Connect with us

The Dictatorship

Unlawful combatants in Caribbean…

Published

on

Unlawful combatants in Caribbean…

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump has declared drug cartels to be unlawful combatants and says the United States is now in an “armed conflict” with them, according to a Trump administration memo obtained by The Associated Press on Thursday, following recent U.S. strikes on boats in the Caribbean.

The memo appears to represent an extraordinary assertion of presidential war powerswith Trump effectively declaring that trafficking of drugs into the United States amounts to armed conflict requiring the use of military force — a new rationale for past and future actions.

“The President determined that the United States is in a non-international armed conflict with these designated terrorist organizations,” the memo says. Trump directed the Pentagon to “conduct operations against them pursuant to the law of armed conflict.”

“The United States has now reached a critical point where we must use force in self-defense and defense of others against the ongoing attacks by these designated terrorist organizations,” the memo says.

Besides signaling a potential new moment in Trump’s stated “America First” agenda that favors non-intervention overseas, the declaration raises stark questions about how far the White House intends to use its war powers and if Congress will exert its authority to approve — or ban — such military actions.

“The United States is taking a much more dramatic step — one that I think is a very, very far stretch of international law and a dangerous one,” said Matthew Waxman, who was a national security official in the George W. Bush administration. It “means the United States can target members of those cartels with lethal force. It means the United States can capture and detain them without trial.”

Declaration follows boat strikes in the Caribbean

The U.S. military last month carried out three deadly strikes against boats in the Caribbean that the administration accused of ferrying drugs. At least two of those operations were carried out on vessels that originated from Venezuela.

Those strikes followed up a buildup of U.S. maritime forces in the Caribbean unlike any seen in recent times. The Navy’s presence in the region — eight warships with over 5,000 sailors and Marines — has been pretty stable for weeks, according to two defense officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss ongoing operations.

The memo did not include a timestamp, but it references a Sept. 15 U.S. strike that “resulted in the destruction of the vessel, the illicit narcotics, and the death of approximately 3 unlawful combatants.”

“As we have said many times, the President acted in line with the law of armed conflict to protect our country from those trying to bring deadly poison to our shores, and he is delivering on his promise to take on the cartels and eliminate these national security threats from murdering more Americans,” the White House said.

Pentagon officials briefed senators on the strikes Wednesday, according to a person familiar with the matter, who was not authorized to comment publicly and spoke on the condition of anonymity. The Pentagon referred questions to the White House.

From AP’s Standards and Stylebook teams:
The AP is using anonymous sourcing to provide information for this story. Click here to hear Washington Bureau Chief Anna Johnson explain AP’s policy on the use of anonymous sources.

What the Trump administration laid out at the classified briefing at the Capitol was perceived by several senators as pursuing a new legal framework that raised questions particularly regarding the role of Congress in authorizing any such action, that person said.

Pentagon officials also briefed House staffers last week on the strikes, according to another person who was briefed on the meeting and similarly spoke on condition of anonymity.

The memo, which was reported earlier by The New York Times, lays out a rationale seen both as the administration’s justification for the military strikes it has already taken on the boats in the Caribbean — which have raised concerns from lawmakers as potentially unlawful — as well as any action to come.

A White House official who wasn’t authorized to comment publicly and spoke on condition of anonymity said the memo was sent to Congress on Sept. 18 and does not convey any new information. The person familiar with the Senate briefing said it was transmitted this week.

Details weren’t given on the cartels targeted

Trump has designated several Latin American drug cartels as foreign terrorist organizationsand the administration had previously justified the military action as a necessary escalation to stem the flow of drugs into the United States.

Pentagon officials could not provide a list of the designated terrorist organizations at the center of the conflict, a matter that was a major source of frustration for some of the lawmakers who were briefed this week, according to one of the people familiar with the briefings.

While “friendly foreign nations have made significant efforts to combat these organizations,” the memo said, the groups “are now transnational and conduct ongoing attacks throughout the Western Hemisphere as organized cartels.” The memo refers to cartel members as “unlawful combatants.”

The Trump administration is trying to justify the use of military force against drug cartels in the same way the Bush administration justified the war against al-Qaida following the Sept. 11 attacks, said Waxman, who served in the State and Defense Departments and on the National Security Council under Bush.

Bush, however, had authorization from Congress, unlike Trump. The Trump administration is arguing that it no longer has to consider the individual circumstances of using force, said Waxman, who now chairs Columbia Law School’s National Security Law Program.

“It’s basically saying, ‘We don’t have to engage in that kind of case-by-case decision-making,’” Waxman said. “All of these vessels that are carrying enemy personnel can be targeted, whether they’re headed towards the United States or not.”

Waxman said he expects more strikes and “we’ll see if the United States takes the next big step and engages in lethal force or armed force on the territory of another state.”

Lawmakers of both major political parties have pressed Trump to seek war powers authority from Congress for operations against alleged drug traffickers. Several senators and human rights groups have questioned the legality of the strikes, calling them potential overreach of executive authority in part because the military was used for law enforcement purposes.

