US President Donald Trump has heard arguments in the Supreme Court on whether he should be allowed to keep his financial records secret. This court case represents the biggest challenge to the US President’s powers since President Richard Nixon was forced to comply with a court’s subpoena for tape recordings made during the Watergate scandal in 1974, and then again in 1997 when the Supreme Court unanimously decided that a sexual harassment lawsuit against Bill Clinton should proceed.

Trump Has Refused to Release His Tax Records

Throughout his presidency so far, Trump has refused to distribute records that could reveal his family fortunes and the work of his family company.

A ruling is expected within weeks. This issue is significant because Trump is the first US President who has refused to release his tax returns. However, by not doing so the Biden campaign could use them against the President in November.

Should the President be Granted Immunity?

The President’s lawyers have repeatedly tried to block the subpoenas, which are orders to hand over evidence. They argue that Congress had no authority to issue the subpoenas. His lawyers also believe that he should be granted immunity because of his executive position as President.

Lower courts in Washington and New York ruled against Trump in all cases, yet those decisions have been put on hold pending a final court ruling.

Two House of Representatives committees have demanded financial transcripts from two banks that did deals with Trump- Deutsche Bank and Capital One. They also want to see records of his dealings with Mazars, the President’s accountants.

The payments made by Michael Cohen to former Playboy model Karen McDougal and adult film star Stormy Daniels are also being investigated.

This Whole Issue Concerns the Balance of Power

This whole issue raises concerns over the balance of power between the executive and legislative branches in the US, with conservative judges keen to protect the executive branch while liberal judges intend to rein him in. Even though conservative judges make up the majority on the Supreme Court, he should not count on their support as all the judges Nixon and Clinton appointed voted against them.

Trump lawyer William S. Consovoy argued that the Supreme Court has been restricted from conducting investigations into private citizens in the past. In the 1880 case Kilbourn v. Thompson, the Supreme Court blocked the House’s request for records concerning a private real-estate transaction in D.C. because the case was a judicial matter, not a legislative one. During the 1957 case Watkins v. the United States, the justices ruled against the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) when it tried to force a labor organizer to name former Communist Party members.

Trump Must Release His Tax Returns

But as the New Republic’s Matt Ford argues, Trump is not a private citizen anymore. Congress’s request is directed at the Treasury and the IRS, not him personally. For the sake of honesty and transparency, and to avoid being scrutinized on this issue in November, the President should release his tax returns to the House. This is because the House would be able to evaluate the information and they would not have to release his returns to the public, even though people deserve to know about them.

This is not an attempt to harass Trump by his political opponents, but rather an opportunity to ensure that the President is obeying the law. For example, in 2017 Trump reported that his Irish golf business had revenues of $14 million, while a separate report to Irish regulators discovered that the business lost about $2 million.

The returns could also shed some light on Trump’s $400 million spending spree on real-estate during the 2000s. It remains unclear how he obtained that money and why he decided to spend it.

The President is not above the law and if the Supreme Court rules in favor of requesting to see his tax returns, he must release them.

L'articolo Has the Time Come for Trump to Release His Tax Returns? proviene da InsideOver.

Global governments’ transparency and quick responds have been put to the test when it comes to responding to the new Coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak that has infected more than 50 countries and claimed more than 3,000 lives globally so far.

Indonesia’s Response to Coronavirus

Indonesia’s lawmakers and press professionals have urged the government to be transparent in providing information on the outbreak following the country’s first confirmed cases announced in Depok, West Java, on Monday, March 2.

A mother and her daughter tested positive for COVID-19 after having contact with their Japanese friend who was from Malaysia. Both were then admitted to Sulianti Saroso Infectious Hospital (RSPI) in North Jakarta, and are now recovering after undergoing intensive treatment in the hospital’s isolation room.

Indonesia’s Ministry of Health Terawan Agus Putranto denied allegations that the government had hidden facts about the infection. Previously, Indonesia claimed that there had been zero cases of COVID-19 infection, raising fears that the illness went undetected.

“If we are not transparent, it is impossible for me to deal with any situation. How can my face show that I am not transparent?,” the radiologist told journalists, adding that skeptics can visit the Sebaru Island where numerous Indonesian crew members of a Diamond Princess cruise are being quarantined.

