Connect with us

The Dictatorship

Senate advances Pete Hegseth as Trump’s defense secretary, despite allegations

Published

on

Senate advances Pete Hegseth as Trump’s defense secretary, despite allegations

By Lisa Mascaro and MARY CLARE JALONICK

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Senate advanced the nomination of Pete Hegseth as President Donald Trump’s defense secretary Thursday on a largely party-line vote, despite grave objections from Democrats and stirring unease among Republicans over his behavior and qualifications to lead the U.S. military.

Two Republicans, Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, broke ranks with Trump and his allies who have mounted an extensive public campaign to push Hegseth toward confirmation. The former combat veteran and Fox News host faces allegations of excessive drinking and aggressive actions toward womenwhich he has denied. The vote was 51-49, with a final vote on confirmation expected Friday.

Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer implored his colleagues to think seriously, “Is this the best man we have to lead the greatest military in the world?”

Murkowksi, in a lengthy statement, said that his behaviors “starkly contrast” with what is expected of the military.

“I remain concerned about the message that confirming Mr. Hegseth sends to women currently serving and those aspiring to join,” Murkowski wrote on social media.

Both Murkowski and Collins noted Hegseth’s past statements that women should not fill military combat roles. He sought to temper those statements during the confirmation process.

Collins said that after a lengthy discussion with Hegseth, “I am not convinced that his position on women serving in combat roles has changed.”

Collins said that while she appreciates Hegseth’s “courageous military service and his ongoing commitment to our service members and their families, I am concerned that he does not have the experience and perspective necessary to succeed in the job.”

Rarely has a Cabinet choice encountered such swirling allegations of wrongdoing. The outcome provides a measure of Trump’s power and a test for the Senate as it considers the president’s other outsider Cabinet picks, including Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., for Health and Human Services, Kash Patel at the FBI and Tulsi Gabbard for Director of the Office of National Intelligence.

Republican senators, and some Democrats, appear ready to give the president his team. Only Matt Gaetzthe former congressman who was Trump’s initial choice for attorney general, was met with enough resistance that his nomination was withdrawn.

The chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee has dismissed the claims against Hegseth as factually inaccurate.

It will take a simple majority of senators to confirm Hegseth’s nomination. Most Republicans, who hold a 53-seat majority in the chamber, have signaled they will back the nominee, though Vice President JD Vance could be called in to break a tie vote.

“I am ironclad in my assessment that the nominee, Mr. Hegseth, is prepared to be the next secretary of defense,” the chairman, Sen. Roger Wicker, R-Miss., said in a statement on the eve of voting. “The Senate needs to confirm this nominee as fast as possible.”

A new president’s national security nominees are often the first to be lined up for confirmation, to ensure U.S. safety at home and abroad. Already the Senate has overwhelmingly confirmed Marco Rubio as secretary of state in a unanimous vote, and confirmed John Ratcliffe as CIA director Thursday.

But Hegseth stands in a category of his own amid allegations that he sexually assaulted a woman at a Republican conference in California, which he has denied as a consensual encounter, and of heavy drinking at events when he led a veterans organization.

AP reported Thursday Hegseth paid $50,000 to the woman who accused him of sexual assault in 2017according to answers he provided to a senator during his confirmation process.

Separately, a new claim emerged this week in an affidavit from a former sister-in-law who claimed Hegseth was abusive to his second wife to the point that she feared for her safety. Hegseth has denied the allegation. In divorce proceedings, neither Hegseth nor the woman claimed to be a victim of domestic abuse.

Schumer said Thursday that Hegseth is unqualified for the job.

“One of the kindest words that might be used to describe Mr. Hegseth is erratic, and that’s a term you don’t want at DOD,” Schumer said. “He has a clear problem of judgment.”

A Princeton and Harvard-educated former combat veteran, Hegseth went on to make a career at Fox News, where he hosted a weekend show. Trump tapped him as the defense secretary to lead an organization with nearly 2.1 million service members, about 780,000 civilians and a budget of $850 billion.

