Category Archives: Latest News

Why the overwhelming majority of North Korean defectors are women

CLOSE

The US-led UN command released dramatic video showing a North Korean soldier dash across border into South Korea as North Korean troops fire at him. The defector was wounded. The UN says North Korea violated the Korean War armistice by firing. (Nov. 22)
AP

SEOUL — The North Korean soldier shown on video dashing across the Demilitarized Zone and being shot five times — and surviving — was not that isolated country’s typical defector. The overwhelming majority are women.

About 70% of the more than 31,000 defectors who have made it to South Korea since the end of the Korean War are women, according to the government’s Ministry of Unification. That figure has climbed in recent years, reaching about 80% from 2014-2016, and 85% this year.

The path to freedom for North Koreans usually begins by escaping across the long border with China, with the help of brokers who may lead them across Vietnam, Laos and Thailand before they finally make their way to South Korea.

More: ‘We would never think of eating for pleasure,’ North Korea defector admits

More: Hundreds of North Korean defectors live in this London suburb

More: Is Kim Jong Un crazy? The North Korea leader is just a cold calculator, experts say

Accurate information from North Korea is difficult to obtain to understand why women defect in higher numbers, but experts point to several factors.

One key reason is a strong demand for North Korean women in neighboring China for both the sex industry and as arranged brides in a country where men outnumber women by more than 33 million. 

“Historically, the largest influence in female migration from North Korea to China has been sex trafficking and marriages,” said Sokeel Park, the Seoul-based director of research and strategy for Liberty in North Korea, an organization that helps rescue North Korean refugees hiding in China. 

Park said North Korean women may have a better chance of staying under the radar and working informally in China in restaurants and factories. Many women working abroad send money back to their families in North Korea.

Women also have a significantly lower social status than men in North Korea, which allows them to remain further out of sight from authorities, said Heather Barr, a senior researcher in the women’s rights division of Human Rights Watch. North Korean women hold few positions in government or state-run businesses, and instead are the key movers of an informal market that sprang up after the near collapse of North Korea’s economy in the 1990s.

“This market economy has primarily been driven by married women who have had the space in their lives to engage in that type of work, because they’re not required to show up at a government job like men,” she said.

Barr said this gives women greater access to the networks of brokers who can arrange passage to China, while it also leaves them at the mercy of a world that operates on bribes and corruption.

“It creates lots of vulnerabilities for women, including sexual harassment, coercion and assault,” she said, noting that reports of rape and domestic violence are common among defectors. In November, a United Nations human rights panel found that women are deprived of education and work opportunities, and often face sexual assault in the workplace.

Also motivating some women to escape has been access to information about the world outside North Korea. A black market of South Korean television shows and videos are smuggled in on DVDs and USB drives, and North Koreans living near China can sometimes pick up TV signals. 

Many popular South Korean programs that make their way into North Korea are known as K-dramas — glamorous soap operas targeted to female audiences.

Park, with Liberty in North Korea, said some North Korean defectors explained they were motivated by the freedom of expression and fashion they saw on those shows, along with the higher status and respect enjoyed by the female characters.

“Their lifestyle was very carefree, freewheeling,” said one female North Korean defector in Seoul who spoke with USA TODAY in September. “If they want to do something, they can do something. if they want to travel somewhere, they travel. I could see that life is much freer than in North Korea,” said Yoon Ok, whose full name was withheld for her safety.

Trump unleashes fresh attacks, saying ‘CNN made a vicious and purposeful mistake’

President Trump, armed with fresh ammunition against the mainstream media, fired off “fake news” attacks on Twitter after CNN incorrectly reported that his campaign received access to hacked emails well before the group WikiLeaks made the files public.

Trump called the mistake “vicious and purposeful” and said CNN’s slogan should be “THE LEAST TRUSTED NAME IN NEWS!” in a series of tweets Saturday morning.

“Watch to see if @CNN fires those responsible, or was it just gross incompetence?” Trump said.

In an exclusive report Friday, CNN senior congressional correspondent Manu Raju and politics reporter Jeremy Herb reported that the Trump campaign, including Donald Trump Jr., the president’s eldest son, and top aides, received an email on Sept. 4, 2016, that gave them early access to documents hacked from the Democratic National Committee. The implication was clear: The Trump campaign knew about the hacked emails more than a week before WikiLeaks made them public.

The report, which relied on multiple sources who described the emails to the reporters, was the lead story on CNN’s homepage Friday morning and was discussed on air. CBS later published a similar story.

But by Friday afternoon, The Washington Post had obtained a copy of the email, which was actually sent to the Trump campaign on Sept. 14, 2016 — after WikiLeaks had already made the documents public. The email said that “WikiLeaks has uploaded another (huge 678 mb) archive files from the DNC” and included a link and a “decryption key,” The Post’s Rosalind S. Helderman and Tom Hamburger reported. The message also noted that information from former secretary of state Collin Powell’s inbox was available “on DCLeaks.com.”