Singapore’s Transparency in Treating COVID-19

Singapore prioritizes transparency in combating the COVID-19 illness that as infected more than 100 so far in the tiny country, with no fatalities have been recorded as of Wednesday, March 4. Every day the government updates the real-time information on the number of infected people, their condition, how those patients had contacts with either affected people or places. However, the authority respects the privacy of the infected people by not exposing their identities.

The country confirmed its first COVID-19 case on January 23. Two weeks later, the government raised the risk level from yellow to orange.

Singapore’s solid cooperation with related international institutions such as the World Health Organization (WHO) and other countries also helps to tackle the uncertain situation. Furthermore, Singapore has distributed test kits to identify three different types of viruses.

The WHO praises Singapore for discovering every new case, following up with contacts and halting transmissions quickly. Harvard University also recognizes Singapore’s high standard for the detection of COVID-19-related infection.

Governments Should Be Cautious Before Releasing Statements

Governments remain cautious before announcing new cases as they do not want to spread misleading information. In Indonesia’s case, Depok Administration decided not to hurriedly reveal the case until it was confirmed by the country’s Health Ministry and announced by President Joko Widodo.

“I have yet to receive the information directly, I just got from Whatsapp, I need to confirm first whether the news is accurate or not,” said Depok Administration Secretary Hardiono when asked the numbers of infected people in the area as VIVA wrote.

Indonesia ‘s Health Ministry has set up a hotline for COVID-19-related infection. The Jakarta administration has followed suit, as local publications wrote. However, as of Wednesday evening (March 4), Insideover could not reach both hotline numbers run by the ministry.

China’s Coronavirus Infection Count is Declining

Besides transparency, governments’ swift action to handle the outbreak plays a significant factor in reducing the number of fatalities. In the Chinese city of Wuhan, where the epidemic started, around 2,570 people have recovered so far,as Xinhua reported.

As of Tuesday, March 3, the number of new COVID-19 illness reached 202 as Beijing recorded, the lowest since January 21 due to China’s government efforts to take preventive measures such as the government’s actions to build specialized hospitals to treat patients with severe infections.

Vietnam’s Response

Vietnam is one Asian country that has confirmed that all 16 COVID-19-infected patients have recovered, thanks to intensive meetings and coordination involving the country’s Ministry of Health and related institutions and request for check-ups.

Vietnam’s Contagious Disease Agency prepared questionnaires to determine who should undergo a thorough check-up, based on his or her body temperature, whether he of she had contacts with Chinese people, and so on.

Rafi Kot, an Israeli doctor who was involved in Vietnam’s effort to contain the outbreak said that medical staff could detect when people are telling lies because they are afraid of further diagnosis.

L'articolo Transparency and Prevention Are Key in Preventing Coronavirus proviene da InsideOver.

There is no doubt that Julian Assange’s release of thousands of secret diplomatic cables sent shock waves through the upper echelons of power that continue to be felt almost 10 years down the line. With great support from the international media, he transformed WikiLeaks from a nondescript website to an important journalistic tool that exposed hidden injustices.

His revelation of human right violations, war crimes, corruption and tax dodging behaviour of the elites, enabled citizens to hold leaders to account and interrogate abuse of power. Assange saw this as the only means through which oppressive and corrupt governments could be disabled.

Nigel Bowles and James Hamilton in their book Transparency in politics and the Media: Accountability and Open Government, noted that Assange, through WikiLeaks, encouraged and gave a strong moral support to the act of whistle-blowing.

To the mainstream journalism and human rights activists, Assange’s revelations were for the common good since they deepened public understanding of the governing process, and also exposed the underhand of the state in human rights violation.

But despite WikiLeaks being a key resource for those who were interested in fighting for societal change and justice, it appears all those who benefitted from the revelations have deserted Assange in his hour of need. His suffering is mainly being investigated and highlighted by independent medics, and not members of the fourth estate as one would have expected.

Very few newspapers talk about his plight, and rarely will you hear human rights activists raising their voices to champion for his release. Even the few stories about his suffering that are highlighted in the press, do not attract much attention from the audiences, making one to conclude that Assange is on his own.

