npr--2020-01-08--2 Killed, 5 Injured In Avalanche At Idaho Ski Resort

Two people were killed and five were injured in an avalanche at an Idaho ski resort on Tuesday .
The avalanche occurred at about 11 a.m. local time at the Silver Mountain Resort in the Idaho Panhandle town of Kellogg .
The Shoshone County Sheriff 's Office confirmed the casualties .
Silver Mountain said its ski patrol and other volunteers responded as soon as they were alerted to the avalanche and began probing the snow for bodies .
Earlier , authorities had said that one person had been killed .
The second fatality was found late in the day .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ released .
The mountain is closed on Wednesday , and the resort says it believes that all skiers have now been accounted for .
`` Thank you for your patience and understanding as we process yesterday 's events , '' the resort posted on Facebook , expressing condolences to those affected .
`` The slide follows wet , heavy snowfall over the past couple of days , which is also keeping avalanche danger high in the backcountry , '' Montana Public Radio 's Aaron Bolton reported .
`` The resort reported 26 inches @ @ @ @ @ @ @ days , much of it wet and heavy . ''
Avalanche fatalities are rare in-bounds at U.S. ski resorts .
( Most skiing fatalities at resorts are due to collisions . )
The avalanche occurred on Silver Mountain 's Wardner Peak , an area of expert terrain that is accessed by traversing by ski or foot after exiting a chairlift .
The Spokane Spokesman-Review reported that the peak had been open less than an hour when the avalanche happened .
`` I thought conditions were kind of sketchy , '' mountain regular Bruce @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
`` New snow on a hard base . ''
That combination can be very unstable .
The Idaho Panhandle Avalanche Center warns that the area continues to be in high avalanche danger , which means a high likelihood of both natural and human-triggered slides .
The Shoshone News-Press reports that the resort had just completed avalanche blasting in the area before the peak opened .
Such blasts purposely trigger small avalanches to prevent uncontrolled avalanches that could endanger people .
Two men died in Montana last week when they were buried under @ @ @ @ @

2 Killed, 5 Injured In Avalanche At Idaho Ski Resort
Enlarge this image toggle caption Hank Lunsford via Spokane Public Radio Hank Lunsford via Spokane Public Radio
Two people were killed and five were injured in an avalanche at an Idaho ski resort on Tuesday.
The avalanche occurred at about 11 a.m. local time at the Silver Mountain Resort in the Idaho Panhandle town of Kellogg. The Shoshone County Sheriff's Office confirmed the casualties.
Silver Mountain said its ski patrol and other volunteers responded as soon as they were alerted to the avalanche and began probing the snow for bodies.
Earlier, authorities had said that one person had been killed. The second fatality was found late in the day. The victims' names have not been released.
The mountain is closed on Wednesday, and the resort says it believes that all skiers have now been accounted for. "Thank you for your patience and understanding as we process yesterday's events," the resort posted on Facebook, expressing condolences to those affected.
"The slide follows wet, heavy snowfall over the past couple of days, which is also keeping avalanche danger high in the backcountry," Montana Public Radio's Aaron Bolton reported. "The resort reported 26 inches of snowfall in the past couple of days, much of it wet and heavy."
Avalanche fatalities are rare in-bounds at U.S. ski resorts. (Most skiing fatalities at resorts are due to collisions.) The avalanche occurred on Silver Mountain's Wardner Peak, an area of expert terrain that is accessed by traversing by ski or foot after exiting a chairlift.
The Spokane Spokesman-Review reported that the peak had been open less than an hour when the avalanche happened.
"I thought conditions were kind of sketchy," mountain regular Bruce Rosenoff, 72, told the newspaper. "New snow on a hard base."
That combination can be very unstable. The Idaho Panhandle Avalanche Center warns that the area continues to be in high avalanche danger, which means a high likelihood of both natural and human-triggered slides.
The Shoshone News-Press reports that the resort had just completed avalanche blasting in the area before the peak opened. Such blasts purposely trigger small avalanches to prevent uncontrolled avalanches that could endanger people.
Two men died in Montana last week when they were buried under an avalanche while snowmobiling.


npr--2020-01-08--What We Know: Iran's Missile Strike Against The U.S. In Iraq

What We Know : Iran 's Missile Strike Against The U.S .
In Iraq Details are still emerging about Iran 's ballistic missile attack on Iraqi bases housing American military forces , which set off rampant speculation about a potential U.S. response .
But President Trump suggested Wednesday that any U.S. action would be economic , not military .
`` Iran appears to be standing down , which is a good thing for all parties concerned — and a very good thing for the world , '' Trump said .
Iran reportedly targeted at least two military bases in strikes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ U.S. drone attack in Baghdad that killed Iranian military commander Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani .
Here 's a recap of what we know about the strikes , reactions to the attack and what 's next : Where did the attacks hit , and were there any casualties ?
The U.S. Department of Defense says Iran fired `` more than a dozen ballistic missiles '' at military bases in Ain al-Assad , northwest of Baghdad , and in Irbil , in the semiautonomous Kurdish region .
Satellite photos from Wednesday show that the Iranian @ @ @ @ @ @ @ al-Assad air base , as NPR 's Geoff Brumfiel reports .
`` Some of the locations struck look like the missiles hit dead center , '' says David Schmerler , an analyst with the Middlebury Institute of International Studies at Monterey .
No Iraqi , American or coalition casualties have been reported in the attacks .
The large Ain al-Assad base has about 1,500 personnel , including some 300 Americans .
NPR Pentagon reporter Tom Bowman says the Irbil base would likely have `` hundreds of troops '' present .
Both Finland , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ base , and Lithuania , whose troops were stationed at Ain al-Assad , say their people were unharmed by the Iranian attack .
The Associated Press reports that those two countries were warned of the strike and had time to move personnel to safety .
The Pentagon said in a statement that two bases were attacked , though Iran 's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps specifically mentioned only the strike on Ain al-Assad .
What the U.S. says '' I 'm pleased to inform you , the American people should be extremely grateful and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ last night 's attack by the Iranian regime , '' Trump said Wednesday in a speech at the White House .
`` We suffered no casualties .
All of our soldiers are safe , and only minimal damage was sustained at our military bases . ''
A Defense Department official issued a written statement Wednesday afternoon saying , `` U.S. early warning systems detected the incoming ballistic missiles well in advance , providing U.S. and Coalition forces adequate time to take appropriate force protection measures . ''
Shortly after the Iranian attack began @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on Tuesday , Trump tweeted : Earlier that same day , Trump said he had a `` very good meeting '' with a senior official from Iran 's nemesis , Saudi Arabia .
Trump said he and the Saudi vice minister of defense talked about oil prices , security and stability in the Middle East .
Trump had previously warned Iran against retaliating for the Soleimani killing , threatening to include cultural sites if the U.S. struck Iran directly .
White House officials later appeared to walk back the possibility of targeting cultural @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the U.S. can not legally target cultural sites .
The Hague Convention — which the U.S. signed in 1954 — requires countries to refrain from any hostile actions against cultural property .
The U.S. `` received a slap in the face last night , '' Iran 's supreme leader , Ayatollah Ali Khamenei , said Wednesday , according to the Tasnim News Agency .
The military action by itself is n't enough to satisfy Iran , Khamenei said , adding , `` What is important is that the corruptive presence of the U.S. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Suggesting that the missile strike might be the crux of its retaliation for Soleimani 's killing , Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said via Twitter , `` Iran took & concluded proportionate measures in self-defense under Article 51 of UN Charter . ''
He added that the strike targeted the Iraqi base from which the U.S. drone strike was launched .
`` We do not seek escalation or war , but will defend ourselves against any aggression . ''
Iranian President Hassan Rouhani described Soleimani as a hero who fought against ISIS @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it were n't for his war on terror , European capitals would be in great danger now , '' Rouhani said on Twitter .
`` Our final answer to his assassination will be to kick all US forces out of the region . ''
Iraq 's military has confirmed that Iran sent a warning shortly after midnight local time that the missile attack was starting or would soon begin , according to the Iraqi News Agency .
The warning stated that while the missiles would hit targets on Iraqi soil , they would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Iraqi Prime Minister Adil Abdul-Mahdi 's office said that at the same time the Iranian warning came in , Iraq also received an alert from the U.S. , saying that at least two bases were being attacked .
Abdul-Mahdi also reiterated that his government rejects any violations of its sovereignty .
The prime minister , who attended Soleimani 's funeral over the weekend , has previously called the U.S. attack on the Iranian in Baghdad an `` act of aggression against Iraq '' that could `` light the fuse of war .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Trump said Wednesday that he will levy `` punishing economic sanctions '' against Tehran .
The president also called on NATO to become `` much more involved in the Middle East process . ''
The sanctions come after speculation that the U.S. might avoid escalating the crisis with more violence if no lives were lost in Iran 's retaliation .
As NPR 's Bowman says , `` The president has said there are 52 targets in Iran that they could strike — but frankly , they may just decide if there are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ strike back . ''
And what about Iranian-backed militias operating in Iraq ?
When U.S. missiles struck Soleimani 's two-car convoy outside Baghdad International Airport , they also killed Iraqi militia commander Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis .
The Iraqi Shiite militia Asaib Ahl al-Haq — which the U.S. last week designated as a terrorist organization — has issued a statement calling Iran 's strike a preliminary response and warning that it will carry out its own retaliation .
`` That response will be no less than the size of the Iranian response .
That @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Qais al-Khazali said , according to Arab News .
`` We , of course , condemn the attack on Iraqi military bases hosting coalition forces , '' U.K. Prime Minister Boris Johnson told Parliament on Wednesday .
`` Iran should not repeat these reckless and dangerous attacks , but must instead pursue urgent de-escalation . ''
Opposition leader Jeremy Corbyn questioned the legality of the U.S. strike , calling it an assassination carried out on foreign soil .
Johnson said the United States has a right to protect its equipment and personnel , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had the blood of British troops on his hands '' by supplying improvised explosive devices to militants .
NPR 's Frank Langfitt reports from London that `` Johnson is trying to walk a fine line , supporting a U.S. president from whom he needs a post-Brexit trade deal — while not seeming to be doing the bidding of Britain 's longtime ally , the United States . ''
Meanwhile , the United Nations mission in Iraq is calling for restraint , saying , `` Senseless violence has predictable effects '' and adding that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ price for `` external rivalries . ''
In Australia — which has troops in Iraq as part of the U.S.-led coalition — Prime Minister Scott Morrison said his government is moving to protect its military and diplomatic personnel in Iraq as it closely monitors the situation there .
Morrison will lead a meeting of his national security committee on Thursday .
French Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian also condemned Iran 's missile attack .
And he emphasized that the U.S. and other coalition members must continue to fight against ISIS while also respecting @ @ @ @

