Two Los Angeles Times journalists kidnapped by guerrillas were freed on 1 February after 11 days. They were handed over to International Red Cross officials. Their release, originally set for 31 January, was delayed because of fighting in the area. October 21, 2020 Find out more May 13, 2021 Find out more RSF begins research into mechanisms for protecting journalists in Latin America British reporter Ruth Morris and US photographer Scott Dalton (photo, CR El Tiempo), both on assignment for the Los Angeles Times, were freed on 1 February after being held 11 days by guerrillas of Colombia’s National Liberation Army (ELN). They were handed over to International Red Cross officials between the towns of Fortul and Tame, in the northeastern department of Arauca. Their release, originally set for 31 January, was delayed because of fighting in the area between the army and guerrillas. They told a press conference on arrival in Bogota that they had never feared for their lives and had been well treated, but had been worried about distress caused to their families. They were then taken to the embassies of their respective countries.Ruth Morris: ‘I’m afraid our abduction will dissuade some foreign journalists from covering the Colombian conflict.’ Testimony of Ruth Morris collected by Christine Renaudat, Reporters Without Border’s correspondent in Bogota.’I was out reporting with the photographer Scott Dalton in Arauca in north-east Colombia when we were abducted. I wanted to collect testimony from the victims of the latest guerrilla attacks in the region, for the Los Angeles Times. While we were driving in the sector, our taxi was intercepted at a FARC (Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia) and ELN (National Liberation Army) guerrilla roadblock. Immediately, an ELN commander saw us and asked us to follow him. I presented my journalist’s papers and explained we were out reporting. I was sure they were going to let us through. But we had to follow him to meet one of his superiors. When the latter asked us who he had to inform if we were made prisoners, we understood we no longer had any choice. The guerrilla movement apparently intended to release us very quickly: the following day. But the press started to speak of an abduction and things started to get complicated: the front commander decided to detain us longer. We remained eleven days in the hands of the ELN Frente de Guerra Oriental commanded by the man called ‘Pablo’. Eleven days trekking through the region without knowing precisely where we were and with Colombian army helicopters buzzing above us. At no time were we afraid of being assassinated: we always thought we were important hostages for the guerrilla organisation, which always ensured we were well treated and safe. We learnt by means of the little radio we were carrying that other journalists were rallying for our release, in Bogata. I interviewed commander Pablo before being released. I think the rebels wanted to use us for their propaganda purposes, convening for our release a committee of several important people in Colombia. But we were finally handed over to the Red Cross. I’m afraid our abduction will dissuade some foreign journalists from covering the Colombian conflict. Many will think it over twice before reporting on the spot.’_________________________________________ Receive email alerts ColombiaAmericas 2011-2020: A study of journalist murders in Latin America confirms the importance of strengthening protection policies Follow the news on Colombia Help by sharing this information February 5, 2003 – Updated on January 20, 2016 Two Los Angeles Times journalists freed April 27, 2021 Find out more to go further News Organisation News News RSF, IFEX-ALC and Media Defence, support FLIP and journalist Diana Díaz against state harassment in Colombia 1st February 2003Army and guerrillas urged to allow release of kidnapped Los Angeles Times journalistsReporters Without Borders called today on all sides fighting in the Colombian department of Arauca to create the necessary conditions to free two Los Angeles Times journalists, reporter Ruth Morris and photographer Scott Dalton, who were kidnapped there by guerrillas of the left-wing National Liberation Army (ELN) on 21 January.A humanitarian committee, to which the guerrillas have said they will hand over the journalists, has been prevented from reaching the area where they are being held because of military operations in the oil-rich northeastern department.”The committee must be allowed in as soon as possible,” said Reporters Without Borders secretary-general Robert Ménard. “The longer their release takes and the more difficult it is, the more it will discourage journalists from reporting on the fighting. This would be a serious matter because a war without witnesses is open to the worst abuses, of which civilians are always the first victims.”He condemned the kidnapping as a “serious violation” of press freedom and said he was “shocked” by President Alvaro Uribe’s implication on 31 January that would not order a pause in the fighting to allow the journalists to get out. Fighting was going on in the area between the army and guerrillas of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC). The humanitarian committee, of civil society representatives, was trying to get to the town of Tame, where the journalists were.Ménard said the ELN’s statement that the kidnapping had been a “mistake” by a group of guerrillas who had “not realised the seriousness of what they were doing” was “preposterous and insulting.” He noted the ELN had kidnapped more than 20 journalists over the past five years, mostly to force the media to denounce abuses by the army and the paramilitary forces in the war. Reporters Without Borders has put ELN military chief Nicolas Rodríguez Bautista on its worldwide list of “predators of press freedom.”President Uribe said on 31 January he would take no decision in the matter that undermined the morale