The later date suggests that the campaign may have simply been alerted of information that was already public. As CNN acknowledged in its correction, it “indicates that the communication is less significant” than the network initially reported. CBS also corrected its story.

Trump attacked CNN Friday night, when he was holding a rally on behalf of embattled Alabama Senate candidate Roy Moore in Pensacola, Fla.

“CNN apologized just a little while ago. They apologized. Oh, thank you, CNN. Thank you so much. You should’ve been apologizing for the last two years,” Trump told supporters.

The controversial error was not CNN’s first. Three journalists resigned last summer after the network retracted a story connecting Anthony Scaramucci with investigations into the Russian Direct Investment Fund.

The mistake also comes just a week after ABC News committed an arguably bigger blunder. Investigative journalist Brian Ross erroneously reported that former national security adviser Michael Flynn was prepared to testify that Trump, as a candidate, “directed him to make contact with the Russians.” The explosive report, which relied on one anonymous source, was followed by a dramatic plunge in the stock market.

CNN’s recent error prompted fresh attacks not only from the president, but also from Trump Jr. and WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange.

“So who’s going to be fired?” Assange tweeted Friday.

In his tweets Saturday, Trump said CNN was “caught red handed, just like lonely Brian Ross at ABC News (who should be immediately fired for his ‘mistake’).”

Ross was suspended for four weeks without pay. CNN’s Raju and Herb will not face disciplinary action because they followed CNN’s editorial standards process, and the network does not believe the reporters’ sources intended to deceive them, CNN’s Oliver Darcy wrote in a separate article explaining the mistake.

While some of the president’s attacks were over legitimately inaccurate reporting, which mainstream outlets do correct, Trump regularly vents at the media’s coverage of him and his administration and labels news organizations as “fake news” — while often singling out Fox News as the single most trustworthy cable news channel.

Two weeks ago, he tweeted that there should be a contest as to which network, except Fox, “is the most dishonest, corrupt and/or distorted in its political coverage of your favorite President (me.)”

“They are all bad. Winner to receive the FAKE NEWS TROPHY!” Trump said.

Trump also has singled out CNN, tweeting in late November that CNN International “is still a major source of (Fake) news, and they represent our Nation to the WORLD very poorly.”

CNN’s public relations department, as well as several reporters and analysts, fired back. Many reminded their social media followers that the network’s foreign correspondents risk their lives every day to deliver the news.

Read more:

ABC News apologizes for ‘serious error’ in Trump report and suspends Brian Ross for four weeks

One problem with CNN’s defense against Trump’s latest attack

Three CNN employees resign over retracted story on Russia ties

The Jerusalem Issue, Explained

Maybe more important, Israel’s position on Jerusalem isn’t just that its capital should be somewhere in the city. A 1980 law declared Jerusalem to be Israel’s “undivided” capital, which was widely understood as a de facto annexation of the city’s eastern half.

Mr. Trump, in endorsing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, did not explicitly endorse this idea. But he didn’t reject it, either. Nor did he say that Jerusalem should also become the Palestinian capital.

This implies that the United States is increasingly supportive of Israel’s position — full annexation — though this would almost certainly kill any viable peace deal.

Why Does It Matter if the U.S. Takes Sides?

The United States has, for decades, positioned itself as the primary mediator between Israelis and Palestinians. Neutrality ostensibly allows the United States to remain a credible arbiter and keeps both sides at the negotiating table.

American diplomats tend to consider neutrality a bedrock principle and essential for peace, and see Mr. Trump’s announcement as an alarming break.

But the policy of neutrality has grown contentious in American politics since the 1980s and the rise of the evangelical Christian right as a political force.

The movement’s pro-Israel positions — strongly in favor of Israeli control of Jerusalem — have roots in millenarian theology as well as more straightforward identity politics. (Still, a number of Palestinians are themselves Christian, and Jerusalem’s Christian leaders objected to Mr. Trump’s move.)

Advertisement

Continue reading the main story

Evangelical Christians have been joined by a subset of American Jews and others on the political right in arguing that the United States should overtly back Israel in the conflict. This position hardened during the second intifada, a period of vicious Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the early 2000s.

This debate has often played out over Jerusalem. Presidential candidates will promise to move the American Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, thereby recognizing the city as Israel’s capital. But once in office, the new president will forestall the move, explaining that peace should be given a chance.

Mr. Trump actually went ahead (though only partly, because he will not move the embassy right away), implicitly endorsing an American shift from neutral arbiter to overtly siding with Israel.

Has the U.S. Really Been Neutral?

That is not really the perception outside of the United States, particularly in Europe and the rest of the Middle East.

