Write an article based on this summary:

– The US in early July hit $34 billion of Chinese goods with an extra 25% tariff; China responded in kind. CNN reports round two could see the US slap tariffs on another $16 billion in goods as soon as this week, but it's a much bigger figure that's attracting attention Wednesday. Bloomberg cites sources who say the White House is thinking about upping the ante and imposing not an additional 10% tariff on $200 billion worth of Chinese goods but an additional 25%. CNN echoes that news via its source. Bloomberg frames the move, which would be revealed in the next couple of weeks, as intended to "force officials back to the negotiating table through threats of even higher tariffs"; the last high-level negotiations took place nearly two months ago. A Chinese foreign ministry rep responded to the news thusly, per the AP: "If the United States takes further measures that escalate the situation, China will definitely fight back. We are determined to safeguard our legitimate and lawful rights and interests."

BEIJING (AP) — China's government warned Wednesday it will retaliate if Washington imposes new trade penalties, following a report the Trump administration will propose increasing the tariff rate on an additional $200 billion of Chinese imports.

 A foreign ministry spokesman, Geng Shuang, said Beijing was ready for "dialogue and consultation" to defuse the escalating dispute.

 "If the United States takes further measures that escalate the situation, China will definitely fight back," said Geng. He gave no details of possible measures but said, "we are determined to safeguard our legitimate and lawful rights and interests."

 Washington imposed additional 25 percent tariffs on $34 billion of Chinese goods July 6 in response to complaints Beijing steals or pressures companies to hand over technology. Beijing responded by imposing the same penalties on the same amount of U.S. imports.

 Bloomberg News reported, citing three unidentified sources, the Trump administration would propose imposing 25 percent tariffs on a $200 billion list of Chinese goods targeted in a new round of penalties, up from the planned 10 percent.

 Geng gave no indication whether the two sides were preparing to resume negotiations.

 "I need to stress that dialogues must be conducted on the basis of mutual respect and equality," he said. "Unilateral threats and pressure will only be counterproductive."

 The Ministry of Commerce didn't respond to questions by phone and fax about the status of possible negotiations. ||||| (CNN) The Trump administration plans to raise pending tariffs on $200 billion in Chinese goods to 25% from 10%, a source familiar with discussions confirmed to CNN.

 The news was first reported by Bloomberg.

 The move, which is not finalized and could change, according to the source, comes as the United States and China remain locked in a trade war. Talks between US and Chinese officials have done little to ease tensions.

 The United States has already imposed 25% tariffs on Chinese goods worth $34 billion. China immediately responded with its own tariffs on US goods worth $34 billion.

 A second round of tariffs on products worth $16 billion could take effect as soon as this week.

 Read More ||||| LISTEN TO ARTICLE 4:34 SHARE THIS ARTICLE Share Tweet Post Email

 The U.S. and China are trying to restart talks aimed at averting a full-blown trade war between the world’s two largest economies, two people familiar with the effort said.

 Representatives of U.S. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and Chinese Vice Premier Liu He are having private conversations as they look for ways to reengage in negotiations, according to the people who spoke about the deliberations on condition of anonymity.

 They cautioned that a specific timetable, the issues to be discussed and the format for talks aren’t finalized, but added there was agreement among the principals that more discussions need to take place.

 Negotiations to resolve the dispute have been stalled for weeks, with both sides refusing to budge. High-level U.S. talks on the Trump administration’s trade posture toward China are taking place this week, according to a third person who also spoke on the condition of anonymity.

 U.S. stocks closed higher as the prospects for an easing in trade tensions lifted industrial shares, with Boeing Co., Caterpillar Inc. and 3M Co. all adding more than 1 percent.

 The next wave of U.S. tariffs is set to kick in as soon as Wednesday, with the possible imposition of duties on another $16 billion of Chinese imports. The implementation could be delayed for weeks as the administration works out the details of which products it will target. Officials in Beijing have vowed to respond with the same amount of tariffs on U.S. products.

 One person familiar with the internal deliberations said the U.S. is trying to secure certain concessions and if China agrees, it is possible the U.S. would back off additional tariffs.

 Complicating Mnuchin’s efforts is a harder line taken by U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer, who has jurisdiction over the U.S.’s 301 investigation that sparked the tariffs. That case concluded China was stealing American technology and tariffs were needed to offset the damage.

 A U.S. Treasury spokesman didn’t respond to a request for comment.

 ‘Chronic Problem’

 U.S. and Chinese officials have given little recent indication in public that a restart to negotiations might be in the offing. Lighthizer said last week that trade tensions with China are a “chronic problem,” while China’s representative at the World Trade Organization accused the U.S. of “extortion.”

 The two sides held three rounds of formal talks, beginning with a delegation to Beijing led by Mnuchin in May. After Liu visited Washington later that month, the nations released a joint statement pledging to reduce the U.S. trade deficit with China, among other things. But within days, President Donald Trump himself backed away from the deal, saying talks would “probably have to use a different structure.”

 Negotiations broke off after the Trump administration imposed tariffs on $34 billion in Chinese imports this month, a move the Chinese said would void any promises they’d made in negotiations. Beijing responded in kind with its own tariffs.

 Trump’s mission to reduce the U.S. trade deficit via the threat of tariffs has brought him into conflict with China as well as U.S. allies, roiling financial markets and raising fears of a global trade war the International Monetary Fund has warned may undermine the strongest economic upswing in years.

 ZTE Deal

 Chinese and U.S. officials have struggled to find a starting place for a new round of talks. After taking a hard line on Chinese telecom equipment maker ZTE Corp., the Trump administration this month finished a deal that allowed the company to stay in business. Trump said the pact was a personal favor to Chinese President Xi Jinping.

 In exchange for the U.S. letting ZTE survive, Chinese regulators were expected to approve a deal between San Diego-based Qualcomm Inc. and rival chipmaker NXP Semiconductors NV, based in Eindhoven, Netherlands.

 Mnuchin was among the Cabinet officials involved in a last-minute effort early last week to get the Qualcomm-NXP deal approved before the companies vowed to walk away from it on July 25, the people said. Mnuchin’s efforts were unsuccessful and Qualcomm scrapped its $44 billion bid for NXP.

 The people familiar with the U.S.-China dispute said the U.S. has privately expressed dismay to the highest levels of the Chinese government that the deal fell through.

 Politburo Shift

 In a sign the trade standoff is reverberating through Chinese politics, the Politburo signaled Tuesday that policy makers will focus more on supporting economic growth amid risks from a campaign to reduce debt and the dispute with Trump.

 The communique, which followed a meeting of the country’s 25 most senior leaders led by Xi, said the nation’s campaign to reduce leverage will continue at a measured pace while improving economic policies to make them more forward-looking, flexible and effective in the second half of 2018.

 — With assistance by Andrew Mayeda |||||


Summarize this article:

Lawmakers pass anticipated legislation that reduces possession of small quantities to a petty offence and paves way for medical cannabis industry

 Jamaican lawmakers have passed an act to decriminalise small amounts of marijuana and establish a licensing agency to regulate a lawful medical cannabis industry on the island.

 After several hours of debate legislators in the lower house on Tuesday gave final passage to drug law amendments that make possession of up to 2oz (56.6g) of marijuana a petty offence that would not result in a criminal record. Cultivation of five or fewer plants on any premises would be permitted in Jamaica, where the drug has long been culturally entrenched but illegal.

 The law paves the way for a licensing authority to be set up to deal with regulations on cultivation and distribution of marijuana for medical, scientific and therapeutic purposes.

 Rastafarians can also legally use marijuana for religious purposes for the first time on the island where the spiritual movement was founded in the 1930s. Tourists prescribed medical marijuana abroad will be able to apply for permits at a cost authorising them to legally buy small amounts of “ganja”, as it is known locally.

 Peter Bunting, the island’s national security minister, said the Jamaican government did not plan to soften its stance on transnational drug trafficking or cultivation of illegal plots.

 “The passage of this legislation does not create a free-for-all in the growing, transporting, dealing or exporting of ganja. The security forces will continue to rigorously enforce Jamaican law consistent with our international treaty obligations,” Bunting said in parliament.

 William Brownfield, the US assistant secretary for counter-narcotics affairs, said before the vote that “Jamaican law is of course Jamaica’s own business and Jamaica’s sovereign decision”. But he noted that the trafficking of marijuana into the US remained illegal.

 “We expect that Jamaica and all states party to the UN drug conventions will uphold their obligations, including a firm commitment to combating and dismantling criminal organisations involved in drug trafficking,” he said.

 For decades debate has raged in Jamaica over relaxing laws prohibiting ganja. Previous efforts to decriminalise small amounts have been scuttled because officials feared they would violate international treaties and bring sanctions from Washington.

 But after changes in other countries, Jamaican officials hope the island could become a player in the nascent medical marijuana industry, health tourism and the development of innovative pot-derived items. Local scientists already have a history of creating marijuana-derived products, such as “Canasol”, which helps relieve pressure in the eyes of glaucoma patients.

 On Tuesday the Jamaican commerce minister, Anthony Hylton, said the industry held “great potential” for Jamaica, which is labouring under its latest loan programme with the International Monetary Fund.

 On Tuesday Alaska became the third US state to legalise the recreational use of marijuana for adults. More than 20 US states allow some form of medical marijuana and in 2014 Colorado and Washington legalised personal use.

 Elsewhere in the Americas, Uruguay in 2014 became the first nation to create a legal marijuana market. In Argentina personal possession was decriminalised under a 2009 supreme court ruling that jail time for small amounts of drugs violated the country’s constitution. ||||| KINGSTON, Jamaica (AP) — Marijuana has been pervasive but illegal in Jamaica for decades, consumed as a medicinal herb, puffed as a sacrament by Rastafarians and sung about in the island's famed reggae music.

