In its verdict, the Hiroshima district court said the 84 plaintiffs, who suffered radiation-related illnesses after the World War II bombing, should receive the same benefits as other victims who lived closer to the blast range.
The bombings left tens of thousands of others to die slowly from burns or radiation-related illnesses. They also caused radioactive “black rain” to fall across the region — a mixture of fallout particles from the explosion, carbon residue from citywide fires, and other dangerous elements. The black rain fell on peoples’ skin and clothing, was breathed in, contaminated food and water, and caused widespread radiation poisoning.
The US remains the only country to use an atomic bomb in war.
Seiji Takato, 79, one of of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, was 4 years old when the bombing happened. He developed arm lymph inflammation when he was 8, and has since suffered from stroke and heart problems.
But until now, he and others living in the “light rain” exposure zones were unable to access the free medical care offered to victims in the “heavy rain” zones — the areas identified by the government as being worst-affected and closest to the blast zone. This verdict marks the first time victims outside this zone have been granted the same benefits.
“We have been telling the government the facts and the truth as they were. But they had never listened to us,” Takato said after the court released its decision. “I am extremely happy. I did not expect all 84 (plaintiffs) would win the case.”
Takato added that he had been “anxious” because all the plaintiffs were now elderly, mostly in their 80s and 90s. “We would all die if this (case were) prolonged,” he said.
The verdict ordered the city and prefectural government to provide the plaintiffs a certificate that recognizes them as “A-bomb victims,” which grants them medical benefits for the time they received treatment, worth about $300 a month.
At a news conference, Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshihide Suga said the government had not decided whether to appeal the ruling. “We will have the verdict examined in detail by the ministries, Hiroshima prefecture and Hiroshima city to decide for further action to take,” he said.
75 years later
The landmark ruling comes a week before the 75th anniversary of the attack, when former US President Harry S. Truman authorized US B-29 bomber aircraft Enola Gay to drop a nuclear bomb codenamed “Little Boy” on Hiroshima.
Those who survived say the detonation began with a noiseless flash, and a massive wave of intense heat that turned clothing to rags. People closest to the site of impact were immediately vaporized or burned to ashes. There was a deafening boom and a blast that — for some — felt like being stabbed by hundreds of needles.
Then the fires started. Tornadoes of flames swept through the city. Many survivors found themselves covered with blisters. Bodies littered the streets.
The utter devastation has led many, including former US President Dwight D. Eisenhower, to criticize the decision to use an atomic bomb.
In 1958, the Hiroshima City Council passed a resolution condemning Truman for refusing to express remorse, calling the ex-President’s stance a “gross defilement committed on the people of Hiroshima and their fallen victims.”
But Truman’s position only hardened, writing in response, “I think the sacrifice of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was urgent and necessary for the prospective welfare of both Japan and the Allies.”
The horror of the bombing and its aftermath have since been recorded and memorialized in the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum, which sits near ground zero in the Japanese city.
Some survivors have made it their personal mission to make sure nobody forgets the hellish events in Hiroshima.
Retired teacher Kosei Mito survived the blast inside his mother’s womb — she was four months pregnant with him when the bomb dropped. He’s been at the Hiroshima Peace Memorial nearly every day for the past 13 years, laying out documentation of the bombing and its aftermath in a variety of languages, and poring over the binders with visitors.
“Without knowing the historical facts, we may repeat the same mistakes again,” he said. “We have no responsibility for what’s happened in the past, but we have responsibility for the future.”
CNN’s Brad Lendon, Thom Patterson, and Ryan Browne contributed to this report.
‘This is an illegitimate nomination’: Some Democrats snub Trump’s pick
Trump is currently debating whether to choose Circuit Court judges Amy Coney Barrett and Barbara Lagoa or one of several other conservative women. But regardless of who he picks, securing meetings with Democrats is likely to do nothing to prevent her from facing a complete and utter rejection from the 47-member caucus. Even Lagoa, who 27 Democrats supported for her current position, faces no prospect of bipartisan support in such a scenario.
