Blog de ArturoDiazF

North Carolina is no longer classified as a democracy

Britain’s Prince Charles Says Anti-Immigrant Populism Echoes Nazis

LONDON — The heir to Britain’s throne spoke out Thursday, saying the wave of anti-immigrant populism sweeping the world has “deeply disturbing echoes” of the Nazis’ persecution of Jews in the 1930s.

Prince Charles, the queen’s eldest son, said his parents’ generation “fought and died in a battle against intolerance, monstrous extremism and an inhuman attempt to exterminate the Jewish population of Europe.

“That nearly 70 years later we should still be seeing such evil persecution is to me beyond all belief,” he added. “We owe it to those who suffered and died so horribly not to repeat the horrors of the past.”

He made the comments as a guest contributor on “Thought for the Day,” a scripted monologue broadcast each morning during BBC Radio 4’s breakfast news show, “Today.”

The prince was urging listeners to be more compassionate about migrants and refugees. Some 65.3 million people across the world have been forced to leave their homes, according to the United Nations.

“We are now seeing the rise of many populist groups across the world that are increasingly aggressive to those who adhere to a minority faith,” Charles said. “All of this has deeply disturbing echoes of the dark days of the 1930s.”

Image: Prince Charles

Prince Charles gives a speech in London on December 14. REX/Shutterstock / Shutterstock

The prince did not cite any politician or party but his comments apparently refer to the wave of anti-immigrant populism linked to the victories of Donald Trump and Britain’s Brexit campaign.

These election wins have emboldened far-right groups across Europe, some of whom are now eyeing success in other elections. In England and Wales, incidents of religious or racist abuse rose 41 percent in the month after the Breixt vote in June, according to government figures.

Charles also linked the refugee crisis to Christianity and Islam.

“I wonder if this year we might remember how the story of the Nativity unfolds with the fleeing of the holy family to escape violent persecution,” he said. “And we might also remember that when the prophet Muhammad migrated from Mecca to Medina, he did so because he too was seeking the freedom for himself and his followers to worship.”

In: nbc 

Saudi Finance Minister: No income taxes for Saudi citizens and residents

Staff writer, Al Arabiya EnglishThursday, 22 December 2016

Speaking at a press conference in Riyadh on Thursday, Jadaan detailed the Saudi budget for 2017. (SPA)

Speaking at a press conference in Riyadh on Thursday, Jadaan detailed the Saudi budget for 2017. (SPA)

Saudi Finance Minister, Mohammad Jadaan, announced that – for the first time in the past 10 years – the kingdom had been able to spend less than the estimated budget, and achieve higher than expected non-oil revenues.

Speaking at a press conference in Riyadh on Thursday, Jadaan detailed the Saudi budget for 2017, and spoke of the government’s promise of transparency.

He also completely removed the need for income taxes on Saudi citizens and residents.

However, the new budget imposed new fees on expatriates – domestic help (drivers, maids, nannies) excluded – as follows:

2017

Monthly payment of 100 riyals on every person sponsored by any foreign employee.

The amount of revenues from this tax is estimated at 1 billion riyals.

2018

Monthly tax of 400 riyals on every employee in a company whose number of foreign employees exceed the number of Saudis.

300 riyals tax on every employee in a company whose number of foreign employees is less than the number of Saudis and 200 riyals on every person he sponsors.

The amount of revenues from this tax is estimated at 24 billion riyals.

2019

Monthly tax of 600 riyals on every employee in a company whose number of foreign employees exceed the number of Saudis.

500 riyals tax on every employee in a company whose number of foreign employees is less than the number of Saudis and 300 riyals on every person he sponsors.

The amount of revenues from this tax is estimated at 44 billion riyals.

2020

Monthly tax of 800 riyals on every employee in a company whose number of foreign employees exceed the number of Saudis

700 riyals tax on every employee in a company whose number of foreign employees is less than the number of Saudis and 400 riyals on every person he sponsors.

The amount of revenues from this tax is estimated at 65 billion riyals.