 FILE - In this Aug. 28, 2014 file photo, legalization advocate and reggae legend Bunny Wailer smokes a pipe stuffed with marijuana during a “reasoning” session in a yard in Kingston, Jamaica. Jamaica... (Associated Press)

 After many years of dialogue about the culturally entrenched drug, and emboldened by changes to drug laws in U.S. states, Jamaica's Parliament on Tuesday night gave final approval to an act decriminalizing small amounts of pot and establishing a licensing agency to regulate a lawful medical marijuana industry.

 The historic amendments pave the way for a "cannabis licensing authority" to be established to deal with regulating the cultivation and distribution of marijuana for medical and scientific purposes. Both houses of Jamaica's legislature have approved the legislation.

 And in a victory for religious freedom, adherents of the homegrown Rastafari spiritual movement can now freely use marijuana for sacramental purposes for the first time on the tropical island.

 The law makes possession of up to 2 ounces of marijuana a petty offense that could result in a ticket but not in a criminal record. Cultivation of five or fewer plants on any premises would be permitted.

 Tourists who are prescribed medical marijuana abroad will soon be able to apply for permits authorizing them to legally buy small amounts of Jamaican weed, or "ganja" as it is known locally.

 Peter Bunting, the island's national security minister, said the legislation does not mean Jamaica plans to soften its stance on transnational drug trafficking or cultivation of illegal plots. Jamaica has long been considered the Caribbean's largest supplier of pot to the U.S. and regional islands.

 "The passage of this legislation does not create a free-for-all in the growing, transporting, dealing or exporting of ganja. The security forces will continue to rigorously enforce Jamaican law consistent with our international treaty obligations," Bunting said in Parliament.

 William Brownfield, the U.S. assistant secretary for counter-narcotics affairs, told The Associated Press days before the vote that "Jamaican law is of course Jamaica's own business, and Jamaica's sovereign decision." But he noted that the trafficking of marijuana into the U.S. remains against the law.

 "We expect that Jamaica and all states party to the U.N. Drug Conventions will uphold their obligations, including a firm commitment to combating and dismantling criminal organizations involved in drug trafficking," he told AP in an email.

 Debate has long raged in Jamaica over relaxing laws prohibiting ganja but previous calls to decriminalize small amounts of marijuana fizzled out because officials feared they would bring sanctions from Washington.

 Jamaican officials now have high hopes that the island can become a player in the nascent medical marijuana industry, health tourism and the development of innovative pot-derived items. Local scientists already have a history of creating marijuana-derived products, such as "Canasol," which helps relieve pressure in the eyes of glaucoma patients.

 Commerce Minister Anthony Hylton said the cannabis industry holds "great potential" for Jamaica, where marijuana has long been grown illegally on mountainsides and marshes.

 The move by Jamaican lawmakers adds to an international trend of easing restrictions on marijuana for medical or personal use. More than 20 U.S. states allow some form of medical marijuana and last year Colorado and Washington legalized personal use. On Tuesday, Alaska became the third U.S. state to legalize the recreational use of marijuana for adults.

 In the Americas, Uruguay last year became the first nation to create a legal marijuana market. In Argentina, personal possession of marijuana was decriminalized under a 2009 Supreme Court ruling that jail time for small amounts of drugs violates the country's constitution. A law in Chile permits use of medical marijuana.

 Details of Jamaica's licensing authority and its hoped-for medical marijuana sector will need to be refined in coming months. But for now, Jamaican cannabis crusaders applauded the amendments.

 "This is a big step in the right direction, but there's still a lot of work to do," said Delano Seiveright, director of the Cannabis Commercial and Medicinal Taskforce.

 ___

 David McFadden on Twitter: : http://twitter.com/dmcfadd ||||| Jamaica decriminalises possession of small amounts of marijuana

 Posted

 Jamaica's parliament has passed a law decriminalising possession of small amounts of marijuana, known locally as ganja.

 The drug — also called weed or pot — has long been associated with the Caribbean island country, but it has always remained illegal.

 National security minister Peter Bunting said the change came after an "elephantine" slog through parliament that took decades.

 "To describe this Bill's development as elephantine, is to label it in euphemistic terms since the parliamentary deliberations on it commenced as far back as 38 years ago," he said in a statement.

 "It eliminates an unnecessary source of friction between police and citizens, and ensures that our young people are not gratuitously shackled with criminal records."

 The new law makes possession of small quantities of pot a non-arrestable offence that can instead result in a fine.

 It will also permit the use of marijuana for religious, medical, scientific, and therapeutic purposes.

 The legislation paves the way for the development of a lawful industry for medical ganja and industrial hemp, the minister's statement said.

 "It is significant because it begins to correct decades of criminalising tens of thousands of Jamaicans, mostly poor young black males, for possession of a little 'spliff'," Mr Bunting said.

 "This progressive legislation also begins to correct the victimisation of our Rastafarian brethren which started in colonial times and continued after Independence."

 Rastafarianism, the religion followed by late Jamaican reggae star Bob Marley, includes the ritualistic use of marijuana.

 AFP

 Topics: drug-use, drug-offences, drugs-and-substance-abuse, law-crime-and-justice, laws, jamaica |||||

– Alaska yesterday became the third state to legalize marijuana for recreational use, and now a country where you would have thought that was the case already is moving closer to that goal itself. Jamaica's parliament last night approved a law decriminalizing small amounts of pot, the AP reports. People found with 2 ounces or less of marijuana will now simply receive a ticket—not a crime on their record—and cultivation of five plants or fewer is now allowed. A licensing agency was also established to oversee pot cultivation and distribution for medical and scientific efforts. Rastafarians are rejoicing, because the bill also grants them the legal right to use cannabis for sacramental purposes, while tourists who have medical marijuana prescriptions elsewhere can pay for permits to buy a bit of ganja on the island. Jamaica has shied away from decriminalization because it didn't want to risk violating international treaties and provoking US sanctions, the Guardian reports. The process for the new law was described by National Security Minister Peter Bunting as an "elephantine," nearly 40-year effort, ABC Australia reports. "[The law] eliminates an unnecessary source of friction between police and citizens, and ensures that our young people are not gratuitously shackled with criminal records," he said in a statement. Jamaica also hopes to boost its health tourism and medical marijuana industries and make it a major player in the pot product market, the Guardian notes. International exporting, however, remains a no-no. A US counternarcotics official told the AP in an email that "Jamaican law is of course Jamaica's own business," but warned that drug trafficking into the US is still illegal.


Summarize this article:

FILE - In this Thursday, June 29, 2017 file photo, psychiatrist Dr. Lieve Thienpont poses during an interview with The Associated Press, in Ghent, Belgium, one of the few countries that allow for euthanasia.... (Associated Press)

 FILE - In this Thursday, June 29, 2017 file photo, psychiatrist Dr. Lieve Thienpont poses during an interview with The Associated Press, in Ghent, Belgium, one of the few countries that allow for euthanasia. Belgian officials are investigating whether doctors improperly euthanized a woman with autism,... (Associated Press)

 FILE - In this Thursday, June 29, 2017 file photo, psychiatrist Dr. Lieve Thienpont poses during an interview with The Associated Press, in Ghent, Belgium, one of the few countries that allow for euthanasia. Belgian officials are investigating whether doctors improperly euthanized a woman with autism,... (Associated Press) FILE - In this Thursday, June 29, 2017 file photo, psychiatrist Dr. Lieve Thienpont poses during an interview with The Associated Press, in Ghent, Belgium, one of the few countries that allow for euthanasia.... (Associated Press)

 LONDON (AP) — Belgian officials are investigating whether doctors improperly euthanized a woman with autism, the first criminal investigation in a euthanasia case since the practice was legalized in 2002.

 Three doctors from East Flanders are being investigated on suspicion of having "poisoned" Tine Nys in 2010. The 38-year-old had been diagnosed with Asperger's syndrome, a mild form of autism, two months before she died in an apparently legal killing by a doctor.

 Belgium is one of two countries, along with the Netherlands, where euthanasia of people for psychiatric reasons is allowed if they can prove they have "unbearable and untreatable" suffering. Among Belgians euthanized for mental health reasons, the most common conditions are depression, personality disorder and Asperger's. Many experts — in Belgium and beyond— dispute whether autism should be considered a valid reason to be killed.

 Last year, the Associated Press reported that after Nys' family filed a criminal complaint, alleging numerous "irregularities" in her death, her doctors attempted to block the investigation.

 "We must try to stop these people," wrote Dr. Lieve Thienpont, the psychiatrist who approved Nys' request to die — and one of the doctors now facing charges. "It is a seriously dysfunctional, wounded, traumatized family with very little empathy and respect for others," the message read.

 Sophie Nys, one of Tine's sisters, told the AP that the doctor who performed the euthanasia asked her parents to hold the needle in place while he administered the fatal injection, among other fumbling efforts. Afterward, the doctor asked the family to use a stethoscope to confirm that Tine's heart had stopped.

 Belgium's Chamber of Indictment "presumes that there are sufficient indications in this particular case" and the doctors involved have been referred to the Court of Assize in Ghent. They will now face trial "due to poisoning," said Francis Clarysse, a Ghent prosecutor.

 Concerns have previously been raised about whether Thienpont, Nys' psychiatrist, too easily approved euthanasia requests from patients with mental illness.

 The AP previously published documents revealing a rift between Thienpont and Dr. Wim Distelmans, who heads Belgium's euthanasia review commission. Distelmans voiced fears that Thienpont and colleagues may have failed to meet certain legal requirements in some euthanasia cases — and wrote that he would no longer accept referred patients from Thienpont.

