npr--2020-01-21--VIDEO: How The U.S. And Iran Ratcheted Up Their Long-Running Feud

VIDEO : How The U.S. And Iran Ratcheted Up Their Long-Running Feud If you want to trace the history of the U.S.-Iran feud , you would have to go back decades .
But the roots of the most recent escalation can be found in a series of developments over the past two years .
President Trump entered office expressing his strong opposition to the nuclear deal that Iran signed in 2015 with the U.S. and several other world powers .
The agreement imposed strict limits on Iran 's nuclear program for about a decade , and in return , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Iran 's economy .
However , Trump unilaterally withdrew the U.S. from the deal in May 2018 , saying it expired too soon and did n't stop Iran from doing things like testing missiles and supporting militant groups across the Middle East .
The president doubled down on his `` maximum pressure '' campaign last year , imposing tough sanctions that have cut Iran 's oil exports by about 80 % .
The conflict ratcheted up , as Iran hit back with a series of strikes against the U.S. and its allies in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ entered uncharted territory when Trump ordered a drone strike that killed a prominent Iranian military commander , Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani , on Jan. 3 .
Iran then fired ballistic missiles at bases hosting U.S. troops in neighboring Iraq .
In this video , NPR National Security Correspondent Greg Myre breaks down the conflict and explains what each side is trying to achieve .

VIDEO: How The U.S. And Iran Ratcheted Up Their Long-Running Feud
If you want to trace the history of the U.S.-Iran feud, you would have to go back decades. But the roots of the most recent escalation can be found in a series of developments over the past two years.
President Trump entered office expressing his strong opposition to the nuclear deal that Iran signed in 2015 with the U.S. and several other world powers. The agreement imposed strict limits on Iran's nuclear program for about a decade, and in return, the international community lifted sanctions that were squeezing Iran's economy.
However, Trump unilaterally withdrew the U.S. from the deal in May 2018, saying it expired too soon and didn't stop Iran from doing things like testing missiles and supporting militant groups across the Middle East.
The president doubled down on his "maximum pressure" campaign last year, imposing tough sanctions that have cut Iran's oil exports by about 80%.
The conflict ratcheted up, as Iran hit back with a series of strikes against the U.S. and its allies in the region. And the two countries entered uncharted territory when Trump ordered a drone strike that killed a prominent Iranian military commander, Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani, on Jan. 3. Iran then fired ballistic missiles at bases hosting U.S. troops in neighboring Iraq.
In this video, NPR National Security Correspondent Greg Myre breaks down the conflict and explains what each side is trying to achieve.


npr--2020-01-21--Titanic Wreckage Now Protected Under U.S.-U.K. Deal That Was Nearly Sunk

Titanic Wreckage Now Protected Under U.S.-U.K. Deal That Was Nearly Sunk More than a century after the RMS Titanic sank to bottom of the sea — and nearly a quarter-century after its memory was dredged up for a Hollywood blockbuster — the U.S. and U.K. have implemented a formal agreement on how to safeguard and manage the ill-fated steamship 's remains .
British Maritime Minister Nusrat Ghani confirmed the news Tuesday during a visit to Belfast , Northern Ireland , where the ship was built before setting off from the English port city of Southampton in 1912 .
Within days @ @ @ @ @ @ @ end on the underwater spur of an iceberg , sending all but 706 of its 2,223 passengers to a cold and watery grave , according to a U.S. Senate report published the following month .
`` This momentous agreement with the United States to preserve the wreck means it will be treated with the sensitivity and respect owed to the final resting place of more than 1,500 lives , '' Ghani said in remarks released Tuesday by the Maritime Ministry .
Ghani 's comments cap a long and winding journey for the deal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the U.S. , Canada and France officially agreed to as part of a 2003 treaty .
The Agreement Concerning the Shipwrecked Vessel RMS Titanic sought to sort out and regulate public access , artifact conservation and salvage rights within 1 kilometer of the wreck site , situated hundreds of miles off the coast of Canada in the North Atlantic .
But since the countries negotiated the treaty , the document has largely languished .
It requires the ratification of at least two of the four countries to enter into force , and while @ @ @ @ @ @ @ both Canada and France have yet to do so .
The formal approval of the U.S. government looked long in doubt , as well .
But that changed last November , when the State Department announced that it had officially registered its acceptance .
`` The Agreement reinforces the United States ' collaborative efforts with the United Kingdom and others to preserve the wreck site as an international maritime memorial to the men , women , and children who perished aboard the ship , '' the department explained at the time .
`` @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and international historical , cultural , and scientific significance and merits appropriate protection . ''
Previously , the site of the wreck , discovered in 1985 , was primarily protected by UNESCO regulations .
At a 2001 convention , the U.N. cultural organization set out a series of ground rules for sites deemed to be part of the world 's underwater cultural heritage , such as the Titanic wreck .
The agreement calls for preserving these remains in their original position and banning commercial exploitation , among other stipulations .
The deal that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ U.K. approval expands on those rules , laying out specific guidelines on how to grant and obtain licenses to explore the ship 's remains , and how to punish those who violate them .
Now that the agreement is taking effect , British officials are celebrating the move as a step forward in the responsible preservation of the iconic wreckage .
`` The U.K. , '' Ghani said Tuesday , `` will now work closely with other North Atlantic States to bring even more protection to the wreck of the Titanic . ''

Titanic Wreckage Now Protected Under U.S.-U.K. Deal That Was Nearly Sunk
Enlarge this image toggle caption Central Press/Getty Images Central Press/Getty Images
More than a century after the RMS Titanic sank to the bottom of the sea — and nearly a quarter-century after its memory was dredged up for a Hollywood blockbuster — the U.S. and U.K. have implemented a formal agreement on how to safeguard and manage the ill-fated steamship's remains.
British Maritime Minister Nusrat Ghani confirmed the news Tuesday during a visit to Belfast, Northern Ireland, where the ship was built before it set off from the English port city of Southampton in 1912.
Within days, the ship's maiden voyage would end on the underwater spur of an iceberg, sending all but 706 of its 2,223 passengers to a cold and watery grave, according to a U.S. Senate report published the following month.
"This momentous agreement with the United States to preserve the wreck means it will be treated with the sensitivity and respect owed to the final resting place of more than 1,500 lives," Ghani said in remarks released Tuesday by the Maritime Ministry.
Ghani's comments cap a long and winding journey for the deal, which representatives from the U.K., the U.S., Canada and France officially agreed to as part of a 2003 treaty. The Agreement Concerning the Shipwrecked Vessel RMS Titanic sought to sort out and regulate public access, artifact conservation and salvage rights within 1 kilometer of the wreck site, situated hundreds of miles off the coast of Canada in the North Atlantic.
But since the countries negotiated the treaty, the document has largely languished. It requires the ratification of at least two of the four countries to enter into force, and while the U.K. quickly ratified the agreement, both Canada and France have yet to do so. The formal approval of the U.S. government looked long in doubt, as well.
But that changed last November, when the State Department announced that it had officially registered its acceptance.
"The Agreement reinforces the United States' collaborative efforts with the United Kingdom and others to preserve the wreck site as an international maritime memorial to the men, women, and children who perished aboard the ship," the department explained at the time. "The RMS Titanic is of major national and international historical, cultural, and scientific significance and merits appropriate protection."
Enlarge this image toggle caption Peter Morrison/AP Peter Morrison/AP
Previously, the site of the wreck, discovered in 1985, was primarily protected by UNESCO regulations. At a 2001 convention, the U.N. cultural organization set out a series of ground rules for sites deemed to be part of the world's underwater cultural heritage, such as the Titanic wreck. The agreement calls for preserving these remains in their original position and banning commercial exploitation, among other stipulations.
The deal that recently came into force with U.S. and U.K. approval expands on those rules, laying out specific guidelines on how to grant and obtain licenses to explore the ship's remains, and how to punish those who violate them.
Now that the agreement is taking effect, British officials are celebrating the move as a step forward in the responsible preservation of the iconic wreckage.
"The U.K.," Ghani said Tuesday, "will now work closely with other North Atlantic States to bring even more protection to the wreck of the Titanic."