Last Update: Thursday, 22 December 2016 KSA 20:32 – GMT 17:32

In: alarabiya 

Lescano: “Una generación sin porno se va a dedicar más al deporte y al estudio”

El congresista de Acción Popular explicó a RPP Web todo sobre el proyecto de Ley para suspender el contenido pornográfico en internet.

De aprobarse este Proyecto de Ley solo forjará futuros expertos en ingeniería de sistemas, hackers y crackers improvisados en el Perú.

De aprobarse este Proyecto de Ley solo forjará futuros expertos en ingeniería de sistemas, hackers y crackers improvisados en el Perú.

Del Congreso de la República depende el destino de las páginas pornográficas en el Perú. El proyecto de Ley que presentó el legislador Yonhy Lescano (Acción Popular) busca limitar el contenido para adultos en las páginas para que ni chicos ni adultos puedan tener acceso a él

Aunque todavía no ha pasado a las comisiones congresales para que sea evaluado y votado, la iniciativa ya ha generado reacciones diversas en Facebook y Twitter. Que es decisión de cada uno, que corta las libertades. Los argumentos en contra son diversos. Lescano conversó con RPP Web sobre su proyecto y explicó el motivo que lo llevó a presentarlo.

“Una generación sin pornografía se va a dedicar más al deporte y al estudio. La pornografía produce adicción y distorsiona la conducta sexual de las personas, están estimulados (por lo que ven) y así van a violar a niños o mujeres”, dijo el legislador.

Los antecedentes. Tomó como ejemplo los casos de Corea del Sur y el Reino Unido. En el primer país, la restricción a este tipo de páginas es total, incluso Lescano comentó que en una visita pudo comprobar que esto se cumple estrictamente. Intentó ingresar a una de estas páginas y no tuvo éxito. “El sistema funciona muy bien allá”, dice.

En el segundo país las restricciones son parciales. Sin embargo el Congreso ha cerrado cada vez más el cerco a la industria en tema de contenidos y de inscripciones. Estos son los principales ejemplos del acciopopulista para crear el proyecto en el Perú.

“En otros países pasa, donde se ha impulsado la educación hay un mejor nivel educativo. Se ha prohibído estas páginas para evitar delitos sexuales y se ha conseguido, en Corea del Sur por ejemplo. Pensamos que esto es importante para evitar delitos sexuales”, dice.

Presentó el proyecto que creó con el apoyo de sus colegas de bancada que están de acuerdo con la medida. Sobre las voces críticas que aluden a una distorsión en las libertades, el legislador responde tajantemente: “La libertad debemos canalizarla adecuadamente. (El porno) La distorsiona, tiene más efectos negativos. ¿Qué cosa que tenga que ver con el interés público tiene la pornografía?, ¿Qué libertad se corta?, absolutamente nada”, comenta con voz enérgica.

¿Recorte de libertades?

No hay comparación entre la internet y el contenido televisivo, al menos en este caso para Lescano. “La pornografía es pornografía, no se puede comparar con los contenidos televisivos. En otros países los chicos tienen primer nivel porque no los envenenan con estos contenidos. Somos muy permisivos en aras de la llamada libertad, yo creo que es una distorsión de la libertad”.

Ahora la pelota rodará en el campo de las comisiones de Educación y Transporte, donde será probablemente discutido este proyecto, informó a RPP Web el congresista. Si es aprobado, irá al Pleno donde deberá ser refrendado por la mayoría. Entonces la realidad de un país sin pornografía sería realidad.

El siguiente paso sería ordenar a las empresas de comunicaciones a que bloqueen los contenidos. Y luego, la reglamentación para que los infractores cumplan una pena y para que no se le saque la vuelta a la ley. “Las empresas tienen que cumplir las medidas. Veo como padre y político que esto (el contenido porno) no nos trae nada bueno, hay que preguntarle a los papás y las mamás si están de acuerdo”, aseguró.

El congresista sabe que se acercan días de intenso debate, el mismo que ya empezó en las redes y que continuará por varios días más.