What We Know: Iran's Missile Strike Against The U.S. In Iraq
Enlarge this image toggle caption Khalid Mohammed/AP Khalid Mohammed/AP
Updated at 3:10 p.m. ET
Details are still emerging about Iran's ballistic missile attack on Iraqi bases housing American military forces, which set off rampant speculation about a potential U.S. response. But President Trump suggested Wednesday that any U.S. action would be economic, not military.
"Iran appears to be standing down, which is a good thing for all parties concerned — and a very good thing for the world," Trump said.
Iran reportedly targeted at least two military bases in strikes launched less than a week after a U.S. drone attack in Baghdad that killed Iranian military commander Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani.
Here's a recap of what we know about the strikes, reactions to the attack and what's next:
Where did the attacks hit, and were there any casualties?
The U.S. Department of Defense says Iran fired "more than a dozen ballistic missiles" at military bases in Ain al-Assad, northwest of Baghdad, and in Irbil, in the semiautonomous Kurdish region.
Satellite photos from Wednesday show that the Iranian strike caused extensive damage at the Ain al-Assad air base, as NPR's Geoff Brumfiel reports.
"Some of the locations struck look like the missiles hit dead center," says David Schmerler, an analyst with the Middlebury Institute of International Studies at Monterey.
No Iraqi, American or coalition casualties have been reported in the attacks. The large Ain al-Assad base has about 1,500 personnel, including some 300 Americans. NPR Pentagon reporter Tom Bowman says the Irbil base would likely have "hundreds of troops" present.
Both Finland, which has troops stationed at the Irbil base, and Lithuania, whose troops were stationed at Ain al-Assad, say their people were unharmed by the Iranian attack. The Associated Press reports that those two countries were warned of the strike and had time to move personnel to safety.
The Pentagon said in a statement that two bases were attacked, though Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps specifically mentioned only the strike on Ain al-Assad.
What the U.S. says
"I'm pleased to inform you, the American people should be extremely grateful and happy. No Americans were harmed in last night's attack by the Iranian regime," Trump said Wednesday in a speech at the White House. "We suffered no casualties. All of our soldiers are safe, and only minimal damage was sustained at our military bases."
A Defense Department official issued a written statement Wednesday afternoon saying, "U.S. early warning systems detected the incoming ballistic missiles well in advance, providing U.S. and Coalition forces adequate time to take appropriate force protection measures."
Shortly after the Iranian attack began, at about 5:30 p.m. ET on Tuesday, Trump tweeted:
"All is well! Missiles launched from Iran at two military bases located in Iraq. Assessment of casualties & damages taking place now. So far, so good! We have the most powerful and well equipped military anywhere in the world, by far!"
Earlier that same day, Trump said he had a "very good meeting" with a senior official from Iran's nemesis, Saudi Arabia. Trump said he and the Saudi vice minister of defense talked about oil prices, security and stability in the Middle East.
Trump had previously warned Iran against retaliating for the Soleimani killing, threatening to include cultural sites if the U.S. struck Iran directly. White House officials later appeared to walk back the possibility of targeting cultural sites.
As NPR has reported, the U.S. cannot legally target cultural sites. The Hague Convention — which the U.S. signed in 1954 — requires countries to refrain from any hostile actions against cultural property.
What Iran says
The U.S. "received a slap in the face last night," Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, said Wednesday, according to the Tasnim News Agency.
The military action by itself isn't enough to satisfy Iran, Khamenei said, adding, "What is important is that the corruptive presence of the U.S. in this region must end."
Suggesting that the missile strike might be the crux of its retaliation for Soleimani's killing, Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said via Twitter, "Iran took & concluded proportionate measures in self-defense under Article 51 of UN Charter." He added that the strike targeted the Iraqi base from which the U.S. drone strike was launched.
"We do not seek escalation or war, but will defend ourselves against any aggression."
Iranian President Hassan Rouhani described Soleimani as a hero who fought against ISIS and other terrorist groups. "If it weren't for his war on terror, European capitals would be in great danger now," Rouhani said on Twitter. "Our final answer to his assassination will be to kick all US forces out of the region."
What Iraq says
Iraq's military has confirmed that Iran sent a warning shortly after midnight local time that the missile attack was starting or would soon begin, according to the Iraqi News Agency. The warning stated that while the missiles would hit targets on Iraqi soil, they would be aimed only at U.S. military assets.
Iraqi Prime Minister Adil Abdul-Mahdi's office said that at the same time the Iranian warning came in, Iraq also received an alert from the U.S., saying that at least two bases were being attacked.
Abdul-Mahdi also reiterated that his government rejects any violations of its sovereignty. The prime minister, who attended Soleimani's funeral over the weekend, has previously called the U.S. attack on the Iranian in Baghdad an "act of aggression against Iraq" that could "light the fuse of war."
What's next?
In response to the Iranian attack, Trump said Wednesday that he will levy "punishing economic sanctions" against Tehran. The president also called on NATO to become "much more involved in the Middle East process."
The sanctions come after speculation that the U.S. might avoid escalating the crisis with more violence if no lives were lost in Iran's retaliation.
As NPR's Bowman says, "The president has said there are 52 targets in Iran that they could strike — but frankly, they may just decide if there are no casualties, maybe they won't strike back."
And what about Iranian-backed militias operating in Iraq?
When U.S. missiles struck Soleimani's two-car convoy outside Baghdad International Airport, they also killed Iraqi militia commander Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis.
The Iraqi Shiite militia Asaib Ahl al-Haq — which the U.S. last week designated as a terrorist organization — has issued a statement calling Iran's strike a preliminary response and warning that it will carry out its own retaliation.
"That response will be no less than the size of the Iranian response. That is a promise," militia leader Qais al-Khazali said, according to Arab News.
International reaction
"We, of course, condemn the attack on Iraqi military bases hosting coalition forces," U.K. Prime Minister Boris Johnson told Parliament on Wednesday. "Iran should not repeat these reckless and dangerous attacks, but must instead pursue urgent de-escalation."
Opposition leader Jeremy Corbyn questioned the legality of the U.S. strike, calling it an assassination carried out on foreign soil.
Johnson said the United States has a right to protect its equipment and personnel, and he accused Soleimani of having "had the blood of British troops on his hands" by supplying improvised explosive devices to militants.
NPR's Frank Langfitt reports from London that "Johnson is trying to walk a fine line, supporting a U.S. president from whom he needs a post-Brexit trade deal — while not seeming to be doing the bidding of Britain's longtime ally, the United States."
Meanwhile, the United Nations mission in Iraq is calling for restraint, saying, "Senseless violence has predictable effects" and adding that Iraq will be left to pay the price for "external rivalries."
In Australia — which has troops in Iraq as part of the U.S.-led coalition — Prime Minister Scott Morrison said his government is moving to protect its military and diplomatic personnel in Iraq as it closely monitors the situation there. Morrison will lead a meeting of his national security committee on Thursday.
French Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian also condemned Iran's missile attack. And he emphasized that the U.S. and other coalition members must continue to fight against ISIS while also respecting Iraq's sovereignty.


npr--2020-01-08--Ghosn Defends His Escape From Japan: 'No Way I Was Going To Be Treated Fairly'

