Bernard Kerik, NYPD Commissioner during 9/11, dies at 69; all about him
Kerik led NYPD during 9/11 terror attacks
Bernard B. Kerik, former
New York City Police
Commissioner, died Thursday, May 29, at the age of 69 following an undisclosed illness. Kerik served as commissioner during the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and was widely recognized for his leadership during the crisis. He and then-Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani were among the first officials on the scene, working to coordinate evacuation efforts amid falling debris and collapsing towers.
Appointed commissioner in August 2000 by Giuliani, Kerik served for 16 months during the final phase of Giuliani's administration. Under his leadership, crime rates continued their decline, morale among officers improved, and relationships with minority communities reportedly saw progress. His appointment followed a rapid rise through the ranks, including roles as a correction commissioner and narcotics investigator.
Also read:
Vladimir Putin could end up dead like Hitler, and his days are numbered, says ex-US intelligence officer
Political ties and post-9/11 appointments
Following his NYPD tenure, Kerik joined Giuliani Partners as a security consultant, advising corporate and foreign government clients. He later founded his own firm and worked with international figures such as King Abdullah II of Jordan and the royal family of the United Arab Emirates. After the US invasion of Iraq, former President
George W. Bush
appointed Kerik as interim interior minister for Iraq's provisional government, where he helped build the country's new police force.
Live Events
In 2004, Bush nominated him to lead the Department of Homeland Security. Kerik, however, withdrew his nomination one week later, citing his employment of an undocumented nanny. The disclosure led to investigations that uncovered further legal violations.
Federal convictions and Presidential pardon
Kerik's career unraveled following revelations of ethical misconduct and legal violations. In 2006, he pleaded guilty to misdemeanors involving unreported renovations provided by a firm suspected of mob ties. In 2009, he pleaded guilty to multiple felony counts, including tax fraud, false loan application statements, and lying to federal officials. He was sentenced to four years in prison and served three.
Also read:
Gerry Connolly, a fiery Democrat and fixture of Virginia politics, dies after battling cancer: Key points
Kerik was stripped of his name from the Manhattan Detention Complex and later received a full presidential pardon from President Donald Trump in 2020. Following the pardon, he joined efforts with Giuliani to dispute the 2020 presidential election results and provided materials to the House Select Committee investigating the January 6 Capitol attack.
Early life, military service, and later years
Born on September 4, 1955, in Newark, New Jersey, Bernard Bailey Kerik was the son of a Ford machinist and an Irish American mother. His maternal background included a troubled history, which he later detailed in his memoir. A high school dropout, he earned his GED while serving in the US Army's military police and later completed a bachelor's degree in social theory.
Kerik joined the New York Police Department in 1986, eventually receiving commendations and promotions. He also held investigative roles in Saudi Arabia and worked for the Passaic County Sheriff in New Jersey.
Also read:
Ex-FBI Director James Comey under probe following "8647" post; Trump officials call it death threat
His personal life included three marriages and four children. In addition to a memoir, he authored books on criminal justice and a crime novel. In later years, he hosted a radio show and remained a vocal supporter of the Trump administration.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Mint
12 minutes ago
- Mint
Lex Greensill Set to Testify in $440 Million Credit Suisse UK Trial
Lex Greensill will testify in court for the first time since the high-profile collapse of his trade finance firm, as a $440 million Credit Suisse lawsuit against SoftBank Group Corp. gets underway. Evidence from the embattled financier will be the centerpiece of a month long London trial that starts on Thursday over investor losses in a failed startup. Credit Suisse is seeking damages from SoftBank alleging that a series of transactions with Greensill deprived its investors of $440 million in funds. Greensill is scheduled to appear at the civil trial next week alongside other witnesses including former chief executive officer of Credit Suisse's investment bank Eric Varvel. The implosion of Greensill Capital in March 2021 saw Credit Suisse freeze and wind down a $10 billion group of funds that the Swiss bank had marketed to clients as safe investments. Greensill's demise was one of several major scandals that knocked confidence in the Swiss lender, left clients with hundreds of millions of dollars of losses and ultimately led to its forced takeover by UBS. Meanwhile, SoftBank's Vision Fund wrote down its own $1.5 billion holding in Greensill to close to zero. UBS Group AG is pursuing the London