npr--2020-01-21--How The Senate Impeachment Trial Will Work

How The Senate Impeachment Trial Will Work President Trump 's fate is now in the hands of the Senate .
The House of Representatives has impeached the president , and it is up to senators to determine whether he will be removed from office .
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell , R-Ky. , released a resolution outlining the rules of the Senate trial on Monday , but it had been updated before Senate debate on Tuesday .
The rules resolution is expected to pass , given the Republican 's majority , but not before Democrats argue for changes .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the House voted to impeach Trump , charging him with abusing his power and obstructing Congress .
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi , D-Calif. , had been holding off on transmitting the articles to the Senate , essentially delaying the trial , because she wanted details on how the trial would work .
She ultimately relented without any further information from McConnell , naming House impeachment managers to serve as the prosecution team on Jan. 15 .
The next day , Chief Justice John Roberts was sworn in to preside over the trial .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , who swore to render `` impartial justice '' as jurors .
Here is more about the various roles and how the trial will play out .
Timing : Senate will vote on organizing resolution on Jan. 21 The details of a Senate impeachment trial are generally up for negotiation , but that negotiation essentially ended when McConnell announced he had the votes to move ahead with a resolution outlining the process without Democrats .
That is expected on Tuesday .
McConnell 's plan has two main phases : first , opening arguments @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with debate on whether to call witnesses and introduce more evidence .
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer , D-N.Y. , had been pushing for a deal up front that would include testimony from witnesses , including Trump administration officials .
It takes only 51 votes to approve the rules , though , so McConnell can rely on his majority to begin the trial without such a deal .
Schumer has been unable to get four Senate Republicans to break with McConnell on Democrats ' demands for witnesses at this phase of the trial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are clear rules for each of the key players .
U.S. Chief Justice John Roberts presides .
Senators do not do the talking ; they can only submit written questions .
Impeachment managers from the House will represent the Democrats ' argument .
The president 's defense includes White House counsel , outside attorneys and a number of Republican members of the House .
It is the first time in the inquiry that the White House is making its case on the record .
The White House declined to participate in the Democratic-led @ @ @ @ @ @ @ `` sham . ''
Opening arguments begin Wednesday at 1 p.m. Each side gets up to 24 hours over three days to make their case ( the original resolution from McConnell only afforded two days to each side ) .
Then , senators will have 16 hours to ask questions in the chamber , followed by two hours of arguments each by the House impeachment managers and the president 's lawyers .
Then comes the debate on whether to subpoena witnesses or introduce new documents .
This is where moderate Republicans could throw @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if enough of them decide they want to hear additional testimony .
Once again , these procedural votes require only a majority .
A 50-50 tie is considered a failure to pass because Vice President Pence can not cast the deciding vote as he would ( and has ) in other cases .
The chief justice is unlikely to want to cast a deciding vote as he presides over the trial , seeking to maintain impartiality .
The rules also note that any witness must be deposed before testifying .
After the trial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ convict or acquit the president on each article of impeachment .
Convicting Trump and therefore removing him from office requires 67 votes .
That would mean 20 Republicans would have to join Democrats in the effort — a highly unlikely prospect .
Acquitting Trump of the charges or dismissing the charges , however , takes only 51 votes .
Ca n't see the graphics in this story ?
Click here .
Photos : Win McNamee/Getty Images ( Mitch McConnell ) ; Paul Morigi/Getty Images ( Susan Collins ) ; Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mark Wilson/Getty Images ( Cory Gardner , Joe Manchin , Martha McSally and Chuck Schumer ) ; Alex Wong/Getty Images ( Doug Jones and Mitt Romney ) NPR 's Susan Davis , Claudia Grisales and Deirdre Walsh contributed to this report .

How The Senate Impeachment Trial Works
The Senate is scheduled to vote on President Trump's fate on Wednesday at 4 p.m. ET after about two weeks of his impeachment trial.
The House of Representatives impeached the president in December, charging him with abusing his power and obstructing Congress for efforts to get Ukraine to investigate Trump's political rivals.
Loading...
The Senate trial has included opening and closing arguments from the Democratic House impeachment managers and Trump's defense team, as well as a 16-hour period of questioning by senators.
Outside of the official trial, senators have time Monday through Wednesday to speak on the floor about impeachment.
The trial itself had a raucous start. Senators passed a resolution on the ground rules for the trial on Jan. 21 after a marathon 13 hours of debate that included multiple failed attempts by Democrats to get a commitment on witnesses and documents.
The issue of whether to allow witnesses has been a central controversy in the proceedings, with senators ultimately voting not to call any at all.
toggle caption Brendan Smialowski/AFP via Getty Images
Here is more about how the trial has played out.
Setting The Ground Rules
Timing: Senate passed organizing resolution on Jan. 21
The details of a Senate impeachment trial are generally up for negotiation, but that negotiation essentially ended when Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., announced he had the votes to move ahead with a resolution outlining the process without Democrats.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., delayed transmitting the articles to the Senate for nearly a month, hoping to get details on how the trial would work. McConnell didn't budge, though.
Loading...
Republicans passed McConnell's resolution on Jan. 21, with some last-minute, hand-written changes, but not before Democrats offered multiple amendments, triggering hours of debate.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., had been pushing for a deal up front that would include testimony from witnesses, including Trump administration officials. The resolution that passed delayed debate on witnesses and new evidence until after days of opening statements and questioning from senators.
The Trial
Timing: Opening arguments began on Jan. 22
During the trial, there are clear rules for each of the key players. U.S. Chief Justice John Roberts presides. Senators do not do the talking; they can only submit written questions. Senators did have a 16-hour period of questioning after both parties gave opening arguments, where senators submitted written questions that Roberts then read allowed to the prosecution and defense teams.
Impeachment managers from the House represent the Democrats' argument. The president's defense includes White House counsel, outside attorneys and a number of Republican members of the House.
Loading...
Opening arguments began Jan. 22. Each side had up to 24 hours over three days to make their case (the original resolution from McConnell only afforded two days to each side).
The Democratic managers went first, then the defense team made its case. It was the first time in the inquiry that the White House has fully participated. The White House declined to participate in the Democratic-led House proceedings, which Trump considered a "sham."
Loading...
After opening arguments, senators had 16 hours to ask questions in the chamber, followed by two hours of arguments each by the House impeachment managers and the president's lawyers.
Then came the debate on whether to subpoena witnesses or introduce new documents.
This is where moderate Republicans became crucial to each side. Four Republicans would have had to join the Democratic caucus to get witnesses, but Democrats only convinced two to join them, Sens. Susan Collins of Maine and Mitt Romney of Utah.
Swing votes Lamar Alexander of Tennessee and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska announced before the vote that they opposed witnesses.
The Final Vote
Timing: Feb. 5 at 4 p.m. ET
After the trial, the Senate votes on whether to convict or acquit the president on each article of impeachment. Convicting Trump and therefore removing him from office requires 67 votes. That would mean 20 Republicans would have to join Democrats in the effort — a highly unlikely prospect.
Acquitting Trump of the charges or dismissing the charges, however, takes only 51 votes. This is the most likely outcome in the Republican-controlled Senate.
Loading...
Can't see the graphics in this story? Click here.
Photos: Win McNamee/Getty Images (Mitch McConnell); Paul Morigi/Getty Images (Susan Collins); Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images (Lisa Murkowski and John Roberts); Mark Wilson/Getty Images (Cory Gardner, Joe Manchin, Martha McSally and Chuck Schumer); Alex Wong/Getty Images (Doug Jones and Mitt Romney)
This story originally published on Dec. 31, 2019.
NPR's Susan Davis, Claudia Grisales and Deirdre Walsh contributed to this report.


npr--2020-01-21--1st Case Of New Coronavirus Detected In U.S.

1st Case Of New Coronavirus Detected In U.S .
The first case of an infection with the new coronavirus has been discovered in the United States .
A man from Washington state returned home after a trip to Wuhan , China , on Jan. 15 , sought medical attention on Jan. 19 and now is in isolation at Providence Regional Medical Center in Everett , Wash. State health officials say his condition is quite good and even referred to him as `` healthy . ''
But testing from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on Jan. 20 confirm that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The man arrived back in the U.S. prior to the implementation of screening at three domestic airports on Friday .
About 300 cases of the virus and six deaths have been reported in China , and health officials there and around the world are ramping up precautions to stem the spread .
Chinese authorities are trying to control the flow of people in and out of the eastern city of Wuhan , where a strain of the coronavirus was discovered last month .
Wuhan 's mayor has asked residents to stay in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spread of the virus , which can cause respiratory symptoms such as pneumonia .
`` Cars may be randomly tested in case wild animals , a potential source for the virus , are transported , and tour groups are prohibited from leaving the city , '' NPR 's Amy Cheng reports from Beijing .
Cases of coronavirus , named 2019-nCoV , have also been confirmed in Japan , Thailand and South Korea .
Many airports around the world , including three in the U.S. — JFK in New York , SFO in San @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are setting up additional security screenings for passengers coming from infected areas .
At a press conference on Tuesday afternoon , the CDC said that it 's expanding the screenings to include Chicago 's O'Hare and Atlanta 's Hartsfield-Jackson international airports and that any passengers originating from Wuhan into the U.S. will be funneled to one of the five airports with screening , even if this requires rebooking them on different flights .
Other nations are taking similar precautions .
Russia , India and North Korea have all started checking people for fever @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the Philippines are also checking passengers and have quarantined some suspected cases .
The rising international concern about the coronavirus comes ahead of Lunar New Year , a major holiday in China during which millions of people travel across the country and internationally .
Wuhan authorities are testing whether passengers have fevers at transportation terminals throughout the city using 35 stationary infrared thermometers and more 300 handheld ones , according to China 's Xinhua news agency .
Passengers set to travel to Wuhan are being offered free ticket cancellations or changes .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ like a war zone because it 's all controlled with all the security , all the medical staff , '' Linfa Wang , a virologist at Duke-National University of Singapore , tells NPR .
`` You line up and then you go through group by group . ''
The World Health Organization says the virus likely first spread to humans through transmission from an animal at a live animal market in Wuhan .
On Monday , a Chinese government epidemiologist said there was evidence the virus could be transmitted from human to human @ @ @ @ @ @ @ because it has spread in medical environments – among people who are likely taking appropriate precautions to avoid infection .
Chinese authorities have come up with a new test for diagnosing the virus and are calling on people to take measures to prevent its spread such as covering their mouths when coughing or wearing face masks .
These masks are reportedly selling out in stores and online retailers in the country .
Wang says this virus is also concerning because there are still many aspects that are n't well understood by health officials @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dark , and we do n't know them , '' he says .
`` This new coronavirus is in the same family as SARS , but it 's different from SARS . ''
SARS , which is short for severe acute respiratory syndrome , killed nearly 800 people during an outbreak in 2003 .
The World Health Organization has scheduled a meeting for Wednesday to weigh whether the coronavirus should be declared an international public health emergency .
Wang expects the idea of travel restrictions to be discussed .
`` It 'll be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ n't want to be the person to make that decision , '' he says , given the sheer number of people on the move during the Lunar New Year holiday .