Ghosn Defends His Escape From Japan : 'No Way I Was Going To Be Treated Fairly' Carlos Ghosn is on the lam , sure , but the former Nissan boss still has a lot to say .
This made for a peculiar affair Wednesday when Ghosn broke his public silence at a marathon news conference in Beirut .
Standing behind a lectern and gesturing occasionally before a prepared PowerPoint presentation , Ghosn struck a defiant tone after fleeing house arrest in Japan and escaping to the Lebanese capital late last month .
`` There was no way I was going @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 65-year-old said .
`` No sign that I was going to have a normal life for the next four or five years .
So I can tell you that , I mean , it 's not very difficult to come to [ the ] conclusion that you 're going to die in Japan , or you 're going to have to get out . ''
The longtime Nissan executive has been credited with reviving the brand and orchestrating a successful `` alliance '' with other major automakers around the world — including France @ @ @ @ @ @ @ both of which he has helmed in various capacities .
But that towering position quickly collapsed in November 2018 , when Nissan ousted him amid allegations of financial impropriety .
Less than a month later , Japanese authorities formally indicted Ghosn on charges that he underreported his personal earnings — charges that eventually ballooned to include the misappropriation of Nissan funds and a breach of trust .
After several months behind bars , Ghosn was released on bail in March 2019 .
Last month , despite close surveillance and an order to surrender @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a shocking — and still rather mysterious — escape from Japan to Beirut , where he spent much of his youth .
Once auto industry royalty , Ghosn is now the subject of a wanted notice by Interpol .
Lebanese authorities , who have no extradition agreement with Japan , have suggested they plan to interrogate Ghosn but have committed to nothing further .
Ghosn , meanwhile , declined to go into details about his escape during Wednesday 's news conference — but he remained steadfast in his position that , despite appearances @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fugitive from the law .
`` It is important for me to emphasize that I 'm not above the law .
And I welcome the opportunity for the truth to come out and to have my name vindicated and my reputation restored .
I did not escape justice .
I fled injustice and persecution , '' he told journalists .
`` Having endured more than 400 days of inhumane treatment in a system designed to break me and unwilling to provide me even minimal justice , I was left with no other choice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , '' he said , adding : `` The truth is that justice [ is ] irrelevant to these individuals .
This was the most difficult decision of my life . ''
Ghosn pointed to Japan 's remarkably high conviction rate , which stands at more than 99 % after indictment , to make the point that he would not have received a fair and speedy trial .
And he is not the first to make this point , as his detention has elicited widespread conversation about Japan 's criminal justice system .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ result of the extraordinary powers ascribed to prosecutors — including the right to subject suspects to marathon interrogations without lawyers present — while others assert it 's more likely because prosecutors are highly selective in choosing their cases .
Whatever the cause may be , Ghosn also said his lawyers had warned him he might have had to wait five years for a final judgment in Japan .
`` I have spent the previous months being interrogated for up to eight hours a day without any lawyers present , without an understanding of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , without access to the evidence that justified this travesty against my human rights and dignity , '' he said.
`` 'It will get worse for you if you do n't just confess , ' the prosecutor told me repeatedly . ''
The Tokyo prosecutors office pushed back on this assertion in a statement issued after Ghosn 's roughly 2 1/2-hour news conference ended .
`` Defendant Ghosn 's allegations completely ignore his own conduct , '' it notes , `` and his one-sided criticism of the Japanese criminal justice system is totally @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with the executive 's planned news conference looming , prosecutors also obtained an arrest warrant for Ghosn 's wife , Carole , for allegedly committing perjury last year .
She , too , was on hand in Beirut on Wednesday , watching the news conference amid the throng of journalists .

Ghosn Defends His Escape From Japan: 'No Way I Was Going To Be Treated Fairly'
Enlarge this image toggle caption Joseph Eid/AFP via Getty Images Joseph Eid/AFP via Getty Images
Carlos Ghosn is on the lam, sure, but the former Nissan boss still has a lot to say.
This made for a peculiar affair Wednesday when Ghosn broke his public silence at a marathon news conference in Beirut. Standing behind a lectern and gesturing occasionally before a prepared PowerPoint presentation, Ghosn struck a defiant tone after fleeing house arrest in Japan and escaping to the Lebanese capital late last month.
"There was no way I was going to be treated fairly," the 65-year-old said. "No sign that I was going to have a normal life for the next four or five years. So I can tell you that, I mean, it's not very difficult to come to [the] conclusion that you're going to die in Japan, or you're going to have to get out."
Watch the full news conference YouTube
The longtime Nissan executive has been credited with reviving the brand and orchestrating a successful "alliance" with other major automakers around the world — including France's Renault and Tokyo-based Mitsubishi Motors, both of which he has helmed in various capacities.
But that towering position quickly collapsed in November 2018, when Nissan ousted him amid allegations of financial impropriety. Less than a month later, Japanese authorities formally indicted Ghosn on charges that he underreported his personal earnings — charges that eventually ballooned to include the misappropriation of Nissan funds and a breach of trust.
After several months behind bars, Ghosn was released on bail in March 2019.
Last month, despite close surveillance and an order to surrender his passports, the Brazilian-born executive mounted a shocking — and still rather mysterious — escape from Japan to Beirut, where he spent much of his youth. Once auto industry royalty, Ghosn is now the subject of a wanted notice by Interpol.
Lebanese authorities, who have no extradition agreement with Japan, have suggested they plan to interrogate Ghosn but have committed to nothing further.
Ghosn, meanwhile, declined to go into details about his escape during Wednesday's news conference — but he remained steadfast in his position that, despite appearances, he does not consider himself a fugitive from the law.
"It is important for me to emphasize that I'm not above the law. And I welcome the opportunity for the truth to come out and to have my name vindicated and my reputation restored. I did not escape justice. I fled injustice and persecution," he told journalists.
"Having endured more than 400 days of inhumane treatment in a system designed to break me and unwilling to provide me even minimal justice, I was left with no other choice but to protect myself and my family," he said, adding: "The truth is that justice [is] irrelevant to these individuals. This was the most difficult decision of my life."
toggle caption Joseph Eid/AFP via Getty Images
Ghosn pointed to Japan's remarkably high conviction rate, which stands at more than 99% after indictment, to make the point that he would not have received a fair and speedy trial. And he is not the first to make this point, as his detention has elicited widespread conversation about Japan's criminal justice system.
Some explain the eye-popping rate as the result of the extraordinary powers ascribed to prosecutors — including the right to subject suspects to marathon interrogations without lawyers present — while others assert it's more likely because prosecutors are highly selective in choosing their cases.
Whatever the cause may be, Ghosn also said his lawyers had warned him he might have had to wait five years for a final judgment in Japan.
"I have spent the previous months being interrogated for up to eight hours a day without any lawyers present, without an understanding of what exactly I was being accused of, without access to the evidence that justified this travesty against my human rights and dignity," he said. " 'It will get worse for you if you don't just confess,' the prosecutor told me repeatedly."
The Tokyo prosecutors office pushed back on this assertion in a statement issued after Ghosn's roughly 2 1/2-hour news conference ended.
"Defendant Ghosn's allegations completely ignore his own conduct," it notes, "and his one-sided criticism of the Japanese criminal justice system is totally unacceptable."
One day earlier, with the executive's planned news conference looming, prosecutors also obtained an arrest warrant for Ghosn's wife, Carole, for allegedly committing perjury last year. She, too, was on hand in Beirut on Wednesday, watching the news conference amid the throng of journalists.


npr--2020-01-08--Virginia May Ratify The Equal Rights Amendment. What Would Come Next Is Murky