claim on behalf of its former Swiss rival in a bid to recover funds for investors trapped in the supply chain finance vehicles. The bank has looked to settle several high profile legacy legal headaches it inherited from Credit Suisse, extricating itself from a sprawling civil suit over Mozambique tuna bonds and more recently a US tax probe. The fallout from Greensill's collapse has spawned multiple legal fights around the world. Lex Greensill himself is fighting moves by the UK government to have him disqualified as a director, while his firm's own administrators filed a civil case against him in April. His spokesperson didn't respond to a request for comment. The London suit is set to consider the way that Greensill restructured its relationship with Katerra Inc., a US-based construction company in which SoftBank was a major investor. Credit Suisse alleges SoftBank concocted the restructuring in 2020 so that it could pull its own money out of the firm, knowing full well that Greensill, already in free-fall, would be unable to repay the $440 million it owed to Credit Suisse. SoftBank will counter that Credit Suisse case has always been an attempt to shift blame 'for its own poor investment decisions.' The allegations are 'entirely without merit,' it said previously. Softbank's lawyers argued that the $440 million funds were provided by the Vision Fund on the basis that it would be used to repay the Credit Suisse notes. UBS said the bank 'will continue to pursue all paths to maximize financial recovery of the Supply Chain Finance Funds, acting in the interests of all our stakeholders.' This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
India Today
12 minutes ago
- India Today
Why China engages in diplomacy of silence on Pakistan
Beijing recently declined to comment on the performance of Chinese missiles used by Pakistan in the recent conflict with India. This may seem like a routine diplomatic brush-off, but the silence speaks to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), China is the world's fourth-largest arms exporter, and publicly acknowledging the substandard performance of Chinese weapon systems might have affected China's growing defence export ambitions, particularly in western Africa, Latin America and Southeast widely known, any public acknowledgement of arms supplies to Pakistan could have also drawn criticism from India and international watchdogs, for "indirectly" fuelling conflict in South Asia by strengthening Islamabad. Notably, Pakistan is among China's oldest and most consistent arms clients, with strategic cooperation between the two deepening after the Sino-Indian war of 1962. According to SIPRI data, over 81% of Pakistan's arms imports between 2020 and 2024 came from the recent military conflict between India and Pakistan, the latter deployed a slew of Chinese weapons, such as the HQ-9 and HQ-16 air defence systems, PL-15E long-range air-to-air missiles, J-10CE and JF-17 fighter jets, among now India is calling out this military nexus on global platforms. During India's diplomatic outreach to key international partners, which included UN Security Council members, Congress MP Shashi Tharoor, part of a delegation to the Americas, took this up in Bogota, is a polite word. Much of it is not for defence but for attack," said Tharoor, referring to Chinese arms supplied to has always been an impudent, assertive neighbour — one which refuses to acknowledge responsibility or comment on arms supplies to Pakistan, even as it continues open and unrepentant defence dealings with diplomacy of silence on the issue is a bid to portray its multiple roles: that of a military supplier, a so-called neutral diplomatic voice on paper, and a dominant regional player in the Asia-Pacific being described as Islamabad's "all-weather friend", Beijing has historically avoided overtly backing Pakistan during escalations with India. In fact, it has only issued direct warnings once — in the 1965 India-Pakistan War, (on September 16, 1965), when it threatened India to dismantle all military installations on or over the China-Sikkim boundary within three days or face "serious consequences", The Indian Express reported, quoting documents accessed from the United States State Department archives and declassified Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) the 1971 Bangladesh Liberation War, China took a more cautious line, calling the "happenings in Pakistan" an internal matter that should be resolved by the Pakistani people, without foreign the 1999 Kargil War, China urged restraint from both India and Pakistan, and avoided blaming either party — a stance well-documented by many defence latest example of this diplomacy of silence came during the monthly defence ministry media briefing that was held in the last week of May 2025, when Chinese defence ministry spokesperson Senior Colonel Zhang Xiaogang played down the reports of India recovering an unexploded PL-15E, a radar-guided beyond visual range missile, stated to be the most advanced rocket of its kind produced by merely commented that the missiles in question were "export equipment" that had been "displayed at exhibitions