Manchin said he would not vote for any nominee before the election, but cracked the door open for a Trump nominee that waited until after Nov. 3 to receive a floor vote.
“I’m against the process. I want to meet with the people, it might be a person who hopefully would come to their senses and not have the vote until after the election, might be a good qualified candidate I’m inclined to support,” Manchin said.
There’s also some question of whether a nominee will want to meet with Democrats, who are already staking out unified opposition.
“I don’t think my vote’s going to count, so I doubt they’ll even want to,” said Sen. Doug Jones (D-Ala.), the most endangered Senate incumbent. “But we’ll see.”
Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.) met with Gorsuch in 2017, but during his re-election campaign he said the White House snubbed his efforts to meet with Kavanaugh. Still, he said he’s “open” to meeting with a nominee this time around.
And other Democrats, particularly those on the Judiciary Committee, suggested that they would keep in line with Senate tradition and still meet with whoever Trump nominates.
“I’ve met with nominees in the past. I intend to do my job,” said Blumenthal, a liberal stalwart. “If the nominee is open to meeting with me, part of my responsibility is to have a conversation with the nominee.”
Senate Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) both said they’ve always met with nominees in the past when asked if they’d meet with Trump’s nominee this fall.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) declined to comment, when asked whether he’d meet with the nominee, only saying that Trump has not even announced his choice. Progressive senators like Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Kirsten Gillibrand of New York said it was too early to make a decision.
Democrats have few procedural tools at their disposal to stop the nomination from going through. But that’s not preventing them from using tactics like the so-called “2-hour rule” to cancel committee hearings that last more than two hours in an effort to protest Republican efforts to fill the seat. They’re also likely to delay the nomination in committee, using procedural tools to hold over the nomination for a week.
Brian Fallon, who leads the progressive legal group Demand Justice, called on Wednesday for Democrats to boycott the hearing. But there would also be a real downside to doing so: Democrats would lose out on the ability to question the nominee and shape the public’s impression of the fight.
It could be a particularly key moment for Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.), the Democratic vice presidential nominee, whose tough questioning has previously led to viral moments.
“I have every plan to do what I’m expected to do,” said Durbin, when asked whether he’d attend the hearing. “I’m a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee.”
Police Will Patrol The Kent Border And Fine Lorry Drivers Without The Right Paperwork After Brexit
4 min read
Police may be asked to patrol a new internal ‘Kent border’ to check whether lorries heading across the Channel and into the EU have the right paperwork from January.
Michael Gove’s plan, designed to ease expected traffic jams in the county when the Brexit transition period ends, raises serious questions on how the neighbouring counties of Essex, East Sussex, Surrey and the Greater London region will be affected.
Cabinet minister Gove, who is in charge of no deal planning, confirmed in the Commons that lorry drivers would need a Kent Access Permit and could be policed at the county border.
“We want to make sure people use a relatively simple process to get a Kent Access Permit which means that they can proceed smoothly through Kent because they do have the material required.
“If they don’t have the material required, then it will be the case that through policing, ANPR cameras and other means we will do our very best to make sure his constituents are not inconvenienced,” he said.
The proposal came in Gove’s statement on a worst-case scenario for Britain when the transition period ends. He said the plan was to avoid high level congestion. The details were laid out in a consultation paper released on August 3.
PoliticsHome contacted the Cabinet Office but is still awaiting further details on how this would be policed and the potential impact for surrounding counties and their police forces.
The backlash against Gove’s statement was immediate, with the Road Haulage Association, RHA, saying they were extremely sceptical that the government was prepared and that haulage operators would be left “carrying the can”.
The government’s worst-case scenario plan estimates that between 30 to 50 percent of trucks crossing the Channel won’t be ready for the new regulations coming into force on 1 January 2021.
RHA chief executive, Richard Burnett said: “We already know this. It’s what we’ve been saying for many months. We know that traders and haulage operators will face new customs controls and processes and we know that if they haven’t completed the right paperwork their goods will be stopped when entering the EU.
“Mr Gove stresses that it’s essential that traders act now to get ready for new the formalities. We know for a fact that they are only too keen to be ready but how on earth can they prepare when there is still no clarity as to what they need to do?