Virginia May Ratify The Equal Rights Amendment .
What Would Come Next Is Murky Many advocates for women 's rights are watching Virginia closely as the state 's legislature began its session Wednesday .
They 're watching because the Equal Rights Amendment has a good chance of being ratified by Virginia lawmakers this year .
If the ERA passes there , Virginia would become the 38th state to ratify it ; an amendment needs 38 states to be fully ratified and added to the U.S. Constitution .
But a curveball came from the U.S. Department of Justice 's Office of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ posted an opinion saying , `` The ERA Resolution has expired and is no longer pending before the States . ''
Legal experts say the opinion does n't kill this incarnation of the ERA , but it does mean the amendment now has another impediment to getting into the Constitution .
Here 's what the ERA would do and why its future is so murky .
What does the ERA say ?
The main text of the Equal Rights Amendment being considered right now is pretty simple : `` Equality of rights under @ @ @ @ @ @ @ abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex . ''
There are additional sections laying out that Congress is responsible for enforcing the amendment and that it would go into effect two years after its ratification .
If Virginia ratifies the ERA , would it then be in the Constitution ?
To understand what 's going on with this new opinion , it 's important to understand a little about the constitutional amendment process .
Usually , after 38 states ratify an amendment , the National Archives and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the United States — certifies it .
That office had asked the Office of Legal Counsel to weigh in on the ERA 's status .
The reply : It considers the ERA `` expired . ''
The archivist will most likely follow that opinion , according to Stephen Vladeck , professor at the University of Texas School of Law .
`` In practice , OLC opinions generally do end up being the view of the executive branch , '' he said .
`` So when , as in this case , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it would be very unusual for the archivist not to take the advice he 's given . ''
The OLC 's opinion counters multiple legal arguments that proponents have made in pushing the amendment .
One is a deadline attached to the amendment .
Originally , the ERA , which Congress passed in 1972 , had a deadline of 1979 .
That was eventually bumped out to 1982 .
But by then , only 35 states had ratified it .
A looming question right now is whether that 1982 deadline still counts .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ is in the preamble that proposes the ERA — not the text of the amendment itself — the deadline does n't have to be observed .
So without a deadline , just three more states were needed for ratification .
This became known as the `` three-state strategy '' for passing the ERA .
There 's also an argument that Congress has the final say and that it can remove that deadline .
Democrats in the House and Senate have introduced legislation this session that would do that .
But there is n't @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and opponents have seized on this lack of clarity .
The OLC addressed both of these arguments in its opinion : In addition , three states — South Dakota , Alabama and Louisiana — in December filed a federal lawsuit seeking to block the amendment .
One of their arguments is that five states have tried to take back their ratification — a move called rescission .
There are also legal questions about this .
Supporters of the ERA point out the Constitution also does n't explicitly say that rescission is allowed .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ this : `` [ I ] t is unnecessary for us to consider whether the earlier ratifications of the ERA by five state legislatures were validly rescinded . ''
So does this new opinion kill the ERA ?
Legal experts consulted by NPR say the ERA is n't dead yet .
Should Virginia ratify the amendment , `` it 's not hard to imagine a lawsuit claiming Virginia 's ratification renders the ERA ratified for purposes of Article V of the Constitution , '' Vladeck said .
That lawsuit could come from a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could eventually wind up before the Supreme Court , if justices agree to take it up .
A court decision would outweigh this latest opinion , said Martha Davis , professor of law at Northeastern University .
`` A court might well deviate from the OLC and reach a different conclusion about the viability of the ERA , '' she said .
`` A federal judicial ruling would trump the OLC opinion . ''
What exactly would the ERA do ?
OK , back to the ERA itself .
It would explicitly put @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into the Constitution .
Legal scholars say that could raise the standards for whether a law that discriminates based on sex is constitutional .
That could mean increased protections in several areas , including pregnancy discrimination , according to Northeastern 's Davis .
`` The Supreme Court has ruled in the past that discrimination against pregnant women is really discrimination against pregnant people , and therefore it does n't constitute sex discrimination , '' she said .
`` And I think the Equal Rights Amendment , through its legislative history , as well @ @ @ @ @ @ @ discrimination on the basis of traits that are sex-specific would be violative of the ERA . ''
In addition , proponents often argue that the ERA would help women get equal pay and that it would help victims of gender-based violence seek justice .
Conservative opponents often raise fears that the ERA would lead to the types of laws ( or legal interpretations ) that they oppose , particularly on issues like abortion .
Meanwhile , some ERA proponents cite it as an important protection for abortion rights .
( However , some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ strategy , as Stephanie Russell-Kraft reported in the Daily Beast in 2018 . )
State-level ERAs have been cited in cases protecting abortion funding , as was reported in 2019 in The Arizona Republic .
However , that does n't necessarily predict what would happen under an ERA in the U.S. Constitution .
`` There certainly would be the opportunity to argue about abortion under the Equal Rights Amendment , but it 's not clear how that would come out , '' Davis said .
Finally , proponents argue that there would be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Rights Amendment .
`` At the level of principle , I think just to send the message out that 200 years after the Constitution was written and women were intentionally left out , we want to correct the record and make it very , very clear at the highest level of our law that women are no longer second-class citizens and should be treated with respect and equality , '' said Jessica Neuwirth , president of the ERA Coalition .
I thought the ERA was a thing back in the 1970s .
Why @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fact , it has been around even longer .
Women 's rights activist Alice Paul pushed an Equal Rights Amendment in the early 1920s , and it was first introduced in Congress in 1923 .
However , getting the ERA further took a while .
It was n't until 1972 that Congress passed it and sent it on to the states for ratification .
And then when no more than 35 states ratified it by the 1982 deadline , the ERA appeared dead .
When it became clear it would n't succeed that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Organization for Women told reporters that the group would `` not again seriously pursue the ERA until we 've made a major dent '' in promoting women and feminist men in state legislatures , as The New York Times reported at the time .
Some proponents continued to advocate for it , however .
While some pursued the `` three-state strategy '' explained above , some said they wanted to start over entirely with the ratification process .
In 2017 , three-state proponents gained new ground .
That year — 40 years after @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a state — Nevada became the 36th state to ratify it .
And in 2018 , Illinois became the 37th .
Now Virginia may be the 38th .
How politically divisive is the ERA ?
When it was proposed , in 1972 , the ERA had broad backing in Washington .
It easily passed both houses of Congress ( 84-8 in the Senate and 354-24 in the House ) with bipartisan support .
But a conservative movement against the amendment , led by lawyer and activist Phyllis Schlafly , helped stir opposition by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The amendment has proven more popular among Democrats than among Republicans in recent years , but there is still at least some bipartisan support .
For example , seven Republicans joined Democrats when the Virginia Senate passed the ERA last year .
And in the U.S. Senate , both Alaska Republican Lisa Murkowski and Maine Republican Susan Collins have said they support the amendment .

Virginia May Ratify The Equal Rights Amendment. What Would Come Next Is Murky
Enlarge this image toggle caption Steve Helber/AP Steve Helber/AP
Updated at 12:05 p.m. ET Thursday
Many advocates for women's rights are watching Virginia closely as the state's legislature began its session Wednesday. They're watching because the Equal Rights Amendment has a good chance of being ratified by Virginia lawmakers this year.
If the ERA passes there, Virginia would become the 38th state to ratify it; an amendment needs 38 states to be fully ratified and added to the U.S. Constitution.
But a curveball came from the U.S. Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel on Wednesday, when it posted an opinion saying, "The ERA Resolution has expired and is no longer pending before the States."
Legal experts say the opinion doesn't kill this incarnation of the ERA, but it does mean the amendment now has another impediment to getting into the Constitution.
Here's what the ERA would do and why its future is so murky.
Politics Virginia Poised To Pass Equal Rights Amendment Nearly 5 Decades After It Was Proposed Virginia Poised To Pass Equal Rights Amendment Nearly 5 Decades After It Was Proposed Listen · 3:37 3:37
What does the ERA say?
The main text of the Equal Rights Amendment being considered right now is pretty simple: "Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex."
There are additional sections laying out that Congress is responsible for enforcing the amendment and that it would go into effect two years after its ratification.
If Virginia ratifies the ERA, would it then be in the Constitution?
The answer is complicated.
To understand what's going on with this new opinion, it's important to understand a little about the constitutional amendment process. Usually, after 38 states ratify an amendment, the National Archives and Records Administration — led by the archivist of the United States — certifies it.
That office had asked the Office of Legal Counsel to weigh in on the ERA's status. The reply: It considers the ERA "expired."
The archivist will most likely follow that opinion, according to Stephen Vladeck, professor at the University of Texas School of Law.
"In practice, OLC opinions generally do end up being the view of the executive branch," he said. "So when, as in this case, the archivist asks OLC for an opinion, it would be very unusual for the archivist not to take the advice he's given."
The OLC's opinion counters multiple legal arguments that proponents have made in pushing the amendment.
One is a deadline attached to the amendment. Originally, the ERA, which Congress passed in 1972, had a deadline of 1979. That was eventually bumped out to 1982. But by then, only 35 states had ratified it.
Enlarge this image toggle caption AP AP
A looming question right now is whether that 1982 deadline still counts.
Some supporters argue that because the deadline is in the preamble that proposes the ERA — not the text of the amendment itself — the deadline doesn't have to be observed. So without a deadline, just three more states were needed for ratification. This became known as the "three-state strategy" for passing the ERA.
There's also an argument that Congress has the final say and that it can remove that deadline. Democrats in the House and Senate have introduced legislation this session that would do that. But there isn't legal consensus that this would work, and opponents have seized on this lack of clarity.
The OLC addressed both of these arguments in its opinion:
We conclude that when Congress uses a proposing clause to impose a deadline on the States' ratification of a proposed constitutional amendment, that deadline is binding and Congress may not revive the proposal after the deadline's expiration.
In addition, three states — South Dakota, Alabama and Louisiana — in December filed a federal lawsuit seeking to block the amendment.
One of their arguments is that five states have tried to take back their ratification — a move called rescission.
There are also legal questions about this. Supporters of the ERA point out the Constitution also doesn't explicitly say that rescission is allowed. The OLC declined to weigh in on this: "[I]t is unnecessary for us to consider whether the earlier ratifications of the ERA by five state legislatures were validly rescinded."
(For a much fuller explanation of the legal arguments, read this thorough report from the Congressional Research Service, last updated in December.)
So does this new opinion kill the ERA?
Legal experts consulted by NPR say the ERA isn't dead yet.
Should Virginia ratify the amendment, "it's not hard to imagine a lawsuit claiming Virginia's ratification renders the ERA ratified for purposes of Article V of the Constitution," Vladeck said.
That lawsuit could come from a state itself, Vladeck said.
Indeed, on Wednesday, Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring, a Democrat, said he intends to fight for the amendment if his state ratifies it.
"When Virginia becomes the 38th state to ratify the ERA, I am going to do everything in my power to make sure that the will of Virginians is carried out and the ERA is added to our Constitution, as it should be," he said.
A lawsuit could eventually wind up before the Supreme Court, if justices agree to take it up.
Enlarge this image toggle caption Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images
A court decision would outweigh this latest opinion, said Martha Davis, professor of law at Northeastern University.
"A court might well deviate from the OLC and reach a different conclusion about the viability of the ERA," she said. "A federal judicial ruling would trump the OLC opinion."
What exactly would the ERA do?
OK, back to the ERA itself. It would explicitly put the idea of equal rights by sex into the Constitution. Legal scholars say that could raise the standards for whether a law that discriminates based on sex is constitutional.
That could mean increased protections in several areas, including pregnancy discrimination, according to Northeastern's Davis.
"The Supreme Court has ruled in the past that discrimination against pregnant women is really discrimination against pregnant people, and therefore it doesn't constitute sex discrimination," she said. "And I think the Equal Rights Amendment, through its legislative history, as well as its language, would clarify that discrimination on the basis of traits that are sex-specific would be violative of the ERA."
In addition, proponents often argue that the ERA would help women get equal pay and that it would help victims of gender-based violence seek justice.
Conservative opponents often raise fears that the ERA would lead to the types of laws (or legal interpretations) that they oppose, particularly on issues like abortion. Meanwhile, some ERA proponents cite it as an important protection for abortion rights. (However, some proponents question whether this is a smart strategy, as Stephanie Russell-Kraft reported in the Daily Beast in 2018.)
State-level ERAs have been cited in cases protecting abortion funding, as was reported in 2019 in The Arizona Republic.
However, that doesn't necessarily predict what would happen under an ERA in the U.S. Constitution.
"There certainly would be the opportunity to argue about abortion under the Equal Rights Amendment, but it's not clear how that would come out," Davis said.
Finally, proponents argue that there would be an important messaging value to the Equal Rights Amendment.
"At the level of principle, I think just to send the message out that 200 years after the Constitution was written and women were intentionally left out, we want to correct the record and make it very, very clear at the highest level of our law that women are no longer second-class citizens and should be treated with respect and equality," said Jessica Neuwirth, president of the ERA Coalition.
I thought the ERA was a thing back in the 1970s. Why is it being debated now?
In fact, it has been around even longer. Women's rights activist Alice Paul pushed an Equal Rights Amendment in the early 1920s, and it was first introduced in Congress in 1923.
However, getting the ERA further took a while. It wasn't until 1972 that Congress passed it and sent it on to the states for ratification.
And then when no more than 35 states ratified it by the 1982 deadline, the ERA appeared dead. When it became clear it wouldn't succeed that year, the president of the National Organization for Women told reporters that the group would ''not again seriously pursue the ERA until we've made a major dent'' in promoting women and feminist men in state legislatures, as The New York Times reported at the time.
Some proponents continued to advocate for it, however. While some pursued the "three-state strategy" explained above, some said they wanted to start over entirely with the ratification process.
In 2017, three-state proponents gained new ground. That year — 40 years after the ERA had last been ratified by a state — Nevada became the 36th state to ratify it. And in 2018, Illinois became the 37th. Now Virginia may be the 38th.
How politically divisive is the ERA?
Enlarge this image toggle caption AP AP
When it was proposed, in 1972, the ERA had broad backing in Washington. It easily passed both houses of Congress (84-8 in the Senate and 354-24 in the House) with bipartisan support.
But a conservative movement against the amendment, led by lawyer and activist Phyllis Schlafly, helped stir opposition by the time its deadline rolled around.
The amendment has proven more popular among Democrats than among Republicans in recent years, but there is still at least some bipartisan support.
For example, seven Republicans joined Democrats when the Virginia Senate passed the ERA last year. And in the U.S. Senate, both Alaska Republican Lisa Murkowski and Maine Republican Susan Collins have said they support the amendment.