Much of the world already considered the United States a biased and unhelpful actor, promoting Israeli interests in a way that perpetuated the conflict.

Partly this is because of the power imbalance between Israelis and Palestinians. Because the far stronger Israelis are the occupiers, and the United States is seen as a steward, the Americans are sometimes blamed, rightly or wrongly, for that imbalance.

Partly it is because of domestic politics that led American leaders to pronounce themselves as pro-Israel while pursuing policies intended as neutral.

But it is also because of a decades-old American negotiating tactic. The last three administrations — led by Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama — all believed that they needed to grant Israel concessions to make Israeli leaders feel secure and comfortable enough to make their own concessions for peace.

Advertisement

Continue reading the main story

So Mr. Trump’s move, though he does not describe it this way, is arguably in line with past American strategy. And it is seen abroad as confirming long-held doubts about American leadership, rather than as drastically new.

What Happens Now?

Protests, which sometimes grow violent, have been a common Palestinian answer to perceived provocations, particularly on issues related to Jerusalem. The Palestinian view is that Israel’s occupation should be made costly and uncomfortable if it is to ever end.

As for the wider Arab response, the United States is just not very popular or trusted in the region. That tends to happen when you invade an Arab-majority country, Iraq, on what most Arabs consider false pretenses, starting a war that kills hundreds of thousands. This move is going to be unpopular, but it’s sort of a drop in the bucket.

Still, it could complicate regional politics. Marc Lynch, a political scientist at George Washington University, wrote in The Washington Post, “The visible pursuit of peace, if not its achievement, has long been the mechanism by which the United States reconciles its alliances with Israel and with ostensibly anti-Israel Arab states.”

This could make it harder for Arab governments to justify their cooperation with what is perceived to be an American-Israeli plot against Palestinians. Even if Arab governments do not themselves care much about Palestinians, they worry about domestic unrest.

That doesn’t mean Arab states will break with Washington, but they might need to be a little quieter and more careful about cooperating.

What Does This Change Long Term?

Warnings of a long-term shift tend to hinge on the idea that losing American neutrality means losing American leverage over Israelis and Palestinians to achieve peace.

But the simple fact of American power makes the country an important broker, neutral or not. American leverage with Israel also comes from implicitly guaranteeing Israel’s security and providing it with lots of military hardware. Still, because Israel got something for nothing from Mr. Trump’s announcement, it has little reason to make difficult concessions.

Advertisement

Continue reading the main story

American leverage over Palestinian leaders is also significant, since those leaders rely on American support to keep their administration funded and stable. But those leaders are deeply unpopular with their own people. A real risk here is that they one day grow so unpopular that their administration collapses. This would risk chaos and violence in the short term and, long term, a likely takeover by the militant Palestinian group Hamas.

All of that points toward a future in which peace is less likely, a Palestinian state is less likely and Israel is one day forced to choose between the two core components of its national identity: Jewish and democratic. Either it asserts permanent control over Palestinians without granting them full rights — a sort of state that critics sometimes compare to apartheid South Africa — or it grants Palestinians full rights, establishing a pluralistic democracy that is no longer officially Jewish.

Mr. Trump’s move likely edges Israelis and Palestinians closer to that future. But things were probably moving in that direction already.


Continue reading the main story

Democrats saw Franken as a liability

Sen. Al FrankenAlan (Al) Stuart FrankenDemocrats turn on Al Franken Schumer called, met with Franken and told him to resign Overnight Finance: Trump says shutdown ‘could happen’ | Ryan, conservatives inch closer to spending deal | Senate approves motion to go to tax conference | Ryan promises ‘entitlement reform’ in 2018 MORE (D-Minn.) had been resisting behind-the-scenes pressure from fellow Senate Democrats to step down for some time before his resignation on Thursday.

Sources familiar with deliberations within the caucus said women Democratic senators pressed their leadership to resolve the Franken situation and the leaders relayed their concerns to him.   

“There were conversations by a number of senators who were concerned about the allegations and believed the women,” said one Democratic senator.

Senate Democratic Whip Dick DurbinRichard (Dick) Joseph DurbinDemocrats turn on Al Franken Minnesota’s largest newspaper calls on Franken to resign Democratic senator predicts Franken will resign Thursday MORE (D-Ill.) said he had “several” conversations with Franken leading up to the day of his announced resignation, although he declined to reveal what exactly he said.

The drive to oust Franken was led by the women of the Senate, who felt it was a defining moment in national politics. They worried that if Franken were allowed to stay in the Senate despite a steady stream of harassment allegations, they would look weak or even hypocritical.

At first, Franken’s Democratic colleagues were OK with letting him stay in the chamber while the Senate Ethics Committee investigated the charges against him.

But as more accusers came forward and the allegations piled up, women senators grew concerned that the Ethics Committee would not move quickly or decisively enough to spare the Senate and the Democratic Party lasting political damage.