En: rpp

Proyecto de Ley aquí: PL-00825-2016-1221

Proyecto de Ley en página del Congreso de la República del Perú

South Carolina lawmakers propose pornography block on new computers

State Rep. Bill Chumley, R-Spartanburg, said the Human Trafficking Prevention Act would require manufacturers or sellers to install digital blocking capabilities on computers and other devices that access the internet to prevent the viewing of obscene content.

Representative William M. "Bill" Chumley. In: www.scstatehouse.gov

Bill sponsor: Representative William M. “Bill” Chumley. In: www.scstatehouse.gov

By Brendan O’Brien

Computers and devices sold in South Carolina that can access the internet would be required to have filters installed to prevent people from viewing pornography, although buyers could pay a $20 fee to remove the blocking software under a proposal before the legislature.

The amendment would require manufacturers or sellers of computers and internet-accessible devices to install software that blocks pornography, according to a draft of the amendment filed with the South Carolina General Assembly on Dec. 15.

One of its sponsors said on Tuesday the amendment would help raise money for the state’s task force to combat human trafficking, adding that the measure would not restrict their legal liberties, indicating it would allow for viewing adult pornography.

“This is a way to preserve freedom, not raise taxes and combat a serious problem all in one,” State Representative William “Bill” Chumley, a Republican, said in an interview.

Buyers over 18 in South Carolina would have to pay a $20 fee to have the block removed. Manufacturers or sellers would pay a $20 opt-out fee for each computer or device sold so they didn’t have to install the blocking software, according to the proposed measure.

The amendment did not address any technology challenges or whether the filter would be a barrier to interstate commerce for technology firms that sell their devices nationwide.

There was no timetable for debate and a possible vote. Chumley has told local media that he sees the amendment as a starting point for debate and that the proposal he co-sponsored may be adjusted.

The amendment corresponds with the Republican Party’s national platform that calls for states to get tough on pornography, adding that the internet has become a safe haven for predators.

“Pornography, with its harmful effects, especially on children, has become a public health crisis that is destroying the lives of millions,” the GOP said in its platform. “We urge energetic prosecution of child pornography, which is closely linked to human trafficking.”

In April, a Republican-backed resolution in Utah declared pornography a public health hazard and an epidemic that normalizes violence against women and children and makes men less likely to want to get married.

(Reporting by Brendan O’Brien in Milwaukee; Additional reporting by Jon Herskovitz in Austin, Texas; Editing by Jeffrey Benkoe)

In: reuters 

See: South Carolina statehouse profile – Representative William M. “Bill” Chumley 

Turquía y la OTAN: una relación complicada

La OTAN poca influencia tiene sobre Turquía luego del intento de golpe de Estado en ese país. Puede advertir al Gobierno de Ankara, pero no sancionarlo.

default

 

¿Pueden pertenecer a la OTAN solo países democráticos?

En el preámbulo del Tratado de la OTAN se hace referencia a valores democráticos. Pero durante la Guerra Fría, la OTAN no lo tomó muy al pie de la letra. En 1949, cuando fue creada la OTAN, pasó a formar parte de la alianza también Portugal, en ese momento gobernado por un dictador. En la historia de la OTAN, los miembros Turquía y Grecia fueron gobernados temporalmente por dictaduras militares.

Alemania amenaza con retirar tropas de Turquía

Desde el fin de la Guerra Fría, en los años 1990, la comunidad de valores de la OTAN es permanentemente subrayada. Sobre todo los nuevos miembros deben ser países democráticos. Pero el compromiso político de la OTAN es mucho menor que el de la Unión Europea. Turquía y Grecia, ambos miembros de la OTAN, se recelan mutuamente por el conflicto de Chipre. EE. UU. decretó un embargo de armas contra Turquía luego que esta ocupara el norte de Chipre, en 1975.

¿Cuán importante es Turquía en la OTAN?

EE. UU. tiene en Incirlik, cerca de la ciudad de Adana, una base aérea con unos 2.000 efectivos. Desde allí salen aviones para bombardear posiciones del EI en Siria e Irak. Incirlik también desempeñó un importante papel para las guerras en el Golfo Pérsico y Afganistán. En Incirlik también están estacionados 250 soldados de la Bundeswehr con aviones de reconocimiento Tornado y un avión de reabastecimiento.