npr--2020-01-08--Satellite Photos Reveal Extent Of Damage From Iranian Strike On Air Base In Iraq

Satellite Photos Reveal Extent Of Damage From Iranian Strike On Air Base In Iraq Satellite photos taken Wednesday show that an Iranian missile strike has caused extensive damage at the Ain al-Assad air base in Iraq , which hosts U.S. and coalition troops .
The photos , taken by the commercial company Planet and shared with NPR via the Middlebury Institute of International Studies at Monterey , show hangars and buildings hit hard by a barrage of Iranian missiles that were fired early Wednesday morning local time .
At least five structures were damaged in the attack on the base @ @ @ @ @ @ @ precise enough to hit individual buildings .
`` Some of the locations struck look like the missiles hit dead center , '' says David Schmerler , an analyst with the Middlebury Institute .
Iran 's attack targeted at least two military bases in Iraq .
The extent of the damage to the second base , in Irbil , was unclear .
Shortly afterward , President Trump said in an optimistic tweet : `` All is well !
There are no reports of casualties as a result of the strike on Ain al-Assad , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ strike in Iraq that killed Iranian military commander Qassem Soleimani .
Schmerler says it is unclear whether targets on the base were chosen to avoid loss of life .
`` The buildings we 're tallying now seem to be used for storing aircraft , '' he says .
`` There are other structures at the air base that would be exclusively for people so maybe they intended to strike sites with equipment over people . ''
Photos circulating online that were reportedly taken on the ground some 20 miles from the air base @ @ @ @ @ @ @ `` These appear to be the remnants of a Qiam missile body/airframe , '' tweeted Michael Elleman , who directs nonproliferation and nuclear policy at the International Institute for Strategic Studies .
The Qiam-1 missile is a single stage , liquid-fueled , short-range ballistic missile developed by Iran with a range of up to 500 miles , according to the Center for Strategic & International Studies ' Missile Defense Project .
It is capable of carrying a 1,650-pound warhead and has a precision guidance system that can be redirected during flight .
Videos @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what appeared to be solid-fueled missiles being launched , according to Fabian Hinz , an Iranian missile expert at the Middlebury Institute .
Such missiles can be launched at short notice , are precision guided and can include decoys to foil missile defenses .
They are `` very advanced , '' Hinz says .
All the missiles used are far larger than the rockets used in previous attacks on U.S. personnel in Iraq .
Those weapons carry warheads of a few pounds in size , while these ballistic missiles have warheads that are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 's a really , really substantial difference , '' Hinz says .
A U.S. official confirmed to NPR that 10 missiles struck Ain al-Assad , one hit the base in Irbil , and four missiles apparently fell short .
Analysts at Middlebury identified several impact points at Ain al-Assad , including one missile that landed on a runway — a likely miss .
`` Overall I think it 's a relatively modest response , '' says Tom Karako , a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic & International Studies .
Karako says @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that house personnel .
Given the apparent precision of the missiles used : `` If they wanted a bunch of causalities they could have done something different , '' he says .
`` U.S. early warning systems detected the incoming ballistic missiles well in advance , providing U.S. and Coalition forces adequate time to take appropriate force protection measures , '' added a U.S. defense department official .
Despite the possibly symbolic thrust of Iran 's attack — Iraq 's foreign minister says it targeted the base where the Reaper drone used to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ military has also demonstrated its ability to openly strike U.S. forces in Iraq at the same military installation that Trump visited last year .
`` For the time being , the Americans have been given a slap , revenge is a different issue , '' Iran 's Fars News Agency quotes Iran 's supreme leader , Ayatollah Ali Khamenei , as saying Wednesday .
`` Military moves like this are not enough .
The Americans ' corruption-stirring presence should come to an end . ''
Speaking at the White House on Wednesday , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as the end of Iran 's military response to the killing of Soleimani .
`` All of our soldiers are safe and only minimal damage was sustained at our military bases , '' he said .
`` Iran appears to be standing down , which is a good thing for all parties concerned and a very good thing for the world . ''
But one expert on Iran says the missile attacks may prove to be only a prelude to further reprisals .
`` My mother used to say a gentleman carried two @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the breast pocket of his jacket ) and 1 for blow , ie , use .
I expect what we have seen is the Iranian retaliation for show , '' tweeted Council on Foreign Relations President Richard Haass .
`` What is likely to come at some point are the deniable attacks meant to cause harm . ''

Satellite Photos Reveal Extent Of Damage From Iranian Strike On Air Base In Iraq
Enlarge this image toggle caption Planet/MIIS Planet/MIIS
Updated at 2:45 p.m. ET
Satellite photos taken Wednesday show that an Iranian missile strike has caused extensive damage at the Ain al-Assad air base in Iraq, which hosts U.S. and coalition troops.
The photos, taken by the commercial company Planet and shared with NPR via the Middlebury Institute of International Studies at Monterey, show hangars and buildings hit hard by a barrage of Iranian missiles that were fired early Wednesday morning local time.
At least five structures were damaged in the attack on the base in Anbar province, which apparently was precise enough to hit individual buildings. "Some of the locations struck look like the missiles hit dead center," says David Schmerler, an analyst with the Middlebury Institute.
Iran's attack targeted at least two military bases in Iraq. The extent of the damage to the second base, in Irbil, was unclear.
Shortly afterward, President Trump said in an optimistic tweet: "All is well!
Enlarge this image toggle caption Planet Labs Inc./Middlebury Institute Planet Labs Inc./Middlebury Institute
There are no reports of casualties as a result of the strike on Ain al-Assad, which follows last week's U.S. drone strike in Iraq that killed Iranian military commander Qassem Soleimani.
Schmerler says it is unclear whether targets on the base were chosen to avoid loss of life. "The buildings we're tallying now seem to be used for storing aircraft," he says. "There are other structures at the air base that would be exclusively for people so maybe they intended to strike sites with equipment over people."
Photos circulating online that were reportedly taken on the ground some 20 miles from the air base show the wreckage of two missiles. "These appear to be the remnants of a Qiam missile body/airframe," tweeted Michael Elleman, who directs nonproliferation and nuclear policy at the International Institute for Strategic Studies.
The Qiam-1 missile is a single stage, liquid-fueled, short-range ballistic missile developed by Iran with a range of up to 500 miles, according to the Center for Strategic & International Studies' Missile Defense Project. It is capable of carrying a 1,650-pound warhead and has a precision guidance system that can be redirected during flight.
Videos posted on Iranian state media also showed what appeared to be solid-fueled missiles being launched, according to Fabian Hinz, an Iranian missile expert at the Middlebury Institute. Such missiles can be launched at short notice, are precision guided and can include decoys to foil missile defenses. They are "very advanced," Hinz says.
All the missiles used are far larger than the rockets used in previous attacks on U.S. personnel in Iraq. Those weapons carry warheads of a few pounds in size, while these ballistic missiles have warheads that are many hundreds of pounds. "It's a really, really substantial difference," Hinz says.
A U.S. official confirmed to NPR that 10 missiles struck Ain al-Assad, one hit the base in Irbil, and four missiles apparently fell short.
Analysts at Middlebury identified several impact points at Ain al-Assad, including one missile that landed on a runway — a likely miss.
"Overall I think it's a relatively modest response," says Tom Karako, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic & International Studies.
Karako says he believes the strike deliberately avoided areas that house personnel. Given the apparent precision of the missiles used: "If they wanted a bunch of causalities they could have done something different," he says.
"U.S. early warning systems detected the incoming ballistic missiles well in advance, providing U.S. and Coalition forces adequate time to take appropriate force protection measures," added a U.S. defense department official.
Despite the possibly symbolic thrust of Iran's attack — Iraq's foreign minister says it targeted the base where the Reaper drone used to kill Soleimani was launched — Iran's military has also demonstrated its ability to openly strike U.S. forces in Iraq at the same military installation that Trump visited last year.
"For the time being, the Americans have been given a slap, revenge is a different issue," Iran's Fars News Agency quotes Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, as saying Wednesday. "Military moves like this are not enough. The Americans' corruption-stirring presence should come to an end."
Speaking at the White House on Wednesday, Trump sought to portray the missile attacks as the end of Iran's military response to the killing of Soleimani. "All of our soldiers are safe and only minimal damage was sustained at our military bases," he said. "Iran appears to be standing down, which is a good thing for all parties concerned and a very good thing for the world."
But one expert on Iran says the missile attacks may prove to be only a prelude to further reprisals.
"My mother used to say a gentleman carried two handkerchiefs: 1 for show (in the breast pocket of his jacket) and 1 for blow, ie, use. I expect what we have seen is the Iranian retaliation for show," tweeted Council on Foreign Relations President Richard Haass. "What is likely to come at some point are the deniable attacks meant to cause harm."
NPR Pentagon correspondent Tom Bowman contributed to this report.