A second Democratic senator said there was strong “concern that we were losing the moral high ground with Roy Moore and the president,” referring to the Republican candidate for Senate in Alabama and President TrumpDonald John TrumpHouse Democrat slams Donald Trump Jr. for ‘serious case of amnesia’ after testimony Skier Lindsey Vonn: I don’t want to represent Trump at Olympics Poll: 4 in 10 Republicans think senior Trump advisers had improper dealings with Russia MORE.  

Even though Franken’s colleagues didn’t think the allegations about his past behavior were equivalent to allegations facing Moore, who is accused of sexual misconduct with teenagers, they feared that voters might not see much difference.

When Franken finally announced his plans to leave Congress in an emotional speech Thursday morning, it came as a relief to many of his Democratic colleagues.

Afterward, more than 20 colleagues lined up on the Senate floor to hug him or shake his hand. Not one, however, delivered any remarks in praise or recognition of his Senate accomplishments.

Franken refused to admit any misconduct in a defiant floor speech announcing his decision to leave.

A spokesman for Franken did not respond to a request for comment.

The defiance reflected Franken’s desire to hang on to his position in the Senate.

Even after Senate Democratic Leader Charles SchumerCharles (Chuck) Ellis SchumerAmerica isn’t ready to let Sessions off his leash Schumer celebrates New York Giants firing head coach: ‘About time’ GOP should reject the left’s pessimism and the deficit trigger MORE (N.Y.) stepped up the pressure on him to resign Wednesday morning after a seventh accuser came forward in a Politico report, Franken resisted stepping aside.

He claimed the allegation was “categorically not true” and waved off elements of the woman’s story as “preposterous,” according to a statement to Politico. 

Schumer held a second meeting with Franken and his wife, Franni, at Schumer’s apartment in Washington, D.C., early Wednesday afternoon and again argued that he should step down.

By this time, a fast-growing number Democratic senators had issued public statements calling on Franken to leave the Senate.

Sen. Kirsten GillibrandKirsten Elizabeth GillibrandDemocrats turn on Al Franken Report: Franken will resign Thursday Minnesota’s largest newspaper calls on Franken to resign MORE (D-N.Y.), a leading advocate for the victims of sexual harassment, was the first out of the gate with a statement.  

While acknowledging that Franken had a right to wait for the results of the ethics investigation, she said “it would be better for our country if he sent a clear message” that harassment isn’t acceptable by stepping aside.

Sens. Mazie HironoMazie Keiko HironoDemocrats turn on Al Franken The Hill’s 12:30 Report Avalanche of Democratic senators say Franken should resign MORE (D-Hawaii), Claire McCaskillClaire Conner McCaskillDemocrats turn on Al Franken Trump rips Dems a day ahead of key White House meeting The Hill’s 12:30 Report MORE (D-Mo.), and Maggie HassanMargaret (Maggie) HassanDemocrats turn on Al Franken The Hill’s 12:30 Report Avalanche of Democratic senators say Franken should resign MORE (D-N.H.) quickly followed with statements of their own.

By the end of the day Wednesday, a total of 33 Democratic senators had called for Franken’s ouster, more than half the caucus.

Schumer, who had been close to Franken, delivered the final blow. 

Although the leader acknowledged Franken was “a dear friend,” Schumer said his colleague had “a higher obligation to his constituents and the Senate.”

The desire to send a signal different than the one sent by Republicans backing President Trump played a part in the opposition to Franken.

The election of Trump after a recording of him making lewd comments about grabbing women became public has since galvanized the Democratic base — especially women — and Democratic senators say they have to pay attention to this powerful political force.

“We’re in the middle of a big cultural shift and I think particularly young women are not going to stand for this kind of behavior and, most importantly, the intimidation that comes with it,” said Sen. Dianne FeinsteinDianne Emiel FeinsteinGrassley blasts Democrats over unwillingness to probe Clinton Avalanche of Democratic senators say Franken should resign Blumenthal: ‘Credible case’ of obstruction of justice can be made against Trump MORE (D-Calif.), who called on Franken to resign Wednesday.

Feinstein said Trump’s comments about women on the Access Hollywood tape “really brought it to the fore.”

“To hear a man say those things and become president of the United States and all of his accusers are kind of banished to nowhere almost subconsciously in women has had a big effect,” she added.

Winter storm dumps rare snow in Texas, threatens swath from Deep South to New England

CLOSE

Snow made a rare appearance in South Texas this week, blanketing everything from cars and homes to area roadways.
USA TODAY

A band of cold air that delivered a rare blanket of snow to parts of southern Texas rolled through the Deep South on Friday bringing threats of more weekend snow, sleet and dicey travel conditions from the Mid-Atlantic to New England.