Se estima que en total hay en Turquía 20 bases usadas por efectivos de la OTAN. Las Fuerzas Armadas de Turquía son las segundas mayores en la OTAN, después de las de EE. UU. Turquía participó hasta ahora en todas las operaciones de la OTAN en Afganistán, los Balcanes, Siria y Libia. Además, la OTAN acaba de instalar en Turquía radares para un sistema antimisiles.

Expertos militares dicen que Turquía es geopolíticamente muy importante en el flanco sudeste de la OTAN, que linda con el Próximo Oriente y el Mar Negro. El general alemán (retirado) Harald Kujat, exjefe de la Comisión Militar de la OTAN, observa que eso no debe ser sobrevalorado. Turquía siempre fue un aliado en el que no puede confiarse en un cien por cien, agrega. Como ejemplo pone que el papel de Turquía en la lucha contra el EI fue al principio más bien dudoso“.

¿Puede la OTAN excluir a Turquía?

El Tratado de la OTAN no prevé ni la expulsión, ni castigos ni exclusiones. Solo el propio país puede decidir si lo abandona o no. Las instituciones de la OTAN, en Bruselas, pueden ejercer a lo sumo presión política sobre Turquía, para que el Gobierno se guíe por principios democráticos y no abuse del actual estado de excepción.

En: DW

Executive Order — Revocation of Executive Orders 13574, 13590, 13622, and 13645 with Respect to Iran, Amendment of Executive Order 13628 with Respect to Iran, and Provision of Implementation Authorities for Aspects of Certain Statutory Sanctions

Executive Order — Revocation of Executive Orders 13574, 13590, 13622, and 13645 with Respect to Iran, Amendment of Executive Order 13628 with Respect to Iran, and Provision of Implementation Authorities for Aspects of Certain Statutory Sanctions

EXECUTIVE ORDER

– – – – – – –

REVOCATION OF EXECUTIVE ORDERS 13574, 13590, 13622, AND 13645 WITH RESPECT TO IRAN, AMENDMENT OF EXECUTIVE ORDER 13628 WITH RESPECT TO IRAN, AND PROVISION OF IMPLEMENTATION AUTHORITIES FOR ASPECTS OF CERTAIN STATUTORY SANCTIONS OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF U.S. COMMITMENTS UNDER THE JOINT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OF ACTION OF JULY 14, 2015

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) (IEEPA), the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.) (NEA), the Iran Sanctions Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-172) (50 U.S.C. 1701 note), the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act of 2010 (Public Law 111-195) (22 U.S.C. 8501 et seq.), the Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act of 2012 (Public Law 112-158), the Iran Freedom and Counter-Proliferation Act of 2012 (subtitle D of title XII of Public Law 112-239) (22 U.S.C. 8801 et seq.) (IFCA), section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (8 U.S.C. 1182(f)), and section 301 of title 3, United States Code,

I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, have determined that Iran’s implementation of the nuclear related measures specified in sections 15.1-15.11 of Annex V of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action of July 14, 2015 (JCPOA) between the P5+1 (China, France, Germany, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom, and the United States), the European Union, and Iran, as verified by the International Atomic Energy Agency, marks a fundamental shift in circumstances with respect to Iran’s nuclear program. In order to give effect to the United States commitments with respect to sanctions described in section 4 of Annex II and section 17.4 of Annex V of the JCPOA, I am revoking Executive Orders 13574 of May 23, 2011, 13590 of November 20, 2011, 13622 of July 30, 2012, and 13645 of June 3, 2013, and amending Executive Order 13628 of October 9, 2012, by revoking sections 5 through 7 and section 15. In addition, in section 3 of this order, I am taking steps with respect to the national emergency declared in Executive Order 12957 of March 15, 1995, to provide implementation authorities for aspects of certain statutory sanctions that are outside the scope of the U.S. commitment to lift nuclear-related sanctions under the JCPOA.

