South Asia Institute hosts exhibit for Nepal

first_img Many of the city’s buildings and places of worship were destroyed or seriously damaged. Harvard’s South Asia Institute (SAI) is hosting an exhibit and fundraiser to help the country of Nepal and its people rebuild after the devastating earthquake of April 25. Thousands of Nepalese citizens were killed; tens of thousands more were injured and made homeless, while many of the city’s magnificent buildings and places of worship were destroyed or seriously damaged.Featuring photography by Grzegorz Ekiert, professor of government, and director of the Minda de Gunzburg Center for European Studies, “Nepal — In Memoriam” will run until Oct. 29 and will also feature a closing reception and fundraiser that night.  The photographs are on exhibit at the CGIS Knafel Concourse, 1737 Cambridge St.The exhibit is designed to raise funds for SAI’s Nepal Research and Reconstruction Fund, which provides support for projects in Nepal developed in partnership with local organizations, with a focus on Nepal’s long-term reconstruction. The exhibition is sponsored by the Harvard University Asia Center, South Asia Institute, Minda de Gunzburg Center for European Studies, Weatherhead Center for International Affairs, Fairbank Center for Chinese Studies, Reischauer Institute of Japanese Studies, Davis Center for Russian and Eurasian Studies, and Korea Institute.For more information. The recent devastating earthquake killed thousands of Nepalese. Photographs from the exhibit will be for sale with money raised going to SAI’s Nepal Research and Reconstruction Fund.center_img Palaces and temples, built by many generations of Newari craftsmen, are unique treasures of world architecture and art. Remembering Nepal Photographs by Harvard Professor Grzegorz Ekiert will be on exhibit at the CGIS Knafel Concourse. Photos by Grzegorz Ekiert ©last_img read more

NY Lawmakers Seek To Protect Renters During Pandemic

first_imgDennis Capati / MGNALBANY — Three New York lawmakers are working together to introduce legislation that would protect renters from eviction during the response to the coronavirus pandemic.It’s call the Safe Harbor Act and would prevent landlords from evicting tenants for unpaid rent accrued during the State of Emergency plus six months after.If passed, it would strengthen the 90-day executive order preventing evictions. Landlords would continue to be able to seek judgments for unpaid rent but tenants would have housing stability with no threat of eviction for non-payment in the meantime. Share:Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window),I am a senior citizen who has a small one bedroom house I rent out. I bought it 11 yrs ago to supplement my social security. These are my only sources of income. With out the rent from my rental I can not pay my property taxes and several other bills. If the tenant does not pay their rent but is allowed to live there, I would loose everything. That is my income every much as if I had a job. If I loose it I will loose everything I have.last_img read more