of the army, implying that the fighting would go on. He accused the ELN of trying to give the impression to international opinion that it respected human rights by saying it would free the journalists, while in fact it regularly kidnapped ordinary Colombians. Ménard said freeing the journalists “would fool nobody about the ELN’s human rights violations” and called on the Colombian government to fulfil its main duty to protect civilians. “If the journalists are wounded or killed by army gunfire, the president will not be able to wash his hands of the matter by blaming the ELN or blaming carelessness by the journalists, who are bravely trying to report on what is happening in Arauca.””Who will report on the abuses against the population by the armed groups, especially the ELN, if journalists no longer dare to go there?” he asked.The two journalists had gone to the area to report on the deployment of 60 US Special Forces officially training Colombian army units. An ELN spokesman said the pair had been detained near Tame on 21 January because they had gone into the ELN-controlled area without permission. Arauca is the scene of fierce fighting between all four parties in the Colombian civil war – the army, the ELN, the FARC and the paramilitary United Self-Defence Forces of Colombia (AUC).A report on the situation (“Arauca: News in Danger”) last 20 December by five organisations, including Reporters Without Borders, detailed the threats, harassment and obstruction of journalists by the guerrillas and paramilitaries and the army’s constant control of news put out by the local media. The report is online at www.rsf.org ColombiaAmericas Reports RSF_en
By News Highland – October 17, 2014 Ex-partner denies priest’s ownership claim to Co Donegal house Google+ Previous articleMcGlynn missing Republic u17 UEFA qualifiersNext articleMná tí seek meeting with Minister Joe McHugh over water charges News Highland Gardai continue to investigate Kilmacrennan fire Further drop in people receiving PUP in Donegal News Twitter WhatsApp Facebook Facebook Pinterest A Co Mayo curate is taking legal action against a former Franciscan friar, with whom he was in a relationship, over a house they shared in Co Donegal.Ballina-based Father Gabriel Rosebotham is claiming he is entitled to half ownership of Rose Cottage, Letterbarra near Donegal town.However, Hugo Crawford, who still lives in the house, is disputing his claim.Donegal Circuit Court heard that the relationship between the two men began in the 1980s when they were both members of the Franciscan Order in Dublin.They moved to Donegal in 1994. Fr Gabriel was in the Franciscan friary in Rossnowlagh but Mr Crawford had left the order and he bought Rose Cottage.As a member of the Franciscans with a vow of poverty, Fr Gabriel could not own property but Mr Crawford said they were in a sexual relationship and it was the intention that the house would be in both their names.He said the agreement was that both would leave religious life.Mr Crawford left believing that Fr Gabriel would take the next step but he never did, he said.Fr Gabriel told the court that he never informed Mr Crawford that he was going to leave the priesthood.He said he left the Franciscans and moved to Ballina as a diocesan priest, but he would travel back to Rose Cottage once or twice a week until the relationship broke up.The two men split up on St Stephen’s Day 2002 with Fr Gabriel leaving the house claiming that Mr Crawford’s family was interfering.Mr Crawford said he tried to patch things up. He still loved Fr Gabriel and asked him to come back but he did not.Fr Gabriel told Judge Keenan Johnson that after the relationship ended they agreed to have the house valued, sell it and split the proceeds 50:50. But Mr Crawford said this was not agreed.He told the court that he made all the mortgage repayments apart from a small sum.Mr Crawford rejected claims by Fr Gabriel that he regularly repaid the loan, paid bills, bought groceries and furniture, and was entitled to half ownership of the house.Judge Keenan Johnson will rule in the case tomorrow. WhatsApp RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR Google+ Main Evening News, Sport and Obituaries Tuesday May 25th 75 positive cases of Covid confirmed in North Pinterest 365 additional cases of Covid-19 in Republic Man arrested on suspicion of drugs and criminal property offences in Derry Twitter
ABA Advises ‘Reasonable Efforts’ To Protect Client Datawww.threindianalawyer.comA new ethics opinion from the American Bar Association is calling on attorneys to make “reasonable efforts” to ensure their electronic attorney-client communications are not subject to inadvertent or unauthorized disclosure.The ABA Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility issued Formal Ethics Opinion 477 on May 11, providing an update to Formal Opinion 99-412, which was handed down in 1999. The original 1999 opinion addressed lawyers’ confidentiality obligations for email communication, but subsequent evolution in the “role and risks of technology in the practice of law” required the committee to update its recommendations for protecting client information.In today’s world, attorneys generally use electronic means as their primary method of communication with clients, and that communication can take place on a number of different devices, each susceptible to data breaches, the opinion says. Thus, attorneys must ensure their clients understand the security concerns associated with electronic communication and, further, must make reasonable efforts to protect communications on each device from an inadvertent hack.A “reasonable effort” is a fact-sensitive question, the committee said. The opinion offers seven recommendations for making reasonable efforts to protect client data and communications:• Understand the nature of the threat• Understand how client confidential information is transmitted and stored• Understand and use reasonable electronic security