Parts of Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana and Mississippi reported snow flurries before dawn. In Georgia, nearly two dozen school systems closed ahead of the wintry weather.

“It’s the first snow of the season and any time you even mention snow in the South, you’re going to get people a little panicky,” said David Nadler, a meteorologist at the National Weather Service’s office south of Atlanta.

This first taste of winter will vary along the path across the South, with sleet and snow expected — but not certain — in much of Virginia on Saturday, , but likely producing snow in larger amounts farther north in New York City, Massachusetts and Maine.

The National Weather Service said a half inch to an inch of snow is forecast across many areas of the South by Friday night. Winter weather advisories have been posted for parts of Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia and the Carolinas. The advisories were issued for cities including Baton Rouge, La., Hattiesburg, Miss., and Birmingham, Ala.

The wintry blast could produce especially hazardous driving conditions for Friday evening commuters in southern cities such as Atlanta, Charlotte, N.C., Raleigh, N.C., and Richmond.

Meanwhile, a second storm moving across the upper tier of the United States out of the Midwest could bring patchy snow, and the chance of a small accumulation to parts of the interior Northeast from Saturday night to Sunday, AccuWeather says.

The amount and intensity of snow activity depends on if and when the northern storm merges with the southern band and how much moisture it carries as it gets closer to the Atlantic Ocean.

CLOSE

Frigid temperatures behind a cold front combined with moisture off the Gulf of Mexico have yielded a rare snowfall in many parts of South and Southeast Texas. Snow continued falling in the Houston area on Friday morning. (Dec. 8)
AP

“It may be a close call with accumulating snow versus melting snow from New York City to Philadelphia, Baltimore and Washington, D.C.,” according to AccuWeather Senior Meteorologist Dave Houk. “New York City will have a better chance at an inch or two accumulation, since some of the snow will fall during Saturday night.”

The storm’s unpredictable nature was on full display in Texas, particularly near the Gulf Coast, as a band of heavy snow slowly moved over Austin and San Antonio on Thursday, eventually reaching Houston and Corpus Christi.  

Contributing: Associated Press

Snow likely Saturday with some accumulation, winter weather advisory in effect


Winter weather advisory for much of the area, from midnight tonight until 4 p.m. Saturday. *

(This post was updated at 1 p.m. with a detailed model discussion at the bottom.)

A developing storm system across the South today will scoot northeast to a position off the Mid-Atlantic coast Saturday, throwing back snow over the D.C. region, for the first time this season.

This will be a wet, slushy snow as temperature hover near and slightly above freezing. We expect the bulk of the snow to occur between early Saturday morning and midday Saturday, when untreated roads could become slushy and slick. But some snow could occur somewhat before and after that (see more on timing below).

For snow amounts, 1 to 3 inches seems most likely in the immediate D.C. area, with totals up to 3 to 6 inches possible in Southern Maryland and near the Chesapeake Bay. Because the snow is originating from a storm offshore, our far west and northwest areas will see the least snow, between a dusting and two inches.

Small changes in the position of the storm off the coast Saturday could result in significant changes to amounts. If the storm is closer to the coast, the immediate D.C. area could see totals closer to four inches, but if it drifts more out to sea, little accumulation would occur. Uncertainty in snow amounts is the highest in our west and northwest areas, where amounts are most sensitive to the storm track and where models present very conflicting information.

Exact temperatures will also affect how much snow falls. While it has turned colder in recent days, the ground is not particularly cold, so any initial snow will melt. Temperatures will also be above freezing at times, especially when the snow first begins, and at times during the day on Saturday; this will cut back on how much snow sticks. However, where and when the snow falls steadily, we do expect temperatures to fall to 30-32 degrees, so there should be some accumulation.

Furthermore, the sun angle is near its lowest point in the calendar year, aiding accumulation prospects during the day Saturday.

Storm timing


GFS model simulation of snowfall Friday to Saturday.

For most of the region, the period we’re most concerned about is between about 5 a.m. and noon Saturday, when the steadiest, accumulating snow is most likely. Locally heavy snow could even briefly occur. Here’s how we see the event evolving:

  • Friday afternoon (noon to 6 p.m.): Light snow or sprinkles possible, mainly in our southern areas. No accumulation. Temperatures near 40.
  • Friday evening (6 p.m. to midnight): Steady light snow develops in Southern Maryland to around Fredericksburg — coating possible, mainly on grassy areas. Flurries possible elsewhere, especially southern areas. Temperatures falling into 30s.
  • Saturday predawn (midnight to 6 a.m.): Snow increases in Southern Maryland with a couple inches possible. Snow develops from southeast to northwest elsewhere — maybe a coating or so by dawn. Temperatures fall to near freezing.
  • Saturday morning (6 a.m. to noon): Snow, possibly moderate to heavy at times along and east of Interstate 95 with accumulation. Light snow and flurries west and north of Leesburg to Frederick. Temperatures 30 to 34.
  • Saturday afternoon (noon to 6 p.m.): Snow gradually tapers off from west to east. Little additional accumulation. Temperatures 32 to 36.
  • Saturday evening: A few lingering flurries possible. Temperatures 30 to 34.