 In the 15 years since doctors were granted the right to legally kill patients, more than 10,000 people have been euthanized. Only one case has previously been referred to prosecutors; that case was later dropped. ||||| BRUSSELS (AFP) -

 Three doctors will face a criminal trial in Belgium accused of failing to comply with the legal conditions for euthanasia, the first such case since it was decriminalised in 2002.

 "This is the first time that there has been a decision to refer such a case to a court of law," lawyer Jacqueline Herremans told AFP on Friday, confirming information from Belgian media.

 "There have already been legal cases involving doctors, but they have always resulted in dismissals before going to court," added Herremans, who chairs the Belgian Association for the Right to Die with Dignity.

 The case follows the announcement that Dutch authorities are prosecuting a doctor for euthanising an elderly woman with dementia in the first case of its kind in neighbouring the Netherlands.

 Belgium and the Netherlands became the first countries in the world to legalise so-called mercy killing, but it can only be carried out by doctors and under very strict conditions.

 The decision in Belgium, taken on Thursday by the Court of Appeal in Ghent, stems from a civil action brought by a sister of an autistic woman, Tine Nys, who was euthanised in 2010 at the age of 38.

 The sister accused the doctors of not having properly prepared the case and of taking a rushed decision when the woman had not been treated for mental issues for years.

 The diagnosis of autism had only been made two months before her death, according to the Belgian media.

 In Belgium, euthanasia has been allowed since 2002 for patients suffering from an incurable disease who have made their request "voluntarily, thoughtfully and repeatedly".

 This right for adults was extended in 2014 to minors, within an equally strict legal framework.

 © 2018 AFP ||||| GHENT, Belgium (AP) — After struggling with mental illness for years, Cornelia Geerts was so desperate to die that she asked her psychiatrist to kill her.

 Her sister worried that her judgment was compromised. The 59-year-old was taking more than 20 pills every day, including antidepressants, an opioid, a tranquilizer, and two medicines often used to treat bipolar disorder and schizophrenia.

 About a year later, on October 7, 2014, her doctor administered a lethal dose of drugs. It was all legal procedure in Belgium, which has among the world’s most permissive euthanasia laws.

 “I know it was Cornelia’s wish, but I said to the psychiatrist that it was a shame that someone in treatment for years could just be brought to the other side with a simple injection,” said her sister, Adriana Geerts.

 Belgium is one of five countries that allow doctors to kill patients at their request, and one of two, along with the Netherlands, that grant the procedure for people with mental illness. The idea is that those with a psychiatric illness should be afforded the same rights as those suffering from a physical one.

 “I always regret that we couldn’t do something else,” said Dr. Lieve Thienpont, one of the doctors who signed off on Geerts’ death. “At the same time, I’m part of the relief for the patient.”

 Like many in Belgium and elsewhere, Thienpont, a respected psychiatrist and prominent euthanasia advocate, believes that when medicine can’t relieve suffering, euthanasia — when doctors actively kill patients — should be an option. And because psychological suffering can be harder to detect, doctors must take patients at their word.

 “You can’t see it on a scan,” she said. “But we have to listen to the patient. We have to believe them because we can’t see (the suffering) always.”

 Cases like Geerts and others have shown, though, how difficult it can be to strike a balance between respecting personal freedom and ensuring that people requesting euthanasia have the mental capacity to make that decision. Many, including Geerts’ sister Adriana, think society should try harder to help struggling people with issues they face in jobs and relationships.

 Thienpont’s approach to managing euthanasia requests has raised concerns even among doctors who support the procedure for psychological suffering. According to copies of letters obtained by The Associated Press, those worries have led to a clash between Thienpont and Dr. Wim Distelmans, chairman of Belgium’s euthanasia review commission, that has not been publicly disclosed.

 The documents do not include accusations that patients were killed who shouldn’t have been, but they suggest doctors may have failed to meet certain legal requirements in some cases. And they highlight how difficult it can be to judge whose pain should end in death.

 Distelmans did not respond to requests by email and telephone for an interview. Thienpont described receiving Distelmans’ letter in February as “a very difficult moment” and said that she and members of Distelmans’ team were still working out how to resolve what she called “internal issues.”

 In the countries where euthanasia is legal — Belgium, Canada, Colombia, Luxembourg and the Netherlands — the vast majority of cases are people with a fatal illness such as cancer who have only weeks or months to live.

 To qualify for euthanasia in Belgium, people must meet a number of criteria, including proving they have “unbearable and untreatable” suffering. Among adults whose lives are ended for psychiatric reasons, the most common conditions are depression, personality disorder and Asperger’s syndrome, a mild form of autism. People diagnosed with early-stage dementia can also request euthanasia, including for the future.

 Euthanasia is not permitted in the U.S., but six states and Washington D.C. allow assisted suicide, where doctors provide people with the means to kill themselves, such as a deadly dose of medication. Patients must be terminally ill and the procedure is forbidden for psychiatric patients.

 As these procedures are slowly becoming more accepted, and in some places where they are already allowed, boundaries are being stretched even further.

 In 2014, Belgium became the first country in the world to expand its original euthanasia law by explicitly allowing it for children, although this cannot be for psychological suffering. The Netherlands, the first country to legalize euthanasia, has proposed extending euthanasia to old, healthy people who feel they have “completed” their lives. Canada, which passed its euthanasia law last year, is facing legal challenges designed to expand access to the procedure.

 The number of people killed for psychological suffering is small — about 40 cases among Belgium’s 2,000 yearly euthanasia deaths. But that’s more than some experts predicted. In 2008, when euthanasia for psychiatric disorders was first broken out, four people were euthanized for psychiatric disorders. By 2015, the latest year for which data are available, that figure was 43.

 ____

 “WHAT COULD HELP ME TO DIE?”

 As more countries grapple with whether to legalize assisted dying, Thienpont argues they needn’t worry about setting limits on who should be eligible for euthanasia, because only the truly desperate will ask to die.

 “You don’t have to be afraid,” she said.

 One of Thienpont’s patients, Amy De Schutter, says approving euthanasia for psychiatric patients can save lives.

 “We want to live,” said De Schutter, whose request for euthanasia was granted last year, though she didn’t set an immediate date to die.

 De Schutter says she endured years of failed treatment at psychiatric institutions and spent months deliberating how to kill herself. A trained physicist, she calculated the time it would take for an overdose to kick in, considered which bridge she might jump from and listed ways to kill herself in PowerPoint presentations.

 De Schutter had already picked the day of her suicide, but one month before her intended death last year, her euthanasia request was accepted. Once she had been given clearance to legally die at home, she was relieved she wouldn’t have to kill herself. That was comforting enough to her that she didn’t set an immediate date for her euthanasia and has even drawn up a list of things she’d like to do in the meantime.

 “It felt like 10,000 kilos was just (lifted),” De Schutter said. She says if she hadn’t been in a country where euthanasia was legal, she would have resorted to suicide by now.

 Pierre Pol Vincke wishes his daughter Edith could have gotten that same relief — and perhaps continued to live. “She said, ‘Dad, you understand science, what could help me to die?” said Vincke, a biologist and amateur beekeeper in his garden in Ramillies, Belgium. “I said, as a father, I can’t do that.”

 Doctors refused her euthanasia request, despite years of psychiatric illness. On November 3, 2011, Edith slashed her throat.

 Jean-Jacques De Gucht, a Belgian lawmaker who co-sponsored the amendment that made the procedure available to children, says the law enhances personal freedom and that criticism of the country’s euthanasia policies are misguided.

 “I think one of the greatest gifts you can give to society is to give people the possibility to choose for themselves if they’re in a situation where they’re suffering every day, to choose for themselves how to cope with that pain,” he said.

 _____

 “WE MUST TRY TO STOP THESE PEOPLE”

 Sophie Nys believes her sister’s euthanasia was granted far too easily. She acknowledges that her sister Tine had long struggled with mental health problems, but said it was unthinkable that those problems warranted her death. Tine’s longtime psychiatrist rejected her request to die, but Tine soon found Thienpont.

 Sophie Nys says that Thienpont diagnosed Tine with Asperger’s and approved her euthanasia request after two or three sessions with Thienpont. Because Asperger’s is “incurable and chronic,” it meets one of the legal requirements for euthanasia. Sophie said her sister was so intent on being euthanized she might have manipulated the test.

 “She knew that if she wasn’t diagnosed with autism or Asperger’s that she would not have a chance (of being euthanized),” she said. Two months after her diagnosis with Asperger’s, Nys was killed, at age 38.

 After Nys’ death, her sister Sophie filed a criminal complaint, alleging irregularities in her sister’s euthanasia procedure, including fumbling efforts to administer drugs and asking her family to confirm that Tine’s heart had stopped.

 Nys later obtained access to her sister’s medical file and found emails between her sister’s doctors attempting to block the investigation into Tine’s death.

 “We must try to stop these people,” Thienpont wrote in one email to her colleagues that was provided to the AP. “It is a seriously dysfunctional, wounded, traumatized family with very little empathy and respect for others,” the message read. “I am starting to better understand Tine’s suffering.”

 The criminal complaint against Thienpont and the other doctors involved in Tine Nys’ death was dismissed last year. The Nys family is appealing the decision. Others who knew Tine Nys have suggested the family’s account is not reliable because they were estranged, and that she was convinced only death would alleviate her misery.

 Thienpont declined to comment on the Nys case, citing medical confidentiality.

 ____

 “YOUR EUTHANASIA CASES WILL NOT BE TREATED ANYMORE”

 Thienpont’s readiness to grant euthanasia to mental health patients has made some of her own colleagues uncomfortable.

 In 2015, Thienpont was the lead author of a paper published in the medical journal BMJ Open, tracking 100 of her patients who requested euthanasia between 2007 and 2011. Of those, 48 were granted.

 Some doctors were stunned by the high number of requests Thienpont fielded and how many were approved. At some other major psychiatric centers in Belgium, doctors receive only a handful of such requests every year, of which perhaps about 10 to 30 percent are accepted, according to several psychiatrists who deal with such requests.