globally". He added, "India and Pakistan are neighbours that cannot be moved away", and urged both sides to exercise "calm and restraint".Notably, he reiterated China's willingness to play a "constructive role" in preserving regional peace — a language mirroring Beijing's official stance during previous Indo-Pakistani tensions in 1971 and Beijing is neither confirming nor denying such claims about its defence systems during the latest India-Pakistan are many layers to this expert Major General Yash Mor (Retired) says, "China has long described its relationship with Pakistan as 'higher than mountains, deeper than seas, and sweeter than honey'. Meanwhile, deep-seated distrust issues also persist between India and China, particularly in the aftermath of the Doklam standoff of 2017 and the Galwan clashes of 2020-2021. And China's cartographic assertions, such as its claims over parts of Arunachal Pradesh, underscore ongoing tensions. But there were de-escalations at the LAC at the same time."advertisement"One must note that China does not actively position itself against India on matters like cross-border terrorism or India-Pakistan relations. However, Beijing was displeased with India's abrogation of Article 370 in Jammu and Kashmir. India's opposition to the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) passing through POK has also caused some friction — though India's opposition was limited to formal protests only," Major General Yash Mor (Retired) tells India Today the idea behind the silence, as many experts agree, may be its commercial interests."China prefers to operate quietly, focusing on building alliances rather than making grandiose statements. The Chinese leadership maintains a measured and restrained approach, rarely issuing public remarks. Its state-controlled media offer little insight, and when statements do emerge, they typically pertain to dealings with the US or QUAD-related matters. As part of its broader strategic relationships, China supplies weapons to several countries, including Pakistan, Nepal, Myanmar, Afghanistan, and Bangladesh. However, its primary objective remains trade, not arming nations to escalate conflict, as the US and Russia did during the Cold War," Major General Yash Mor (Retired) strategic silence has helped Beijing maintain diplomatic channels with India despite tensions, and has allowed it to avoid direct entanglement in South Asia's most volatile border dispute between two nuclear the same time, for the nations beyond its neighbourhood, China has repeatedly portrayed its image of a peace-loving and responsible diplomat Zhang Heqing, citing foreign minister Wang Yi, echoed the same."According to Wang Yi, on the issue of peace and security, China is the major country with the best record in the world. Since the founding of New China, it has never initiated a war or participated in a war of aggression. It has always been a firm defender of world peace," Heqing wrote on X, in long-maintained measured stance reinforces its strategy of ambiguity and distance — designed more to preserve influence than to take with India emerging as a key player in the Indo-Pacific region and a member of the Quad alliance, China is cautious not to provoke further alignment between New Delhi and the is armed by China, but not always politically shielded by it during India-Pakistan military escalations. The partnership seemingly operates in a grey area — legal, yet behind the it may not have the image of a peacemaker in New Delhi and the West, it's definitely a pacemaker for a rogue state like Pakistan, and keeps the pot hot, if not boiling, in South its diplomacy of silence, it plays the main power broker in South InTrending Reel
Mint
20 minutes ago
- Mint
Donald Trump's travel ban: Who is impacted? List of countries facing US action from June 9
US President Donald Trump on Wednesday revived one of the previous policies of his first term, announcing that citizens from 12 countries would be barred from entering the United States, with additional restrictions imposed on travellers from seven others, most of which are mainly Muslim nations. In a video shared on social media, Trump linked the newly announced travel ban to Sunday's terror attack in Boulder, Colorado, arguing that it highlighted the risks posed by individuals who overstay their visas. The suspect in the attack, however, is from Egypt — a country not included on Trump's restricted list — and, according to the Department of Homeland Security, had overstayed a tourist visa. Trump justified the ban by claiming that certain countries have 'deficient' screening and vetting processes or have consistently refused to repatriate their citizens. His decision heavily draws on an annual report by Homeland Security, which tracks visa overstays among tourists, business travellers, and students entering by air or sea, focusing on nations with particularly high overstay rates. 