1st Case Of New Coronavirus Detected In U.S.
Enlarge this image toggle caption Dake Kang/AP Dake Kang/AP
Updated at 3 p.m. ET
The first case of an infection with the new coronavirus has been discovered in the United States.
A man from Washington state returned home after a trip to Wuhan, China, on Jan. 15, sought medical attention on Jan. 19 and now is in isolation at Providence Regional Medical Center in Everett, Wash.
State health officials say his condition is quite good and even referred to him as "healthy." But testing from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on Jan. 20 confirm that he is infected with the Wuhan coronavirus. The man arrived back in the U.S. prior to the implementation of screening at three domestic airports on Friday.
About 300 cases of the virus and six deaths have been reported in China, and health officials there and around the world are ramping up precautions to stem the spread.
Chinese authorities are trying to control the flow of people in and out of the eastern city of Wuhan, where a strain of the coronavirus was discovered last month. Wuhan's mayor has asked residents to stay in the city to try to prevent the spread of the virus, which can cause respiratory symptoms such as pneumonia.
"Cars may be randomly tested in case wild animals, a potential source for the virus, are transported, and tour groups are prohibited from leaving the city," NPR's Amy Cheng reports from Beijing.
Cases of coronavirus, named 2019-nCoV, have also been confirmed in Japan, Thailand and South Korea.
Many airports around the world, including three in the U.S. — JFK in New York, SFO in San Francisco and LAX in Los Angeles — are setting up additional security screenings for passengers coming from infected areas.
At a press conference on Tuesday afternoon, the CDC said that it's expanding the screenings to include Chicago's O'Hare and Atlanta's Hartsfield-Jackson international airports and that any passengers originating from Wuhan into the U.S. will be funneled to one of the five airports with screening, even if this requires rebooking them on different flights.
Other nations are taking similar precautions. Russia, India and North Korea have all started checking people for fever on inbound flights from China. Australia and the Philippines are also checking passengers and have quarantined some suspected cases.
The rising international concern about the coronavirus comes ahead of Lunar New Year, a major holiday in China during which millions of people travel across the country and internationally.
Wuhan authorities are testing whether passengers have fevers at transportation terminals throughout the city using 35 stationary infrared thermometers and more 300 handheld ones, according to China's Xinhua news agency. Passengers set to travel to Wuhan are being offered free ticket cancellations or changes.
"The Wuhan airport, it's like a war zone because it's all controlled with all the security, all the medical staff," Linfa Wang, a virologist at Duke-National University of Singapore, tells NPR. "You line up and then you go through group by group."
The World Health Organization says the virus likely first spread to humans through transmission from an animal at a live animal market in Wuhan.
On Monday, a Chinese government epidemiologist said there was evidence the virus could be transmitted from human to human. The coronavirus is also raising concerns because it has spread in medical environments – among people who are likely taking appropriate precautions to avoid infection.
toggle caption Ng Han Guan/AP
Chinese authorities have come up with a new test for diagnosing the virus and are calling on people to take measures to prevent its spread such as covering their mouths when coughing or wearing face masks. These masks are reportedly selling out in stores and online retailers in the country.
Wang says this virus is also concerning because there are still many aspects that aren't well understood by health officials. "The enemies are in the dark, and we don't know them," he says. "This new coronavirus is in the same family as SARS, but it's different from SARS."
SARS, which is short for severe acute respiratory syndrome, killed nearly 800 people during an outbreak in 2003.
The World Health Organization has scheduled a meeting for Wednesday to weigh whether the coronavirus should be declared an international public health emergency.
Wang expects the idea of travel restrictions to be discussed. "It'll be a tough decision, and I don't want to be the person to make that decision," he says, given the sheer number of people on the move during the Lunar New Year holiday.


npr--2020-01-21--How Much Should The Public Be Told About Research Into Risky Viruses?

How Much Should The Public Be Told About Research Into Risky Viruses ?
U.S. officials are weighing the benefits and risks of proposed experiments that might make a dangerous pathogen even worse — but the details of that review , and the exact nature of the experiments , are n't being released to the public .
Later this week , officials are to hold a meeting in Bethesda , Md.
, to debate how much information to openly share about this kind of controversial work and how much to reveal about the reasoning behind decisions to pursue or forgo it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stakes of this research are coincidentally being highlighted by events in China , where public health workers are grappling with an outbreak of a new coronavirus .
The virus likely first arose in animals and seems to have acquired the ability to be transmitted from person to person .
How animal viruses can acquire the ability to jump into humans and become contagious is exactly the question that some researchers are trying to answer by manipulating pathogens in the lab to explore what genetic changes alter their virulence and transmissibility .
Scientists have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ever justifiable to do experiments that might create `` potential pandemic pathogens '' — viruses or other germs that are likely to be highly contagious from person to person and capable of causing a significant number of illnesses and deaths .
Some think that if this research is to be done , it requires an unusual degree of transparency because it involves deliberately making a pathogen more risky .
`` It seems to me that the review process should be very much weighted toward making sure that as many people as possible are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some very large benefit to health and welfare of people , '' says Marc Lipsitch , a professor of epidemiology at the Harvard T.H .
Chan School of Public Health who has been critical of past efforts to create genetically-altered bird flu viruses .
Those in favor of this virus tinkering say it 's necessary to prepare for the possibility that an animal pathogen circulating out in nature might mutate in a way that lets it start sickening humans and spreading widely .
It 's not a theoretical danger ; past pandemics , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
That 's why some researchers say they have to take worrisome viruses into the lab and tweak them in order to see what these germs are capable of .
The findings could tell public health workers what potential dangers lie ahead , so that they can get ready with the right surveillance tools , vaccines and medicines .
Other biosecurity experts , however , question how much useful knowledge would really be gained from these studies .
And in their view , it just is n't worth the possibility that a lab-created @ @ @ @ @ @ @ accident or because someone deliberately used it as a bioweapon .
Since concerns about this type of virus research were raised back in 2011 , it has been halted first by a voluntary moratorium that went on for more than a year and then by a pause put in place by the White House that lasted about three years .
In 2017 , the Department of Health and Human Services created a new framework for reviewing proposed experiments , which laid out criteria for what sort of studies are eligible to get funding @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for example , that there 's no feasible , safer means of answering researchers ' questions about a pathogen .
`` There have been two proposals that have made it through the review process and have been funded , '' says Carrie Wolinetz , associate director for science policy and acting chief of staff to the director of the National Institutes of Health .
`` They 're both related to influenza research and the transmissibility of avian influenza .
One of the things these scientists are studying is how does the flu virus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the important things that we need to understand to help us understand the evolution of the flu virus . ''
A third proposal is currently under review , according to a spokesperson for the Department of Health and Human Services .
Should the public be told ahead of time ?
NPR asked for general details about this third proposal but was told the pre-funding review is not public .
If the project passes the review and the NIH decides to fund it , the information can then be accessed in the general @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also planning to list projects that are funded after this special review on the website that describes the decision-making process .
Now that government has actually done a couple of these reviews , says Wolinetz , `` it 's an opportunity to ask the question : 'Are we doing this appropriately ?
Are we in fact being correct in our balancing of transparency and security , or any other considerations ? '
`` To get advice on how much should be disclosed , officials are turning to a panel of independent experts , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
There 's a lot of interest out there in how these reviews get done , notes Wolinetz , but `` it 's a little bit tricky , because all of these discussions are happening before funding decisions are made .
Under current rules and regulations in the government , those conversations , pre-award conversations , are protected . ''
That 's to ensure , for example , that someone 's idea for a novel experiment does n't get stolen by another researcher .
It also lets reviewers be candid in their critiques @ @ @ @ @ @ @ proposed study was deemed too alarming to fund , it might not make sense to make that idea available to all .
On the other hand , some biosecurity experts argue that the public needs to know who is evaluating the risks and benefits and exactly what their reasoning is .
Otherwise , these experts say , it will be impossible for the public to have any trust in this oversight system .
`` I just worry that there needs to be a range of voices and disciplines involved in decision-making about this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ director of the Center for Health Security at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health , who notes that the government has n't named the people whose expertise was tapped to do the reviews .
`` I think it would increase confidence of those in the community that are worried about this work to have it be transparent and have voices be heard that are outside the direct funder and scientific researcher , '' says Inglesby .
`` More transparency would lead to a chance for more discussion about it before the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the University of Wisconsin , Madison , is one of the researchers whose flu experiments got funded after undergoing this special review .
Kawaoka told NPR by email that he agreed that `` NIH should be transparent in announcing funding of the work , and disclosing the review process .
But , that information should be balanced to ensure security measures of the work and the safety of research personnel are not compromised . ''
A biosafety official at his university , Rebecca Moritz , explained that specific security requirements might need @ @ @ @ @ @ @ public .
In addition , she noted that the government review `` contains sensitive information because , in it , we are required to detail the ways in which the research could potentially be misused . ''
The other research proposal that passed the review and got NIH funding came from Ron Fouchier , a virologist at Erasmus MC in the Netherlands .
He told NPR by email that he would have no problem with the public knowing a `` coarse outline '' of his plans , but that he would leave all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the federal government .
`` I am just a scientist caught in this process , '' Fouchier said .
Beyond the question of how much information should be available about the U.S. government 's funding decisions , some continue to worry about the consequences of publicly publishing any research results that would describe how to make a pathogen more dangerous .
The HHS decision-making framework says funded research may require `` risk mitigation strategies '' that might include `` methodologies for responsible communication of results . ''
But Inglesby says that `` responsible @ @ @ @ @ @ @ `` If this work shows that it 's possible to make a flu virus or some other virus more dangerous , more capable of spread from person to person , '' he says , `` then what is the 'responsible communication ' pathway ? ''
He points out that `` once we publish the mechanisms for making pathogens more dangerous —potentially 'pandemic dangerous ' — we ca n't take that information back .
That information will be out there online for good . ''
Wolinetz told NPR that any researchers who receive funding @ @ @ @ @ @ @ review would be expected to communicate whatever is learned in the normal way , through the open scientific literature .

