorney-client privilege.

A Securus spokesperson said the company is committed to protecting civil liberties, that users can set attorney numbers to private – meaning calls are not recorded and cannot be monitored – and that they act immediately to delete “inadvertent” recordings.

A representative for LEO did not respond to requests for comment on the letters.

“It seems like the regulators have been asleep at the switch at the federal, state and local level,” said Albert Fox Cahn, head of the Surveillance Technology Oversight Project, which helped draft the letter.

‘Unproven, invasive, and biased’

As Suffolk County was trialing Verus, it also expanded beyond New York, winning state contracts in Georgia and Texas, and in local sheriff’s departments across the United States.

The rights groups urged regulators to block further expansion of surveillance tools in prisons and jails, saying they have the potential to produce racial bias and undermine privacy rights, without any clear track record of success.

In their letter addressed to the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division, the groups cited research showing voice-to-text tools have a much higher error rate for Black voices. Black people are disproportionately represented among U.S. prisoners.

“Even absent discrimination, Verus and similar technologies exceed prisons and jails’ lawful surveillance powers,” they wrote.

Documents obtained by the Thomson Reuters Foundation from the pilot site in Suffolk County showed Verus was used to analyze more than 2.5 million calls between its launch in April 2019 and May 2020 – leading to 96 “actionable intelligence reports.”

While Catalina did not specify how many prisoners had been disciplined or faced charges based on those leads, he said the tool had helped prevent 86 suicides.

The rights groups also raised concerns about mission creep, noting the technology had been used to identify conversations that could flag problems for prison or jail administrators – such as complaints about their response to COVID-19.

Catalina said the sheriff’s office reviews all its surveillance strategies on a monthly basis to make sure that their terms used in the Verus system are appropriate, and that it has never found any issues.

The surveillance of detainees’ phone calls is especially troubling in county jails, where people are frequently held before being convicted of any crime, said Bianca Tylek, executive director of criminal justice nonprofit Worth Rises.

“People who are innocent, (who) have the presumption of innocence, who cannot afford bail … should not be subjected to surveillance that no one else is,” said Tylek.

Besides infringing the privacy of incarcerated people and their relatives, AI-powered surveillance in prisons and jails could also lead to increases in the cost of phone calls for prisoners, rights campaigners fear.

The average 15-minute phone call from a jail already costs $5.74, according to a 2019 report from the Prison Policy Initiative, while 2015 research found more than a third of families reported getting into debt to pay for calls or visits.

Worth Rises, which has been pushing to reduce the cost of prison phone calls across the country, is urging state and local law enforcement to offer calls for free.

Emails between LEO and sheriff’s offices, which were obtained through public records requests, show use of LEO’s Verus system could cost as much as 8 cents per minute.

They also give a picture of how the company worked in tandem with law enforcement officials to raise funds – enlisting PR personnel, helping draft federal grant proposals, and making appeals to lawmakers.

In Suffolk County, the Sheriff’s office discussed plans to pass the cost onto prisoners themselves if grant funding ran out, the emails reveal.

The office said that while it had considered passing along the costs to prisoners, they ultimately decided not to.

Tylek said the federal government should not be funding pilots involving systems like Verus, warning that authorities rarely relinquish surveillance powers once they have been granted.

“It (becomes) almost impossible to pull it out,” she said.
…

your ad here

Demonstrators in Afghanistan’s capital Saturday condemned President Joe Biden’s order freeing up $3.5 billion in Afghan assets held in the U.S. for families of America’s 9/11 victims, saying the money belongs to Afghans.

Protesters gathered outside Kabul’s grand Eid Gah mosque asked America for financial compensation for the tens of thousands of Afghans killed during the last 20 years of war in Afghanistan.

Biden’s order, signed Friday, allocates another $3.5 billion in Afghan assets for humanitarian aid to a trust fund to be managed by the U.N. to provide aid to Afghans. The country’s economy is teetering on the brink of collapse after international money stopped coming into Afghanistan with the arrival in mid-August of the Taliban.

Afghanistan’s Central Bank called on Biden to reverse his order and release the funds to it, saying in a statement Saturday that they belonged to the people of Afghanistan and not a government, party or group.