npr--2020-01-08--Much Of The World Doesn't Trust President Trump, Pew Survey Finds

Much Of The World Does n't Trust President Trump , Pew Survey Finds A clear majority of people living outside the U.S. do not trust President Trump to do the right thing in world affairs , with fewer than one-third expressing confidence in him — an opinion also reflected in attitudes toward America generally , according to a survey by the Pew Research Center .
However , the metrics have improved somewhat for the president since a similar survey two years ago , increasing to 29 % expressing confidence from 22 % .
The survey published Wednesday was conducted in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ autumn of last year , after relations between the U.S. and North Korea had thawed somewhat but just as tensions were ratcheting up between Washington and Tehran .
The nonpartisan Pew Research Center found that the percentage of those surveyed who expressed `` no confidence '' in Trump ( 64 % ) was a mirror image of the 64 % who expressed confidence in President Barack Obama in a survey published in June 2017 .
In the earlier survey , favorable views of the United States dropped from 64 % at the end @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when Trump became president .
That `` favorable '' opinion of the U.S. had edged up to 54 % in the report published Wednesday .
Trump last among five leaders The Pew study also sought to gauge respondents ' opinions on other world leaders , including German Chancellor Angela Merkel , French President Emmanuel Macron , Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping .
They were most confident of Merkel ( 46 % ) , who got the highest marks from respondents in the Netherlands ( 82 % ) and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Overall , 41 % of those surveyed said they were confident of Macron 's handling of world affairs .
He scored best among Germans ( 73 % ) and was viewed least favorably by respondents in Turkey ( 14 % ) .
`` Trump receives the highest negative ratings among the five leaders , though ratings for Putin and Xi are also on balance negative , '' the authors said .
Anti-Trump sentiment was strongest in Mexico ( 89 % `` no confidence '' ) and Western Europe .
Just 13 % @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 18 % in Sweden , 20 % in France , 21 % in Spain and 25 % in the Netherlands .
In the United Kingdom , which has experienced a populist wave similar to the one that swept Trump into the White House , 32 % expressed confidence in the U.S. leader .
Specific Trump administration policies were also notably unpopular , with large numbers disapproving of U.S. tariffs and fees on goods from other countries ( 68 % ) and the U.S. withdrawal from international climate change agreements ( 66 % ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ did not approve of a U.S.-Mexico border wall or U.S. restrictions on immigration .
They also had a negative view of Washington 's withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal .
The only policy position included in the survey that was viewed favorably by a plurality of those questioned was the Trump administration 's approach to North Korea — although the split was still narrow , with 41 % approving and 36 % disapproving .
Viewed more favorably by right wing Opinions of the president tended to be more favorable in countries with right-wing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people surveyed who identified ideologically with the political right in their countries , although there were exceptions .
For example , in the Philippines , where President Rodrigo Duterte has shown authoritarian tendencies and led a brutal war on drugs in which extrajudicial killings have been common , Trump enjoys a 77 % positive rating .
Likewise , in Israel , where the president 's decision to move the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem was a popular one and Trump has enjoyed a close relationship with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu .
The percentage of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ president was a solid 71 % .
And in India , which has seen a surge in right-wing Hindu nationalism under Prime Minister Narendra Modi , 56 % viewed Trump with confidence .
Just over half of people in Poland ( 51 % ) , where the right-wing populist Law and Justice Party has had an outright majority in parliament since 2015 , expressed confidence in Trump .
However , in Hungary , where Prime Minister Viktor Orbán 's government has pushed anti-immigrant policies , only a third of those surveyed gave a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , too , under the far-right government of President Jair Bolsonaro , only 28 % viewed the U.S. leader that way .
In Africa , a majority also viewed Trump positively in Kenya ( 65 % ) and Nigeria ( 58 % ) .
In 18 nations , those on the ideological right-wing viewed the president more favorably , the study 's authors reported .
`` For example , more than eight-in-ten Israelis on the ideological right have confidence in Trump , compared with just 37 % of those on the left , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ % of Australians from the left give Trump positive marks , compared with a 55 % majority among people from the right . ''
And , among those who self-identify as right-wing , Trump 's popularity has increased since 2018 – most notably in Hungary , Spain , France , Brazil and Poland .
There were smaller gains among that group in Greece , the Netherlands , Argentina , Italy , and Canada .
Among those who express support for specific right-wing populist parties , 63 % of partisans for the United Kingdom @ @ @ @ @ @ @ confidence in Trump , as do 37 % supporting Germany 's AfD , or Alternative for Deutschland .
`` Yet even among respondents on the right , confidence in Trump rises to 50 % or higher in only six nations , '' the study 's authors note .
The report included 36,923 respondents from 33 countries who were surveyed from May 18 to Oct. 2 , 2019 , although results from Lithuania were excluded because of processing error .

Much Of The World Doesn't Trust President Trump, Pew Survey Finds
Enlarge this image toggle caption Alex Brandon/AP Alex Brandon/AP
A clear majority of people living outside the U.S. do not trust President Trump to do the right thing in world affairs, with fewer than one-third expressing confidence in him — an opinion also reflected in attitudes toward America generally, according to a survey by the Pew Research Center.
However, the metrics have improved somewhat for the president since a similar survey two years ago, increasing to 29% expressing confidence from 22%.
The survey published Wednesday was conducted in 33 countries from the spring to early autumn of last year, after relations between the U.S. and North Korea had thawed somewhat but just as tensions were ratcheting up between Washington and Tehran.
The nonpartisan Pew Research Center found that the percentage of those surveyed who expressed "no confidence" in Trump (64%) was a mirror image of the 64% who expressed confidence in President Barack Obama in a survey published in June 2017.
In the earlier survey, favorable views of the United States dropped from 64% at the end of the Obama presidency to 49% when Trump became president. That "favorable" opinion of the U.S. had edged up to 54% in the report published Wednesday.
Trump last among five leaders
The Pew study also sought to gauge respondents' opinions on other world leaders, including German Chancellor Angela Merkel, French President Emmanuel Macron, Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping.
They were most confident of Merkel (46%), who got the highest marks from respondents in the Netherlands (82%) and the lowest in Greece (22%). Overall, 41% of those surveyed said they were confident of Macron's handling of world affairs. He scored best among Germans (73%) and was viewed least favorably by respondents in Turkey (14%).
"Trump receives the highest negative ratings among the five leaders, though ratings for Putin and Xi are also on balance negative," the authors said.
Anti-Trump sentiment was strongest in Mexico (89% "no confidence") and Western Europe. Just 13% expressed confidence in him in Germany, 18% in Sweden, 20% in France, 21% in Spain and 25% in the Netherlands.
In the United Kingdom, which has experienced a populist wave similar to the one that swept Trump into the White House, 32% expressed confidence in the U.S. leader.
Specific Trump administration policies were also notably unpopular, with large numbers disapproving of U.S. tariffs and fees on goods from other countries (68%) and the U.S. withdrawal from international climate change agreements (66%). A majority of those surveyed also did not approve of a U.S.-Mexico border wall or U.S. restrictions on immigration. They also had a negative view of Washington's withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal.
The only policy position included in the survey that was viewed favorably by a plurality of those questioned was the Trump administration's approach to North Korea — although the split was still narrow, with 41% approving and 36% disapproving.
Viewed more favorably by right wing
Opinions of the president tended to be more favorable in countries with right-wing or conservative governments and specifically among those people surveyed who identified ideologically with the political right in their countries, although there were exceptions.
For example, in the Philippines, where President Rodrigo Duterte has shown authoritarian tendencies and led a brutal war on drugs in which extrajudicial killings have been common, Trump enjoys a 77% positive rating. Likewise, in Israel, where the president's decision to move the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem was a popular one and Trump has enjoyed a close relationship with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The percentage of Israelis expressing "confidence" in the president was a solid 71%.
And in India, which has seen a surge in right-wing Hindu nationalism under Prime Minister Narendra Modi, 56% viewed Trump with confidence. Just over half of people in Poland (51%), where the right-wing populist Law and Justice Party has had an outright majority in parliament since 2015, expressed confidence in Trump.
However, in Hungary, where Prime Minister Viktor Orbán's government has pushed anti-immigrant policies, only a third of those surveyed gave a favorable opinion of Trump. In Brazil, too, under the far-right government of President Jair Bolsonaro, only 28% viewed the U.S. leader that way.
In Africa, a majority also viewed Trump positively in Kenya (65%) and Nigeria (58%).
In 18 nations, those on the ideological right-wing viewed the president more favorably, the study's authors reported.
"For example, more than eight-in-ten Israelis on the ideological right have confidence in Trump, compared with just 37% of those on the left," they said. "Only 14% of Australians from the left give Trump positive marks, compared with a 55% majority among people from the right."
And, among those who self-identify as right-wing, Trump's popularity has increased since 2018 – most notably in Hungary, Spain, France, Brazil and Poland. There were smaller gains among that group in Greece, the Netherlands, Argentina, Italy, and Canada.
Among those who express support for specific right-wing populist parties, 63% of partisans for the United Kingdom's Independence Party (UKIP) have confidence in Trump, as do 37% supporting Germany's AfD, or Alternative for Deutschland.
"Yet even among respondents on the right, confidence in Trump rises to 50% or higher in only six nations," the study's authors note.
The report included 36,923 respondents from 33 countries who were surveyed from May 18 to Oct. 2, 2019, although results from Lithuania were excluded because of processing error.