This action is not intended to, and does not, limit the applicability of waiver determinations or any renewals thereof issued by the Secretary of State, or licenses issued by the Secretary of the Treasury, to give effect to sanctions commitments described in sections 17.1-17.3 and 17.5 of Annex V of the JCPOA, or otherwise affect the national emergency declared in Executive Order 12957, which shall remain in place, or any Executive Order issued in furtherance of that national emergency other than Executive Orders 13574, 13590, 13622, 13628, and 13645.

I hereby order:

Section 1.  Revocation of Executive Orders.  The following Executive Orders are revoked:

(a)  Executive Order 13574 of May 23, 2011 (Authorizing the Implementation of Certain Sanctions Set Forth in the Iran Sanctions Act of 1996, as Amended);

(b)  Executive Order 13590 of November 20, 2011 (Authorizing the Imposition of Certain Sanctions With Respect to the Provision of Goods, Services, Technology, or Support for Iran’s Energy and Petrochemical Sectors);

(c)  Executive Order 13622 of July 30, 2012 (Authorizing Additional Sanctions With Respect to Iran); and

(d)  Executive Order 13645 of June 3, 2013 (Authorizing the Implementation of Certain Sanctions Set Forth in the Iran Freedom and Counter-Proliferation Act of 2012 and Additional Sanctions With Respect To Iran).

Sec. 2.  Amendment of Executive OrderExecutive Order 13628 of October 9, 2012 (Authorizing the Implementation of Certain Sanctions Set Forth in the Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act of 2012 and Additional Sanctions with Respect to Iran), is amended by:

(a)  Revoking current sections 5 through 7 and 15;

(b)  Revising current section 4 by removing “section 5 of Executive Order 13622 of July 30, 2012,” in subsection (a), replacing “section 12” with “section 9” in subsection (a), and replacing “section 12” with “section 9” in subsection (b);

(c)  Revising current section 8 by inserting “and” between “2(a),” and “3(a)” and removing “, and 7(a)(iv)”;

(d)  Revising current section 9 by inserting “and” between “2(a),” and “3(a)” and removing “, and 7(a)(iv)”;

(e)  Revising current section 14 by inserting “and” between “2(a),” and “3(a)” and removing “, and 7(a)(iv)”;

(f)  Renumbering current sections 8 through 14 as sections 5 through 11, respectively; and

(g)  Renumbering current sections 16 through 19 as sections 12 through 15, respectively.

Sec. 3.  Provision of Implementation Authorities for Sanctions Outside the Scope of the JCPOA.

(a)(i)  The Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State, is hereby authorized to impose on a person the measures described in subsection (a)(ii) of this section upon determining, pursuant to authority delegated by the President and in accordance with the terms of such delegation, that sanctions shall be imposed on such person pursuant to section 1244(c)(1)(A) of IFCA for knowingly providing significant financial, material, technological, or other support to, or goods or services in support of any activity or transaction on behalf of or for the benefit of persons described in section 1244(c)(2)(C)(iii) of IFCA.

(ii)    With respect to any person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury in accordance with this subsection to meet the criteria set forth in subsection (a)(i) of this section, all property and interests in property that are in the United States, that hereafter come within the United States, or that are or hereafter come within the possession or control of any United States person (including any foreign branch) of such person are blocked and may not be transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in.

(iii)   The prohibitions in subsection (a)(ii) of this section apply except to the extent provided by statutes, or in regulations, orders, directives, or licenses that may be issued pursuant to this order, and notwithstanding any contract entered into or any license or permit granted prior to the date of this order.