How Much Should The Public Be Told About Research Into Risky Viruses?
U.S. officials are weighing the benefits and risks of proposed experiments that might make a dangerous pathogen even worse — but the details of that review, and the exact nature of the experiments, aren't being released to the public.
Later this week, officials are to hold a meeting in Bethesda, Md., to debate how much information to openly share about this kind of controversial work and how much to reveal about the reasoning behind decisions to pursue or forgo it.
The meeting comes as the high stakes of this research are coincidentally being highlighted by events in China, where public health workers are grappling with an outbreak of a new coronavirus. The virus likely first arose in animals and seems to have acquired the ability to be transmitted from person to person.
How animal viruses can acquire the ability to jump into humans and become contagious is exactly the question that some researchers are trying to answer by manipulating pathogens in the lab to explore what genetic changes alter their virulence and transmissibility.
'Potential pandemic pathogens'
Scientists have argued for years over whether it's ever justifiable to do experiments that might create "potential pandemic pathogens" — viruses or other germs that are likely to be highly contagious from person to person and capable of causing a significant number of illnesses and deaths.
Some think that if this research is to be done, it requires an unusual degree of transparency because it involves deliberately making a pathogen more risky.
"It seems to me that the review process should be very much weighted toward making sure that as many people as possible are satisfied that that risk is justified by some very large benefit to health and welfare of people," says Marc Lipsitch, a professor of epidemiology at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health who has been critical of past efforts to create genetically-altered bird flu viruses.
Those in favor of this virus tinkering say it's necessary to prepare for the possibility that an animal pathogen circulating out in nature might mutate in a way that lets it start sickening humans and spreading widely. It's not a theoretical danger; past pandemics, like the 1918 flu, killed millions.
That's why some researchers say they have to take worrisome viruses into the lab and tweak them in order to see what these germs are capable of. The findings could tell public health workers what potential dangers lie ahead, so that they can get ready with the right surveillance tools, vaccines and medicines.
Risks of accidents — or terrorism
Other biosecurity experts, however, question how much useful knowledge would really be gained from these studies. And in their view, it just isn't worth the possibility that a lab-created virus might get unleashed — either by accident or because someone deliberately used it as a bioweapon.
Since concerns about this type of virus research were raised back in 2011, it has been halted first by a voluntary moratorium that went on for more than a year and then by a pause put in place by the White House that lasted about three years.
In 2017, the Department of Health and Human Services created a new framework for reviewing proposed experiments, which laid out criteria for what sort of studies are eligible to get funding and go forward. It requires, for example, that there's no feasible, safer means of answering researchers' questions about a pathogen.
"There have been two proposals that have made it through the review process and have been funded," says Carrie Wolinetz, associate director for science policy and acting chief of staff to the director of the National Institutes of Health. "They're both related to influenza research and the transmissibility of avian influenza. One of the things these scientists are studying is how does the flu virus jump between species because that is one of the important things that we need to understand to help us understand the evolution of the flu virus."
A third proposal is currently under review, according to a spokesperson for the Department of Health and Human Services.
Should the public be told ahead of time?
NPR asked for general details about this third proposal but was told the pre-funding review is not public. If the project passes the review and the NIH decides to fund it, the information can then be accessed in the general database of NIH-funded research. HHS is also planning to list projects that are funded after this special review on the website that describes the decision-making process.
Now that government has actually done a couple of these reviews, says Wolinetz, "it's an opportunity to ask the question: 'Are we doing this appropriately? Are we in fact being correct in our balancing of transparency and security, or any other considerations?' "
To get advice on how much should be disclosed, officials are turning to a panel of independent experts, the National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity.
'It's a little bit tricky'
There's a lot of interest out there in how these reviews get done, notes Wolinetz, but "it's a little bit tricky, because all of these discussions are happening before funding decisions are made. Under current rules and regulations in the government, those conversations, pre-award conversations, are protected."
That's to ensure, for example, that someone's idea for a novel experiment doesn't get stolen by another researcher. It also lets reviewers be candid in their critiques. What's more, if a proposed study was deemed too alarming to fund, it might not make sense to make that idea available to all.
On the other hand, some biosecurity experts argue that the public needs to know who is evaluating the risks and benefits and exactly what their reasoning is.
Otherwise, these experts say, it will be impossible for the public to have any trust in this oversight system.
"I just worry that there needs to be a range of voices and disciplines involved in decision-making about this work," says Thomas Inglesby, director of the Center for Health Security at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, who notes that the government hasn't named the people whose expertise was tapped to do the reviews.
"I think it would increase confidence of those in the community that are worried about this work to have it be transparent and have voices be heard that are outside the direct funder and scientific researcher," says Inglesby. "More transparency would lead to a chance for more discussion about it before the work started."
'NIH should be transparent'
Yoshihiro Kawaoka, of the University of Wisconsin, Madison, is one of the researchers whose flu experiments got funded after undergoing this special review. Kawaoka told NPR by email that he agreed that "NIH should be transparent in announcing funding of the work, and disclosing the review process. But, that information should be balanced to ensure security measures of the work and the safety of research personnel are not compromised."
A biosafety official at his university, Rebecca Moritz, explained that specific security requirements might need to be kept secret to protect the public. In addition, she noted that the government review "contains sensitive information because, in it, we are required to detail the ways in which the research could potentially be misused."
The other research proposal that passed the review and got NIH funding came from Ron Fouchier, a virologist at Erasmus MC in the Netherlands. He told NPR by email that he would have no problem with the public knowing a "coarse outline" of his plans, but that he would leave all of this up to the NIH and the federal government.
"I am just a scientist caught in this process," Fouchier said.
Beyond the question of how much information should be available about the U.S. government's funding decisions, some continue to worry about the consequences of publicly publishing any research results that would describe how to make a pathogen more dangerous.
The HHS decision-making framework says funded research may require "risk mitigation strategies" that might include "methodologies for responsible communication of results."
But Inglesby says that "responsible communication" has never been defined.
"If this work shows that it's possible to make a flu virus or some other virus more dangerous, more capable of spread from person to person," he says, "then what is the 'responsible communication' pathway?"
He points out that "once we publish the mechanisms for making pathogens more dangerous —potentially 'pandemic dangerous' — we can't take that information back. That information will be out there online for good."
Wolinetz told NPR that any researchers who receive funding from the NIH after going through this review would be expected to communicate whatever is learned in the normal way, through the open scientific literature.