Guarding liberties while fighting terrorism

first_img December 15, 2001 Jan Pudlow Associate Editor Regular News Guarding liberties while fighting terrorism Associate Editor Eavesdropping on conversations between inmates and their lawyers.Sneak-and-peek warrants that allow secret searches, wiping out the chance to call a lawyer or watch while the police rummage.Secret databases of suspicious people with no clear guidelines of what names and information are included.Rounding up and detaining indefinitely more than 1,200 people, some on material witness warrants, some on immigration violations such as overstaying a visa, some detained even when an immigration judge has ordered them freed.Roving wire taps that allow law-enforcement to keep listening to conversations beyond the designated target.Special military tribunals to try noncitizens suspected of terrorism in secret trials without juries, where the standard for proving guilt falls below “beyond a reasonable doubt,” where the death sentence requires only a two-thirds vote, and there are no appeals.In the name of fighting terrorism and preserving national security, is America willing to give away its civil liberties?“We love security more than we love liberty,” David Cole, a law professor at Georgetown University who often represents foreigners detained by the government, told The New York Times. “It is generally the case that in times of fear, people place security above all, and they are quite willing to cede to the government extraordinary authority.”But new powers created by the government in the wake of the September 11 attacks are sparking renewed vigilance among lawyers to safeguard the basic principles of the Constitution.“With a lot of these bills, the government is saying, ‘Trust us.’ But trial lawyers and civil libertarians have trouble with that concept,” said Larry Spalding, state lobbyist for the American Civil Liberties Union.And it’s not just the predictable ACLU lawyers who are concerned that changing the rules in a national crisis could lead to a slippery slope of losing precious constitutional rights.Terry Russell, president of The Florida Bar, has spent a lot of time talking about the danger of eroding constitutional principles in the name of fighting terrorism.“What I try to do is give a historical perspective. This has happened many times before, and you have to rely on the voices of reason on how you got to where we are, and the great constitutional freedoms that we have, and how hard they were to achieve, and how easy they are to give up and lose,” Russell said.“There is no cause or justification for compromising our constitutional principles. Bottom line, in my view: Absolutely nothing happened on September 11 that the American justice system and the Constitution of the United States cannot handle.”Thomas P. Scarritt, Jr., chair of the Bar’s Trial Lawyers Section, has written a column for newspaper opinion pages expressing his concern that eavesdropping on lawyer-client conversations is unconstitutional.When the Trial Lawyers Section meets in Miami in January, Scarritt said, he wants to discuss what other actions the members may take as watchdogs of the Constitution.“Many (including this writer), believe we are living through times of unique threats to our society and that we must make sacrifices to protect our national security. We have been called upon to embrace our everyday lives, while at the same time remaining ever-vigilant; to give blood, money, and volunteer efforts to assist our victims; and to trust and support our military as it engages a shadowy enemy in extremely difficult terrain,” Scarritt wrote in his column.“For the most part, Americans have enthusiastically complied. But we should not be asked to accept rules which abridge the very freedoms on which our founding principles are based, no matter how grievous the enemy against whom they might be used. The threat to our civil liberties far outweighs the physical threat these rules are designed to contain. They should be repealed immediately.”And Chesterfield Smith, former president of the ABA and The Florida Bar, said in a speech to the National Legal Aid and Defender Association’s annual convention recently held in Miami: “Today, 28 years after Watergate, our country again is confronted with another governmental crisis, which if left unwatched or unmonitored may result in a similar denigration of civil liberties.”Even conservative columnist William Safire warned: “Intimidated by terrorists and inflamed by a passion for rough justice, we are letting George W. Bush get away with the replacement of the American rule of law with military kangaroo courts.” Rules are Different in Times of War In these extraordinary times of trying to wipe terrorism from the globe, President Bush and his administration have justified the executive branch creating new powers. Their sweeping initiatives alter fundamental principles of the American judicial system, including the privacy of an attorney-client relationship, the right to trial by jury, and protections against dragnet detentions.They argue that the changed rules for ferreting out suspects and prosecuting alleged terrorists are designed to apply to people who are not American citizens during a national crisis of heightened fear of more terrorist attacks. Recent polls bolster Bush’s stance that he has strong public support for his agenda.Among the altered judicial landscape, the boldest are the military tribunals that, with the president’s signature on an order November 13, create an alternative justice system that’s designed to be swift and mostly secret, for noncitizens who are suspected of involvement in terrorism. Until now, people charged with crimes in America — whether U.S. citizens or not — were afforded many of the constitutional rights and protections of citizens.But the military tribunals wipe out trials by juries, withhold access to evidence against defendants, employ panels of military officers instead of judges, lower the standard of proving guilt from “beyond a reasonable doubt” to “have probative value to a reasonable person,” and ban any appeals.Release of information could be as minimal as the defendant’s name and sentence and transcripts of proceedings could be sealed for years, perhaps decades, according to a military officer who spoke to The New York Times. “I need to have that extraordinary option at my fingertips,” Bush said after signing an executive order allowing secret military tribunals for noncitizens suspected of terrorism, last used by President Franklin D. Roosevelt during World War II against Nazi saboteurs.