 “That one single psychiatrist in Belgium has had such a major impact on the practice of euthanasia in psychiatric patients is very alarming,” said Dr. Stephan Claes, a psychiatrist at the University of Leuven.

 Thienpont disputed that characterization, adding that she was not the only psychiatrist signing off on patients’ requests and that her numbers were not unusual.

 But some colleagues, including some of the most prominent euthanasia practitioners in Belgium, have refused to accept her patients.

 Distelmans, a cancer doctor who chairs the euthanasia commission and helped found the clinics known as “End of Life Information Forum,” known by their Flemish acronym, LEIF, has administered the fatal injection to some of Belgium’s most high-profile cases, including a man who had a bungled sex change and deaf twins, aged 45, who were going blind.

 He and Thienpont had a long history of collaboration, with Thienpont’s Ghent-based organization, Vonkel, referring patients to his LEIF clinics.

 But earlier this year, Distelmans and colleagues sent Thienpont a letter that raised concern that some patients may have been killed without meeting a legal requirement that an independent consultation be performed first.

 “Your euthanasia cases will not be treated anymore within our operation,” Distelmans and colleagues wrote in a February 13 letter. “The reason is a difference of opinion on how a request for euthanasia must be approved. We have already communicated this several times orally, but to no avail.”

 Thienpont said the letter raised problems only about how patients were referred, not how she and colleagues were practicing euthanasia, and that Distelmans told her after the letter was sent that he has no concerns about her euthanasia process. She says she has never once received a request from the euthanasia commission to provide more details about her cases.

 Thienpont also blamed the patients for not describing events accurately.

 “These patients are very desperate, stressed,” she said. “They say things that are not always correct.”

 Belgium requires that people seeking euthanasia for psychiatric reasons receive an independent consultation from at least two other doctors in addition to the one who approved the procedure. The doctors don’t have to agree; the law requires only that the objective assessments be sought.

 Despite that latitude, Distelmans complained that Thienpont’s patients were arriving at his clinic with “unrealistic expectations,” presuming that their euthanasia request would automatically be approved. That, he said, made conducting an independent assessment — a statutory requirement — unworkable.

 “We found several times that you had already made promises to patients that were referred to us,” they wrote, and that such “promises” undermined their own attempts to engage with patients and figure out if euthanasia was justifiable. “We want to distance ourselves from this way of working.”

 Penney Lewis, co-director of the Centre of Medical Law and Ethics at King’s College London, said that Distelmans’ objections to Thienpont’s practice, given his role as chair of the national euthanasia commission, were particularly serious.

 “He is someone who is well-versed in reviewing cases to make decisions,” she said. “If he’s saying, ‘I think there’s a concern about one of the legal criteria in your practice,’ that carries much greater weight than if it were just another consultant doctor saying that.”

 _____

 “A NEED TO BE STRICTER”

 Support for euthanasia, including for psychiatric patients, remains high in Belgium. And the country’s public health minister, Maggie De Block, is a euthanasia advocate who once helped raise money for Distelmans’ clinics.

 But the Nys case and others like it have led some critics to a push for more exacting oversight and tougher approval procedures.

 An increasing number of psychiatrists say the vague provisions of the law give individual doctors too much discretion and believe more rigorous oversight is needed to protect patients.

 Other experts are troubled by the lack of transparency in Belgium. There is one review commission in Belgium and they release little information about cases. In the Netherlands, there are five committees and they release detailed accounts of controversial cases. Since 2002, only one case in Belgium has been referred to prosecutors for further investigation.

 Fernand Keuleneer, who sat on the Belgian national euthanasia commission, said the system is not designed to protect patients in part because cases are only reviewed after their deaths.

 The Flemish Psychiatric Association is now drafting new guidelines, including a requirement that all proven treatments be tried before considering euthanasia.

 “There’s a need to be stricter because now we see that sometimes euthanasia is granted too quickly, too easily, without enough checks and balances,” said Dr. Joris Vandenberghe, a psychiatrist at the University of Leuven, who is working on the guidance. They resemble those already being used in the Netherlands, and are set to be presented in December.

 “I’m convinced that in Belgium, people have died where there were still treatment options and where there was still a chance for years and even decades of (quality) life,” Vandenberghe said.

 _____

 “I WISH THERE HAD BEEN ANOTHER WAY”

 Doctors say that balancing the finality of euthanasia with the often treatable and sometimes fleeting nature of many psychiatric illnesses is extraordinarily difficult.

 “These are patients who are easily misunderstood because of the disorders they have,” said Dr. Scott Kim, a bioethics expert at the U.S. National Institutes of Health. He said psychiatric patients will often express a wish to die that is transient or a symptom of their condition. “Any patient with a serious psychiatric diagnosis will be in a lot of distress and could technically meet the Belgian requirement of ‘unbearable suffering’ for euthanasia.”

 Psychiatrist Claes said he is convinced treatment options remain for many of the patients with psychological suffering being euthanized. He recalled consulting on the euthanasia request of a woman who was about 25, with issues including borderline personality disorder, self-harming behavior and mood instability.

 “She told me that she already had the permission for euthanasia given by Dr. Thienpont,” he said. “What was really shocking about this patient specifically was that she was very young and a number of therapeutic options had clearly not been tried out sufficiently.”

 But to desperate patients like De Schutter, further restricting euthanasia for psychiatric patients is a form of discrimination that infringes on her autonomy.

 “I can get a loan, I can buy a car, I can (have) kids, I can buy a house (and) do everything that I want to,” she said. “But if I want to end my life, all of a sudden, I can’t think straight anymore? That’s something strange.”

 For some bereaved relatives whose loved ones have been euthanized for psychological reasons, the loss is compounded by a belief that doctors should have instead done what they could to keep their patients alive.

 Although Geerts disagreed with her sister’s request for euthanasia, she accompanied Cornelia to the clinic that morning, in the hopes that she would change her mind.

 “I think if the doctors had tried to help her more or proposed other things, she might have felt there was another solution,” she said. “I wish there had been another way.”

 ____

 Associated Press writer Jamey Keaten in Zurich contributed to this report. |||||

– Belgian doctors accused of improperly euthanizing a woman with autism will see their case go to trial, marking "the first time that there has been a decision to refer such a case to a court of law" since the practice was legalized in 2002, a prosecutor tells the AFP. Three doctors from East Flanders are being investigated on suspicion of having "poisoned" Tine Nys in 2010. The 38-year-old had been diagnosed with Asperger's syndrome two months before she died in an apparently legal killing by a doctor. Sophie Nys, one of Tine's sisters, told the AP of "irregularities" in the process: that the doctor who performed the euthanasia asked her parents to hold the needle in place while he administered the fatal injection, among other fumbling efforts. Afterward, the doctor asked the family to use a stethoscope to confirm that Tine's heart had stopped. Last year, the AP reported that after Nys' family filed a criminal complaint, her doctors attempted to block the investigation. "We must try to stop these people," wrote Dr. Lieve Thienpont, the psychiatrist who approved Nys' request to die—and one of the doctors now facing charges. "It is a seriously dysfunctional, wounded, traumatized family with very little empathy and respect for others." Nys also alleged that her sister's longtime psychiatrist wouldn't give Tine the OK, and that Thienpoint did so after as few as two or three sessions with her. Belgium is one of two countries, along with the Netherlands, where euthanasia of people for psychiatric reasons—including depression, personality disorder and Asperger's—is allowed if they can prove they have "unbearable and untreatable" suffering.


Write an article based on this summary:

– The "angst" travelers feel at overcrowded gates may soon be eased at United Airlines terminals, an exec for the airline says. That's because United just began a new initiative designed to relieve that particular "passenger pain point," as CNBC puts it, by changing up its departure protocol: The number of boarding lines has been cut from five to two, and overeager customers are now asked to stay out of the boarding area until their boarding group (one of six in total, including pre-boarders) is announced. "It's too congested," a UA rep says of the current procedure, which often results in arriving fliers having to push their way through throngs of departing ones. Forbes notes customers can also opt in to receive push notifications via the mobile app, meaning they can hang out in nearby restaurants or shops until they receive an alert on their cellphones that it's time to board. Over the past year, United test-drove a variety of boarding options on about 12,000 flights, ending up with this system, which is similar to the way American, Delta, and Southwest queue up. United has been using the procedure at LAX since winter and will now implement it at all locations, per USA Today. It's also spreading passengers around more equitably within its six boarding groups, which includes pre-boarders (e.g., families with young kids, service members), first-class passengers and frequent fliers in groups 1 and 2, and then everyone else in groups 3, 4, and 5. "The boarding process was one of the top areas customers told us they wanted improved," another UA rep says in a statement, noting customer and employee feedback guided the airline on the enhancements. (United had some "unfortunate dog incidents" earlier this year.)

Saddle up to the gate on your next United flight and you may notice that there's now a different system in place for loading passengers. Just this week, Chicago-based United Airlines updated its boarding process to rely on fewer boarding lanes, a move that will cut down on congestion and potentially speed up passenger loading.

 The new boarding process has been in the works for months. In June, United started experimenting with different boarding procedures in a handful of test gates in Chicago and Houston, two of the busiest hubs in the airline's network. Now, as of this week, the official new boarding process is finally in place.

 Moving forward, the airline will still have five boarding groups but will only use two lanes for boarding. Elite and other priority passengers in group 1 and 2 will load through lane 1, while customers in group 3, 4 and 5 will use lane 2. Those not actively boarding will be asked to remain seated until paged. Chase co-branded credit card holders, according to the blog Wandering Aramean, will board in group 2.

 In addition to the new boarding process, United is also launching push notifications for those who have the airline's mobile app. Those who opt in will be given a push notification when boarding starts, a tool that will be particularly useful if a flight is delayed or if the ground crew decides to load the aircraft early.