(b)(i)  When the Secretary of State or the Secretary of the Treasury, pursuant to authority delegated by the President and in accordance with the terms of such delegation, has determined that sanctions shall be imposed on a person pursuant to sections 1244(d)(1)(A), 1245(a)(1), or 1246(a)(1) of IFCA (including in each case as informed by section 1253(c)(2) of IFCA) for engaging in transactions or activities outside the scope of the waiver determinations as to IFCA issued by the Secretary of State to give effect to sanctions commitments described in sections 17.1-17.3 and 17.5 of Annex V of the JCPOA, and any renewals thereof, such Secretary may select one or more of the sanctions set forth below to impose on that person, and the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State, shall take the following actions where necessary to implement the sanctions selected and maintained by the Secretary of State or the Secretary of the Treasury:

(A)  prohibit any United States financial institution from making loans or providing credits to the sanctioned person totaling more than $10,000,000 in any 12-month period, unless such person is engaged in activities to relieve human suffering and the loans or credits are provided for such activities;

(B)  prohibit any transactions in foreign exchange that are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and in which the sanctioned person has any interest;

(C)  prohibit any transfers of credit or payments between financial institutions or by, through, or to any financial institution, to the extent that such transfers or payments are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and involve any interest of the sanctioned person;

(D)  block all property and interests in property that are in the United States, that hereafter come within the United States, or that are or hereafter come within the possession or control of any United States person (including any foreign branch) of the sanctioned person, and provide that such property and interests in property may not be transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in;

(E)  prohibit any United States person from investing in or purchasing significant amounts of equity or debt instruments of a sanctioned person;

(F)  restrict or prohibit imports of goods, technology, or services, directly or indirectly, into the United States from the sanctioned person; or

(G)  impose on the principal executive officer or officers, or persons performing similar functions and with similar authorities, of a sanctioned person the sanctions described in subsections (b)(i)(A)-(F) of this section, as selected by the Secretary of State or the Secretary of the Treasury, as appropriate.

(ii)    The prohibitions in subsection (b)(i) of this section apply except to the extent provided by statutes, or in regulations, orders, directives, or licenses that may be issued pursuant to this order, and notwithstanding any contract entered into or any license or permit granted prior to the date of this order.

(c)(i)  All property and interests in property that are in the United States, that hereafter come within the United States, or that are or hereafter come within the possession or control of any United States person (including any foreign branch) of the following persons are blocked and may not be transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in:  any person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with or at the recommendation of the Secretary of State:

(A)  to have engaged, on or after January 2, 2013, in corruption or other activities relating to the diversion of goods, including agricultural commodities, food, medicine, and medical devices, intended for the people of Iran;

(B)  to have engaged, on or after January 2, 2013, in corruption or other activities relating to the misappropriation of proceeds from the sale or resale of goods described in subsection (c)(i)(A) of this section;

(C)  to have materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support for, or goods or services to or in support of, the activities described in subsection (c)(i)(A) or (c)(i)(B) of this section or any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to subsection (c)(i) of this section; or

(D)  to be owned or controlled by, or to have acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to subsection (c)(i) of this section.

(ii)    The prohibitions in subsection (c)(i) of this section apply except to the extent provided by statutes, or in regulations, orders, directives, or licenses that may be issued pursuant to this order, and notwithstanding any contract entered into or any license or permit granted prior to the date of this order.

Sec. 4.  Donations.  I hereby determine that, to the extent section 203(b)(2) of IEEPA (50 U.S.C. 1702(b)(2)) may apply, the making of donations of the types of articles specified in such section by, to, or for the benefit of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order would seriously impair my ability to deal with the national emergency declared in Executive Order 12957, and I hereby prohibit such donations as provided by subsections 3(a)(ii), 3(b)(i)(D), and 3(c)(i) of this order.

Sec. 5.  ProhibitionsThe prohibitions in subsections 3(a)(ii), 3(b)(i)(D), and 3(c)(i) of this order include but are not limited to:

(a)  the making of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services by, to, or for the benefit of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order; and

(b)  the receipt of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services from any such person.

Sec. 6.  Entry into the United StatesI hereby find that the unrestricted immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the United States of aliens who are determined to meet one or more of the criteria in subsections 3(a)(i) and 3(c)(i) of this order would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and I hereby suspend the entry into the United States, as immigrants or nonimmigrants, of such persons as of the date of this order.  Such persons shall be treated as persons covered by section 1 of Proclamation 8693 of July 24, 2011 (Suspension of Entry of Aliens Subject to United Nations Security Council Travel Bans and International Emergency Economic Powers Act Sanctions).