Impact analysis


Immediate metro area

Using Capital Weather Gang’s winter storm impact scale, which ranges from 1 to 5, this is a very typical Level 1 “nuisance” event for much of the metro region. It has the potential to create some slick travel and minor disruptions, but the impact is lessened by the fact that it’s occurring on a Saturday, when most schools and offices are closed. It may, however, have a small negative effect on commerce — occurring on a prime holiday shopping day, but major roads should be treated and in shape for careful travel.


Fredericksburg to Southern Maryland

In Southern Maryland and toward the northern neck of Virginia, including Fredericksburg, where up to six inches or so are possible, this event rates at the low end of a Level 2 disruptive event, mainly due to the amount of snow possible and the possibility of a period of heavier snow which could make travel difficult for some time Saturday morning. But the impact will be limited some by the storm timing.


Model discussion by Wes Junker

Over the past 24 hours the global models (the American GFS and European) have trended west with the back edge of their precipitation, increasing snowfall over the D.C. region, while the NAM model has shown more run to run variation and is not quite as heavy.

The models have also trended colder, probably due to the precipitation arriving late Friday night/early Saturday morning, the optimal time to allow the atmosphere to cool but also because models are now predicting heavier precipitation. The latter works through evaporation and the process of melting of the flakes to cool the atmosphere.

Red line indicates position of freezing line at 7 a.m. Saturday that dips south in areas where heavier snow is predicted. (WeatherBell.com)

One of the big forecast problems today is that wherever a heavier band of snow sets up, which is impossible to predict until it’s almost happening, the temperatures are likely to drop a degree or two, dipping the temperature below 32 degrees. Wherever this happens, the snow could pile up at a good clip. This morning’s NAM model gives a sense how the intensity of the precipitation might help govern the temperature and how much and where snow might stick.

Note on the NAM forecast valid at 7 a.m. Saturday that where the darkest blue shades and heaviest precipitation rates are located on the east side of the Bay, the red line depicting where temperatures are forecast to be below freezing dips southward (see to the right).

Unfortunately, there are sometimes smaller scale bands of heavier snow that set up farther west of the heaviest precipitation shield. The high resolution NAM hints at such a structure (see below).


High resolution NAM model predicts a band of heavier snow setting up just west of the Interstate 95 corridor Saturday. (WeatherBell.com)

Note that while Washington is forecast to get the equivalent of 0.3 inches of liquid (equating to 2 to 3 inches of snow), that a band of 0.4 inches (3 to 4 inches of snow) extends from just west of Washington north-northeastward into Pennsylvania. Another aspect of the precipitation field to note on the NAM is the sharp cutoff in the heavier precipitation west of that implied heavy band, suggesting that dry air might try to keep eroding the western edge of the precipitation shield.

As noted before, the GFS has edged its precipitation shield west since Thursday (see below).


Evolution of GFS model precipitation forecast, which shows increasing amounts and coverage in consecutive runs since Thursday. (WeatherBell.com)

The most troubling aspect of its forecast is the implied band of heavier precipitation extending toward well to the southwest and west of Washington. Like the high resolution NAM, the GFS is suggesting there will be a separate smaller scale band of heavier precipitation. Unfortunately, the models differ on where it might set up.

Note the huge differences between high resolution NAM and the GFS implied band. The latter forecasts the equivalent of 0.50 inches liquid (4 or 5 inches of snow) while the former only predicts 0.10 or 0.20 inches of liquid (1 to 2 inches of snow) across the same area. Light snow at marginal temperatures might only garner a sloppy dusting to an inch.

We’re playing the snow forecast conservatively across the region because the models differ so much and there is the possibility of a sharp cutoff along the back edge of the precipitation as drier air tries to filter in.

Thursday night’s European model run (see below) also shifted the back edge of its heavier precipitation westward. It’s a viable compromise between the NAM and GFS.


European model forecast comparison between Thursday morning and Thursday night. The model increased the amount of precipitation forecast. (StormVistaWxModels.com)

Note how the dark green area (the 0.50 inches or more liquid equivalent) shifted from barely touching St. Mary’s County to almost extending northward to the District. That jump put the model’s forecast more in line with last night’s UKMET and today’s GFS than the previous run.

Friday morning’s European model run, just out, is very similar to last night’s — even bringing the heavier precipitation a little farther west.


European model precipitation forecast from Friday morning, showing the total amount through Saturday. (StormVistaWxModels.com)

Taking all of the information together, we lean toward the European model forecast as a compromise but with limited confidence.