npr--2020-01-09--Iran's U.N. Ambassador: Strike On U.S. Bases Was 'Measured, Proportionate Response'

Iran 's U.N .
Ambassador : Strike On U.S .
Bases Was 'Measured , Proportionate Response' Iran 's U.N. ambassador tells NPR that Tehran has no plans to step up a confrontation with the U.S. after it fired missiles at U.S. military bases in Iraq in `` a measured , proportionate response '' to the assassination of Gen. Qassem Soleimani .
However , Majid Takht Ravanchi , speaking to Morning Edition host Steve Inskeep , says Iran is prepared for further action if the U.S. renews its aggression .
He also denied the Trump administration 's assertion that Soleimani , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , had been plotting an attack on U.S. persons or interests .
Ravanchi said Iran had `` acted in accordance with our rights based on the United Nations charter '' in the attack early Wednesday morning local time that targeted the Ain al-Assad air base in Iraq and a second U.S. base at Irbil with some two dozen ballistic missiles .
`` As far as Iran is concerned , that action was concluded last night , '' he said .
Asked whether Iran was finished with its retaliatory actions , he said , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ . ''
`` If the U.S. ventures to attacking Iran again , definitely proportionate response will be taken in response to that attack , '' the U.N. envoy said .
In a nationally televised address on Wednesday , President Trump said that Iran appeared `` to be standing down '' after the attacks on the U.S. bases , in which he said `` no Americans were harmed . ''
There was reportedly only moderate damage at the bases , leading some analysts to speculate that Tehran responded in such a way as to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some experts have warned that Iran 's missile attack could be a prelude to more attacks against the U.S. carried out instead by Tehran 's proxies in the region .
Ravanchi tells NPR that Iran is `` not responsible for any other people to do whatever they 're going to do . ''
`` I am not suggesting anything to accept or to reject any sort of actions by others , '' he said .
Trump has maintained that an American drone strike last week in Iraq that killed Soleimani was triggered by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Iraq as part of preparations for an attack directed at the U.S .
In his Wednesday address , the president reiterated that `` the world 's top terrorist , '' as he described Soleimani , `` should have been terminated long ago . ''
But Ravanchi said it was the duty of the U.S. `` to prove '' its claim that Soleimani was planning to kill Americans .
Instead , it is the U.S. that `` had been plotting to kill Qassem Soleimani for quite some time , '' he said .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ wanted to kill him a few months ago . ''
Asked why the Iranian general was in Baghdad last week , Ravanchi denied that it had anything to do with a plot against the U.S. '' He was there to help the Iraqi armed forces to fight terrorists , at the invitation of the Iraqi government , '' he said , adding that Soleimani had been `` instrumental '' in defeating the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria and al-Qaida in Afghanistan .
`` He was a popular figure in all of these @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but in the neighboring countries , because he sacrificed a lot to preserve the territorial integrity and sovereignty of these countries , '' Ravanchi said .

Iran's U.N. Ambassador: Strike On U.S. Bases Was 'Measured, Proportionate Response'
Enlarge this image toggle caption Atilgan Ozdil/Anadolu Agency/Getty Images Atilgan Ozdil/Anadolu Agency/Getty Images
Iran's U.N. ambassador tells NPR that Tehran has no plans to step up a confrontation with the U.S. after it fired missiles at U.S. military bases in Iraq in "a measured, proportionate response" to the assassination of Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani.
However, Majid Takht Ravanchi, speaking to Morning Edition host Steve Inskeep, says Iran is prepared for further action if the U.S. renews its aggression. He also denied the Trump administration's assertion that Soleimani, the commander of Iran's Quds Force, had been plotting an attack on U.S. persons or interests.
Ravanchi said Iran had "acted in accordance with our rights based on the United Nations charter" in the attack early Wednesday morning local time that targeted the Ain al-Assad air base in Iraq and a second U.S. base at Irbil with some two dozen ballistic missiles.
"As far as Iran is concerned, that action was concluded last night," he said.
Asked whether Iran was finished with its retaliatory actions, he said, "It depends on the United States."
"If the U.S. ventures to attacking Iran again, definitely proportionate response will be taken in response to that attack," the U.N. envoy said.
In a nationally televised address on Wednesday, President Trump said that Iran appeared "to be standing down" after the attacks on the U.S. bases, in which he said "no Americans were harmed."
There was reportedly only moderate damage at the bases, leading some analysts to speculate that Tehran responded in such a way as to deliberately avoid casualties.
Even so, some experts have warned that Iran's missile attack could be a prelude to more attacks against the U.S. carried out instead by Tehran's proxies in the region.
Ravanchi tells NPR that Iran is "not responsible for any other people to do whatever they're going to do."
"I am not suggesting anything to accept or to reject any sort of actions by others," he said.
Trump has maintained that an American drone strike last week in Iraq that killed Soleimani was triggered by intelligence that the Quds Force commander was in Iraq as part of preparations for an attack directed at the U.S. In his Wednesday address, the president reiterated that "the world's top terrorist," as he described Soleimani, "should have been terminated long ago."
But Ravanchi said it was the duty of the U.S. "to prove" its claim that Soleimani was planning to kill Americans.
Instead, it is the U.S. that "had been plotting to kill Qassem Soleimani for quite some time," he said. "It is crystal clear that they wanted to kill him a few months ago."
Asked why the Iranian general was in Baghdad last week, Ravanchi denied that it had anything to do with a plot against the U.S.
"He was there to help the Iraqi armed forces to fight terrorists, at the invitation of the Iraqi government," he said, adding that Soleimani had been "instrumental" in defeating the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria and al-Qaida in Afghanistan.
"He was a popular figure in all of these countries, not only in Iran, but in the neighboring countries, because he sacrificed a lot to preserve the territorial integrity and sovereignty of these countries," Ravanchi said.


npr--2020-01-09--This Migrant Won In Immigration Court, And The U.S. Sent Him To Mexico Anyway