 This week's updates come as the latest milestone in a long history of experimentation that United and other airlines have performed around the oft-complicated and congested boarding process. Several years ago, in an effort to better segment the cabin and speed up loading, United started using five lanes to feed through passengers. And while that method successfully segmented passengers in the boarding zone and prepared them for departure, it also created a fair amount of idle, standing passengers and congestion near the gate – especially during delays. The new strategy launched this week helps alleviate that problem.

 Indeed, some of United's peers are already using this simplified process. American Airlines currently boards by zone using only two lanes while Delta Air Lines splits the difference and boards with four. One difference between United and its competitors, however, is that as of this week, top tier or "1K" elite members will be able to pre-board before the official process starts; with most carriers only VIP passengers are given that access.

 New boarding lanes and gateside notifications should roll out to airports this week. ||||| CHICAGO, Nov. 30, 2018 /PRNewswire/ -- United Airlines today announced it has reached an agreement with Compañía Panameña de Aviación S.A. (Copa), Aerovías del Continente Americano S.A. (Avianca) and many of Avianca's affiliates, for a joint business agreement (JBA) that, pending government approval, is expected to provide substantial benefits for customers, communities and the marketplace for air travel between the United States and 19 countries in Central and South America.

 Many more choices for customers

 By integrating their complementary route networks into a collaborative revenue-sharing JBA, United, Avianca and Copa plan to offer customers many benefits, including:

 Integrated, seamless service in more than 12,000 city pairs

 New nonstop routes

 Additional flights on existing routes

 Reduced travel times

 Drive economic benefits for consumers and the communities we serve

 The carriers expect the JBA to drive significant traffic growth at major gateway cities coast to coast, which is expected to help bring new investment and create more economic development opportunities. Further, the JBA is expected to provide customers with expanded codeshare flight options, competitive fares, a more streamlined travel experience and better customer service, resulting in significant projected consumer benefits.

 Better serve our customers

 Additionally, allowing the three carriers to serve customers as if they were a single airline is expected to enable the companies to better align their frequent flyer programs, coordinate flight schedules and improve airport facilities.

 "This agreement represents the next chapter in U.S.-Latin American air travel," said Scott Kirby, United's president. "We are excited to work with our Star Alliance partners Avianca and Copa to bring much-needed competition and growth to many underserved markets while providing a better overall experience for business and leisure customers traveling across the Western Hemisphere."

 "We are delighted to further solidify our existing partnership with United Airlines and look forward to increasing service options for our customers by working more closely with Avianca," said Pedro Heilbron, Copa Airlines' chief executive officer. "We believe this agreement benefits our passengers by providing competitive fares and a superior network of more than 275 destinations throughout Latin America and the U.S., and promotes further growth and innovation within the airline industry in the Americas."

 "We are certain that together we are stronger in the United States – Latin America market than any of the three airlines individually," said Hernan Rincon, Avianca's executive president – chief executive officer. "This partnership will allow Avianca to strengthen its position as a first-level player in the airline industry in America as we will expand our scope in the continent with United and Copa, offering better connectivity to our customers."

 JBAs drive competition that benefits customers

 Although JBAs have been proven around the world to benefit consumers and enhance competition, currently 99 percent of the U.S. carrier passenger traffic that makes connections in Central and South America does so without a JBA. Competition in the U.S.-Latin American market has grown and includes a diverse set of carriers offering service across multiple price points. Yet the market lacks a comprehensive revenue-sharing, metal-neutral network of carriers and the associated heightened competitive forces that drive value and better consumer experiences. The JBA represents an innovative, best-in-class new product offering that will make competition in this robust market even stronger.

 "Our analysis shows that a metal-neutral JBA among United, Copa and Avianca will provide substantial benefits to consumers traveling between the relevant countries," said Dr. Darin Lee, executive vice president of economic consulting firm Compass Lexecon and airline industry expert. "This JBA will enable United, Copa and Avianca to compete more effectively, offer competitive fares, and increase service, encouraging innovation and establishing a more robust and vibrant marketplace."

 To enable the deep coordination required to deliver these benefits to consumers, communities and the marketplace, United, Copa and Avianca plan to apply in the near term for regulatory approval of the JBA and an accompanying grant of antitrust immunity from the U.S. Department of Transportation and other regulatory agencies. The parties do not plan on fully implementing the JBA until they receive the necessary government approvals. The JBA currently includes cooperation between the U.S. and Central and South America, excluding Brazil. With the recently concluded Open Skies agreement between the U.S. and Brazil, the carriers are exploring the possibility of adding Brazil to the JBA.

 About United

 United Airlines and United Express operate approximately 4,700 flights a day to 356 airports across five continents. In 2017, United and United Express operated more than 1.6 million flights carrying more than 148 million customers. United is proud to have the world's most comprehensive route network, including U.S. mainland hubs in Chicago, Denver, Houston, Los Angeles, Newark/New York, San Francisco and Washington, D.C. United operates 760 mainline aircraft and the airline's United Express carriers operate 546 regional aircraft. The airline is a founding member of Star Alliance, which provides service to 193 countries via 28 member airlines. For more information, visit united.com, follow @United on Twitter or connect on Facebook. The common stock of United's parent, United Continental Holdings, Inc., is traded on the Nasdaq under the symbol "UAL".

 Safe Harbor Statement

 Safe Harbor Statement under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995: Certain statements included in this release are forward-looking and thus reflect United's current expectations and beliefs with respect to certain current and future events and anticipated financial and operating performance. Such forward-looking statements are and will be subject to many risks and uncertainties relating to our operations and business environment that may cause actual results to differ materially from any future results expressed or implied in such forward-looking statements. Words such as "expects," "will," "plans," "anticipates," "indicates," "believes," "estimates," "forecast," "guidance," "outlook," "goals" and similar expressions are intended to identify forward-looking statements. Additionally, forward-looking statements include statements that do not relate solely to historical facts, such as statements which identify uncertainties or trends, discuss the possible future effects of current known trends or uncertainties, or which indicate that the future effects of known trends or uncertainties cannot be predicted, guaranteed or assured. All forward-looking statements in this release are based upon information available to us on the date of this release. We undertake no obligation to publicly update or revise any forward-looking statement, whether as a result of new information, future events, changed circumstances or otherwise, except as required by applicable law. Our actual results could differ materially from these forward-looking statements due to numerous factors including, without limitation, the following: general economic conditions (including interest rates, foreign currency exchange rates, investment or credit market conditions, crude oil prices, costs of aircraft fuel and energy refining capacity in relevant markets); economic and political instability and other risks of doing business globally, including political developments that may impact our operations in certain countries; demand for travel and the impact that global economic and political conditions have on customer travel patterns; competitive pressures on pricing and on demand; demand for transportation in the markets in which we operate; our capacity decisions and the capacity decisions of our competitors; the effects of any hostilities, act of war or terrorist attack; the effects of any technology failures or cybersecurity breaches; the impact of regulatory, investigative and legal proceedings and legal compliance risks; disruptions to our regional network; the ability of other air carriers with whom we have alliances or partnerships to provide the services contemplated by the respective arrangements with such carriers; costs associated with any modification or termination of our aircraft orders; potential reputational or other impact from adverse events in our operations, the operations of our regional carriers or the operations of our code share partners; our ability to attract and retain customers; our ability to execute our operational plans and revenue-generating initiatives, including optimizing our revenue; our ability to control our costs, including realizing benefits from our resource optimization efforts, cost reduction initiatives and fleet replacement programs; the impact of any management changes; our ability to cost-effectively hedge against increases in the price of aircraft fuel if we decide to do so; any potential realized or unrealized gains or losses related to any fuel or currency hedging programs; labor costs; our ability to maintain satisfactory labor relations and the results of any collective bargaining agreement process with our union groups; any disruptions to operations due to any potential actions by our labor groups; an outbreak of a disease that affects travel demand or travel behavior; U.S. or foreign governmental legislation, regulation and other actions (including Open Skies agreements and environmental regulations); industry consolidation or changes in airline alliances; our ability to comply with the terms of our various financing arrangements; the costs and availability of financing; our ability to maintain adequate liquidity; the costs and availability of aviation and other insurance; weather conditions; our ability to utilize our net operating losses to offset future taxable income; the impact of changes in tax laws; the success of our investments in airlines in other parts of the world; and other risks and uncertainties set forth under Part I, Item 1A., "Risk Factors," of United's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017, as well as other risks and uncertainties set forth from time to time in the reports we file with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

 SOURCE United Airlines

 For further information: United Airlines Worldwide Media Relations, +1-872-825-8640, media.relations@united.com ||||| Fuller flights are a boon to airlines but overcrowding at gates has become an unwelcome side effect.

 United Airlines says its customers have complained about clusters of travelers around its gates. Travelers spilled into corridors and arriving passengers who just stepped off a flight were met with hordes of departing travelers.

 "It's too congested," said Maria Walter, United Airlines' managing director of global operations strategy. "It created a lot of angst from our customers."

 The airline on Tuesday debuted a new boarding process in an effort to combat this passenger pain point, and make sure flights depart on time as more travelers than ever opt to fly.

 United reduced the boarding lines to two from five, and is urging travelers to wait until their boarding group — numbered 1 through 5 — is called. United carried close to 155 million passengers in the 12 months ended in August, up 6.1 percent from the year-earlier period, the company said last week.

 The airline now sends out notifications to passengers on their mobile devices to let them now boarding has begun once the first boarding pass is scanned, so that travelers don't have to hover around the gate.