During a fiery confirmation hearing, Hegseth swatted away allegations of wrongdoing one by one — dismissing them as “smears” — as he displayed his military credentials and vowed to bring “warrior culture” to the top Pentagon post.

Hegseth has promised not to drink on the job if confirmed.

Wicker said he had been briefed a third time on the FBI background investigation into Hegseth. He said “the allegations unfairly impugning his character do not pass scrutiny.”

But senators have remained doubtful of his experience and abilities and the alleged behavior that could lead to reprimand or firing for military personnel he would now be expected to lead.

Still, Sen. Joni Ernst, R-Iowa, herself a combat veteran and sexual assault survivor, has signaled her backing.

Read More

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

The Dictatorship

Changes to the US vaccine recommendations are sowing confusion and could harm kids

Published

on

Changes to the US vaccine recommendations are sowing confusion and could harm kids

Dr. Molly O’Shea has noticed growing skepticism about vaccines at both of her Michigan pediatric offices and says this week’s unprecedented and confusing changes to federal vaccine guidance will only make things worse.

One of her offices is in a Democratic area, where more of the parents she sees are opting for alternative schedules that spread out shots. The other is in a Republican area, where some parents have stopped immunizing their children altogether.

She and other doctors fear the new recommendations and the terminology around them will stoke vaccine hesitancy even more, pose challenges for pediatricians and parents that make it harder for kids to get shots, and ultimately lead to more illness and death.

The biggest change was to stop blanket recommendations for protection against six diseases and recommend those vaccines only for at-risk children or through something called “shared clinical decision-making” with a health care provider.

The phrase, experts say, is confusing and dangerous: “It sends a message to a parent that actually there’s only a rarefied group of people who really need the vaccine,” O’Shea said. “It’s creating an environment that puts a sense of uncertainty about the value and necessity or importance of the vaccines in that category.”

Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.who helped lead the anti-vaccine movement for years, said in announcing the changes that they better align the U.S. with peer nations “while strengthening transparency and informed consent.”

But doctors say they are sowing doubt — the vaccines have been extensively studied and proven to be safe and effective at shielding kids from nasty diseases — at a time when childhood vaccination rates are already falling and some of those infectious diseases are spreading.

On Friday, the American Academy of Pediatrics and more than 200 medical, public health and patient advocacy groups sent a letter to Congress about the new childhood immunization schedule.

“We urge you to investigate why the schedule was changed, why credible scientific evidence was ignored, and why the committee charged with advising the HHS Secretary on immunizations did not discuss the schedule changes as a part of their public meeting process,” they wrote.

Many don’t know what ’shared decision-making’ means

O’Shea said she and other pediatricians discuss vaccines with parents at every visit where they are given. But that’s not necessarily “shared clinical decision-making,” which has a particular definition.

On its website, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices says: “Unlike routine, catch-up, and risk-based recommendations, shared clinical decision-making vaccinations are not recommended for everyone in a particular age group or everyone in an identifiable risk group. Rather, shared clinical decision-making recommendations are individually based and informed by a decision process between the health care provider and the patient or parent/guardian.”

In this context, health care providers include primary care physicians, specialists, physician assistants, nurse practitioners, registered nurses and pharmacists.

A pair of surveys conducted last year by the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania suggested that many people don’t fully understand the concept, which came up last year when the federal government changed recommendations around COVID-19 vaccinations.

Only about 2 in 10 U.S. adults knew that one meaning behind shared decision-making is that “taking the vaccine may not be a good idea for everyone but would benefit some.” And only about one-third realized pharmacists count as health care providers to talk with during the process, even though they frequently administer vaccines.

As of this week, vaccines that protect against hepatitis A, hepatitis B, rotavirus, RSV, flu and meningococcal disease are no longer universally recommended for kids. RSV, hepatitis A, hepatitis B and meningococcal vaccines are recommended for certain high-risk populations; flu, rotavirus, hepatitis A, hepatitis B and meningococcal vaccines are recommended through shared decision-making — as is the COVID-19 vaccine, although that change was made last year.