This Migrant Won In Immigration Court , And The U.S .
Sent Him To Mexico Anyway For a moment , Jesus thought his ordeal was coming to an end .
Three months after fleeing Venezuela , he got his chance to tell a judge how he and his mother escaped political persecution .
`` The judge asked me three questions , '' Jesus said in Spanish through an interpreter .
`` What 's your nationality ?
Why did you leave your country ?
Why ca n't you go back ? ''
Jesus asked NPR not to use his last name @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are still in Venezuela .
He does n't speak English , and he did n't have a lawyer at the time of his immigration court hearing .
Still , he felt the judge really understood his story .
`` I explained my case to him .
And he accepted my experience , '' Jesus said .
The judge granted Jesus withholding of removal , a form of protection from deportation .
In other words , he won — something that very few migrants at the border can say these days .
Jesus thought @ @ @ @ @ @ @ U.S. , where he could reunite with his family .
Instead , immigration officers told him he was going back to Mexico , where he 'd already spent nearly three months waiting to see a judge .
`` I had no idea what was happening , '' he said .
`` No one explained it to me . ''
More than 55,000 migrants have been forced to wait in Mexico for their day in U.S. immigration court under the Trump administration program known as Remain in Mexico .
It 's one of several @ @ @ @ @ @ @ difficult to win asylum in the United States .
Just a tiny fraction of migrants in the program — less than 1 % — have gotten protection .
Even when migrants win in immigration court , in some cases they 're still not allowed to stay here .
Immigrant advocates have identified at least 17 cases of migrants who have been returned to Mexico after being granted protection by an immigration judge .
When Mark Morgan , the acting commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection , was asked about this case at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said that any migrants who have won their case should be allowed into the United States .
`` I do n't think that should be happening , '' Morgan said in response to questions about Jesus ' case .
`` If that 's happened the way you described that , then that 's an anomaly .
It 's a mistake .
But we 'll take a look at that . ''
Last week , however , Customs and Border Protection offered a different explanation .
In a statement , the agency says it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ consider whether to appeal an immigration judge 's ruling .
`` When an immigration judge 's decision is appealed or under consideration for appeal , immigration proceedings remain underway , '' a CBP spokesman said .
`` The proceedings in immigration court were finished .
There were no more hearings to be held , '' said Kennji Kizuka , a lawyer with Human Rights First .
He took on Jesus ' case after he 'd already won in immigration court .
When immigration authorities returned Jesus to Mexico , the paperwork they gave @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But that date did n't appear on any court docket .
`` They put a fake date on a piece of paper that says you have an upcoming hearing .
And there was no hearing , '' Kizuka said .
The date is important , Kizuka says , because under the rules of Remain in Mexico , migrants can be returned only if their court case is still pending .
`` They wanted to return him to Mexico again , and they needed to convince the Mexican officials to take him back @ @ @ @ @ @ @ using fake court dates .
The agency provides migrants `` with a date that the individual can check in with U.S. officials about the status of the appeal , '' according to a spokesperson .
But Kizuka says the paperwork CBP provided to Jesus after his final court hearing contains a number of false statements .
It says that Jesus was `` currently in proceedings before an immigration judge '' and that `` an immigration judge ordered you to return to court for another hearing . ''
The document does not mention a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ government did not appeal Jesus ' case .
The Trump administration has been trying to limit asylum at the southern border by discouraging what it considers frivolous claims .
But Kizuka says the administration is turning away legitimate cases too .
`` The Trump administration is trying to basically frighten refugees away from the United States , '' he said .
`` To make it so scary and dangerous for them to come to the border and ask for help that they just give up and go away or never come to begin @ @ @ @ @ @ @ too dangerous to stay in Venezuela , a country that has been rocked by political upheaval .
He was a police officer there , and he says his superiors ordered him to arrest members of a political opposition party on bogus charges .
He refused .
`` They started to persecute me and my family , '' he said .
`` They killed my father .
My mother was followed .
She was threatened with a pistol and beatings . ''
Jesus says that he was jailed and beaten and that his father @ @ @ @ @ @ @ heart condition at a local government hospital .
That is when he and his mother decided to leave .
`` I had already lost my father , and I did n't want to lose my mother , '' he said .
`` So I sold all my belongings in Venezuela . ''
That was the beginning of a five-month saga for Jesus and his mother .
They tried to put their names on a waiting list to request asylum at a port of entry in Texas , but they say they were told @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Mexico that it was full .
So they crossed illegally and turned themselves over to the Border Patrol .
Jesus ' mother was detained in Louisiana .
But Jesus was sent back to Mexico until his court date .
`` As I was about to leave the Mexican immigration office , one of the officials told me that with the way you look , you wo n't go 50 steps without being kidnapped , '' he said .
Jesus was dropped off in Nuevo Laredo , Mexico , where migrants are frequently @ @ @ @ @ @ @ did witness kidnapping and violence and narrowly avoided being kidnapped himself , when he managed to escape from a group of thugs at the bus station .
He was on his way to meet his lawyer , Kizuka , in person for the first time .
Together , they tried once again to get Jesus into the United States .
Kizuka showed immigration authorities the judge 's order granting Jesus protection in the United States .
`` They told us that Jesus was not going to be allowed into the United States , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ told me that by going back to Mexico , his deportation had already been carried out . ''
Kizuka says he spent more than four hours arguing with officers at the border , while the staff at Human Rights First called the Department of Homeland Security in Washington , members of Congress — anyone they could think of for help .
Finally , without explanation , Kizuka says immigration officials relented and let Jesus in .
He 's now in Florida , reunited with his sister and mother .
They 're all fighting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ give them a path to citizenship in the United States .
`` I hoped the treatment would be warmer , more humane , '' Jesus said .
`` But the officials are really harsh and insulting to migrants .
And the system is really complicated . ''
Still , Jesus is grateful to be here .
He knows a lot of people from Venezuela who are still in Mexico , waiting for their day in U.S. immigration court .

This Migrant Won In Immigration Court, And The U.S. Sent Him To Mexico Anyway
Enlarge this image toggle caption Suzanne Cordeiro/AFP via Getty Images Suzanne Cordeiro/AFP via Getty Images
For a moment, Jesus thought his ordeal was coming to an end. Three months after fleeing Venezuela, he got his chance to tell a judge how he and his mother escaped political persecution.
"The judge asked me three questions," Jesus said in Spanish through an interpreter. "What's your nationality? Why did you leave your country? Why can't you go back?"
Jesus asked NPR not to use his last name because he wants to protect relatives who are still in Venezuela. He doesn't speak English, and he didn't have a lawyer at the time of his immigration court hearing. Still, he felt the judge really understood his story.
"I explained my case to him. And he accepted my experience," Jesus said.
The judge granted Jesus withholding of removal, a form of protection from deportation. In other words, he won — something that very few migrants at the border can say these days. Jesus thought he might finally be allowed into the U.S., where he could reunite with his family.
Instead, immigration officers told him he was going back to Mexico, where he'd already spent nearly three months waiting to see a judge.
"I had no idea what was happening," he said. "No one explained it to me."
More than 55,000 migrants have been forced to wait in Mexico for their day in U.S. immigration court under the Trump administration program known as Remain in Mexico. It's one of several key changes that have made it extremely difficult to win asylum in the United States. Just a tiny fraction of migrants in the program — less than 1% — have gotten protection.
Even when migrants win in immigration court, in some cases they're still not allowed to stay here. Immigrant advocates have identified at least 17 cases of migrants who have been returned to Mexico after being granted protection by an immigration judge.
When Mark Morgan, the acting commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection, was asked about this case at a news conference in December, he said that any migrants who have won their case should be allowed into the United States.
"I don't think that should be happening," Morgan said in response to questions about Jesus' case. "If that's happened the way you described that, then that's an anomaly. It's a mistake. But we'll take a look at that."
U.S. Customs and Border Protection YouTube
Last week, however, Customs and Border Protection offered a different explanation. In a statement, the agency says it can return migrants to Mexico while authorities consider whether to appeal an immigration judge's ruling.
"When an immigration judge's decision is appealed or under consideration for appeal, immigration proceedings remain underway," a CBP spokesman said.
Immigration lawyers disagree with that interpretation.
"The proceedings in immigration court were finished. There were no more hearings to be held," said Kennji Kizuka, a lawyer with Human Rights First. He took on Jesus' case after he'd already won in immigration court.
When immigration authorities returned Jesus to Mexico, the paperwork they gave him listed a court date in November. But that date didn't appear on any court docket.
"They put a fake date on a piece of paper that says you have an upcoming hearing. And there was no hearing," Kizuka said.
The date is important, Kizuka says, because under the rules of Remain in Mexico, migrants can be returned only if their court case is still pending. "They wanted to return him to Mexico again, and they needed to convince the Mexican officials to take him back," Kizuka said.
CBP denies using fake court dates. The agency provides migrants "with a date that the individual can check in with U.S. officials about the status of the appeal," according to a spokesperson.
But Kizuka says the paperwork CBP provided to Jesus after his final court hearing contains a number of false statements. It says that Jesus was "currently in proceedings before an immigration judge" and that "an immigration judge ordered you to return to court for another hearing."
The document does not mention a possible appeal. In fact, the government did not appeal Jesus' case.
The Trump administration has been trying to limit asylum at the southern border by discouraging what it considers frivolous claims. But Kizuka says the administration is turning away legitimate cases too.
"The Trump administration is trying to basically frighten refugees away from the United States," he said. "To make it so scary and dangerous for them to come to the border and ask for help that they just give up and go away or never come to begin with."
Jesus says it was too dangerous to stay in Venezuela, a country that has been rocked by political upheaval. He was a police officer there, and he says his superiors ordered him to arrest members of a political opposition party on bogus charges. He refused.
"They started to persecute me and my family," he said. "They killed my father. My mother was followed. She was threatened with a pistol and beatings."
Jesus says that he was jailed and beaten and that his father died after being refused treatment for a heart condition at a local government hospital. That is when he and his mother decided to leave.
"I had already lost my father, and I didn't want to lose my mother," he said. "So I sold all my belongings in Venezuela."
That was the beginning of a five-month saga for Jesus and his mother. They tried to put their names on a waiting list to request asylum at a port of entry in Texas, but they say they were told repeatedly by the keepers of that list in Mexico that it was full.
So they crossed illegally and turned themselves over to the Border Patrol. Jesus' mother was detained in Louisiana. But Jesus was sent back to Mexico until his court date.
"As I was about to leave the Mexican immigration office, one of the officials told me that with the way you look, you won't go 50 steps without being kidnapped," he said.
Jesus was dropped off in Nuevo Laredo, Mexico, where migrants are frequently targeted by cartels. He says he did witness kidnapping and violence and narrowly avoided being kidnapped himself, when he managed to escape from a group of thugs at the bus station. He was on his way to meet his lawyer, Kizuka, in person for the first time.
Together, they tried once again to get Jesus into the United States. Kizuka showed immigration authorities the judge's order granting Jesus protection in the United States.
"They told us that Jesus was not going to be allowed into the United States," Kizuka said. "One officer told me that by going back to Mexico, his deportation had already been carried out."
Kizuka says he spent more than four hours arguing with officers at the border, while the staff at Human Rights First called the Department of Homeland Security in Washington, members of Congress — anyone they could think of for help.
Finally, without explanation, Kizuka says immigration officials relented and let Jesus in. He's now in Florida, reunited with his sister and mother. They're all fighting for full asylum protections, which would give them a path to citizenship in the United States.
"I hoped the treatment would be warmer, more humane," Jesus said. "But the officials are really harsh and insulting to migrants. And the system is really complicated."
Still, Jesus is grateful to be here. He knows a lot of people from Venezuela who are still in Mexico, waiting for their day in U.S. immigration court.