 Travelers would sometimes queue up an hour before a flight, Walter said, which would attract even more passengers to the line. "It's like a magnet," she said. ||||| Don't crowd the gate: United rolls out a new boarding process

 CLOSE United says it’s streamlining its boarding process. Gone are the five boarding lines used in the previous process. It is a new two-lane, color-coded process that will handle a staggered boarding call. USA TODAY

 United has become the latest airline to tweak the way it calls passengers to board its planes.

 In a change that’s rolling out to United gates nationwide on Tuesday, the carrier says it’s streamlining its boarding process.

 With that, United joins American and Delta in making changes to the boarding call since early 2017.

 TODAY IN THE SKY: 'Nobody is winning' the airline boarding nightmare

 At United, gone are the five boarding lines used in the previous process. In is a new two-lane, color-coded process that will handle a staggered boarding call.

 The lanes will be numbered “1” and “2.” Beyond that, lane 1 is the “blue” lane while lane 2 is “green.”

 When it’s time to board, United will call pre-boarding that's open to its top-tier “Premier 1K” and “Global Services” frequent-flyers, active military, customers with disabilities and families with children ages 2 and younger. They'll board via lane 1.

 This graphic provided by United attempts to explain its new boarding process. (Photo: United Airlines)

 Next comes Group 1, which includes first- and business-class customers plus Platinum- and Gold-level frequent-flyers. Group 1 also boards through lane 1, while Group 2 lines up in lane 2.

 Group 2 boards once the Group 1 queue clears. Who is in Group 2? Silver-level frequent-fliers and certain United credit-card holders and customers who’ve purchased United’s priority access or boarding privileges.

 Travelers in Groups 3, 4 and 5 will be asked to remain seated while the first two groups line up and board.

 After Group 1 and Group 2 have boarded, Groups 3 through 5 will board through the green-colored Lane 2. They’ll be called by number, starting with 3 and ending at 5. Group 5 will include most Basic Economy customers.

 Members of Group 1 and 2 who are still arriving to the gate area will priority board via the blue-colored Lane 1.

 United says it’s implementing the boarding change after “testing a variety of boarding concepts” since last fall. The new system has been in affect at Los Angeles International Airport since February and will now roll out to all United locations beginning Tuesday.

 United’s changes hint at the struggle airlines have had in creating a boarding process that doesn't stress out customers. Even with precisely delineated groups and queues, many travelers still feel compelled to stand in line to hold their spot.

 Both American and Delta rolled out similar changes in early 2017.

 Southwest, of course, has its own type of system since it has no assigned seats. It calls for fliers in its “A” group to line up at their corresponding pillars, which display numbers indicating where passengers should stand. As the “A” group boards, Southwest repeats the process for the “B” and “C” groups until all passengers have boarded.

 That system, enacted in 2007, was meant to address crowding in the gate areas as customers queued up to be first on the plane. The move didn’t eliminate pre-boarding line-ups, but it did add order to the process.

 “Airlines now have so many different tiers of boarding groups, between their different levels of elite-status members and their co-branded credit card customers and others," Henry Harteveldt, an airline analyst and founder of San Francisco-based Atmosphere Research, told USA TODAY's Today in the Sky blog at the time. “The result is frustration, crowding, unpleasantness and stress. Nobody is winning here.”

 TODAY IN THE SKY: Would you bid 420,000 miles to see a parked plane? These frequent-fliers did (story continues below)

 United said customer feedback helped push it to come up with a new system.

 "The boarding process was one of the top areas customers told us they wanted improved,” Sarah Murphy, United’s vice president of Global Operations Strategy, Planning and Design, said in a statement. “We listened to customers and employees as we tested a variety of processes on thousands of flights until we found a better boarding process that results in less time spent waiting in lines, improved communication and a better way to recognize our Premier customers while balancing out the number of passengers in each boarding group.”

 One big challenge that could remain for United is how its elite-level frequent-flyers will sort themselves out in the updated process.

 When a large number of United’s elite customers are flying on a single flight, it's been a frequent complaint in recent years that it would seem as though half the plane (or more) boarded in the first two groups. Whether elite customers now filter more evenly into the updated boarding groups on such flights remains to be seen.

 Stay tuned …

 30 COO AVIATION PHOTOS: The last MD-11 to Dreamlifters to test planes

 Read or Share this story: https://usat.ly/2NjrbY6 |||||


– The surprise announcement that Scarlett Johansson and Ryan Reynolds are ending their marriage may be linked to sparks between Reynolds and saucy Gossip Girl Blake Lively on the set of their recent movie. "Everything wasn’t exactly up to wedding vow snuff" with 34-year-old Ry and Lively "canoodling" during filming of the Green Lantern earlier this year in Louisiana, reports E! Online. It was Johansson, 26, who reportedly pulled the plug on her 2-year marriage. Lively, 23, has apparently already moved on to another Ryan—Ryan Gosling, 30, who could barely come up for air at the Manhattan premiere this week of his new movie Blue Valentine. Click for more background on the split.

Expand this summary.

Shocked By Scarlett and Ryan's Split? So Were Friends

 Email This

 and

 "No one had any idea this was coming," a friend of Scarlett's tells me. "They kept their private life so secret that I doubt we will ever really know what went wrong." Scarlett Johansson and Ryan Reynolds are notorious under-sharers, having spent their brief and low-key marriage shunning cameras and reporters' questions. So, it comes as no surprise that their shocking split this week was kept under wraps for even the people that know them."No one had any idea this was coming," a friend of Scarlett's tells me. "They kept their private life so secret that I doubt we will ever really know what went wrong."

 http://xml.channel.aol.com/xmlpublisher/fetch.v2.xml?option=expand_relative_urls&dataUrlNodes=uiConfig,feedConfig,entry&id=915435&pid=915434&uts=1292360332 http://www.popeater.com/mm_track/popeater/music/?s_channel=us.musicpop&s_account=aolpopeater,aolsvc&omni=1&ke=1 http://cdn.channel.aol.com/cs_feed_v1_6/csfeedwrapper.swf Scarlett Snapshots BARCELONA, SPAIN - OCTOBER 20: Scarlett Johansson attends the 3rd edition of the Mango Fashion Awards held at the MNAC on October 20, 2010 in Barcelona, Spain. (Photo by Robert Marquardt/Getty Images) Getty Images Getty Images Europe

 The gorgeous duo have always been incredibly private and have only been photographed together a handful of times. They barley even spoke about their relationship in the press, with Ryan admitting in the October issue of GQ that since getting married, "I'm a little more guarded, I think. I'm a little bit more wary of having my relationship turning into a soap opera."The two are determined to keep the particulars of their failed relationship private, a friend tells me, who wisely notes that fans shouldn't hold their breath for a weepy Oprah-style interview."In fact, knowing them, they will never talk about it at all," my source says.This desire to clam up may be tough for Ryan, as he's obligated to promote his film, 'Green Lantern,' during the first half of 2011. Insiders tell me that members of the press will be told that Scarlett-related questions will be off limits during the promotional tour. "Anyone that asks personal questions will be asked to leave," the source reveals.The couple released the following statement on Tuesday: "After long and careful consideration on both our parts, we've decided to end our marriage. We entered our relationship with love and it's with love and kindness we leave it. While privacy isn't expected, it's certainly appreciated."► Get the full scoop on Scarlett and Ryan's split here. ||||| U.S. CA U.K. AU Asia DE FR

 E! Is Everywhere This content is available customized for our international audience. Would you like to view this in our US edition?

 E! Is Everywhere This content is available customized for our international audience. Would you like to view this in our Canadian edition?

 E! Is Everywhere This content is available customized for our international audience. Would you like to view this in our UK edition?

 E! Is Everywhere This content is available customized for our international audience. Would you like to view this in our Australian edition?

 E! Is Everywhere This content is available customized for our international audience. Would you like to view this in our Asia edition?

 E! ist überall Dieser Inhalt ist für internationale Besucher verfügbar. Möchtest du ihn in der deutschen Version anschauen?

 E! Is Everywhere This content is available customized for our international audience. Would you like to view this in our German edition?

 E! est partout Une version adaptée de ce contenu est disponible pour notre public international. Souhaitez-vous voir ça dans notre édition française ?

 E! Is Everywhere This content is available customized for our international audience. Would you like to view this in our French edition?

 E! está em toda parte Este conteúdo está customizado e disponível para nossa audiência internacional. Você gostaria de vê-lo em nossa edição do Brasil?

 E! está en todos lados Nuestro contenido está disponible y personalizado para nuestra audiencia internacional. ¿Te gustaría verlo en la edición en español?

 E! Is Everywhere This content is available customized for our international audience. Would you like to view this in our Spanish edition?

 E! está en todos lados Nuestro contenido está disponible y personalizado para nuestra audiencia internacional. ¿Te gustaría verlo en la edición en español?

 E! Is Everywhere This content is available customized for our international audience. Would you like to view this in our Spanish edition?

 E! está en todos lados Nuestro contenido está disponible y personalizado para nuestra audiencia internacional. ¿Te gustaría verlo en la edición en español?

 E! Is Everywhere This content is available customized for our international audience. Would you like to view this in our Spanish edition?

 E! está en todos lados Nuestro contenido está disponible y personalizado para nuestra audiencia internacional. ¿Te gustaría verlo en la edición en español?

 E! Is Everywhere This content is available customized for our international audience. Would you like to view this in our Spanish edition?

 E! Is Everywhere This content is available customized for our international audience. Would you like to view this in our Brazilian edition?

 Bienvenido a E! Online - Tu destino #1 para todo lo relacionado a la cultura pop. Hemos especializado nuestro sitio para tu región. ¿Quieres ir a E! Online Latino? |||||


Article:

In Henan Province, in central China, millions of people have been tuning in every week to watch an extraordinary talk show called Interviews Before Execution, in which a reporter interviews murderers condemned to death. The show ran for just over five years, until it was taken off air on Friday.