Torek Farhadi, a financial adviser to Afghanistan’s former U.S.-backed government, questioned the U.N. managing Afghan Central Bank reserves. He said those funds are not meant for humanitarian aid but “to back up the country’s currency, help in monetary policy and manage the country’s balance of payment.”

He also questioned the legality of Biden’s order.

“These reserves belong to the people of Afghanistan, not the Taliban. … Biden’s decision is one-sided and does not match with international law,” Farhadi said. “No other country on Earth makes such confiscation decisions about another country’s reserves.”

White House officials said there is no simple way to make all the frozen assets available quickly to the Afghan people.

Victims of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and their families have legal claims against the Taliban and the $7 billion in the U.S. banking system. Courts would have to sign off before the release of humanitarian assistance money and decide whether to tap the frozen funds for paying out those claims.

In all, Afghanistan has about $9 billion in assets overseas, including the $7 billion in the United States. The rest is mostly in Germany, the United Arab Emirates and Switzerland.

“What about our Afghan people who gave many sacrifices and thousands of losses of lives?” asked the demonstration’s organizer, Abdul Rahman, a civil society activist.

Rahman said he planned to organize more demonstrations across the capital to protest Biden’s order.

“This money belongs to the people of Afghanistan, not to the United States. This is the right of Afghans,” he said.

Taliban political spokesperson Mohammad Naeem accused the Biden administration in a tweet late Friday of showing “the lowest level of humanity … of a country and a nation.”

Biden’s Friday order generated a social media storm with Twitter saying #USA_stole_money_from_afghan trending among Afghans. Tweets repeatedly pointed out that the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi nationals, not Afghans.

Obaidullah Baheer, a lecturer at the American University in Afghanistan and a social activist, tweeted: “Let’s remind the world that #AfghansDidntCommit911 and that #BidenStealingAfgMoney!”

Al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden was brought to Afghanistan by Afghan warlords after being expelled from Sudan in 1996. Those same warlords would later ally with the U.S.-led coalition to oust the Taliban in 2001. However, it was Taliban leader Mullah Mohammad Omar who refused to hand over bin Laden to the U.S. after the devastating 9/11 attacks that killed thousands.

Still, some analysts took to Twitter to question Biden’s order.

Michael Kugelman, deputy director of the Asia Program at the U.S.-based Wilson Center, called Biden’s order to divert $3.5 billion away from Afghanistan “heartless.”

“It’s great that $3.5B in new humanitarian aid for Afghanistan has been freed up. But to take another $3.5B that belongs to the Afghan people, and divert it elsewhere—that is misguided and quite frankly heartless,” he tweeted.

Kugelman also said the opposition to Biden’s order crossed Afghanistan’s wide political divide.

“I can’t remember the last time so many people of such vastly different worldviews were so united over a US policy decision on Afghanistan,” he tweeted. 
…

your ad here

 

U.S. President Joe Biden again warned Russian President Vladimir Putin in a telephone call Saturday of “swift and severe” consequences if Russia invades Ukraine, according to a statement from the White House. 

Biden and Putin discussed the crisis as tensions continue to grow amid concerns that Russia is ready to mount an invasion of Ukraine. Russia continues to add to the more than 100,000 troops it has amassed at the Ukrainian border in recent months.

There was no immediate comment from Russia on the discussion.

Washington has received intelligence reports that the invasion could happen as early as Wednesday.

The White House said Biden conducted the call from the presidential retreat at Camp David, Maryland, from 11:04 a.m. EST to 12:06 p.m. EST. 

“President Biden was clear that, if Russia undertakes a further invasion of Ukraine, the United States together with our Allies and partners will respond decisively and impose swift and severe costs on Russia,” the White House statement said. 

“President Biden was clear with President Putin that while the United States remains prepared to engage in diplomacy, in full coordination with our Allies and partners, we are equally prepared for other scenarios,” the statement added.

A senior U.S. administration official told reporters after the call there was “no change in the fundamental dynamic” of the crisis. The official said Biden again proposed diplomatic solutions and that the call ended without an indication of what Putin’s next move would be.

The U.S. Embassy in Kyiv has begun evacuating its staff. A U.S. State Department official told reporters Saturday that consular services at the U.S. Embassy in Ukraine will be suspended beginning Sunday.

The official said Sunday is also when “American citizens will not be able to secure routine support with passport issues, visa services, any of the other routine consular services that we customarily provide from our embassies.”