'We don't want them,' Trump said. The order, often referred to as the 'Muslim ban' or the 'travel ban', was reworked amid legal challenges until the Supreme Court upheld a version in 2018. The ban impacted various categories of travellers and immigrants from Iran, Somalia, Yemen, Syria and Libya, as well as North Koreans and certain Venezuelan government officials and their families. Trump has defended the initial ban on national security grounds, arguing it was intended to protect the country and was not based on anti-Muslim bias. However, Trump had called for an explicit ban on Muslims during his first campaign for the White House. Here are the 12 countries placed under the ban and the seven placed under travel restrictions: Banned from US travel: Afghanistan, Chad, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Myanmar, the Republic of the Congo, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen. Restricted to US travel: Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan, and Venezuela. The proclamation signed by Donald Trump will come into force on 9 June 2025, at 12:01 AM EDT, a cushion that may avoid the chaos that unfolded at airports nationwide when a similar measure took effect with virtually no notice in 2017. Trump, who signalled plans for a new ban upon taking office in January, appears to be on firmer ground this time after the Supreme Court sided with him. The travel restrictions apply to foreign nationals from the designated countries who: Are outside the United States as of 9 June, and Do not possess a valid visa on that date. However, the proclamation clarifies that any immigration or non-immigrant visa issued before 9 June will remain valid and will not be revoked under this order. Some, but not all, 12 countries also appeared on the list of banned countries in Trump's first term. The proclamation restricts entry for immigrants and those on specific temporary visas—B-1, B-2, B-1/B-2, F, M, and J visas—from the following countries: Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan, and Venezuela. 1. Lawful permanent residents (green card holders) of the US. 2. Dual nationals travelling on a passport from a non-restricted country. 3. Diplomats with valid non-immigrant visas. 4. Athletes and their immediate relatives attend events like the Olympics or other major sports competitions. Immediate family immigrant visas. Afghan Special Immigrant Visas (SIVs). Special Immigrant Visas for U.S. government employees. Immigrant visas for persecuted ethnic and religious minorities from Iran. The ban includes exceptions for Afghans holding Special Immigrant Visas (SIVs), typically granted to those who worked closely with the US government during the two-decade war in Afghanistan. It is to be further noted that Afghanistan was among the top sources of resettled refugees, with approximately 14,000 arrivals in the 12 months leading up to September 2024. It's a stark contrast to Trump's earlier outlook— he had suspended refugee resettlement on his very first day in office during his previous term. 'To include Afghanistan — a nation whose people stood alongside American service members for 20 years — is a moral disgrace. It spits in the face of our allies, our veterans, and every value we claim to uphold,' said Shawn VanDiver, president and board chairman of #AfghanEvac. Trump wrote that Afghanistan 'lacks a competent or cooperative central authority for issuing passports or civil documents, and it does not have appropriate screening and vetting measures'. He also cited its visa overstay rates. Haiti, which avoided the travel ban during Trump's first term, was also included for high overstay rates and large numbers who came to the US illegally. Haitians continue to flee poverty and hunger, and political instability deepens while police and a UN-backed mission fight a surge in gang violence, with armed men controlling at least 85 per cent of its capital, Port-au-Prince, as reported by AP. 'Haiti lacks a central authority with sufficient availability and dissemination of law enforcement information necessary to ensure its nationals do not undermine the national security of the United States,' Trump wrote. The Iranian government has yet to respond to its inclusion on the list. The Trump administration labelled Iran a 'state sponsor of terrorism', barring visitors except those already holding visas or entering the US on special visas granted to minorities facing persecution. The travel ban stems from an executive order issued by Trump on 20 January, directing the Departments of State, Homeland Security and the Director of National Intelligence to prepare a report on 'hostile attitudes' toward the US and assess whether entry from certain countries posed a national security threat. International aid groups and refugee resettlement organisations roundly condemned the new ban. 'This policy is not about national security — it is about sowing division and vilifying communities that are seeking safety and opportunity in the United States,' said Abby Maxman, president of Oxfam America, as reported by The Associated Press. Other Middle Eastern countries on the list—Libya, Sudan, and Yemen—are all engulfed in ongoing civil conflicts with territories controlled by rival factions. Sudan is currently experiencing active warfare, Yemen's conflict remains largely stalemated and Libya's armed factions continue to clash. (With inputs from Associated Press)