Shortly after the federal announcement Monday, Dr. Steven Abelowitz heard from half a dozen parents. “It’s causing concern for us, but more importantly, concern for parents with kids, especially young kids, and confusion,” said Abelowitz, founder of Ocean Pediatrics in Orange County, California.

Though federal recommendations are not mandates — states have the authority to require vaccinations for schoolchildren — they can affect how easy it is for kids to get shots if doctors choose to follow them.

Under the new guidelines, O’Shea said, parents seeking shots in the shared decision-making category might no longer bring their kids in for a quick, vaccine-only appointment with staff. They’d sit down with a health care provider and discuss the vaccine. And it could be tougher to have a flu clinic, where parents drive up and kids get shots without seeing a doctor.

Staying the course as challenges mount

Still, doctors say they won’t let the changes stop them from helping children get the vaccines they need. Leading medical groups are sticking with prior vaccine recommendations. Many parents are, too.

Megan Landry, whose 4-year-old son Zackary is one of O’Shea’s patients, is among them.

“It’s my responsibility as a parent to protect my child’s health and well-being,” she said. “Vaccines are a really effective and well-studied way to do that.”

She plans to keep having the same conversations she’s always had with O’Shea before getting vaccines for Zackary.

“Relying on evidence and trusted medical guidance really helps me to make those decisions,” she said. “And for me, it’s not just a personal choice for my own son but a way to contribute to the health of everybody.”

But for other families, confidence about vaccines is waning as trust in science erodes. O’Shea lamented that parents are getting the message that they can’t trust medical experts.

“If I take my car to the mechanic, I don’t go do my own research ahead of time,” she said. “I go to a person I trust and I trust them to tell me what’s going on.”

Abelowitz, the California doctor, likened the latest federal move to pouring gasoline on a fire of mistrust that was already burning.

“We’re worried the fire’s out of control,” he said. “Already we’ve seen that with measles and pertussis, there are increased hospitalizations and even increasing deaths. So the way that I look at it — and my colleagues look at it — we’re basically regressing decades.”

___

The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute’s Department of Science Education and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The AP is solely responsible for all content.

Read More

Continue Reading

The Dictatorship

U.S. launches fresh strikes on ISIS targets in Syria

Published

on

U.S. launches fresh strikes on ISIS targets in Syria

The U.S. has carried out “large-scale strikes” against multiple Islamic State targets in Syria along with partner forces, U.S. Central Command said on Saturday.

The attack is a part of an operation launched on Dec. 19, when U.S. forces struck “more than 70 targets” in central Syria as retaliation for the killing of three Americans by an ISIS gunman in early December.

“The strikes today targeted ISIS throughout Syria as part of our ongoing commitment to root out Islamic terrorism against our warfighters, prevent future attacks, and protect American and partner forces in the region,” CENTCOM said in a statement.

Tom Barrack, the Trump administration’s special envoy for Syria, announced on Saturday that he met with Syria’s new leadership in Damascus “to discuss recent developments in Aleppo and the broader path forward for Syria’s historic transition.”

The deadly attack in December marked the first fatalities of U.S. troops in the country since former President Bashar al-Assad was ousted last year. Three other U.S. service members were injured in the attack in December, and a state-run news agency reported that two members of the Syrian security forces were also wounded.

President Donald Trump said at the time that the attack by ISIS took place “in a very dangerous part of Syria, that is not fully controlled by them.” He also said Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa, whom he had met in November at the White House, was “extremely angry and disturbed by this attack.”

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said last month that the operation was “a declaration of vengeance” over the deaths of the American service members.

This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.

Clarissa-Jan Lim is a breaking news reporter for MS NOW. She was previously a senior reporter and editor at BuzzFeed News.

Read More

Continue Reading

The Dictatorship

When it comes to ICE encounters, what are the rules — and your rights?

Published

on

When it comes to ICE encounters, what are the rules — and your rights?

In the wake of Renee Nicole Good’s death, Americans are asking, with heightened urgency, what authority ICE and CBP agents have when they engage with U.S. citizens. And as with many areas of the law, the answer is largely, “It depends.”

Can ICE use deadly force on U.S. citizens – or ever?