Former South Carolina police officer who shot Walter Scott sentenced to 20 years

The former South Carolina police officer who shot and killed Walter Scott, an unarmed black man, following a traffic stop was sentenced Thursday to 20 years behind bars in a federal case stemming from the fatal encounter.

Michael Slager, who had been an officer with the North Charleston police, was charged with murder in state court and indicted on federal civil rights charges after the shooting in 2015. His murder trial ended with a deadlocked jury last year, and prosecutors had vowed to retry Slager in state court.

But earlier this year, Slager pleaded guilty to a single federal civil rights charge as part of a plea deal that resolved both cases. A judge sentenced him to 20 years in prison, according to the Associated Press, which had a reporter at the sentencing.

Under the terms of the plea agreement announced in May, Slager pleaded guilty to one count of violating Scott’s rights under color of law, and prosecutors said they would push for a judge to apply sentencing guidelines for second-degree murder and obstruction of justice. Slager could have faced a life sentence, but prosecutors had said as part of the plea deal that they would recommend that his sentence be reduced due to his “acceptance of responsibility,” so long as he did not later seek to minimize that acceptance.

In a sentencing memorandum filed last month, prosecutors argued that Slager did not appear to be taking full responsibility, and as a result, they did not feel he should receive a lesser sentence than life imprisonment.

Attorneys for Slager argued against that in their own filing, writing that the former officer accepted responsibility and “has said nothing that contradicts the factual basis for the offense contained in the plea agreement.” They argued that federal prosecutors were focused only on “their unreasonable goal to have Slager spend the remainder of his life in prison.”

Slager’s attorney did not immediately respond to a request for comment about the sentencing Thursday.

Scott’s death in April 2015 became among the most high-profile police shootings in recent years due to graphic video that later emerged. In the recording, which was captured by a bystander, the 50-year-old Scott was seen hurrying away as the officer fired a volley of rounds at the driver’s back.

The video quickly ricocheted around the Internet and on news stations, and Slager was arrested and fired from his police force.

Slager said he feared for his life during the encounter. In another video recording, this one taken by Slager’s dashboard camera as the traffic stop got underway, the two men could be seen interacting before Scott got out of his car and fled. Slager is then heard on a police radio reporting a description of Scott before yelling, “Taser, Taser, Taser!”

During the trial, Slager testified that he was scared and felt “total fear that Mr. Scott was coming toward me.” The former officer also said that he tried to subdue Scott and that the driver had grabbed his Taser during a struggle.

When asked by a prosecutor whether he agreed that Scott was unarmed and running away, Slager testified that he did not realize the Taser had fallen behind him when he fired the fatal shots.

Slager said that at the time, he did not think Slager was unarmed, but he realized it after watching the video. The bystander video also shows Slager placing an item — his Taser — near Scott’s body following the shooting.

Officers are rarely charged for deadly on-duty shootings, though that number has increased in recent years amid intense scrutiny and protests that have broken out across the country. Experts attribute the increase in prosecutions to a combination of more video evidence and mounting political pressure.

Convictions in such cases remain rare. During a single week last June, three police officers who had been charged over high-profile shootings captured on video were not convicted; two were acquitted, and a mistrial was declared in a third case.

The law firm of Andrew J. Savage III, an attorney for Slager, had called the federal charges against Slager “very extreme” when they were announced and suggested they were motivated by “the burden of many past cases that were handled differently.”

While the videos that go viral can be gruesome, experts caution that such footage may be incomplete and note that the legal standard still remains whether an officer’s actions were “objectively reasonable” at the time.

David A. Harris, a law professor at the University of Pittsburgh and an expert on police use of force, said this standard tends to favor police. In an interview earlier this year, Harris said jurors also tend to give officers “the benefit of the doubt” in most cases.

This story, first published at 12:28 p.m., has been updated.

Further reading:

The Washington Post’s 2017 police shootings database

‘I was scared’: S.C. officer on trial for murder in shooting of unarmed black man takes the stand

Former S.C. police officer pleads guilty in fatal shooting caught on video

Three things to know about Trump’s Jerusalem gambit

President Trump announced a radical departure in U.S. Middle East policy on Wednesday by declaring the United States’ recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. This recognition fulfilled a campaign promise and delivered on a long-standing Israeli demand, while infuriating Palestinians, Arabs and most of the international community. Although it will take years for a new U.S. Embassy to open, and Trump carefully noted that the borders of Jerusalem would have to be determined through negotiations, there was a strong sense of an irrevocable shift.

Here are three things to understand about the regional politics of Trump’s Jerusalem gambit.

There is no real peace process to disrupt

Much of the commentary about the recognition has focused on its effect on Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. This is probably overstated.