 Every Monday morning, reporter Ding Yu and her team scoured court reports to find cases to cover on their programme. They had to move quickly, as prisoners in China can be executed seven days after they are sentenced.

 To Western eyes the show's format may seem exploitative, but Ding disagrees.

 "Some viewers may consider it cruel to ask a criminal to do an interview when they are about to be executed.

 "On the contrary, they want to be heard," she says.

 "Some criminals I interviewed told me: 'I'm really very glad. I said so many things in my heart to you at this time. In prison, there was never a person I was willing to talk to about past events.'"

 I witness the transition from life to death Ding Yu

 Interviews Before Execution was first broadcast on 18 November 2006 on Henan Legal Channel, one of 3,000 state-owned TV stations in China. Ding interviewed a prisoner every week until the programme was taken off air.

 The move follows a handful of reports about the show in foreign media, which were triggered by a documentary to be screened on the BBC tonight and on PBS International in the near future.

 The aim of Interviews Before Execution, the programme-makers say, was to find cases that would serve as a warning to others. The slogan at the top of every programme called for human nature to awaken and "perceive the value of life".

 In China, 55 crimes carry the death penalty, from murder, treason and armed rebellion to bribery and smuggling. Thirteen other crimes, including VAT fraud, smuggling relics and credit fraud, were only recently removed from the list of capital offences.

 Interviews Before Execution, however, focused exclusively on cases of violent murder.

 Bullet or injection There are thought to be more executions than in any other country, although the exact number is a state secret

 There is no presumption of innocence in Chinese law and confessions are sometimes taken before the suspect has had access to a lawyer

 Convicted prisoners are killed by a single shot to the back of the head or by lethal injection inside a mobile execution truck

 It never interviewed political prisoners or cases where the crime was in question, and the team received the Henan high court's consent in every case.

 "Without their consent, our programme would end immediately," Ding told the BBC documentary team.

 Broadcast every Saturday night, the programme was frequently rated one of Henan's top 10 shows, with nearly 40 million viewers out of the 100 million who live in the province.

 It made Ding Yu a star, known to many as "Beauty with the Beasts".

 If people failed to heed the warnings the programme offered, she says, then it was right that they should face the consequences.

 "I feel sorry and regretful for them. But I don't sympathise with them, for they should pay a heavy price for their wrongdoing. They deserve it."

 Many of the cases featured in the programme were motivated by money and one case in particular stands out for Ding.

 The perpetrators were boyfriend and girlfriend - young, educated college graduates.

 Image caption Bao Ronting was the first openly gay man Ding Yu ever met

 The couple planned to rob her grandparents but it went wrong and the young man, 27-year-old Zhang Peng, ended up killing them both.

 "They are so young. They never had the chance to see this world, or to enjoy life, a career, work, and the love of family.

 "They've made the wrong choice, and the price is their lives," Ding says.

 But after more than 200 interviews, little surprises her.

 "I've interviewed criminals even younger than that young student, some just 18 years old. That is the minimum age you can be sentenced to death."

 Homosexuality is still a huge taboo in China, and when in 2008 the show covered the case of Bao Ronting, a gay man who murdered his mother, ratings soared.

 It was the first time Ding had ever met an openly gay man.

 "I had never come close to a gay man, so I really couldn't accept some of his practices, words and deeds.

 "Though he was a man, he asked me in a very feminine tone, 'Do you feel awkward speaking to me?' Actually I felt very awkward," she recalls.

 Find out more Interviews Before Execution is part of the latest This World series, broadcast on Monday 12 March at 23:20 GMT on BBC Two.

 Watch againon iPlayer (UK only) using the link.

 She and her team made a further three episodes on the case of Bao Ronting and followed him until the day he was executed in November 2008.

 During one of these meetings, Bao asked Ding: "Will I go to heaven?"

 Remembering these words, she reflects: "I witness the transition from life to death."

 Bao Ronting was paraded in an open top truck on the way to his execution with a placard around his neck, detailing his crime. The practice is illegal in modern China - but the law is not always observed.

 Judge Lui Wenling, who worked closely with the programme-makers, says things are changing in the Chinese legal system.

 "The present criminal policies in China are 'To kill less and cautiously' and 'Combining lenience and strictness'.

 "It means, 'If the case is fit for lenient treatment, give it lenience,' and, 'If the case should be strictly treated, give it a strict punishment,'" he says.

 Ding recently covered the case of Wu Yanyan, a young mother who murdered her husband after allegedly suffering years of abuse.

 Since the death sentence for criminals is itself a violent act, then we should abolish it Judge Pan

 She was initially sentenced to death for the murder. But since 2007, every execution verdict in China has to be approved by the Supreme Court, and in this case it took the view that the abuse provided mitigating circumstances.

 The higher court kept returning the case to the local court until the death sentence was suspended.

 Ding visited the prison with Wu Yanyan's daughter for an emotional reunion. If the young mother continues to behave well in prison, after two years she could ultimately be released - a small sign of changing attitudes in China.

 Some senior figures in the justice system foresee more far-reaching reforms in the future, including Judge Pan, another judge who has worked closely with the programme.

 "A life could end in the twinkling of an eye after a trial. I'd say this is also very cruel," she says.

 "It's also a means of getting rid of evil deeds through an evil deed.

 "Should we abolish the death penalty? Since the death sentence for criminals is itself a violent act, then we should abolish it. However, I don't think our country is ready yet.

 "But in the future, it would be good to abolish it." ||||| ABC

 The 40-million fans who have been faithfully tuning into China's death row reality show, "Interviews Before Execution" may have watched the last episode without knowing it.

 Legal TV Channel, the station in central China's Henan province that produced and broadcast the show for the last five years, confirmed to ABC News it has been abruptly canceled due to "internal problems" and will not be seen again.

 A spokesman at the station said that a new program on legal affairs will be broadcast in its place but could provide no further details. Requests for an interview with the host of "Interviews Before Execution" Ding Yu, were denied.

 The cancellation comes at the end of a week in which the show made international headlines for the first time.

 Both the BBC and PBS International own the rights to a documentary film, "Dead Men Talking," produced by a film company in China which goes behind the scenes for an up close look at how the show is made.

 BBC2 has plans to air the show next week.

 Articles in the Daily Mail, New York Times, ABC News and numerous other outlets described the show as a one of a kind reality series on a dark topic: death row inmates just before they die.

 The host, journalist Ding Yu, interviewed more than 200 Chinese men and women, sometimes just hours before they were put to death. The majority of convictions were for murder under often gruesome circumstances.

 In clips found online (many of which were taken down this week) Ding interviews a child-killer and a man who stabbed his ex-wife in front of her parents. Another killed a mother and child with an ax.

 At times she promises to convey final messages to family members. At other times she is harsh, telling one subject that he deserves to die.

 According to the Daily Mail, the show was approved by the government as a deterrent to would-be criminals.

 Convicts were chosen by a judiciary committee for Ding for being "suitable subjects to educate the public."

 Ding herself is a subject in the documentary and for the first time she speaks about the toll her work takes on her and describes the haunting images she lives with as a result of spending so much time with the men and women she interviews.

 The show was not broadcast nationwide.

 Few people know of it outside of Henan province in central China.

 In China, 55 crimes are punishable by death.

 China is the only country that does not release the number of people executed each year, despite international calls to do so by groups such as Amnesty International.

 It is estimated that about a thousand people are put to death each year. That number cannot be confirmed but puts China well ahead of any other country by far.

 Fan Bing contributed to this report. |||||
What is a summary?

– Hit Chinese TV program Interviews Before Execution has been abruptly canceled—after five years on the air and just about a week of attention from the West. The show, which reached 40 million viewers every Saturday night, featured glamorous host Ding Yu speaking to condemned criminals days, hours, or even just minutes before their execution. Officials at China's Legal TV say the show, which just started popping up in Western press for the first time in advance of a BBC documentary on the show that aired last night, has been axed because of "internal problems," ABC reports. Some 55 crimes carry the death penalty in China, but Interviews focused only on murderers. In an interview with the BBC, Ding denied that the program was exploitative. "Some viewers may consider it cruel to ask a criminal to do an interview when they are about to be executed. On the contrary, they want to be heard," she said. "Some criminals I interviewed told me: 'I'm really very glad. I said so many things in my heart to you at this time. In prison, there was never a person I was willing to talk to about past events.'"


Summarize this article:

Lucas Jackson-Pool/Getty Images

 The race for 2016 starts the day after election day. Both parties are going to be searching for their new leaders. A huge question for Democrats is, "What does Hillary Clinton do?" Based on that decision, the race could go many ways.

 Besides Clinton, Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley, who is a popular but unknown figure in the party, is considering.

 Joe Biden, who seems to be intimating he will run, is on the shortlist, but the question becomes whether that is too status quo.

 Antonio Villaraigosa, the mayor of Los Angeles, is on the list, and has tremendous support in the Latino community.

 Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand of New York would be a formidable figure if Clinton doesn't run. She is popular in a big state and a woman candidate is important, because 60 percent of Democratic primary voters are female.

 New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo has been rumored to want to run and comes from a key state with access to party faithful and money.

 There's also the chance of an unknown candidate who may emerge in the aftermath of this year's election.

 For the GOP, the journey ahead is more perilous. They will be going through civil war after this Romney loss: the very conservatives vs. the establishment; the cultural conservatives vs. the economic conservatives; the populists vs. old school. And there is no clear leader ahead. Jeb Bush, the former Florida governor, would be formidable with his name and money.

 Paul Ryan is a favorite among deficit conservatives and did well on the Romney campaign.

 Florida Sen. Marco Rubio is a rising star of party and they need Latino inroads.

 New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie did well in Hurricane Sandy and is a tough talker.

 Rick Santorum would consider a run, and has backing of social conservatives.

 Mike Huckabee needs to make a decision and is a popular figure in the party.