npr--2020-01-21--WATCH: Senate Impeachment Trial Begins With Fight Over Rules

The first full day of the Trump impeachment trial has been dominated by partisan fighting over the rules of the proceedings .
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell , R-Ky. , released his resolution outlining the next steps , including a week of hours-long opening arguments , on Monday .
By Tuesday , ahead of the debate , Senate leaders made additional changes to the trial timeline .
The back-and-forth is a culmination of disagreement between Democrats and Republicans over what would constitute a fair trial .
The Democrat-led House voted in December to impeach President Trump but held off on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an attempt to get more details on the trial rules .
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi , D-Calif. , ultimately moved the process forward without the assurances Democrats sought .
McConnell needs a simple majority — 51 votes — to approve his resolution that lays out how much time House impeachment managers and the president 's defense team will get to make their arguments .
The Republicans hold 53 seats in the Senate .
Speaking on the Senate floor , McConnell called the resolution `` a fair road map , '' that closely tracks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , D-N.Y. , called the rules `` completely partisan . ''
He said McConnell 's resolution seems `` designed by President Trump for President Trump . ''
McConnell said he would move to table any Democratic amendments to the resolution .
Later Tuesday afternoon , he did just that .
He called for a vote to table , or kill , an amendment proposed by Schumer that would have subpoenaed records of communications related to White House officials , National Security Council personnel and other Trump administration officials who have direct knowledge of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The amendment was killed on a party-line 53-47 vote .
Hours later , another party-line vote put an end to a similar amendment from Schumer .
McConnell maintains he based his plan on the rules for the impeachment trial of President Bill Clinton in 1999 , with each side getting 24 hours .
In a last-minute change , McConnell called for the 24 hours to be divided over three days , rather than two as he originally proposed .
That would address one Democratic complaint — that a two-day limit would force the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , since the trial days do not start until 1 p.m .
ET .
McConnell also altered the rules for admitting the House evidence into the record .
It is now automatically part of the record , rather than senators having to vote to include it .
Apparently , these were not only concerns for Democrats .
According to a spokeswoman for Sen. Susan Collins , R-Maine , `` Senator Collins and others raised concerns about the 24 hours of opening statements in 2 days and the admission of the House transcript in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the trial should follow the Clinton model as much as possible .
She thinks these changes are a significant improvement . ''
Will there be witnesses ?
The resolution also delineates how much time senators will get for written questions , and it postpones the debate and vote over whether to call witnesses until after both sides have made their presentations and address questions .
House impeachment manager Adam Schiff , D-Calif. , also argued against the rules resolution , while calling on the Senate to allow testimony from new witnesses .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ saying he would `` love '' to hear testimony from Secretary of State Mike Pompeo , acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney and others ( even though White House officials have so far been barred from testifying ) .
Even Senate Republicans like Sen. Mitt Romney of Utah , who said he was open to hearing from witnesses like former national security adviser John Bolton , said that he backed McConnell 's resolution and that `` if attempts are made to vote on witnesses prior to opening arguments , I would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ favor of McConnell 's resolution , Trump personal lawyer Jay Sekulow attacked the House impeachment process and Schiff .
Referring to Trump 's July phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy , Sekulow asked , `` Why are we here ?
Are we here because of a phone call ?
Or are we here , before this great body , because since the president was sworn into office , there was a desire to see him removed ? ''
Sekulow is part of a defense team for the president led by White House @ @ @ @ @ @ @ articles of impeachment `` ridiculous '' and said it was `` an act of patriotism to defend the constitutional rights of the president , because if they do it to the president , they can do it to any of you , and they can do it to any American citizen . ''
Cipollone also falsely stated that `` not even Mr. Schiff 's Republican colleagues were allowed into the SCIF '' during the pre-impeachment depositions .
In fact , Republicans from all three of the House committees that held the depositions were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and many of them did attend .
Schiff responded that he would not suggest that Cipollone `` would make a false statement , '' but he said Cipollone was `` mistaken . ''

After 13 Hours Of Fiery Debate, Senate Adopts Impeachment Trial Rules
Enlarge this image toggle caption Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images
Updated at 1:50 a.m. ET Wednesday
After a long day and night of dueling between the House managers calling for impeachment and attorneys for President Trump declaring the articles of impeachment "ridiculous," the Senate adopted a set of rules that will govern its impeachment trial, in which opening arguments will get underway Wednesday.
The resolution, put forward by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, calls for each side to receive up to 24 hours to argue their case, spread over three days.
The measure was approved on a 53-47 party-line vote after senators rejected 11 different amendments offered by minority Democrats. Those amendments called on the Senate to subpoena records and documents from various agencies, including the State Department, the White House Office of Management and Budget and the Defense Department. The Trump administration had refused to turn over most of the documents to House investigators.
McConnell, R-Ky., released his resolution outlining the next steps, including a week of hours-long opening arguments, on Monday. By Tuesday, ahead of the debate, Senate leaders made additional changes to the trial timeline.
The back-and-forth is a culmination of disagreement between Democrats and Republicans over what would constitute a fair trial. The Democratic-led House voted in December to impeach President Trump but held off on transmitting the two articles of impeachment in an attempt to get more details on the trial rules. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., ultimately moved the process forward without the assurances Democrats sought.
McConnell needed a simple majority — 51 votes — to approve his resolution laying out how much time House impeachment managers and the president's defense team will get to make their arguments. The Republicans hold 53 seats in the Senate.
Speaking on the Senate floor, McConnell called the resolution "a fair road map," that closely tracks precedents. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., called the rules "completely partisan." He said McConnell's resolution seems "designed by President Trump for President Trump."
McConnell said he would move to table any Democratic amendments to the resolution.
Later Tuesday afternoon and into the night, he did just that. He called for a vote to table, or kill, several amendments proposed by Schumer that would have subpoenaed records of communications related to White House officials, National Security Council personnel and other Trump administration officials who have direct knowledge of "key events in question."
The amendments were killed on party-line 53-47 votes.
Trial timeline
McConnell maintains that he based his plan on the rules for the impeachment trial of President Bill Clinton in 1999, with each side getting 24 hours. In a last-minute change, McConnell called for the 24 hours to be divided over three days, rather than two as he originally proposed. That would address one Democratic complaint — that a two-day limit would force the session to last long into the night, since the trial days do not start until 1 p.m. ET.
McConnell also altered the rules for admitting the House evidence into the record. It is now automatically part of the record, rather than senators having to vote to include it.
Apparently, these were not only concerns for Democrats.
According to a spokeswoman for Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, "Senator Collins and others raised concerns about the 24 hours of opening statements in 2 days and the admission of the House transcript in the record. Her position has been that the trial should follow the Clinton model as much as possible. She thinks these changes are a significant improvement."
Will there be witnesses?
The resolution also delineates how much time senators will get for written questions, and it postpones the debate and vote over whether to call witnesses until after both sides have made their presentations and address questions.
House impeachment manager Adam Schiff, D-Calif., also argued against the rules resolution, while calling on the Senate to allow testimony from new witnesses. He played senators a tape of Trump saying he would "love" to hear testimony from Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney and others (even though White House officials have so far been barred from testifying).
Loading...
Even Senate Republicans like Sen. Mitt Romney of Utah, who said he was open to hearing from witnesses like former national security adviser John Bolton, said that he backed McConnell's resolution and that "if attempts are made to vote on witnesses prior to opening arguments, I would oppose those efforts."
Trump's defense
Arguing in favor of McConnell's resolution, Trump personal lawyer Jay Sekulow attacked the House impeachment process and Schiff.
Referring to Trump's July phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy, Sekulow asked, "Why are we here? Are we here because of a phone call? Or are we here, before this great body, because since the president was sworn into office, there was a desire to see him removed?"
Sekulow is part of a defense team for the president led by White House counsel Pat Cipollone, who called the articles of impeachment "ridiculous" and said it was "an act of patriotism to defend the constitutional rights of the president, because if they do it to the president, they can do it to any of you, and they can do it to any American citizen."
Cipollone also falsely stated that "not even Mr. Schiff's Republican colleagues were allowed into the SCIF" during the pre-impeachment depositions. In fact, Republicans from all three of the House committees that held the depositions were allowed into the secure hearing room, and many of them did attend.
Schiff responded that he would not suggest that Cipollone "would make a false statement," but he said Cipollone was "mistaken."


npr--2020-01-21--Former Interpol President Sentenced To Prison In China For Corruption