“I ought to be able to have that option available should we ever bring one of these al Qaeda members in alive. It’s our national interests, it’s our national security interests that we have a military tribunal available. It is in the interests of the safety of potential jurors that we have a military tribunal,” Bush told The Washington Post. “Foreign terrorists who commit war crimes against the United States, in my judgment, are not entitled to and do not deserve the protections of the American Constitution, particularly when there could be very serious and important reasons related to not bringing them back to the United States for justice,” Attorney General John Ashcroft said. “I think it’s important to understand that we are at war now.”But Russell counters the American system — open court where the judicial branch and an independent jury stand between the government and the accused — is not only adequate to bring wrongdoers to justice, it is tried and true.“Are we afraid of our system?” Russell asks. “We tried Manuel Noriega, and we tried the people who bombed the World Trade Center (in 1993). We brought them to justice. Now, we’re not in a declared state of war. I’m not aware of anything the government could have done any differently before September 11 that these proposals would have changed. They had intelligence; they didn’t act on it. Show me what you had and why it was inadequate before you show me what you need. I get the strange feeling that when you do that, that you’re scapegoating. I’d hate like hell to see the United States Constitution be the subject of scapegoating. Don’t tell me we have constitutional infirmities in this country that made us susceptible to terrorism. I don’t believe that. I just don’t believe that. I think more of our way of government.”Russell added: “I would like to know why we did not detect this and why we could not stop these 19 fanatics from boarding four airplanes and destroying the World Trade Center and Pentagon.”On November 15, Vice President Dick Cheney said: “The mass murder of Americans by terrorists, or the planning thereof, is not just another item on the criminal docket. This is a war against terrorism. Where military justice is called for, military justice will be dispensed.”But some question whether justice is truly the goal.Harvard Law Professor Phillip Heymann, in The New York Times, said: “The tribunal idea looks to me like a way of dealing with a fear that we lack the evidence to convict these people.” And Harvard Law Professor Anne Marie Slaughter, on ABC’s “Nightline,” made the point that the war is being fought to preserve American values.“One of these values is justice. And we have an entire system designed to achieve that. To forsake that now is to betray the cause we’re also fighting for,” she said.As for the eavesdropping on lawyer-client conversations, Attorney General Ashcroft defended his order as a tool to prevent terrorism, stressing it is aimed at only a few — those in federal custody who have been detained but not charged with any crime, if there is “reasonable suspicion” that an exchange of information may occur about future acts of terrorism.“Let’s be clear about what it is: designed to keep people from continuing to perpetrate crimes through their lawyers’ sometimes unwitting cooperation, by using the lawyer as a conduit for information and instructions or a means of signaling to individuals outside,” Ashcroft told The New York Times. But ABA President Robert Hirshon counters that “no privilege is more ‘indelibly ensconced’ in the American legal system than the attorney-client privilege. The Sixth Amendment guarantees a right to counsel. The new rules clearly violate that privilege, and therefore seriously impinge on the right to counsel. If the government has probable cause to believe criminal activity is occurring or is about to occur, it can ask a judge to approve the type of monitoring proposed by these regulations. But prior judicial approval and the establishment of probable cause — the standard embodied in the Fourth Amendment — and not ‘reasonable suspicion,’ are required if the government’s surveillance is to be consistent with the Constitution and is to avoid abrogating the rights of innocent people.”Similarly, Scarritt, chair of the Trial Lawyers Section, said: “However well-intentioned, the regulations are unconstitutional. There is nothing to preclude the government from applying the rules to attorneys’ conversations discussing trial strategy and client confidences in matters that have little, if anything, to do with terrorism. The new rules infringe upon our right to counsel and to be free from unreasonable searches, freedoms we have fought hard to protect throughout our history. There is neither judicial oversight nor legislative authorization for the rules.”And Bar President Russell added: “I get quite concerned when an Attorney General of the United States suggests that based on his words someone is going to listen in on a conversation between a lawyer and a client. That’s draconian.”It remains unclear how widely the government will use its new powers, but Smith has lent his voice to a chorus of grave concern that the government has already gone too far.“The barbaric attacks led some lawmakers to propose doing away with basic protections that make up the American system of individual freedom. However, we cannot suspend, delay, ignore, or overlook the constitutional rights of people arrested and tried in our country,” Smith said.“Nothing is more essential. We must do everything possible to ensure that our civil liberties are protected. It would be wrong to allow our federal government to target individuals in a criminal justice system that no longer has the traditional constitutional checks and balances, the normal and necessary legal safeguards that have continuously developed since July 4, 1776.” So What Should Lawyers Do? Russell says that he has a “great deal of confidence that our federal courts will filter this out.”And throughout Florida, he said, “I can tell you that so far in my communications and in my speeches to members of the judiciary around the state, they have been quite receptive when I say to them: ‘You are guardians of the Constitution. And nothing justifies throwing away those principles.’”To all the lawyers who appear before those judges: “What I see Florida’s lawyers doing is not being afraid to challenge this when it affects their clients. That’s where the system works,” Russell said.“It’s ultimately going to come down to some lawyer who is going to have some client who is affected by this. And you have to be prepared and have the courage to take it into the court system and challenge it.“I hope the court system will react appropriately and constitutionally to this challenge. Case by case, I am quite confident that our legal system will handle this in a constitutional way.”As Smith put it: “The balance we must strike is difficult. We are treading on new ground. But we must not sacrifice the rights of any person regardless of race, financial status, color, creed, religion, and gender — not at this time, not ever. This is a charge that must be met under law, and leadership in that effort must come from lawyers.” Guarding liberties while fighting terrorismlast_img read more

