New reporting from Reuters indicates that commerce megacorporation Amazon is monitoring the body temperatures of its warehouse workers using thermal cameras manufactured by a Chinese company known for cooperating with the Chinese government’s persecution of the country’s Uyghur minority.
Amazon secured 1,500 thermal cameras from Zhejiang Dahua Technology Co Ltd. earlier this month. The devices are intended to identify workers with a fever in the massive corporation’s warehouses, under the guise of preventing coronavirus from spreading in the company’s workplaces. However, the policy has been criticized as an invasive example of corporate privacy violation.
Dahua is formally sanctioned by the United States government for its complicity with authoritarian Chinese government policies towards the Uyghur minority. A listing from the Department of Commerce describes the company as “implicated” in “China’s campaign of repression, mass arbitrary detention, and high-technology surveillance against Uighurs, Kazakhs, and other members of Muslim minority groups.” Governmental entities are banned from purchasing equipment from Dahua, but private companies are free to purchase the global surveillance camera company’s products.
The use of Dahua’s cameras in Amazon warehouses also has national security implications. Nominally private Chinese companies are legally obligated to cooperate with the communist authoritarian nation’s intelligence services, meaning the cameras could provide confidential information to the Chinese government.
Amazon dismissed privacy concerns in a statement on the matter provided to Reuters. “None of this equipment has network connectivity, and no personal identifiable information will be visible, collected, or stored.”
As small businesses have struggled in the wake of the coronavirus epidemic, Amazon and its CEO Jeff Bezos have prospered. The ultrabillionaire has increased his net worth by a whopping $24 billion, easily regaining the distinction of being the world’s richest man.
What Happens If John Roberts Decides Not to Preside Over Trump’s Post-Presidency Impeachment Trial?
Trying to make sense of a messy situation.
Several Republicans and Democrats familiar with the negotiations over Donald Trump’s second impeachment trial have said that Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts does not want to preside.
A Politico report that broke the news reads as follows: “We’re hearing that Roberts, who for years has sought to keep the courts apolitical, was not happy he became a top target of the left during Trump’s first impeachment trial. ‘He wants no further part of this,’ one of our Hill sources says. A spokesperson for the chief justice declined to comment.”
As if it weren’t unprecedented enough for a president to have been impeached twice, Democratic lawmakers are hell-bent on holding an impeachment trial for a man who is no longer president. And it sounds like they’re going to get their wish: Senate leaders agreed Friday that the trial would begin Tuesday, February 9. It does not appear that Roberts’ decision is a factor either way.
This clown show needs some unpacking. First off, Roberts has very good reason to reject presiding over Trump’s impeachment trial. The Constitution states that the chief justice will preside when the president is tried. Not the ex-president, the current president. That alone should be sufficient.
Despite this, there may not be anything that expressly forbids Congress from impeaching and convicting former officials. Some legal experts have pointed out that “nothing in the text of the Constitution bars Congress from impeaching, convicting, and disqualifying former officials from holding future office.”
In light of all this, the radio silence of the Founders on this matter allows both sides to justify their support or opposition. Those in opposition say that because there’s nothing in the Constitution about trying a former president, there are no grounds to hold the trial. Those in support say that because there’s nothing in the Constitution about trying a former president, there is no legal reason to oppose the trial.
Furthermore, law professor Frank Bowman, speaking to the Washington Examiner, argued that if a trial is going to be held, it might be prudent for Roberts to preside.
“The vice president does have a personal interest in the outcome, insofar as conviction would eliminate Trump as a future political rival, either to President Biden or to Harris herself,” Bowman said. “I think the constitutionally safer call is that he should preside. That way, there can never be a later objection on the ground that the tribunal was not properly constituted.”
If Chief Justice Roberts decides to extricate himself from this mess, Democrats are said to be discussing the possibility of having Vice President Kamala Harris, who is also the president of the Senate, preside. Also being floated is president pro tempore and longest-serving senator Patrick Leahy.
Harris has a conflict of interest if she were to preside, however. And indeed that is why the Founders wanted the chief justice of a (theoretically) non-political entity of government to do so. Harris is not only of the opposite party and was on the ticket that defeated the Trump/Pence ticket, she might very well have aspirations for the presidency if Biden decides not to seek reelection. Trump himself may have his eye on the presidency once again as well, meaning that Harris would be presiding over the impeachment trial of a potential political opponent.
So if the legality of convicting an ex-president is gray, then it becomes a question of prudence. And prudence dictates that the impeachment trial should not proceed. The side that’s calling for “unity” is engaging in something fundamentally disunifying. Any attempt to convict a former president with no clear legal grounds is most definitely not a recipe for “unity” and “healing.” Our senators should just move on and worry about governing. Enough with the political shams and shenanigans.
Tech3 days ago
MeWe Goes Big Tech Authoritarian, Opts for Political Censorship
White House2 days ago
Biden’s White House Considering Banning Conservative Media from Press Briefings
Deplorables2 days ago
Donald Trump’s Team Officially Disavows the ‘Patriot Party’, Affirms the GOP Belongs to Trump
Congress3 days ago
SURRENDER CAUCUS: 17 House RINO Freshmen Pledge Loyalty to President-Imposed Joe Biden
Free Speech4 days ago
British Police Officer CRIMINALLY CHARGED for Sharing George Floyd Meme in WhatsApp Group
Politics3 days ago
FINAL BETRAYAL: Mitt Romney Pushes Unconstitutional Impeachment Trial of Private Citizen Trump
Fake News Media3 days ago
Jim Acosta Calls Conservative Media a “Disinformation-Industrial Complex” and “Potential Existential Threat”
Congress3 days ago
Madison Cawthorn Once Opposed Electoral College Certification…Now He Says Biden’s Victory was Legitimate