Former Interpol President Sentenced To Prison In China For Corruption The former president of Interpol has been sentenced to more than a decade in prison .
Meng Hongwei , the first Chinese national to assume the presidency of the France-based international law enforcement organization , received his 13 1/2-year sentence for corruption Tuesday in a Chinese courtroom .
Meng pleaded guilty last year to using his position in China to finagle more than $ 2 million in bribes between 2005 and 2017 .
Prior to his 2016 election as Interpol president , he served more than a decade as China @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Meng 's prison sentence caps a time in the international public eye that was about as dramatic and tortuous as it was brief .
Elected partly on the strength of his record of combating graft in China , Meng nevertheless elicited plenty of skepticism from critics who feared that his position would enable China to more readily use Interpol as a means of pursuing dissidents abroad .
An Amnesty International official , for instance , found the results of the election `` extraordinarily worrying . ''
At the time of his election , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ veteran policeman .
And I stand ready to do everything I can toward the cause of policing in the world . ''
Still , Meng did n't last long into his four-year term atop the agency based in Lyon , France .
Within two years , the Interpol chief went missing — disappearing in late September 2018 after departing France for a trip to his native China .
The cause of his disappearance soon became clear : Chinese authorities had detained him on corruption charges .
Roughly a week after Meng was detained @ @ @ @ @ @ @ president had resigned .
Kim Jong Yang of South Korea , the agency 's senior vice president , stepped into Meng 's role immediately and was formally elected by its General Assembly one month later .
The presidency of Interpol is a part-time , unpaid affair tasked with overseeing the General Assembly of the agency , which boasts the membership of 194 countries .
The Interpol president works with the secretary general — currently Jürgen Stock , in his second appointed term — who is responsible for implementing the decisions of the General @ @ @ @ @ @ @ affairs .
Now , more than two years after Meng 's stunning fall , the former Interpol president represents one of the most prominent targets of Chinese President Xi Jinping 's anti-corruption campaign .
The years-long crackdown has seen the arrest and imprisonment of a number of high-ranking officials in the Chinese security , intelligence and administrative apparatus — prompting controversy over whether the drive is a sincere attempt to root out corruption from the ruling Communist Party or a cynical bid to remove obstacles to Xi 's consolidation of power .
Meng @ @ @ @ @ @ @ husband 's arrest indicates the latter .
`` It 's not justice , '' she told The Guardian during a 2018 interview in Lyon .
`` I can tell you this because I am sitting here [ in France ] ; other people ca n't tell the truth .
I think the anti-corruption campaign in China has already been damaged .
It has become a way of attacking people who are your enemy . ''
She has sued the international police agency for failing to protect Meng and his family and for being @ @ @ @ @ @ @ '' against her husband .
Meng Hongwei , for his part , says he has accepted the verdict in China and will not appeal , according to China 's state-run Global Times newspaper .

Former Interpol President Sentenced To Prison In China For Corruption
Enlarge this image toggle caption Wong Maye-E/AP Wong Maye-E/AP
The former president of Interpol has been sentenced to more than a decade in prison. Meng Hongwei, the first Chinese national to assume the presidency of the France-based international law enforcement organization, received his 13 1/2-year sentence for corruption Tuesday in a Chinese courtroom.
Meng pleaded guilty last year to using his position in China to finagle more than $2 million in bribes between 2005 and 2017. Prior to his 2016 election as Interpol president, he served more than a decade as China's vice minister of public security.
Meng's prison sentence caps a time in the international public eye that was about as dramatic and tortuous as it was brief.
Elected partly on the strength of his record of combating graft in China, Meng nevertheless elicited plenty of skepticism from critics who feared that his position would enable China to more readily use Interpol as a means of pursuing dissidents abroad. An Amnesty International official, for instance, found the results of the election "extraordinarily worrying."
At the time of his election, Meng declared, "I am a veteran policeman. And I stand ready to do everything I can toward the cause of policing in the world."
Still, Meng didn't last long into his four-year term atop the agency based in Lyon, France. Within two years, the Interpol chief went missing — disappearing in late September 2018 after departing France for a trip to his native China.
The cause of his disappearance soon became clear: Chinese authorities had detained him on corruption charges. Roughly a week after Meng was detained, Interpol announced that its briefly tenured president had resigned.
Kim Jong Yang of South Korea, the agency's senior vice president, stepped into Meng's role immediately and was formally elected by its General Assembly one month later.
The presidency of Interpol is a part-time, unpaid affair tasked with overseeing the General Assembly of the agency, which boasts the membership of 194 countries. The Interpol president works with the secretary general — currently Jürgen Stock, in his second appointed term — who is responsible for implementing the decisions of the General Assembly and guiding the organization's day-to-day affairs.
Enlarge this image toggle caption John Leicester/AP John Leicester/AP
Now, more than two years after Meng's stunning fall, the former Interpol president represents one of the most prominent targets of Chinese President Xi Jinping's anti-corruption campaign. The years-long crackdown has seen the arrest and imprisonment of a number of high-ranking officials in the Chinese security, intelligence and administrative apparatus — prompting controversy over whether the drive is a sincere attempt to root out corruption from the ruling Communist Party or a cynical bid to remove obstacles to Xi's consolidation of power.
Meng's wife, Grace, believes her husband's arrest indicates the latter.
"It's not justice," she told The Guardian during a 2018 interview in Lyon. "I can tell you this because I am sitting here [in France]; other people can't tell the truth. I think the anti-corruption campaign in China has already been damaged. It has become a way of attacking people who are your enemy."
She has sued the international police agency for failing to protect Meng and his family and for being complicit in China's "wrongful acts" against her husband.
Meng Hongwei, for his part, says he has accepted the verdict in China and will not appeal, according to China's state-run Global Times newspaper.


npr--2020-01-22--Teachers Union Lawsuit Claims DeVos 'Capriciously' Repealed Borrower Protections

On Wednesday , one of the nation 's largest teachers unions , the American Federation of Teachers ( AFT ) , is expected to sue U.S. Education Secretary Betsy DeVos for repealing a rule meant to protect student loan borrowers from for-profit and career-focused schools that graduate them with too much debt and limited job prospects .
Randi Weingarten , president of the 1.7 million-member union , says the lawsuit 's message is clear : `` Protect the students of the United States of America — not the for-profit [ schools ] that are making a buck off of them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ repealed , known as `` gainful employment , '' served as a warning to for-profit colleges and any school that offers career certificate programs : If graduates do n't earn enough income to repay their student debts , schools could lose access to federal aid .
Because many of these programs derive the bulk of their revenue from federal student loans and grants , it was a potentially devastating threat .
So devastating that , Weingarten says , `` the rule worked .
What started happening is that these places — not just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ covered by this — they started cleaning up their act . ''
When the Obama administration began working on a gainful employment rule back in 2010 , some for-profit institutions started to make changes , trying to head-off a potential reckoning .
For example , Kaplan Higher Education unveiled an introductory , tuition-free period for prospective students to take classes .
In a press release , Kaplan said the move would `` lower the risk that the federal government lends money unnecessarily to students with a low chance of success . ''
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission , another for-profit heavyweight , ITT Educational Services , Inc. , captured the fear in the for-profit sector : `` Changes resulting from the [ gainful employment ] Requirements could reduce our enrollment and/or increase our cost of doing business , perhaps materially . ''
In other words : Schools were so threatened by the possibility of losing access to federal aid , they started making changes years before gainful employment even became a rule .
`` I have said quite often in the last few years that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sector should just declare victory and go home , '' says Steve Gunderson , president and CEO of Career Education Colleges and Universities ( CECU ) , a membership organization that serves as the national voice for career education schools .
`` Their message was heard and the sector responded . ''
`` They just undefined the term '' The first round of official data on gainful employment was released in January 2017 ; it showed that more than 700 programs had failed to meet the new standard — what the department considered @ @ @ @ @ @ @ debt to income .
That same month , Donald Trump was sworn in as president .
The following month , DeVos was sworn in as his education secretary .
From the beginning , DeVos ignored the gainful employment rule — even after 18 state attorneys general sued her , demanding that she enforce it .
In 2019 , the department officially repealed the rule .
Dan Zibel , chief counsel at the nonprofit Student Defense , is representing AFT in the new lawsuit .
`` When an agency changes its mind and wants @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to explain it , '' he says .
`` It has to acknowledge what it 's doing , and it has to explain the new rule . ''
But Zibel says DeVos did n't really rewrite the rule .
`` This is them simply deleting the entire regulatory structure , not replacing it with anything . ''
`` They just undefined the term , '' says James Kvaal , who helped design the original rule as deputy undersecretary in the Obama Education Department .
`` Gainful employment had meaning , and [ DeVos @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just — I 've never seen that before .
I 've never seen an agency take a term that was in the regulations and just undefine it without replacing it with some new meaning . ''
NPR obtained a draft of the complaint , expected to be filed in U.S. District Court .
It says , `` The Department has acted arbitrarily , capriciously , and not in accordance with law . ''
In a statement to NPR , department spokesperson Angela Morabito says , while the department generally does n't comment on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will vigorously defend its final regulation rescinding this deeply flawed rule . ''
The term `` gainful employment '' stems from the landmark Higher Education Act , which divided postsecondary programs into two categories : those that offer a degree , and those that provide `` training to prepare students for gainful employment in a recognized occupation . ''
The law says that in order for these latter , career programs to receive federal student aid , they should be setting students up for success in the workplace .
The problem is , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , '' or explain how to measure it .
It was n't until the Obama administration that the U.S. Department of Education created a clear standard .
Though the rule also applied to some nonprofit and public institutions , DeVos has argued that her predecessors specifically used it to target for-profit schools .
In justifying its repeal of the rule , the Education Department argues that students at for-profit colleges are more likely to be vulnerable ( i.e .
low-income , without a high school diploma , single parents , students of color @ @ @ @ @ @ @ community college students .
As such , the department reasons , `` differences in borrowing levels and student outcomes may well be attributable to student characteristics and may not accurately indicate institutional quality . ''
In short , the department argues , a student 's failure may not be a school 's failure .
DeVos ' approach replaces accountability with transparency .
Using the Education Department 's College Scorecard , a massive trove of school-based data , prospective students will be able to see median debt and earnings for graduates of all higher @ @ @ @ @ @ @ policy of caveat emptor — buyer beware .
The threat schools now face for saddling graduates with low-paying jobs and impossible debts depends on prospective students doing their own police work , using the College Scorecard , and foregoing schools with ugly numbers .
`` Instead of targeting schools simply by their tax status , this administration is working to ensure students have transparent , meaningful information about all colleges and all programs , '' DeVos said in a 2018 statement announcing the move to rescind the gainful employment rule .
The department @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to allowing low-quality programs to continue to receive federal student aid , `` especially if doing so burdens students with debt they can not repay or an educational credential that does not improve their employability . ''
But ultimately , the announcement said , `` the Department believes that the benefits outweigh the costs since all students will benefit from choice and transparency . ''
Gunderson agrees : `` I really think that what the department has done will turn out to be the most significant public policy to protect prospective students across @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the first time DeVos ' Education Department has scrapped or rewritten policies meant to protect student borrowers .
The department also dramatically rewrote another Obama-era rule known as `` borrower defense . ''
That rule allows borrowers who believe they were defrauded by their school to petition to have their federal student loans forgiven .
When the re-written borrower defense rule goes into effect in July , it will be much harder for students to prove they were misled , and those who do may still have only a portion of their debts @ @