The State Department previously issued an advisory warning people not to travel to Ukraine “due to the increased threats of Russian military action” and advised “those in Ukraine should depart immediately.”  

A few U.S. diplomats are expected to be relocated to far western Ukraine, near Poland, a NATO ally, a move that would allow the U.S. to maintain a “diplomatic presence” in Ukraine. 

Russian foreign ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said on Saturday that Moscow has decided to “optimize” its diplomatic staff numbers in Ukraine, citing fears of “possible provocations from the Kyiv regime.” 

Zakharova did not describe the move in detail but said the embassy and consulates in Ukraine continued to perform key functions. 

Before speaking with Biden, Putin had a telephone call with French President Emmanuel Macron, who met with him in Moscow earlier in the week. During the meeting, Putin said the accusations against Russia of an imminent invasion were “provocative speculation.”

Macron’s office said that he would also discuss the crisis Saturday with Biden, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and German Chancellor Olaf Scholz.

Also Saturday, Britain told its nationals to leave Ukraine, and Germany and the Netherlands told its citizens to leave as soon as possible. 

Macron said he told the Russian leader that “sincere dialogue” is incompatible with escalating fears that Russia will invade Ukraine.

The two spoke for nearly two hours, Macron’s office said. It said Macron and Putin “both expressed a desire to continue dialogue” on how to “advance the Minsk accords” on the restive Donbas region as well as “security conditions and stability in Europe,” his office said, according to Agence France-Presse.

U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin announced in a statement on Saturday that he had ordered the temporary repositioning of the 160 members of the Florida National Guard who have been deployed to Ukraine since late November, according to a statement by Pentagon spokesman John Kirby.

“These troops, assigned to the 53rd Infantry Brigade Combat Team, have been advising and mentoring Ukrainian forces as part of Joint Multinational Training Group-Ukraine,” the statement said. It added that the troops would be repositioned elsewhere in Europe.  

“This repositioning does not signify a change in our determination to support Ukraine’s Armed Forces but will provide flexibility in assuring allies and deterring aggression,” the statement added.

Earlier Saturday, U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken spoke with his Russian counterpart, Sergey Lavrov, about what appears to be Russia’s imminent invasion of Ukraine.   

“The Secretary made clear that a diplomatic path to resolving the crisis remained open, but it would require Moscow to de-escalate and engage in good-faith discussions,” State Department spokesperson Ned Price said in a statement.

Blinken “reiterated that should Moscow pursue the path of aggression and further invade Ukraine, it would result in a resolute, massive, and united Transatlantic response,” the statement said.

Blinken, speaking at a press conference in Fiji, said if Putin “decides to take military action [against Ukraine] we will swiftly impose severe economic sanctions in coordination with allies and partners around the globe, will bolster Ukraine’s ability to defend itself, we will reinforce our allies on the eastern flank. I’ll underscore this unity and result when I speak with Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov later tonight.”  

Blinken also spoke Saturday with U.K. Foreign Secretary Elizabeth Truss about the crisis. The U.S. State Department said in a statement that Blinken emphasized the importance of working with our NATO Allies and European partners in the region to impose swift, severe costs on Russia in response to any further military aggression by Russia against Ukraine.”

The state also said they discussed continuing efforts to seek a diplomatic

Resolution to the crisis and that Blinken reassured the U.K. it will consult with allies and partners on any decisions the U.S. makes in Europe.

White House national security adviser Jake Sullivan said Friday that a Russian invasion of Ukraine could begin “during the Olympics” or when Putin decides to order it. 

Many analysts have said that Russia is unlikely to carry out any invasion before the Winter Olympics in China end February 20. 

Russia now has enough forces on Ukraine’s border to conduct a major military operation, Sullivan said, and Russia could seize “significant territory” in Ukraine, including the capital, Kyiv, in an attack.   

On Friday, Biden took part in a secure video call with world leaders to discuss Ukraine.  

“The leaders agreed on the importance of coordinated efforts to deter further Russian aggression against Ukraine, including their readiness to impose massive consequences and severe economic costs on Russia should it choose military escalation,” according to a White House statement. In addition to Biden, the call included the leaders of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Romania, Britain, NATO, the European Union and the European Council.  