Sec. 7.  General AuthoritiesThe Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State, is hereby authorized to take such actions, including the promulgation of rules and regulations, and to employ all powers granted to the President by IEEPA as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this order, other than the purposes described in section 6 of this order.  The Secretary of the Treasury may redelegate any of these functions to other officers and agencies of the United States Government consistent with applicable law.

Sec. 8.  Evasion and Conspiracy(a)  Any transaction that evades or avoids, has the purpose of evading or avoiding, causes a violation of, or attempts to violate any of the prohibitions set forth in this order is prohibited.

(b)  Any conspiracy formed to violate any of the prohibitions set forth in this order is prohibited.

Sec. 9.  Definitions.  For the purposes of this order:

(a)  the term “entity” means a partnership, association, trust, joint venture, corporation, group, subgroup, or other organization;

(b)  the term “financial institution,” as used in subsection 3(b) of this order, includes:

(i)    a depository institution (as defined in section 3(c)(1) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act) (12 U.S.C. 1813(c)(1)), including a branch or agency of a foreign bank (as defined in section 1(b)(7) of the International Banking Act of 1978) (12 U.S.C. 3101(7));

(ii)   a credit union;

(iii)  a securities firm, including a broker or dealer;

(iv)   an insurance company, including an agency or underwriter; and

(v)    any other company that provides financial services;

(c)  the term “Government of Iran” includes the Government of Iran, any political subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof, including the Central Bank of Iran, and any person owned or controlled by, or acting for or on behalf of, the Government of Iran;

(d)  the term “Iran” means the Government of Iran and the territory of Iran and any other territory or marine area, including the exclusive economic zone and continental shelf, over which the Government of Iran claims sovereignty, sovereign rights, or jurisdiction, provided that the Government of Iran exercises partial or total de facto control over the area or derives a benefit from economic activity in the area pursuant to international arrangements;

(e)  the term “person” means an individual or entity;

(f)  the term “sanctioned person” means a person that the Secretary of State or the Secretary of the Treasury, pursuant to authority delegated by the President and in accordance with the terms of such delegation, has determined is a person on whom sanctions shall be imposed pursuant to section 1244(d)(1)(A), 1245(a)(1), or 1246(a)(1) of IFCA (including in each case as informed by section 1253(c)(2) of IFCA) for engaging in transactions or activities outside the scope of the waiver determinations as to IFCA issued by the Secretary of State to give effect to sanctions commitments described in sections 17.1‑17.3 and 17.5 of Annex V of the JCPOA, and any renewals thereof, and on whom the Secretary of State or the Secretary of the Treasury has imposed any of the sanctions in subsection 3(b) of this order;

g)  the term “United States financial institution” means a financial institution as defined in subsection (b) of this section (including its foreign branches) organized under the laws of the United States or any jurisdiction within the United States or located in the United States; and

(h)  the term “United States person” means any United States citizen, permanent resident alien, entity organized under the laws of the United States or any jurisdiction within the United States (including foreign branches), or any person in the United States.

Sec. 10.  NoticeFor those persons whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order who might have a constitutional presence in the United States, I find that because of the ability to transfer funds or other assets instantaneously, prior notice to such persons of measures to be taken pursuant to this order would render those measures ineffectual.  I therefore determine that for these measures to be effective in addressing the national emergency declared in Executive Order 12957, there need be no prior notice of an action taken pursuant to subsection 3(a)(ii), 3(b)(i)(D), or 3(c)(i) of this order.

Sec. 11.  Direction to AgenciesAll agencies of the United States Government are hereby directed to take all appropriate measures within their authority to carry out the provisions of this order.

Sec. 12.  Rights.  This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

Sec. 13.  Effect on Actions or ProceedingsPursuant to section 202 of the NEA (50 U.S.C. 1622), the revocation of Executive Orders 13574, 13590, 13622, and 13645 and the amendments to Executive Order 13628 as set forth in sections 1 and 2 of this order, shall not affect any action taken or proceeding pending not finally concluded or determined as of the date of this order, or any action or proceeding based on any act committed prior to the date of this order, or any rights or duties that matured or penalties that were incurred prior to the date of this order.