Equifax made major errors that led to hack, Smith concedes

first_img continue reading » Equifax Inc.’s former chief executive officer said the credit-reporting company didn’t meet its responsibility to protect sensitive consumer information, confirming that the failure to fix a software vulnerability months ago led to the theft of more than 140 million Americans’ personal data.Richard Smith apologized for the breach and outlined a chronology of key events in testimony prepared for House Energy and Commerce Committee hearing set for Tuesday, according to a copy obtained by Bloomberg. He blamed human errors, particularly the failure to repair the problematic software despite warnings from the federal government and the company’s own security team.“To each and every person affected by this breach, I am deeply sorry that this occurred,” Smith said. “The company failed to prevent sensitive information from falling into the hands of wrongdoers.” 6SHARESShareShareSharePrintMailGooglePinterestDiggRedditStumbleuponDeliciousBufferTumblrlast_img read more

Top Birmingham agents plan new niche firm

first_imgTo access this article REGISTER NOWWould you like print copies, app and digital replica access too? SUBSCRIBE for as little as £5 per week. Would you like to read more?Register for free to finish this article.Sign up now for the following benefits:Four FREE articles of your choice per monthBreaking news, comment and analysis from industry experts as it happensChoose from our portfolio of email newsletterslast_img

Ara Parseghian

first_imgAra Parseghian passed away a couple weeks ago at the age of 94.  The Hall of Fame coach won two National Championships while coaching at Notre Dame.  Ara is one of the many coaches to receive his training at Miami University in Oxford, Ohio.He was at Notre Dame for 11 seasons.  Probably only Knute Rockne had more success than Ara while coaching at Notre Dame.  No matter how many wins Parseghian wound up with, he is most remembered as a great humanitarian.  Simply put, he was definitely one of the “good guys”.last_img