“Government’s promises that the UK will be ready for business on 1 January are just a whitewash, and right now it appears that traders and haulage operators are being left to carry the can.”
The Kent Access Permit was included in a consultation on the legislative changes that would be needed to enforce Operation Brock, the traffic management system for Kent in the case of no-deal.
It explains that hauliers using designated roads in Kent leading to the Port of Dover and Eurotunnel must be in possession of a digital permit.
Each permit would be valid for 24 hours to cover a single trip. The government said police and Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency enforcement officers could issue penalties and fines to hauliers found heading for Dover or Eurotunnel without one.
Lorry drivers heading to Kent but not travelling internationally, would not be required to use the system.
Fines could be handed out on the spot with UK drivers having up to 28 days to pay. If a driver refused to pay, their HCV could be impounded.
Food and Drink Federation Chief Executive Ian Wright CBE said a delay of up to two days at the ports could mean shortages of fruit, vegetables and products of animal origin.
He ingredients and some food products would not arrive fit for human consumption.
He said: “The absence of clarity in certain areas including product labelling means it is too late for a lot of businesses to be fully ready for 1 January 2021. We are urging the UK Government to provide targeted periods of adjustment, and even amnesty, to minimise the impacts on manufacturers and UK shoppers.”
Breonna Taylor: Two officers shot during Louisville protests
Two officers have been shot amid huge protests in the US city of Louisville after a grand jury decided no officers would face charges for killing unarmed black woman Breonna Taylor.
Ms Taylor, 26, a hospital worker, was shot multiple times as three officers stormed her home on 13 March.
One, Brett Hankison, has been charged, not with Ms Taylor’s death, but with “wanton endangerment” for firing into a neighbour’s apartment in Louisville.
Two other officers face no charges.
Cases of killings of unarmed black people by police have fuelled anger across the US and beyond, triggered especially by the death of George Floyd in policy custody in Minneapolis in May.
Louisville Police Chief Robert Schroeder said the police officers shot on Wednesday did not have life-threatening injuries.
He added that a suspect was in custody.
A state of emergency has been declared in Louisville and the National Guard have also been deployed.
Mayor Greg Fischer has set a 21:00-06:30 (01:00-10:30 GMT) curfew in the city for three days. He earlier said he had declared a state of emergency “due to the potential for civil unrest”.
Despite the curfew, crowds were still gathered after 21:00. Kentucky Governor Andy Beshear urged the protesters to go home.
“We know that the answer to violence is never violence and we are thinking about those two officers and their families tonight. So I’m asking everybody: please, go home. Go home tonight,” he said.
Protests over the grand jury’s decision were also held in New York, Washington, Atlanta, and Chicago.
What did the prosecutor say?
Under Kentucky law, someone is guilty of wanton endangerment if they commit an act that shows “an extreme indifference to the value of human life”.
This lowest-level felony offence can come with a five-year sentence for each count. Brett Hankison was charged on three counts.
Ms Taylor’s relatives and activists for whom her death has become a rallying cry had been calling for the three officers, who are all white, to be charged with murder or manslaughter.
But this was rejected by a grand jury that reviewed the evidence.
On Wednesday, Judge Annie O’Connell announced the charges that had been brought against Mr Hankison.
Kentucky Attorney General Mr Cameron then held a news conference in which he expanded on the decision. “This is a gut-wrenching emotional case,” he said.
“There is nothing I can offer them today to take away the grief and heartache as a result of losing a child, a niece, a sister and a friend,” he added in a message to Ms Taylor’s family.
Mr Cameron said a ballistics report had found that six bullets struck Ms Taylor, but only one was fatal.
That analysis concluded that Detective Myles Cosgrove had fired the shot that killed Ms Taylor.
The attorney general said it was not clear if Mr Hankison’s shots had hit Ms Taylor, but they had hit a neighbouring apartment.
The top prosecutor said the other two officers – Jonathan Mattingly and Mr Cosgrove – had been “justified to protect themselves and the justification bars us from pursuing criminal charges”.