A senior U.S. defense official told reporters that Biden has ordered an additional 3,000 soldiers to Poland in addition to the 1,700 already headed there. The Pentagon said the troops are being deployed to reassure NATO allies and deter any potential aggression against NATO’s eastern flank. 

The Pentagon announced last week the deployment of the previous 1,700 troops to Poland along with 300 troops who were to be moved from the United States to Germany. It also announced at that time that 1,000 troops already based in Germany were to be redeployed to Romania.  

Russian officials have denied they plan to invade Ukraine, but diplomatic talks with Western officials have led to a standoff. Russia has demanded that the United States and its allies reject Ukraine’s bid for membership in NATO.  

The West has rejected that as a nonstarter but has said it is willing to negotiate with Moscow over missile deployment and troop exercises in Eastern European countries closest to Russia. 

Western governments have been calling on Russia to take steps to de-escalate the crisis and have vowed to impose swift and severe economic sanctions if Russia invades Ukraine.

VOA State Department correspondent Cindy Saine, Carla Babb at the Pentagon and national security correspondent Jeff Seldin contributed to this report. Some information in this report came from The Associated Press, Agence France-Presse and Reuters.
…

your ad here

As Republicans impose new restrictions on ballot access in several states, U. S. President Joe Biden has no easy options for safeguarding voting rights, despite rising pressure from frustrated activists. 

Unlike on other issues such as immigration or environmental protection, the White House has little leverage without congressional action as the November elections creep up.

“If there were some sort of easily available presidential power on this, others would have done it,” said Nicholas Stephanopoulos, a Harvard Law School professor, who researches election law. “There is no significant unilateral authority here.”

Nine months before elections that will determine control of Congress, voting rights advocates are worried there’s not enough time to fend off state laws and policies that make it harder to vote. They view the changes as a subtler form of past ballot restrictions such as literacy tests and poll taxes that were used to disenfranchise Black voters, a vital Democratic constituency.

Biden did issue an executive order last March that expanded access to voter registration and election information. The order is designed to make it easier for people in federal custody to register to vote, improve tracking of military ballots and provide better access for Americans with disabilities.  

But to do more than that, Biden would have to rely on obscure and controversial constitutional provisions that probably could not take effect in time anyway, Stephanopoulos said. And the further Biden were to go to push the issue of voting rights, the more he could face criticism for overstepping his authority.  

“It’s very hard for a president to weigh in,” said Douglas Brinkley, a presidential historian at Rice University. “Everything is being done at a state-by-state level.”

So while Biden may be able to take some small actions around the edges, Brinkley said, “if he tries something extraordinary, it will be tied up in the courts for years.”

Americans have grown accustomed to seeing presidents act unilaterally when they hit roadblocks in Congress. President Barack Obama resorted to a wave of executive actions branded as “we can’t wait.” He flexed his authority to increase environmental regulations and shield from deportation young immigrants who were brought to the country illegally.

There’s no equivalent legal leverage for Biden to advance voting rights policies.

Marc Morial, leader of the National Urban League, was skeptical that executive actions — which can be reversed by a future president as quickly as they were imposed by a predecessor — could be sufficient anyway.  

“An executive order or an executive action is not a replacement or a substitute or even a credible alternative to legislation to protect voting rights and democracy,” he said.  

But so far, legislation has not been a workable option for Democrats.

Democrats have written voting legislation that would usher in the biggest overhaul of U.S. elections in a generation by striking down hurdles to voting enacted in the name of election security. The plan would create national election standards that would trump state-level laws and restore the ability of the Justice Department to police election laws in states with a history of discrimination.

Republicans said the proposed changes were not aimed at fairness but at giving Democrats an advantage in elections. And Democrats were unsuccessful at changing Senate rules to allow the slim Democratic majority in the chamber to pass the laws on their own.  

Republicans last year pushed through 33 laws creating new voting limits in 19 states, and five other states have bills that seek to restrict voting. The effort is motivated in part by a growing and widespread denial of President Donald Trump’s 2020 election loss.

Republicans who have fallen in line behind Trump’s election lies are separately promoting efforts to influence future elections by installing sympathetic leaders in local election posts and by backing for elective office some of those who participated in the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection at the U.S. Capitol.  