Brazil lifts fourth U-17 World Cup

first_imgRelatedPosts Global COVID-19 cases surpass 27m – Johns Hopkins Everton sign Brazil midfielder from Napoli Reinier completes Dortmund loan switch Host Brazil have won their fourth crown of the Under 17 FIFA World Cup, following a 2-1 win over Mexico in the final at Brasilia’s Estadio Bezerrao.The Brazilians have now moved within one title of equalling record holders, Nigeria, though this was their first since 2003.It also may have been the sweetest, given that the South Americans became only the second team to top the competition as hosts – the first, interestingly enough, was Mexico eight years ago.For the second straight match, Lazaro was Brazil’s super sub.On Thursday, he capped his side’s comeback against France in the semi-final by bagging the winning goal in the 89th minute.On Sunday, the No 20 left it even later.Brazil fell behind in the 66th minute when Bryan Gonzalez beat adidas Golden Glove winner Matheus Donelli with a superbly-directed header.A Kaio Jorge penalty goal brought Brazil roaring back 18 minutes later, and Lazaro’s volleyed, close-range strike three minutes into second-half stoppage time sealed the trophy for the hosts.In the third-place match, France rode Arnaud Kalimuendo-Muinga’s hat-trick to victory over European rivals, Netherlands.Both teams benefitted from the reintroduction of their captains, who missed their respective semi-finals.Oranje field general Kenneth Taylor assisted the opening goal of the match, flicking a pass over the French defence to play Mohamed Taabouni in on goal.France captain Lucien Agoume countered with an incisive through ball seven minutes later, which eventually led to Kalimuendo-Muinga’s first goal.The Paris Saint-Germain starlet scored two more in the second period en route to Les Bleuets’ bronze medal finish.Tags: BrazilU-17 World Cuplast_img read more

Hughes sorry now

first_imgStoke boss Mark Hughes was left to curse “a shin pad’s width” after a tight offside call against Stephen Ireland denied the Potters victory at Hull. “We looked like the team most likely to win the game in that period, we were really positive and had a number of clear-cut chances that, on another day, we would have converted. “In terms of restricting Hull to any period of concerted pressure or momentum I thought we did that really well as the away team. “I’m reasonably pleased with the away performance. “Last time on the road we didn’t have a great performance at Everton (a 4-0 defeat) but today it was important to build on the Chelsea result. “The continuity of performance is important for us and that’s one defeat in the last eight games for us. “We’re showing a good resilience to our play.” Hull manager Steve Bruce, Hughes’ former Manchester United team-mate, was excused post-match media duties due to a sickness bug, but captain Curtis Davies was on hand with his own assessment. The central defender did not attempt to paint the fixture as a classic of the genre but was pleased to make it just one defeat in eight matches at home. He has been an ever present as Hull have conceded just three goals in eight games at the KC – the best home record in the league – but admitted McGregor was key to their latest clean sheet. ‘It was a boring game for TV, a 0-0 on a bobbly, windy pitch, but it’s another point towards survival,” Davies told Sky Sports. ”I thought we were lucky to get a point in the end. Allan McGregor saved us, he made a couple of great saves. ”We were making mistakes in the second half and they were capitalising and creating chances. Neither team looked like creating chances without mistakes.” Replays suggested it was a correct call by the narrowest of margins, leaving Hughes to reflect on what might have been. The Welshman pondered whether his side might have been given the rub of the green in the officials’ mind but could not deny the verdict was the correct one. “It’s very marginal…Stephen said it was (offside) by a shin pad’s width and that’s probably a good description of it,” he said. “It maybe was slightly offside, but sometimes you get them. “You would like to think they’d give the benefit to the attacking team, the team who was trying to win the game, but having seen it on the video it was the correct decision.” The Potters, who lie just behind Hull in mid-table, had lost five of their previous seven away matches this term but came into the game on the back of a superb 3-2 home win over Chelsea. And Hughes was pleased to add another point to the tally and make it three games unbeaten. “I thought for the vast majority of the game we were in control, certainly the last third of the match,” he said. The game ended goalless at the KC Stadium after fine performances from both goalkeepers – Stoke’s Asmir Begovic was impenetrable in the first half and Allan McGregor produced an even better display after the interval. The only time the ball did cross the line, when Ireland tapped home from a yard after McGregor brilliantly denied Peter Crouch, the referee’s assistant raised his flag. Press Associationlast_img read more