Just last week more than 60 British doctors wrote an open letter to the British Home Secretary expressing fear that that the WikiLeaks’s founder’s health is so bad that he could die in prison. The doctors based their fear on harrowing account of those who saw Assange when he appeared in court on 21 Oct and a recent report by the United Nation special rapporteur who warned that “continued exposure to arbitrariness and abuse may soon end up costing his life.”

Assange has been under detention for the last eight months following his forceful eviction from the Ecuadorian Embassy where he had been holed up since 2012. But even before his removal from the Embassy, doctors had begun to question the status of his mental and medical health.

One American doctor who had been conducting several medical and mental checks on him inside the Ecuadorian since 2017, had noted his deteriorating condition and raised the alarm. In a letter to the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Michelle Bachelet and the Commissioner for Human for the European Council, said that prolonged and indefinite confinement had seriously affected Assange’s mental health.

“Mr Assange’s situation differs from a typical prisoner in a conventional prison, in fact his position is worse than a conventional prison in many respects. His confinement is indefinite and uncertain, which increases chronic stress and its myriad of chronic physical and serious psychological risks, including suicide. I believe the psychological, physical and social after-effects will be long-lasting and severe,” she wrote.

Two days after the letter was written, Assange was hounded out of the Ecuadorian Embassy and arrested by British police for jumping bail.

Belmarsh prison where Assange is currently being detained is a Category A prison which was once described as Britain’s Guantanamo Bay. It holds hardcore criminals and individuals considered to be of the greatest threat to the public, such as terrorists.

In 2007 the prison was under probe for its large number of suicide cases. A task force was immediately set up to identify and prevent causes of suicide after three inmates killed themselves within just one month.

Although conditions at Belmarsh are said to have improved, Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Prisons in his report covering 29 January to 9 February 2018, revealed that the conditions inside the prison “were claustrophobic, cramped and extremely uncomfortable,” adding that, “there is a failure to ensure adequate treatment of and/or conditions for prisoners.” Similar views had also been expressed by a journalist from The Independent who after being granted access to the prison wrote, “The area is desperately cramped and uncomfortably warm.”

Experts believe the situation inside the prison can affect psychological and mental health of an individual, leading to suicide, and according to Samaritans, prisoners are ten times more likely to commit suicide. From this, it is evident that Assange’s condition may become worse and needs a quick response.

But how easy is it for journalists or other interested parties to visit Assange in prison so that the state of his health can be fully understood? According to British Ministry of Justice, any request for “face to face visits from either the prisoner or journalist should be directed to the Governor by written application, explaining why the visit is necessary, its purposes and why it cannot be satisfied by other means.

Approval of a visit request by a journalist will normally be granted where the prisoner can confirm that the matter in question relates to an alleged miscarriage of justice and that the sole purpose of the visit is to allow him/her the opportunity to highlight an alleged miscarriage of justice in his/her own case” Assange’s case has good grounds to meet this criteria as he is still being kept in prison despite finishing his jail term. The only reason for this according to British authorities is that he may run away if freed.

Secondly according to the Ministry of Justice, a request for a visit can be granted “if there is sufficiently strong public interest in the issue sought to be raised during the visit and the assistance of that journalist is needed.” Of course, Assange is a public figure and the status of his health is a matter of great concern to members of the public who still admire him. Therefore a visit by a journalist can help ease some anxiety among those concerned.

The Ministry of Justice further adds that “In respect of either reason for a visit mentioned above, the Secretary of State must also be satisfied that the visit is the only suitable methods of communication. That the journalist intends a serious attempt to investigate or bring to public attention the prisoners case or the other issue with a sufficiently strong public interest raised by the prisoner.”

It is difficult to tell whether an attempt had already been made by members of the fourth state to request for permission to visit Assange. But it is also possible that a request was made but denied. One British journalist once said that she found it easier to visit a military prison in Vladimir Putin’s Russia than to gain access to a British jail. This calls for some persistence from members of the fourth estate to have Assange’s health status be known.

L'articolo The WikiLeaks WikiLoner: Why Julian Assange Feels Abandoned proviene da InsideOver.