When it comes to the use of force, and specifically, the use of firearms, ICE has its own specific policy that was last updated in 2023. That policy was filed in the Chicago-area litigation over ICE and CBP’s treatment of protesters, clergy, and journalists. (Interestingly, on ICE’s website, that same policy is almost entirely redacted.) This policy does not vary depending on the subject’s immigration or citizenship status. Here’s what it says:

First, the policy authorizes the use of force “only when no reasonably effective, safe, and feasible alternative appears to exist and may use only the level of force that is objectively reasonable in light of the totality of facts and circumstances confronting the officer at the time force is applied.” But the policy is equally clear that an officer does not have to meet force with equal or lesser force, does not have to wait for an attack before using force, and does not have any duty to retreat to avoid the reasonable use of force.

Second, where feasible and without creating any greater threat to his own safety or that of others, an ICE officer must attempt to “de-escalate by the use of communication or other techniques during an encounter to stabilize, slow, or reduce the intensity of a potentially violent situation without using physical force, or with a reduction in force.”

Third, ICE policy is also clear that officers have a “duty to intervene to prevent or stop a perceived use of excessive force” so long as it is safe to do so.  It further states that a failure to intervene and/or report such incidents is itself misconduct — and potential grounds for discipline.

What’s the guidance if U.S. citizens are given orders by ICE?

Short of using force or deadly force, however, can ICE give orders to U.S. citizens? For example, it appears that ICE agents directed Renee Nicole Good to get out of her car shortly before she was killed.

ICE can give orders to U.S. citizens, but again, only in limited circumstances that are directly tied to the ICE agent’s immigration-related authority.  For example, ICE can give orders to U.S. citizens — or even detain them temporarily — if they are obstructing or interfering with immigration enforcement activity.

These situations are often very subjective. U.S. citizens do have significantly more freedom in their interactions with ICE than non-citizens. For example, according to guidance issued by the ACLU and the City of New Yorkamong others, if ordered or detained by ICE, a U.S. citizen can ask, “Am I free to leave?” and they should then be allowed to leave on their own free will.

Can ICE agents search a car without a warrant?

ICE agents also have the authority to search a car without a warrant in limited scenarios. The Fourth Amendment includes the automobile exceptionwhich allows federal agents to search a vehicle without a warrant if there’s probable cause to believe there’s evidence to a crime or contraband. Because a car can be driven away quickly, it may not be practical to secure a warrant beforehand without jeopardizing the investigation.

But federal agents must have specific probable cause to search a car without a warrant. A hunch or a feeling that the car conceals evidence of illegal activity is not enough for a federal agent to search a car without a warrant. ICE does have broader authority to search vehicles within 100 miles of the U.S. border, but even so, these searches typically require probable cause. Notably, ICE cannot search a car without a warrant simply because they suspect someone may be an undocumented immigrant.

However, car searches are the only major exception. ICE officers require search warrants for all other searches. Without a warrant, both U.S. citizens and non-citizens can say, “I do not consent to a search,” according to guidance issued by immigration rights organizations.

What’s the guidance on U.S. citizens recording or taking photos of ICE during enforcement activities?

Civil liberties groups generally advise that under the First Amendment, U.S. citizens can record or take photos of ICE performing law enforcement activities in public places so long as the recording does not interfere with ICE activity, like an arrest. Bystanders are allowed by law to collect important information, including names and badge numbers of the ICE agent executing the immigration activity.

Some states, including Florida, Tennessee, and Louisiana, have enacted their own laws requiring observers — or anyone else — to move back 25 feet or more from law enforcement or other first responders upon their request. While other, similar laws passed by Arizona and Indiana have been struck down, the constitutionality of these states’ laws has not been determined.

Finally, citizens and non-citizens alike share one fundamental right when it comes to encounters with ICE, or any other law enforcement agency, for that matter: the right to remain silent.

Lisa Rubin is MS NOW’s senior legal reporter and a former litigator.

Fallon Gallagher is a legal affairs reporter for MS NOW.

Read More

Continue Reading

Trending