Teachers Union Lawsuit Claims DeVos 'Capriciously' Repealed Borrower Protections
Enlarge this image toggle caption Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call Inc via Getty Images Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call Inc via Getty Images
Updated at 1:13 p.m. ET
One of the nation's largest teachers unions sued U.S. Education Secretary Betsy DeVos on Wednesday. The complaint: She repealed a rule meant to protect student loan borrowers from for-profit and career-focused schools that graduate them with too much debt and limited job prospects.
Randi Weingarten, president of the 1.7 million-member American Federation of Teachers (AFT), says the lawsuit's message is clear: "Protect the students of the United States of America — not the for-profit [schools] that are making a buck off of them."
The 2014 rule that DeVos repealed, known as "gainful employment," served as a warning to for-profit colleges and any school that offers career certificate programs: If graduates don't earn enough income to repay their student debts, schools could lose access to federal aid.
Because many of these programs derive the bulk of their revenue from federal student loans and grants, it was a potentially devastating threat. So devastating that, Weingarten says, "the rule worked. What started happening is that these places — not just the for-profits, but anyone who was covered by this — they started cleaning up their act."
"Declare victory and go home"
When the Obama administration began working on a gainful employment rule back in 2010, some for-profit institutions started to make changes, trying to head off a potential reckoning. For example, Kaplan Higher Education unveiled an introductory, tuition-free period for prospective students to take classes. In a press release, Kaplan said the move would "lower the risk that the federal government lends money unnecessarily to students with a low chance of success."
... the opponents of the [for-profit] sector should just declare victory and go home. Their message was heard and the sector responded.
And in its 2011 annual report to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, another for-profit heavyweight, ITT Educational Services Inc., captured the fear in the for-profit sector: "Changes resulting from the [gainful employment] Requirements could reduce our enrollment and/or increase our cost of doing business, perhaps materially."
In other words: Schools were so threatened by the possibility of losing access to federal aid, they started making changes years before gainful employment even became a rule.
"I have said quite often in the last few years that the opponents of the [for-profit] sector should just declare victory and go home," says Steve Gunderson, president and CEO of Career Education Colleges and Universities (CECU), a membership organization that serves as the national voice for career education schools. "Their message was heard and the sector responded."
"They just undefined the term"
The first round of official data on gainful employment was released in January 2017; it showed that more than 700 programs had failed to meet the new standard — what the department considered a reasonable ratio of a student's debt to income.
That same month, Donald Trump was sworn in as president. The following month, DeVos was sworn in as his education secretary. From the beginning, DeVos ignored the gainful employment rule — even after 18 state attorneys general sued her, demanding that she enforce it. In 2019, the department officially repealed the rule.
Dan Zibel, chief counsel at the nonprofit Student Defense, is representing AFT in the new lawsuit.
"When an agency changes its mind and wants to repeal a policy, it has to explain it," he says. "It has to acknowledge what it's doing, and it has to explain the new rule."
Gainful employment had meaning, and [DeVos] took it out. And I just — I've never seen that before. I've never seen an agency take a term that was in the regulations and just undefine it without replacing it with some new meaning.
But Zibel says DeVos didn't really rewrite the rule. "This is them simply deleting the entire regulatory structure, not replacing it with anything."
"They just undefined the term," says James Kvaal, who helped design the original rule as deputy undersecretary in the Obama Education Department. "Gainful employment had meaning, and [DeVos] took it out. And I just — I've never seen that before. I've never seen an agency take a term that was in the regulations and just undefine it without replacing it with some new meaning."
NPR obtained a draft of the complaint, expected to be filed in U.S. District Court. It says, "The Department has acted arbitrarily, capriciously, and not in accordance with law."
In a statement to NPR, department spokesperson Angela Morabito says, while the department generally doesn't comment on pending litigation, "[it] will vigorously defend its final regulation rescinding this deeply flawed rule."
Accountability versus transparency
The term "gainful employment" stems from the landmark Higher Education Act, which divided postsecondary programs into two categories: those that offer a degree, and those that provide "training to prepare students for gainful employment in a recognized occupation." The law says that in order for these latter, career programs to receive federal student aid, they should be setting students up for success in the workplace.
The problem is, Congress did not define "gainful employment," or explain how to measure it. It wasn't until the Obama administration that the U.S. Department of Education created a clear standard.
Though the rule also applied to some nonprofit and public institutions, DeVos has argued that her predecessors specifically used it to target for-profit schools.
In justifying its repeal of the rule, the Education Department argues that students at for-profit colleges are more likely to be vulnerable (i.e. low-income, without a high school diploma, single parents, students of color, etc.) even compared to community college students. As such, the department reasons, "differences in borrowing levels and student outcomes may well be attributable to student characteristics and may not accurately indicate institutional quality."
In short, the department argues, a student's failure may not be a school's failure.
DeVos' approach replaces accountability with transparency. Using the Education Department's College Scorecard, a massive trove of school-based data, prospective students will be able to see median debt and earnings for graduates of all higher education programs. It is essentially a policy of caveat emptor — buyer beware. The threat schools now face for saddling graduates with low-paying jobs and impossible debts depends on prospective students doing their own police work, using the College Scorecard, and foregoing schools with ugly numbers.
"Instead of targeting schools simply by their tax status, this administration is working to ensure students have transparent, meaningful information about all colleges and all programs," DeVos said in a 2018 statement announcing the move to rescind the gainful employment rule.
The department acknowledged that there would be a cost to allowing low-quality programs to continue to receive federal student aid, "especially if doing so burdens students with debt they cannot repay or an educational credential that does not improve their employability." But ultimately, the announcement said, "the Department believes that the benefits outweigh the costs since all students will benefit from choice and transparency."
Gunderson agrees: "I really think that what the department has done will turn out to be the most significant public policy to protect prospective students across the board."
This isn't the first time DeVos' Education Department has scrapped or rewritten policies meant to protect student borrowers. The department also dramatically rewrote another Obama-era rule known as "borrower defense." That rule allows borrowers who believe they were defrauded by their school to petition to have their federal student loans forgiven. When the re-written borrower defense rule goes into effect in July, it will be much harder for students to prove they were misled, and those who do may still have only a portion of their debts forgiven.


npr--2020-01-22--Exclusive: Seattle-Area Voters To Vote By Smartphone In 1st For U.S. Elections