Sec. 14.  Relationship to Algiers AccordsThe measures taken pursuant to this order are in response to actions of the Government of Iran occurring after the conclusion of the 1981 Algiers Accords, and are intended solely as a response to those later actions.

 

BARACK OBAMA

THE WHITE HOUSE,

January 16, 2016.

In: whitehouse.gov

La justicia francesa declara culpable de “negligencia” a Lagarde pero la exime de pena

EFE. 19.12.2016 – 15:35h

La directora-gerente del Fondo Monetario Internacional (FMI), Christine Lagarde, ha sido hallada este lunes culpable de “negligencia” en el ejercicio de sus funciones cuando era ministra francesa de Economía por el Tribunal de Justicia de la República, aunque ha sido dispensada de cumplir pena.

Lagarde se enfrentaba a la posibilidad de ser condenada a un año de prisión y a una multa de 15.000 euros, aunque el fiscal había solicitado su absolución. Lagarde no asistió a la lectura del veredicto en París y, según sus abogados, se halla en Washington, sede del organismo que dirige desde 2011.

Por su parte el FMI anunció tras conocer la noticia una reunión de su Directorio Ejecutivo para “analizar los acontecimientos más recientes”. “El Directorio Ejecutivo se ha reunido en ocasiones anteriores para considerar los acontecimientos relacionados con el proceso judicial de Francia”, recordó en un escueto comunicado el director de comunicaciones del FMI, Gerry Rice, quien agregó que “se prevé” que este órgano “volverá a reunirse próximamente para analizar los acontecimientos más recientes”.

La inesperada condena de Lagarde abre las dudas sobre su continuidad al frente de la institución multilateral. Los tres magistrados y 12 parlamentarios que componen la corte consideraron que Lagarde debió recurrir la atribución de una multimillonaria indemnización al empresario Bernard Tapie en 2008 y que fue “negligente” no hacerlo.

La entonces ministra de Economía y Finanzas había decidido que fuera un arbitraje privado quien decidiera esa indemnización por la venta de la marca deportiva Adidas, que había sido previamente confiscada por la justicia francesa. Los tres árbitros decidieron que el erario público desembolsara más de 400 millones de euros, 45 millones de ellos en concepto de daño moral a Tapie.

La condena no figurará entre sus antecedentes

La sentencia del Tribunal de Justicia de la República, una instancia especial para juzgar a ministros y exministros por delitos cometidos en el ejercicio de sus funciones, encuentra negligente que Lagarde se negara a recurrir esa indemnización “para evitar consecuencias tan nefastas” para las arcas del Estado.

Según el veredicto, Lagarde no escuchó a los miembros de sus servicios que le aconsejaban apelar, lo que habría dejado al Estado en una situación más favorable para negociar con Tapie la indemnización.

Sin embargo, a la luz de la “personalidad” y la “reputación internacional” de Lagarde, los jueces decidieron no imponerle ninguna pena y que la condena no figure en su ficha de antecedentes judiciales, pese a que el delito que le imputaban puede ser condenado hasta con un año de prisión exento de cumplimiento y 15.000 euros de multa.

A eso se aferró su abogado, Patrick Maisonneuve, quien señaló en declaraciones a la prensa que el tribunal no le ha impuesto pena alguna a su clienta. El letrado agregó además que estudiarán la posibilidad de recurrir la sentencia ante el Tribunal Supremo.

Lagarde fue ratificada al frente del FMI este mismo año para prolongar su mandato en el período 2016-2021, después de que no se presentasen rivales en el proceso de selección y por contar con el respaldo de la mayoría de los miembros de la institución, lo que preveía una nueva etapa de estabilidad en el organismo.

Con la condena en Francia, el caso de Lagarde se aproxima al de los anteriores directores gerentes del organismo, Rodrigo Rato (2004-2007) y Dominique Strauss-Kahn (2007-2011), que tuvieron que dejar el cargo antes de cumplir los cinco años preceptivos.

En: 20minutos.es

1 2 3