Van Gaal nears decision on players

first_imgLouis van Gaal will sit down with his players after their tour and tell them whether they have a future at Manchester United. Van Gaal and his 25-man squad fly back to Manchester in the early hours of Tuesday morning following their final game of the US tour against Liverpool. Van Gaal has racked up morale-boosting wins over the Los Angeles Galaxy, Roma, Inter Milan and Real Madrid, but he is still unhappy with certain aspects of his squad. Van Gaal thinks Van Persie is unlikely to be fit to face Swansea on August 16, but the other two could be in contention for United’s Barclays Premier League opener, depending on how they react to training. “I have to look at Robin van Persie if he is coming back or not,” said Van Gaal, who coached the striker at the World Cup. “But if you have three weeks holiday and only four days training before the Valencia friendly (on August 12) you are not fit enough. “For the first game in the Premier League it’s possible but I don’t think so.” United’s money-spinning tour of the US started amid a blaze of publicity in Los Angeles, but two-and-a-half weeks later, their presence in the US is a lot more low-key. Only a couple of hundred invited guests turned up at the Sun Life Stadium to watch United’s final training session in America. The session was more of a warm-down as they only played Real Madrid on Saturday night. On the eve of the match, Liverpool manager Brendan Rodgers said Van Gaal is facing a totally different challenge to any other he has faced in his long and successful career. Van Gaal, who has won titles in Spain, Holland and Germany, says he is up to the challenge. “That’s why I’m here,” he said. “Maybe he is right because I have to experience that but I was also in Spain and in my first year I won three titles, in Germany I won two titles. “If I win one here we will all be happy.” Van Gaal is expected to ring in the changes for the final in Miami, which kicks off at 1am BST on Tuesday. The winner takes home a prize of one million US dollars (£600,000). Javier Hernandez, Shinji Kagawa and Wilfried Zaha face uncertain futures after limited playing time in America while Marouane Fellaini and Anderson, who have not made the trip, could also be shown the door. Van Gaal wants to tell his players whether they have made the cut well before the transfer window closes so he will approach them individually and inform them of their fate when they get back to England. “I shall make judgements after the tour,” the United boss said. “I have let all the players play so I know now more than I did before. “But in football you have to judge. Always you have to give a chance to a player to make a transfer when you see that his perspective is not so high to play. “You have to say it in advance. When you say it on August 31st it’s too late. I shall say to the players what I think after the tour.” Van Gaal has sent coach Marcel Bout back to England to work with the likes of Robin van Persie, Adnan Januzaj, and Fellaini, who have been given time off following their exploits at the World Cup. “They (Van Persie, Fellaini and Januzaj) have already trained. I sent Marcel Bout back to train them, along with Nicky Butt,” Van Gaal said. Press Associationlast_img read more

Slaven Bilic brushes off Sam Allardyce criticism of Andy Carroll

first_img “We tried to explain to him that he needed to work for six weeks and have a pre-season, not to train for 10 days, roll up his sleeves and play the game,” he added. “He did his time and we should all benefit from that.” Carroll has shaken off the knock which kept him out of the 2-2 draw at Sunderland a fortnight ago and is fit to face Crystal Palace on Saturday. He could be joined in the squad by fellow forward Enner Valencia, who was injured during the Europa League tie against Astra Giurgiu in July, and defender Angelo Ogbonna following a hamstring injury. Slaven Bilic has brushed off Sam Allardyce’s criticism of Andy Carroll and claims the striker is totally focused on getting fit this season. In his autobiography, being serialised in The Sun, former West Ham boss Allardyce questioned Carroll’s dedication during his injury-hit spell at Upton Park. Current Hammers chief Bilic, who replaced Allardyce in the summer, admitted he was aware of Carroll’s reputation before taking over in east London. But Bilic insists the 26-year-old, who has made three appearances since finally overcoming a long-term ankle injury, has been a model professional this term. “I did not have to become West Ham manager to know about Andy Carroll,” said Bilic. “I heard about that before, that sometimes he got injured because he was not totally dedicated to being a footballer. “From my first day, he was injured. But the way he was working – in six to eight weeks of struggle that was boring and not ideal and not fun – he did it as a great professional and now we are expecting big benefits out of that. “Those stories are definite, there is something behind them, they are true. It is very rare that people are making up stories. “There is something there, but it looks much worse. I don’t want to comment on the stories. “He’s been out a few times, but his rehabilitation and training, especially in that period, was top class.” Bilic made Carroll undergo his own mini pre-season, rather than rush him back into the team, in a bid to avoid the frontman breaking down again. Press Associationlast_img read more