 Sarah Palin would be popular with some, though she has a tough road ahead.

 Rick Perry may consider another run, though questions surround that.

 And again, watch for an unknown candidate to emerge from this election. ||||| Justin Tallis/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

 LONDON — There was a moment between the dawning realization that Barack Obama had won and the networks calling the election when a sudden flurry of online postings started speculating about Election 2016.

 Jeb Bush will be president in 2016. — Ben Collin (TTBB) (@bennyc50) November 7, 2012

 predicted Ben Collin of Grand Forks, N.D., one of many who named Mr. Bush, the former Florida governor, as a shoo-in for the Republican nomination in four years’ time.

 Loving the fact that many Twitter friends are talking about a Clinton/Warren ticket in 2016. — Ethan Zuckerman (@EthanZ) November 7, 2012

 posted Ethan Zuckerman of Pittsfield, Mass., noting enthusiasm for an all-woman Democratic ticket of Hillary Rodham Clinton and Elizabeth Warren next time around.

 Take a breath, America! Give yourselves time to recover from what seemed the longest and certainly was the most expensive campaign in U.S. political history before starting on the next one.

 Outsiders frequently express bewilderment at the American predilection for near-permanent electioneering. The rule in Europe and elsewhere is to keep campaigns brief and above all cheap.

 The other mystery, of course, is the U.S. political system. Foreign broadcasters traditionally spend much of their U.S. election specials explaining the arcana of the Electoral College, only to repeat it all over again every four years because we have forgotten it.

 Foreigners are not alone in pondering whether aspects of the American system could do with some updating.

 “Anyone who has looked at how elections are run outside the U.S. knows how backward key pillars of our election system are,” Steven Rosenfeld of the progressive AlertNet online magazine wrote before the election.

 Citing a number of failings, like underfunded voter registration, obsolete voting machines and corporate campaign funding, he wrote: “Democratic renewal will not happen unless there is a further rebalancing of public and private interests in our political campaigns.”

 Others lamented the rigidity of the two-party system.

 An Obama supporter, cornered in a Cleveland bar on Election Night by the BBC, asked why America could not be more like, say, Switzerland, with three or even four parties. The two-party system “forces us to pick sides,” he said, “and sometimes there are more than two sides to it.”

 Reflecting on the Obama victory from the vantage point of China, John Simpson, the BBC’s world affairs editor, suggested that the world would probably breathe a collective sigh of relief.

 That was not because foreign governments necessarily preferred the Democratic candidate, but rather that the choice of the incumbent meant we would not have to wait 18 months for a new president to read himself into his foreign policy portfolio.

 By which time, he might have added, U.S. politics would be focused on the midterm elections.

 Speculation about the lineup for Election 2016 is unlikely to generate much interest beyond U.S. shores, although Paddy Power, the Irish bookie, gamely offered early odds on the outcome.

 By Wednesday morning, it was quoting 7 to 1 on Hillary Rodham Clinton and Paul Ryan, with Donald Trump a rank outsider at 100 to 1. ||||| Even though the 2012 election was just decided, it's never too early to start looking ahead to the next presidential election. Both Democrats and Republicans have a slate of bright prospects on the horizon. Here's a look at the hottest names in 2016 politics right now.

 [GALLERY: 100 Years in Presidential Races]

 Democrats

 Vice President Joe Biden: The vice president sent journalists atwitter on Tuesday when he said he'd likely have the opportunity to cast a vote for himself again in the future. Biden, a 30-plus-year Senate veteran who now has experience as the White House No. 2, has been coy about his 2016 intentions so far. In fact, later on Tuesday, he joked that he would be running for county councilman as if to dissuade some speculation about his future plans. But former vice presidents nearly always top the list of potential contenders, thanks to their top name recognition and obvious experience handling top issues. Biden is a well-respected pol among his peers, though often ridiculed by the media and public thanks to his frequent gaffes.

 Secretary of State Hillary Clinton: Clinton is a unique American political figure, having successfully transitioned from an at-times unpopular first lady to New York Senator to widely popular secretary of state. She's managed to go from the top target of Republican mockery in the 1990s to one of the few politicians who engendered genuine respect from colleagues and pundits on both sides of the aisle. Her hard-nosed 2008 campaign against Barack Obama sharpened her retail politicking, but combined with her grueling travel schedule of the last four years, she's vowed to stay out of politics. Nonetheless, she's widely regarded as the top Democratic White House contender should she change her mind. She's already got one endorsement in the bag—her husband, former President Bill Clinton—who would love to hit the campaign trail again.

 New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo: Despite the fact that the New York governor has tried to keep a very low profile despite holding a very high-profile job, insiders all believe Cuomo has designs on 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. He's already got executive branch experience, having served as secretary of Housing and Urban Development under Bill Clinton. As governor, he has championed both liberal social causes, legalizing same-sex marriage despite a Republican-controlled state Senate, and has showed fiscally conservative bona fides, resisting raising taxes and making cuts to balance the state budget. There's no doubt of Cuomo's loyalty to the Clintons, but should Hillary choose to take a pass, he'll likely step up to the plate.

 [GALLERY: Superstorm Sandy Leaves Devastating Damage in New Jersey]

 Republicans

 Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan: Ryan, coming off the 2012 campaign, transitioned smoothly from one of 435 members of the House of Representatives to the bright lights of the presidential campaign. In addition to learning how to work crowds of thousands in dozens of different states, Ryan has also excelled on the debate stage. His performance against a fiery Joe Biden was widely praised, delivering no knockout blows but largely holding his own against his more experienced opponent. Ryan has made a name for himself in the House as a budget hawk, crafting the Republican alternative to Democratic proposals. Many said Mitt Romney erred in picking someone who had put his name on proposals to drastically alter the popular Medicare program, but the 2012 race proved voters weren't willing to punish that move at the ballot.

 New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie: New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie has been championed by conservatives since his 2010 election. The bombastic governor is known for his straight-talking style, whether he's disparaging reporters for what he thinks are stupid questions or nearly bullying public school teachers who challenge his budget-cutting proposals during his famous town hall meetings. In the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy, which destroyed his beloved Jersey Shore, Christie also burnished his bipartisan credentials by heaping praise on the federal response, particularly the leadership of President Barack Obama. Christie was an early endorser of Romney in 2012, but only after giving his own bid serious consideration. There's no doubt he'll be doing the same again in 2016.

 Florida Sen. Marco Rubio: The charismatic Florida senator is the perfect example of what the Grand Ol' Party needs to widen its appeal among the American electorate. Just 41 years old and of Cuban descent, Rubio is more than just the face of a more diverse Republican Party. He awed crowds earlier in 2012, both at the Conservative Political Action Conference and the Republican National Convention, with his rags-to-riches tale of his childhood. His ability to intertwine his family's achievement of the American Dream with the conservative economic philosophy proves he is the most effective messenger of Republican ideals the party has seen in quite some time. Rubio also is obviously comfortable on stage and exudes a tangible charisma that can't be taught.

 More News:

 Rebekah Metzler is a political writer for U.S. News & World Report. You can follow her on Twitter or reach her at rmetzler@usnews.com. ||||| Hillary Clinton Hillary Rodham ClintonAssange meets U.S. congressman, vows to prove Russia did not leak him documents High-ranking FBI official leaves Russia probe OPINION | Steve Bannon is Trump's indispensable man — don't sacrifice him to the critics MORE is likely still celebrating the reelection of President Obama, but on Twitter her fans are plotting her election in 2016.

 #Hillary2016 was trending across the world on Twitter early Wednesday morning just a few minutes after Mitt Romney delivered his concession speech.

 The secretary of State is regularly asked whether she might consider another bid for the White House, and always replies that she is ready to retire from politics. The former first lady does not plan to stay on as secretary of State in Obama's second term.

 "I have been on this high wire of national and international politics and leadership for 20 years," she told Marie Claire last month. "It has been an absolutely extraordinary personal honor and experience. But I really want to just have my own time back. I want to just be my own person. I'm looking forward to that."

 Hollywood blogger Perez Hilton sent one of the most popular #Hillary2016 tweets about four hours before the hashtag was trending — and before a winner was declared in the 2012 race.

 Clinton, who unsuccessfully ran against Obama for the 2008 Democratic nomination, has since become one of the most popular figures in politics.

  |||||

– And so it begins: Speculation about Election 2016 is already running rampant, mere hours after President Obama was re-elected. Some of the frontrunners for a presidential run next time around, courtesy of ABC News and US News & World Report: Hillary Clinton: Not surprisingly, she's at the forefront of many minds right now ("Hillary2016" was trending on Twitter early today, the Hill notes), and is widely considered the No. 1 Democrat contender. Of course, she also keeps insisting she won't run. Joe Biden: The world took notice when he said yesterday that he'd probably vote for himself again someday—but he later joked that he just meant he'd be running for county councilman in the future. Andrew Cuomo: The New York governor has access to lots of money, and his liberal stance on social issues combined with a more fiscally conservative stance could make him a formidable contender. But don't expect him to run if Hillary does; he served under Bill Clinton and is loyal to the family. Other possible Democrats: Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley, Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, and Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand. Paul Ryan: He fared well as Romney's running mate and got himself re-elected to boot, so clearly he's a top contender. Marco Rubio: The charismatic Florida senator could help the GOP increase its appeal to Latino voters. Chris Christie: His tough talk has made him quite popular, and he's seen as more of a bipartisan figure now that he's praised the federal response to Hurricane Sandy. Other possible Republicans: Jeb Bush, Mike Huckabee, plus pretty much anyone who ran in the primary this time around. But in the International Herald Tribune, Harvey Morris has just one piece of advice: "Take a breath, America! Give yourselves time to recover from what seemed the longest and certainly was the most expensive campaign in US political history before starting on the next one."