Democrats and voting rights advocates are looking to the Justice Department as their best chance to ensure elections are free and fair. But there’s a political divide over what “free and fair” means in a country where millions believe false claims that the 2020 election was stolen.  

The department has lawyers dedicated to enforcing civil voting statues, and Attorney General Merrick Garland has made it a priority.  

But the department is limited in what it can do, following a 2013 Supreme Court decision that dismantled part of the civil rights-era Voting Rights Act, which required states with a history of discrimination to get approval for changes to election laws.  

Separately, the Justice Department also has a role in ensuring fair elections but that, too, has been complicated by politics in recent years.  

There has been increasing skittishness among election administrators over the department’s role after then-Attorney General William Barr told prosecutors to investigate election fraud claims before the 2020 election was certified. Barr cited concern over potential widespread voter fraud because of an increase in mail ballots during the pandemic, but he later declared there had been no widespread fraud. 

Garland’s Justice Department has sued Georgia over the state’s new election law, alleging Republican state lawmakers rushed through a sweeping overhaul with an intent to deny Black voters equal access to the ballot. The Justice Department has also brought a suit against Texas over its newly-drawn congressional districts.

But the Supreme Court this past week signaled a willingness to side with the GOP on such issues. 

The high court put on hold a lower court ruling that Alabama must draw new congressional districts before the 2022 elections to increase Black voting power. The court’s action means the upcoming elections will be conducted under a map drawn by Alabama’s Republican-controlled Legislature that contains one majority-Black district in a state in which more than one-quarter of the population is Black.

The three-judge lower court, which includes two judges appointed by Trump, had ruled that the state had probably violated the federal Voting Rights Act by diluting the political power of Black voters.

NAACP President Derrick Johnson said the Supreme Court has undercut the ability of the federal government to protect voting rights, and he still believes the best chance for long-term change is to get legislation through Congress.  

“The Justice Department is doing as much as they can with one hand tied behind their back,” he said. He noted the Voting Rights Act only became law after previous attempts failed.  

“We don’t stop because the first attempt didn’t work.”
…

your ad here

Another surge in hate crimes and incidents aimed at Asian Americans, ranging from verbal harassment to violent assaults, has that community searching for ways to stop it.  

Among the victims, Michelle Go, 40, was pushed onto the tracks of the New York subway January 15 in an unprovoked deadly attack. A senior manager at a financial consultancy, Go was a Chinese American who had volunteered to help the homeless.  

Authorities said her assailant, an African American homeless man, had a history of psychiatric illness. The lethal attack drew international attention. 

While many assaults have been captured on video, others go unnoticed. A Chinese immigrant named Michelle, who asked that her full name not be used, was also the target of an unprovoked attack in an upscale neighborhood in Long Beach, California. The event was not recorded and received no news coverage, but it left an indelible mark on Michelle. 

On May 2, 2021, “a beautiful morning,” Michelle recalls, she went for her daily walk. A small woman in her early 50s, she passed a Sunday farmers market, busy restaurants and yachts moored in the harbor. She doesn’t remember what happened next, but a bystander who helped her has a clear recollection. 

Max Wilson, a student and athlete at San Diego State University, was walking near the water with his father.  

“A small Asian woman was just minding her business, walking past a man,” Wilson, 20, recalls. “All of a sudden, we saw him turn around, and he starts punching the back of this poor Asian woman’s head and repeatedly bashing it.” Wilson says he and his father “couldn’t believe their eyes.” 

On regaining consciousness, Michelle found herself, bleeding and in shock, on the ground, being helped by bystanders. She later learned she had suffered a concussion — along with injuries to her shoulder, teeth and mouth — and had bruises and cuts from head to ankle.  

Wilson followed the man, who grabbed a heavy wooden board from a dumpster and swung it repeatedly, attacking the young man and smashing it against a car, but Wilson overpowered him. 

Passers-by found ice for Michelle’s injuries and called an ambulance. Police arrived quickly. Wilson pointed to the man’s hiding place under a dock, and he was arrested. 

“There was absolutely no reason for him to target this tiny woman,” Wilson recalls.  

Michelle has mostly recovered but is “afraid of going out (and is) extremely vigilant,” she said. She suffers from nightmares, headaches and chronic shoulder pain. 

Police and prosecutors have charged the man with assault.  