The status of Jerusalem has always been one of the key issues set aside for final status negotiations. Recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital has traditionally been understood as a major concession that could be offered to Israel in exchange for an agreement on other issues such as borders, settlements or the return of Palestinian refugees. Trump gave Israel this prize for nothing, while offering Palestinians nothing of consequence in exchange. While preemptively giving away a prime bargaining chip seems like an odd negotiating tactic, a number of commentators and former diplomats have made the case that moving the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem could actually help peace negotiations.

Most likely, the recognition of Jerusalem will have none of the promised benefits for negotiations and relatively few of the threatened costs. This is not because Jerusalem does not matter, but rather because there is no real peace process to disrupt, little meaningful prospect for a two-state solution to squander, and little belief in U.S. neutrality to violate.

Despite the occasional diplomacy, there has not been any meaningful Israeli-Palestinian peace process since the 2000 failure of the Clinton administration’s Camp David Summit. The George W. Bush administration began peace talks only belatedly and to little effect. The Obama administration quickly backed away from its more serious bid for peace talks in the face of political backlash, negotiating stalemate and a need to focus on other critical priorities such as the Iran nuclear agreement. In the intervening decades, the realities on the ground have changed immeasurably, and probably irrevocably, in ways that have made a two-state solution untenable.

The recognition does matter for U.S. regional strategy

It does matter, however, that Trump’s gambit may derail peace negotiations, which have long played an important role in facilitating other regional objectives. The visible pursuit of peace, if not its achievement, has long been the mechanism by which the United States reconciles its alliances with Israel and with ostensibly anti-Israel Arab states. Trump’s gamble has less to do with peace than with whether this cover is still needed.

For all its tactical and messaging incoherence, the Trump administration has been pursuing a fairly clear Middle East strategy that is well within the bounds of the normal. At the broadest level, Trump seeks to bring key Arab states and Israel together in a strategic alliance against Iran and Islamic extremism. There is nothing new about such an ambition. Every U.S. administration has sought to reconcile the contradictions of simultaneous alliance with Israel and with key Arab states. Each administration has concluded, either initially or after hard experience, that the pursuit of Israeli-Palestinian peace is necessary to sustain that regional architecture. With Egypt and Jordan locked in to American-brokered peace treaties, the focus of these efforts has long been Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf states.

Trump’s Jerusalem gamble is thus less about the prospects for Israeli-Palestinian peace than about whether Arab-Israeli alliance against Iran can be achieved in its absence. Israel’s tacit cooperation with Gulf states against Iran, long kept in the shadows, has increasingly been brought into the open despite the absence of Israeli-Palestinian peace. The Jerusalem gambit may well force a public reckoning over this semiprivate alignment.

Regional politics will determine whether the gamble succeeds

The major trends in regional politics could well make this gamble pay off. Saudi Arabia and its key partners have made it clear that they view regional confrontation with Iran as their most urgent strategic priority. Arab regional politics are profoundly polarized and fragmented, in part because of the six-month-old Saudi-United Arab Emirates campaign against Qatar. Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman has reveled in shattering norms over the course of his rapid consolidation of power. After his startling arrest of hundreds of princes, treatment of Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri and stubborn disregard for the humanitarian costs of the blockade of Yemen, who could rule out another transgression against the old rules of Arab politics?

Palestinian territories continues to be one of the few unifying issues among these deeply divided Arab publics. There is little question that Arabs still care deeply about Palestinian territories, or that Jerusalem has particularly salient emotional and political resonance. That concern may be latent, but survey research and social media data alike show that it is real and intense. The key question is whether this public opinion can have any meaningful effect on the policies of Arab states. Arab public attention in recent years has been focused on the wars in Syria and Yemen, and on domestic political turbulence. Public mobilization in most Arab countries faces steep obstacles following the harsh resurgence of brutal forms of authoritarianism.

Arab regimes thus far have aligned themselves with public anger over Jerusalem, suggesting that they understand the need to tread carefully. A regional focus on Palestinian territories would tilt the political balance away from the Saudi-UAE bloc and could offer its Qatari rivals a political lifeline. Even Arab regimes closely aligned with the United States have publicly criticized the recognition of Jerusalem, and allowed critical views to appear even in usually tightly controlled media and public space. They probably fear losing political ground to Qatar, as well as to Iran, popular movements, or to media platforms such as Al Jazeera that embrace mobilization over Jerusalem. They also cannot help but fear anything that brings protests back into the streets, rekindling the hopes for political change from below which regimes have systematically sought to extinguish over the past five years.

The dynamics are similar to the political fallout over Israel’s wars against Hamas in Gaza. The key question is whether Arab regimes do anything more to protest the recognition, or return to cooperation with the United States and Israel against Iran once the passions have faded. The Trump administration is probably right that they will do so quickly, barring the emergence of serious, sustained Palestinian mobilization that forces them into a tougher stance.