Mr Cameron, a Republican who is the state’s first black attorney general, added: “If we simply act on emotion or outrage, there is no justice.
“Mob justice is not justice. Justice sought by violence is not justice. It just becomes revenge.”
He added that the FBI was still investigating potential violations of federal law in the case.
What’s the reaction?
Ben Crump, a high-profile lawyer for the Taylor family, said the outcome was “outrageous and offensive”.
Officials this month agreed to pay her family $12m (£9.3m) in a settlement.
Asked for his reaction to the decision, Mr Trump told a White House news conference: “I thought it was really brilliant.”
He praised Kentucky’s attorney general, who addressed the Republican party convention last month, for “doing a fantastic job”.
“I think he’s a star,” he said, adding that he approved of the Kentucky governor’s decision to send in the National Guard.
Governor Andy Beshear, a Democrat, urged Kentucky prosecutors to release the evidence that was presented to the grand jury.
“I think having more of the facts out there so people can see, people can truly process it, is where we need to be,” Mr Beshear told reporters.
What happened to Ms Taylor?
Shortly after midnight on Friday 13 March, she was in bed with her boyfriend, Kenneth Walker, when they heard a banging on the door.
Plainclothes Louisville police officers were carrying out a narcotics raid, and they used a battering ram to enter the property.
A judge had granted a warrant to search Ms Taylor’s home because investigators suspected a convicted drug dealer – her ex-boyfriend, Jamarcus Glover – was using the address to receive packages. She had no criminal record.
Mr Walker fired a shot from his licensed gun, later telling police he thought that Glover had broken in, according to the New York Times.
Officials say Mr Walker’s bullet struck a police officer, Jonathan Mattingly, in the leg – an injury for which he later required surgery.
The three officers returned fire, discharging 32 rounds, according to a ballistics report from the FBI.
Ms Taylor, who had also got out of bed amid the commotion, was shot and died on the hallway floor.
According to an arrest report, the officers had been granted a “no-knock” warrant, allowing them to enter the property without warning.
But Mr Cameron said on Wednesday the officers had not actually served such a warrant. The attorney general said the officers’ statements that they identified themselves “are corroborated by an independent witness”.
Some neighbours told local media they did not hear the officers announce themselves.
No drugs were found at the property, though Jefferson County prosecutor Thomas Wine has previously said the search was cancelled after the shooting.
The subsequent police report contained errors, including listing Ms Taylor’s injuries as “none” and saying no force was used to enter, when a battering ram had been used.
Mr Walker was initially charged with attempted murder and assault of a police officer, but the case against him was dropped in May amid national scrutiny of the case.
What about the officers?
Mr Hankison was fired from the Louisville Metro Police Department in June after investigators found he had “wantonly and blindly fired 10 rounds” during the raid, according to his termination letter.
Mr Mattingly and Mr Cosgrove were reassigned to administrative duties.
The Louisville Courier-Journal has reported that six officers are under internal police review for their role in the shooting.
Mr Mattingly wrote an email on Saturday to more than 1,000 colleagues in which he criticised city leaders and protesters.
“Regardless of the outcome today or Wednesday, I know we did the legal, moral and ethical thing that night,” he wrote in the message, which was published by media outlets on Tuesday.
“It’s sad how the good guys are demonised, and the criminals are canonised.”
“Your civil rights mean nothing,” he added, “but the criminal has total autonomy.”
- Technology4 months ago
First iPhone jailbreak in four years released
- Space4 months ago
NASA launches its First Space Flight in the U.S since 2011
- Technology3 months ago
The Complete Guide for Building a Website
- Technology3 months ago
Check out the new Gaming Leader: Playstation 5
- Politics2 months ago
US Politicians Considering to Ban TikTok App
- Politics2 months ago
Beirut: How judges responded to warnings about ammonium nitrate stored at the Beirut port
- Technology2 months ago
Is OnePlus Nord the Best Phone Under Rs. 30,000?
- Entertainment3 months ago
Tenet and Wonder Woman 1984 delayed by Warner Bros.