“I have to think it was racially motivated,” Michelle says. She did not know her attacker, she had done nothing to offend him, and non-Asians on the scene were unmolested, she says. Robbery wasn’t a motive because he took none of her belongings. 

Attacks such as Michelle’s are on the rise, according to U.S. Department of Justice statistics. In 2020, hate crimes against Asian Americans were up, with 279 recorded incidents versus 158 the previous year. 

Not the full story 

The FBI-compiled numbers don’t tell the whole story. 

Manjusha Kulkarni of the organization Stop AAPI (Asian American Pacific Islander) Hate notes that “not all law enforcement entities collect the data. They don’t all report it to the FBI.”   

Kulkarni says language barriers keep some immigrants from reporting crimes. Others, without legal status to stay in the country, fear immigration authorities. 

Kulkarni, whose organization tracks self-reported hate incidents, says that “90% of what is reported to us are not crimes.” Instead, they are “comments made in the workplace, at school. It can be bullying. It can be harassment,” she says, “and it can be discrimination in retail.”  

From March 2020 through September 2021, her organization tracked more than 10,000 self-reported incidents and collaborated on a survey that found 1 in 5 Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders had experienced hate incidents in the past year. Whatever their background, “from Vietnamese, Filipinos, even South Asians and Pacific Islanders,” they are often targets of anti-Chinese bias, Kulkarni said.

That happened to Thai American Tanny Jiraprapasuke, who was verbally attacked aboard a Los Angeles metro train in February 2020. The young woman was subjected to a tirade against Chinese immigrants by a man who berated China as the source of COVID-19, the disease caused by the coronavirus. 

It was “almost like a performance,” she recalls, with “big gestures. He was standing up, he was yelling.” It soon became clear the rant was directed at her. After 15 minutes, the man eventually disembarked, but the episode has left her shaken. 

Prosecution of hate crimes 

Authorities can sometimes stiffen penalties by charging perpetrators with hate crimes under federal or state laws. This happened to six men in San Jose, California, in December. Prosecutors said the men had worked together in more than 170 incidents in the San Francisco region, targeting Asians for robbery, burglary or theft.  

Yet even when police file assault charges in violent attacks, as in the Long Beach case, prosecutors are reluctant to file hate crime enhancements because the bar is so high, says May Lee, host of the The May Lee Show podcast and an adjunct professor at the Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism at the University of Southern California. 

Federal authorities define a hate crime as a crime against a person or property motivated by an offender’s bias against a race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, ethnicity, gender or gender identity. Yet hate itself is not a crime, notes the FBI website, which says free speech needs to be protected. 

Successful hate crime prosecution requires both a crime and a provable motive, and “a lot of DAs (district attorneys) don’t want to even try … because they don’t want to lose,” Lee said. 

Culture plays a role in obscuring the extent of the problem, say Asian American analysts. Victims often don’t want to make waves, so they keep quiet. Yet videos of hate incidents keep surfacing “almost every single day,” Lee said. 

One of the brutal attacks captured on video showed an 84-year-old Chinese American man being pushed to the ground in San Francisco; the victim suffered serious injuries. Another showed two older women stabbed at a bus stop, and a third depicted the fatal attack in San Francisco of an elderly Thai immigrant.  

Some people say Asian Americans are viewed as easy targets. Others look elsewhere for motivation, blaming fear of COVID-19. Some accuse former U.S. President Donald Trump of inflaming hatred through his remarks that China was responsible for the coronavirus, which he called the “China virus,” “Wuhan virus” or “Kung Flu.”  

Historical roots 

Analyst Jessica Lee of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, a Washington think tank, sees historical precedents for the hate, saying “anti-Asian violence has really ebbed and flowed.”  

At least 17 Chinese immigrants were killed in a racial massacre in Los Angeles’ Chinatown in 1871. Eight men from the mob of 500 white and Hispanic men were convicted of manslaughter, but the convictions were overturned. 

Arsonists burned San Jose’s Chinatown to the ground in 1887, and city officials formally apologized only last year. 

Asians have also been singled out for restrictive legislation. Chinese were barred from immigration to the United States under the Chinese Exclusion Act, initially to limit competition for laboring and mining jobs. The measure passed in 1882 and was extended and in force until 1943. 

Beginning the previous year, following Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor, more than 100,000 Japanese Americans, many of them U.S. citizens, were held in internment camps during World War II. 