measures• Determine how electronic communications about client matters should be stored• Label client confidential information• Train lawyers and nonlawyer assistants in technology and information security• Conduct due diligence on vendors providing communication technologyIn sum, “a lawyer generally may transmit information relating to the representation of a client over the Internet without violating the Model Rules of Professional Conduct where the lawyer has undertaken reasonable efforts to prevent inadvertent or unauthorized access to information relating to the representation.” However, the opinion goes on to advise, “a lawyer may be required to take special security precautions to protect against the inadvertent or unauthorized disclosure of client information when required by an agreement with the client or by law, or when the nature of the information requires a higher degree of security.”The full text of Formal Opinion 477 can be found here.FacebookTwitterCopy LinkEmail
With the world’s largest army, a population four times that of the United States, and an economy that outpaces America’s, it often may seem that this is China’s world and we’re all just living in it.But in a new essay, political scientist Joseph Nye, Ph.D. ’64, says à la Mark Twain that the rumors of America’s demise are grossly exaggerated.In “Is the American Century Over?” Nye, a Harvard University Distinguished Service Professor and former dean of Harvard Kennedy School (HKS), answers that question with a qualified no, suggesting that while the United States will not enjoy the unfettered authority to shape world events that it did in the 20th century, few others nations, not even China, will assemble the economic and military hard power along with the soft power of influence — a term Nye famously coined — to assume the leadership role.The essay summarizes Nye’s work since his 1990 book, “Bound to Lead,” in which he challenged the notion, popularly advanced by British historian Paul Kennedy’s “Lead: The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers,” that America is in decline and its era as a global superpower is over. Nye sat down with the Gazette to talk about why he thinks the United States will hold onto its political perch, and what events or policies could threaten that status.GAZETTE: Explain what you mean by “the American Century” and why has it been fashionable to declare that the U.S. as the superpower is over?NYE: Henry R. Luce, the former editor of Time and Life, proclaimed the American Century in 1941. He proclaimed it because he wanted to get America involved in World War II, and he particularly wanted America to be central to the global balance of power. So I use the term “American Century” in terms of what Luce proclaimed, and ask the question whether in 2041 the Americans will be central to the global balance of power. My conclusion is “yes,” but it won’t be in the same way that Luce expected.Americans have a long history of believing they’re in decline. And it tells you more about our psychology than about our reality. In the 1960s and ’70s, we thought the Russians or the Soviets were 10 feet tall. Then, in the 1980s, we thought the Japanese were 10 feet tall. And today, many people think the Chinese are 10 feet tall. What I try to do is to show that reflects trends and moods of psychology more than it reflects the realities of world politics. The latest trend of belief that the United States is in decline really starts with the Great Recession of 2008, where people see the declining economy as something that’s going to go on for a long time, or forever, rather than a cyclical change.GAZETTE: You say America’s dominance is not necessarily a direct result of economic power or military might and that we still have significant soft-power advantages over other countries, including China. What are some of those advantages, and how might we lose our ability to influence world events in the coming years?NYE: Soft power is the ability to get what you want through attraction rather than coercion or payment. It’s an important component of America’s role in the world. It doesn’t replace the hard power of military capability or economic capability, but it can be what’s sometimes called a “force multiplier,” something that, if used in a smart way with your hard power, can make you more powerful by having hard and soft power reinforce each other. If we were to turn inward, to be less accepting of the rest of the world, [or] if we were to, in contrast, overextend ourselves as I think we did in the Iraq War, we could damage that soft power and undercut our ability to help lead coalitions and networks and alliances that are necessary for being able to provide leadership in the world.GAZETTE: What challenges does China’s largely internal political focus and the increasing upward mobility of many more of its citizens pose for it?NYE: The good news for China is that they’ve raised hundreds of millions of people out of poverty and developed a large middle class. The bad news is they haven’t figured out how to bring that middle class into political participation. What we know is that when countries get to about $10,000-per-capita income, there are increased demands for participation. China hasn’t quite figured out how to accommodate that. So that’s one problem they face, what you might call the political transition. Another problem they face is a demographic transition. China’s population is getting older as a result of the one-child policy. And many Chinese say they “fear they’re going to grow old before they grow rich.” A third problem is: Can they adapt their growth model, which has been heavily reliant upon export industries based along the coast, and become more innovative and more oriented toward their domestic market? Their plans are to do that, but they haven’t yet fully accomplished that. They may be able to do this — that’s sometimes called the “middle-income trap,” that you reach a certain level on the