Exclusive : Seattle-Area Voters To Vote By Smartphone In 1st For U.S .
Elections A district encompassing Greater Seattle is set to become the first in which every voter can cast a ballot using a smartphone — a historic moment for American democracy .
The King Conservation District , a state environmental agency that encompasses Seattle and more than 30 other cities , is scheduled to detail the plan at a news conference on Wednesday .
About 1.2 million eligible voters could take part .
NPR is first to report the story .
The new technology will be used for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ballots will be accepted from Wednesday through election day on Feb. 11 .
`` This is the most fundamentally transformative reform you can do in democracy , '' said Bradley Tusk , the founder and CEO of Tusk Philanthropies , a nonprofit aimed at expanding mobile voting that is funding the King County pilot .
But the move is sure to polarize the elections community as democracy-watchers across the country debate the age-old push-and-pull between voting access and voting security .
The U.S. trails most developed democracies when it comes to its election @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lag far behind presidential November elections .
The board of supervisors election in the King Conservation District , for example , in past years has drawn less than 1 % of the eligible population to the ballot box .
Tusk says low turnout contributes to dysfunction in government because candidates are n't forced to craft positions that represent the entire population .
`` If you can use technology to exponentially increase turnout , then that will ultimately dictate how politicians behave on every issue , '' he said .
But just four years @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the presidential election , including targeting and hacking into election infrastructure .
There 's no evidence that the attacks changed any votes or data , but intelligence officials , election experts and even former special counsel Robert Mueller have warned that adversaries would target elections again .
Because of that , security experts have been nearly unanimous in their opposition to mobile-voting expansions in recent years .
Some say that technology has not advanced enough yet , while others say the Internet will never be safe or transparent enough for something as important @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on Russian election interference , released last year , the Senate Intelligence Committee said , `` States should resist pushes for online voting . ''
Many outside specialists continue to agree .
`` There is a firm consensus in the cybersecurity community that mobile voting on a smartphone is a really stupid idea , '' said Duncan Buell , a computer science professor at the University of South Carolina who specializes in election technology .
`` I do n't know that I have run across cybersecurity experts whose mortgages are not paid by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a good idea . ''
King County voters will be able to use their name and birthdate to log in to a Web portal through the Internet browser on their phones , says Bryan Finney , the CEO of Democracy Live , the Seattle-based voting company providing the technology .
Once voters have completed their ballots , they must verify their submissions and then submit a signature on the touch screen of their device .
Finney says election officials in Washington are adept at signature verification because the state votes entirely by mail @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are caught if they log in to the system under false pretenses and try to vote as someone else .
The King County elections office plans to print out the ballots submitted electronically by voters whose signatures match and count the papers alongside the votes submitted through traditional routes .
While advocates say this creates an auditable paper trail , many security experts say that because the ballots cross the Internet before they are printed , any subsequent audits on them would be moot .
If a cyberattack occurred , an audit could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have been altered , says Buell .
`` If you 're doing phone voting or Internet voting , it 's pretty much 'garbage in , garbage out . '
You do n't really know what you 're getting in or what 's coming out the other side , '' said Joseph Lorenzo Hall , the former chief technologist at the Center for Democracy and Technology , in an interview with NPR last year .
Voters who use the smartphone portal also have the option to not submit their ballots electronically .
They can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and then print it to either drop off at designated drop-off locations or put in the mail .
Voting online has had a bumpy history over the past decade .
In a widely publicized incident , Washington , D.C. , saw an online voting pilot program get hacked in 2010 .
The project was scrapped .
And the Democratic National Committee decided to nix a plan this year that would have allowed voters to caucus remotely in Nevada and Iowa .
Precinct and party officials in Iowa , however , do intend to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from their level .
Other states and counties also have shown a willingness to experiment to chase better voting turnout .
Before the King County announcement on Wednesday , however , that experimentation had been limited to populations that tended to have more difficulty getting to the polls .
West Virginia used a mobile app in the 2018 midterm elections to allow military voters and voters living overseas to cast ballots .
One county in Utah allows the same for disabled voters .
All the recent developments have one thing in common : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Bradley Tusk told NPR that he hopes to fund between 35 and 50 mobile-voting pilots over the coming five years and then campaign for even wider use based on the data compiled from those programs .
Tusk took on the security worries directly .
`` Everyone who does n't want this to happen is never going to say , 'We oppose mobile voting because we do n't want higher turnout , ' Tusk said .
`` They 're going to say , 'It 's not safe . '
And if we have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ over that it is safe , it 's a lot harder for those objections and arguments to fly . ''
Buell , the University of South Carolina computer science specialist , admits that mobile voting probably will continue to expand this decade .
That is due in part , he says , to a miscalculation by advocates and the public about how insecure the Internet and mobile phones are .
`` Until we have a total collapse of some election , I think this sort of thing is going to continue , '' @ @ @ @ @ @ @ believe that they can do everything on their phones . ''

Exclusive: Seattle-Area Voters To Vote By Smartphone In 1st For U.S. Elections
Enlarge this image toggle caption Chris Delmas/AFP via Getty Images Chris Delmas/AFP via Getty Images
A district encompassing Greater Seattle is set to become the first in which every voter can cast a ballot using a smartphone — a historic moment for American democracy.
The King Conservation District, a state-chartered natural resources assistance agency with territory that includes Seattle and more than 30 other cities, is scheduled to detail the plan at a news conference on Wednesday. About 1.2 million eligible voters could take part.
NPR is first to report the story.
The new technology will be used for a board of supervisors election, and ballots will be accepted from Wednesday through election day on Feb. 11.
"This is the most fundamentally transformative reform you can do in democracy," said Bradley Tusk, the founder and CEO of Tusk Philanthropies, a nonprofit aimed at expanding mobile voting that is funding the King County pilot.
But the move is sure to polarize the elections community as democracy-watchers across the country debate the age-old push-and-pull between voting access and voting security.
The U.S. trails most developed democracies when it comes to its election turnout rate, and local races typically lag far behind presidential November elections.
The board of supervisors election in the King Conservation District, for example, in past years has drawn less than 1% of the eligible population to the ballot box.
Tusk says low turnout contributes to dysfunction in government because candidates aren't forced to craft positions that represent the entire population.
"If you can use technology to exponentially increase turnout, then that will ultimately dictate how politicians behave on every issue," he said.
Loading...
But just four years ago, Russia used cyberattacks to disrupt the presidential election, including targeting and hacking into election infrastructure.
There's no evidence that the attacks changed any votes or data, but intelligence officials, election experts and even former special counsel Robert Mueller have warned that adversaries would target elections again.
Because of that, security experts have been nearly unanimous in their opposition to mobile-voting expansions in recent years. Some say that technology has not advanced enough yet, while others say the Internet will never be safe or transparent enough for something as important as democracy.
In its bipartisan report on Russian election interference, released last year, the Senate Intelligence Committee said, "States should resist pushes for online voting."
Many outside specialists continue to agree.
"There is a firm consensus in the cybersecurity community that mobile voting on a smartphone is a really stupid idea," said Duncan Buell, a computer science professor at the University of South Carolina who specializes in election technology. "I don't know that I have run across cybersecurity experts whose mortgages are not paid by a mobile-voting company who think it's a good idea."
How it works
King County voters will be able to use their name and birthdate to log in to a Web portal through the Internet browser on their phones, says Bryan Finney, the CEO of Democracy Live, the Seattle-based voting company providing the technology.
Once voters have completed their ballots, they must verify their submissions and then submit a signature on the touch screen of their device.
Finney says election officials in Washington are adept at signature verification because the state votes entirely by mail. That will be the way people are caught if they log in to the system under false pretenses and try to vote as someone else.
The King County elections office plans to print out the ballots submitted electronically by voters whose signatures match and count the papers alongside the votes submitted through traditional routes.
While advocates say this creates an auditable paper trail, many security experts say that because the ballots cross the Internet before they are printed, any subsequent audits on them would be moot. If a cyberattack occurred, an audit could essentially require double-checking ballots that may already have been altered, says Buell.
"If you're doing phone voting or Internet voting, it's pretty much 'garbage in, garbage out.' You don't really know what you're getting in or what's coming out the other side," said Joseph Lorenzo Hall, the former chief technologist at the Center for Democracy and Technology, in an interview with NPR last year.
Voters who use the smartphone portal also have the option to not submit their ballots electronically. They can log in, fill out the ballot and then print it to either drop off at designated drop-off locations or put in the mail.
Glimpse of the future?
Voting online has had a bumpy history over the past decade.
In a widely publicized incident, Washington, D.C., saw an online voting pilot program get hacked in 2010. The project was scrapped.
And the Democratic National Committee decided to nix a plan this year that would have allowed voters to caucus remotely in Nevada and Iowa. Precinct and party officials in Iowa, however, do intend to use a smartphone app to report results from their level.
Other states and counties also have shown a willingness to experiment to chase better voting turnout.
Before the King County announcement on Wednesday, however, that experimentation had been limited to populations that tended to have more difficulty getting to the polls.
West Virginia used a mobile app in the 2018 midterm elections to allow military voters and voters living overseas to cast ballots. One county in Utah allows the same for disabled voters.
All the recent developments have one thing in common: They've been funded by Tusk Philanthropies. Bradley Tusk told NPR that he hopes to fund between 35 and 50 mobile-voting pilots over the coming five years and then campaign for even wider use based on the data compiled from those programs.
Tusk took on the security worries directly.
"Everyone who doesn't want this to happen is never going to say, 'We oppose mobile voting because we don't want higher turnout,' Tusk said. "They're going to say, 'It's not safe.' And if we have proven 30, 40, 50 times over that it is safe, it's a lot harder for those objections and arguments to fly."
Buell, the University of South Carolina computer science specialist, admits that mobile voting probably will continue to expand this decade. That is due in part, he says, to a miscalculation by advocates and the public about how insecure the Internet and mobile phones are.
"Until we have a total collapse of some election, I think this sort of thing is going to continue," Buell said. "People want to believe that they can do everything on their phones."
Clarification: This story has been updated to reflect that the King Conservation District is a natural resources assistance agency chartered by the state and not a state environmental agency, as an earlier version of the report described.