Later, “during the Cold War,” says Jessica Lee, “the FBI targeted Chinese and Chinese American scientists and students and questioned their loyalty to the United States” amid talk of a “yellow peril.” 

Kulkarni of Stop AAPI Hate says that’s happening today with the China Initiative, a Department of Justice program aimed at curbing economic espionage by China. The Trump administration launched it in November 2018, and it is still in place. 

The DOJ says the initiative is aimed not at Americans but at China, which it says is connected to 60% of trade secret theft cases. 

Jessica Lee of the Quincy Institute says the Biden administration’s continuing tensions with China are inadvertently fostering ethnic divisions. 

While others dispute a connection between geopolitics and hate crimes, Jessica Lee says racially tinged rhetoric triggers deep-seated prejudices. She said Asian Americans, regarded as “perpetual foreigners,” are vulnerable.  

“No matter how many generations of Asian American family you trace back to,” she says, “you will always be seen as a foreigner because you’re not white.” 

Kulkarni adds, “Not only are our communities viewed as bringing disease, but they’re also thought of as sly and cunning.” 

Heightening racial tensions 

Stop AAPI Hate says most perpetrators of self-reported hate incidents against Asian Americans are white, but African Americans and Hispanics are the perpetrators in a number of violent attacks recorded on video. Analysts say this adds to intergroup tensions, even though Blacks and Hispanics are themselves the targets of hate crimes.  

“Sadly, even those who don’t subscribe directly to white supremacy still can fall victim to it in terms of their own thinking,” Kulkarni says. 

Michelle, the Long Beach attack victim, says her attacker was African American and so was the young man who saved her.  

Wilson, the student athlete, is mixed race, with a white father and Black mother. He has lived in Hong Kong, Taiwan and Beijing, and he and his family speak Mandarin, thanks to his father’s service as a U.S. diplomat in China.  

The Wilsons “saved my life,” Michelle says. 

The United States is a nation of immigrants, and its 22 million Asian Americans are a diverse group, note researchers at the Pew Research Center. 

But one-third of them fear threats and physical attacks, and 80% say violence against Asian Americans is rising. 

Searching for solutions 

Hate incidents have Asian Americans searching for solutions, individually and through organizations.  

Michelle believes Chinese Americans are scapegoats for frustration with the coronavirus and the economic problems it has brought. The hatred is misdirected, she notes, adding, “I’ve been living here for over 20 years. I’m as American as any other American.”  

She is encouraged by those who came to her aid and says Americans must “create a positive culture that unites people.” 

Tanny Jiraprapasuke says discussion about China and the coronavirus pandemic sparked the insults directed at her and shows “how words really matter.”  

The Quincy Institute’s Jessica Lee says politicians must tamp down rhetoric that may unintentionally inflame racial tensions. 

May Lee, of USC, credits social media with exposing a wide-ranging problem and creating incentive for change. She believes schools can do a better job of highlighting Asian American contributions to the American story, and notes that Illinois and New Jersey have mandated Asian American history classes in their public schools. It is a history unknown to many Americans, she adds. 

Kulkarni says a national commission to discourage hatred could be modeled on local initiatives. In Los Angeles, the Human Relations Commission works to defuse racial tensions, and New York City’s Commission on Human Rights enforces human rights laws. And there are similar programs in other cities. 

All say that recognizing the problem of hatred against Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders is the first step in addressing it. 

VOA’s Elizabeth Lee contributed to this report.

 
…

your ad here

The Biden administration is urging Americans in Ukraine to leave within 24 to 48 hours, saying Russians could invade within days. U.S. national security adviser Jake Sullivan said a Russian invasion would likely include an assault on Kyiv. VOA’s Senior Diplomatic Correspondent Cindy Saine reports.
…

your ad here

U.S. President Joe Biden announced Friday that he intends to nominate Philip Goldberg, a career diplomat and a former North Korea sanctions enforcer, as ambassador to South Korea, a White House statement said. 

Goldberg has served since 2019 as ambassador to Colombia and previously as charge d’affaires in Cuba and ambassador to the Philippines and Bolivia, among other postings. 

Goldberg also worked as coordinator for the implementation of United Nations sanctions on North Korea over its nuclear weapons and missile programs from 2009 to 2010. 