growth model that’s worked so far, and then you don’t develop the institutions and the capacity for innovation that take you to the next level.GAZETTE: You write: “The real problem for the United States is not that it will be overtaken by China or another contender, but that it will be faced with a rise in the power resources of many others — both state and non-state actors,” and that “the U.S. will be less able to control others.” Who are some of these actors, and how will this diffusion of power likely play out?NYE: Some of the actors are other large states like India, which will be the largest country in the world by population by the middle of this century; Brazil; Indonesia, which is the largest Muslim country in the world; perhaps Nigeria or South Africa — we don’t know how their fates are going to turn out. But the point is there will be many more states that will have more power than they’ve had in the past. In addition to those state actors, there are a lot of non-state actors who are empowered by the information revolution. Perhaps the most dramatic of these would be cyber actors — “hacktivists” and even cybercriminals and other such groups — who are able to do things that often in the past were reserved to governments. So the combination of more state actors and more powerful non-state actors makes a world in which it’s harder to get things done. This is sometimes called entropy, the inability to get work done. ISIS is a very good example of such a non-state actor. But I worry more about entropy than I worry about China.GAZETTE: Does it dilute America’s overall power, or will it force us to rely on other strategies?NYE: If we rely on other strategies, we can overcome this. If we see that our role is to organize coalitions and networks to get things done, then we can repair the problems that this creates for American power. But if we think that we can either do it ourselves or opt out of anybody doing it, then we’ll suffer the consequences along with others. If you think of problems like global financial stability or dealing with climate change or dealing with pandemics or dealing with transnational terrorism, these are not problems that we can solve by ourselves. Our ability to manage those problems depends on our ability to organize coalitions with others.GAZETTE: What are some of the “new transnational issues” that will require the U.S. to exert power with others rather than power over others, and what should the U.S. do to build and bolster our continued primacy?NYE: One of the things we have to do is to make sure that we support international institutions. We have issues of trade agreements that are coming up before the Congress, some of which are controversial. We have issues like the international Law of the Sea Convention which is very much in our interests, but which has not been ratified by the U.S. Senate because of the opposition of some senators who say it gives away too much of our sovereignty. You have an agreement that was reached in 2010 to increase the emerging markets’ share of the voting quota in the International Monetary Fund, and Congress has not gone ahead and passed that. These are the sorts of things where taking a very narrow view of our self-interest interferes with our being able to accomplish our larger self-interest.GAZETTE: In the last decade, the U.S. has taken two very different positions regarding foreign policy under Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama. How has that swing affected our ability to influence others, and how will the domestic and foreign policy views of our next president affect our standing globally in the coming decade?NYE: It’s sometimes said that America swings between maximalist policies and retrenchment policies, which is a little different from isolationism in the sense that retrenchment doesn’t mean pulling back as thoroughly as we did in the 1930s. For example, [Dwight] Eisenhower was a president who followed policies of retrenchment. but nobody would call him an isolationist. The question is how far these cycles go, if the extent to which we pull back from the world and pay less attention to the development of international networks and coalitions undercuts our ability to get things done that are in our own interest. We’ll have to see in the 2016 presidential debate(s) how these issues are brought to the public for discussion. I don’t think we’re in danger of isolationism; what we are, though, is in danger of what’s sometimes been called “American exemptionalism,” of giving us a pass on things, like the Law of the Sea ratification or like this new quota for the International Monetary Fund, of opting out. It’s not exactly the same as isolationism, but it’s a failure of international leadership [that] plays well to populist, demagogic pressures.GAZETTE: In the essay, you say you “guess” the U.S. will “still have primacy in power resources and play the central role in the global balance of power among states in 2041.” What events, actions, or policies could undermine that probability?NYE: If you had a series of major terrorist attacks using weapons of mass destruction, it’s conceivable that Americans might turn inward [and] become very isolationist. I don’t think it would solve our problems, but that would obviously undercut our ability to lead. Or if we thought that, given the problems in the Middle East, somehow if we just went in there and tried to rule those countries that we would be able to do so, that could lead to the type of setback which we suffered in Iraq, but even more so. And that would also greatly hinder our capacity to lead. Nobody can predict the future, but the swings in mood that we have tell us more about psychology than reality. So what I’ve been trying to do in this work is to get people to look at some real factors and also some potential strategic choices that we face that can make the outcome one way rather than another.This interview has been lightly edited for length and clarity.