Reuters reported plans for Goldberg’s nomination last month. 

The post in one of the United States’ key allies has been filled by a charge d’affaires for more than a year since the last ambassador to South Korea, former Navy Admiral Harry Harris, stepped down when Biden took office in January 2021. 

While Seoul and Washington insist their alliance is “ironclad,” the sanctions have been a source of controversy as they blocked South Korean President Moon Jae-in’s desire for more economic engagement with North Korea. 

Harris’ tenure was marked by tension in the alliance as then-President Donald Trump pressed Seoul to pay billions of dollars more toward supporting the roughly 28,500 U.S. troops stationed there, while South Korea chafed at the U.S. push for strict sanctions enforcement. 

The nomination of Goldberg, who faces a Senate confirmation hearing, comes at a time of heightened tensions on the Korean Peninsula over a spate of missile tests by North Korea, which has long been seeking relief from U.S. and international sanctions. 

The tests included the first of an intermediate-range ballistic missile since 2017, raising fears that North Korea may resume tests of intercontinental ballistic missiles and nuclear bombs for the first time since that year. 

The Biden administration has repeatedly urged North Korea to return to dialogue aimed at persuading the reclusive state to give up its nuclear weapons programs but has been rebuffed, with Pyongyang saying it would not engage further unless Washington dropped hostile policies.
…

your ad here

The United States vowed on Friday to commit more diplomatic and security resources to the Indo-Pacific to push back against what it sees as China’s bid to create a regional sphere of influence and become the world’s most influential power. 

In a 12-page strategy overview, the Biden administration said it would focus on every corner of the region, from South Asia to the Pacific Islands, to strengthen its long-term position and commitment. 

“The PRC is combining its economic, diplomatic, military, and technological might as it pursues a sphere of influence in the Indo-Pacific and seeks to become the world’s most influential power,” it said referring to the People’s Republic of China (PRC). 

“Our collective efforts over the next decade will determine whether the PRC succeeds in transforming the rules and norms that have benefited the Indo-Pacific and the world,” the overview said. 

Release of the document was timed to coincide with a visit to the Indo-Pacific by U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken and intended to emphasize the priority the United States attaches to the region, even as Washington grapples with a dangerous standoff with Moscow, which has massed more than 100,000 troops near Ukraine’s border, stoking Western fears of an invasion. 

It also comes after China and Russia declared last week a “no limits” strategic partnership, their most detailed and assertive statement to work together — and against the United States — to build a new international order based on their own interpretations of human rights and democracy. 

In its document, the United States vowed to modernize alliances, strengthen emerging partnerships, and invest in regional organizations. It particularly stressed the importance of “a strong India” as a partner in a positive regional vision. 

It said the United States would pursue a “free and open Indo-Pacific … through a latticework of strong and mutually reinforcing coalitions.” 

Under an action plan for the next 12-24 months, the document said Washington would “meaningfully expand” its diplomatic presence in Southeast Asia and the Pacific Islands and prioritize key negotiations with Pacific island states that cover access for the U.S. military and which have appeared to stall in the past year. 

“We will refocus security assistance on the Indo-Pacific, including to build maritime capacity and maritime-domain awareness,” it said. 

On the highly sensitive potential flashpoint of self-ruled Taiwan, which Beijing claims as its own, Washington would work with partners inside and outside the region to maintain peace and stability in the strait dividing the island from China, it said. 

The action plan also vows to expand the U.S. Coast Guard presence and cooperation in South, Southeast Asia and the Pacific, where Washington has identified China as a threat to fishing and free-trade routes. 

“We recognize the limitations in our ability to change China, and therefore seek to shape the strategic environment around China,” a senior U.S. administration official told reporters, adding that the document did not embody the administration’s broader China strategy. 

“Our China strategy is global in scope. It recognizes the Indo-Pacific is a particularly intense region of competition,” he said. 

The document reiterated U.S. plans to launch an Indo-Pacific Economic Framework in early 2022, an initiative the administration hopes will at least partially fill a big gap in engagement with the region since former President Donald Trump quit a multinational trade framework in 2017. 

It said the United States’ approach to trade would “meet high labor and environmental standards,” a reference making clear that the administration will stick to its vow to avoid damage to America jobs in economic dealings with the region. 

 
…

your ad here