Sen. Jack Reed of Rhode Island, the top Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, said drug cartels are “despicable” but the Trump administration has offered “no credible legal justification, evidence or intelligence for these strikes.”

Reed, a former Army officer, said “every American should be alarmed that their President has decided he can wage secret wars against anyone he calls an enemy.”

___

Associated Press writers Konstantin Toropin, Ben Finley and Michelle L. Price contributed to this report.

Read More

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

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

The Dictatorship

Trump’s overlapping troubles are starting to resemble a set of political Russian nesting dolls

Published

on

With tariffs fueling inflation, inflation driving up prices and rising costs deepening public frustration with the White House, President Donald Trump’s troubles at home and abroad are starting to resemble a set of political Russian nesting dolls. Each overlapping challenge grows larger and swallows the next.

Now, U.S. intervention in Iran is adding another layer to Trump’s stack of challenges — a pile so large it seems increasingly impossible to unpack it all before November.

A slew of new polls underscores how compounded these issues have become. A Fox News poll released Wednesday shows that 47% of respondents disapprove of Trump’s presidency, while a Reuters/Ipsos poll released Tuesday reports his approval at a record low of 36% — down from 40% last week. Meanwhile, the latest AP-NORC poll shows that around half of U.S. adults have little to no trust in the president when it comes to foreign policy decisions, while nearly a third say they have little trust in his approach to nuclear weapons, military deployments and relationships with other nations.

Taken together, the numbers illustrate how the White House is facing a complex war beyond the borders of Iran — as well as the public’s growing skepticism of Trump’s judgment at home and abroad.

​As Operation Epic Fury drags into its fifth weekTrump has scrambled to make the case that military intervention in Iran is a net positive for the American public, if only the public can withstand the short-term economic effects. But while foreign intervention has, for some presidents, distracted the public’s attention from political troubles on the home front, Trump’s maneuvers in the Middle East are having the opposite effect.

​Past presidents have often benefited from the “rally around the flag” effecta concept in political science in which a leader sees a temporary uptick in support during war. President George H.W. Bush enjoyed a nearly 80% approval rating during the 1991 Persian Gulf War, while nearly three-quarters of Americans supported President George W. Bush’s initial invasion of Iraq in 2003.

But as the American electorate has changed, so has its approach to foreign intervention. Now, public support for war hinges as much on a president’s credibility and domestic management as on threats abroad.

Rather than the abstract concept of far-off battlefields, Americans are enduring the tangible and immediate consequences of Trump’s foreign agenda every time they open their wallets.

Rather than rally around, nearly 6 in 10 Americans say U.S. military action in Iran has gone “too far,” according to the AP-NORC survey. Nearly the same number of voters surveyed by Fox News say they disapprove of the president’s foreign policy agenda, while 64% disapprove of his handling of Iran.

With the conflict estimated to cost a whopping $1 billion a dayit’s also impossible for the administration to shield voters from feeling the costs of war at home. ​Rather than the abstract concept of far-off battlefields, Americans are enduring the tangible and immediate consequences of Trump’s foreign agenda every time they open their wallets.

Already stressed by rising grocery costs and utility bill spikes, the average American is now pulling up to the pump to find that the national gas average has jumped $1 in just a month, for AAA. Meanwhile, the labor market has taken some significant hits since January, and a partial government shutdown has only created more trouble for federal workers and travelers alike.

America’s cost concerns are only growing. The AP-NORC poll found that 45% of Americans are “extremely” or “very” concerned about affording gas in the next few months, while three-quarters of Republicans and about two-thirds of Democrats say it’s “highly important” to keep oil and gas prices from rising. Reuters/Ipsos found that just 29% of Americans approve of Trump’s leadership on economic issues.

The White House is scrambling to assuage the growing concern, just as it worked to downplay Trump’s global tariff war and rising inflation. But Trump’s bullish approach to negotiations — including his recent insistence in a Cabinet meeting that he “doesn’t care about” reaching a deal with Tehran —  is far from reassuring.

Instead, it’s clear that the messaging is falling flat with voters, who were already facing economic uncertainty before Operation Epic Fury ever made headlines. Now, with pain points coming from all sides, the White House is staring down an electorate caught in a feedback loop of frustration, mistrust and a widely unpopular foreign war.

Trump has weathered bad poll numbers before and come out on top. But for now at least, the administration’s global agenda has put its own party in a precarious position as it stares down a challenging midterm cycle.

Make no mistake: While Tehran may dominate today’s headlines, it will be the crisis at American checkout counters and kitchen tables that matters most come November.

Bethany Irvine is a Washington-based political reporter who has written for Blue Light News and The Texas Tribune.

Read More

Continue Reading

The Dictatorship

A ‘Love Story’ that feels more like an invasion of privacy

Published

on

A ‘Love Story’ that feels more like an invasion of privacy

The most heartbreaking moment in the finale of “Love Story: John F. Kennedy Jr. & Carolyn Bessette” is arguably also a manufactured one. Bessette’s mother Ann Messina Freeman, played by Constance Zimmer, is having an emotional conversation with Caroline Kennedy following the death of her daughter and famous son-in-law. “She said she didn’t recognize who she had become,” Freeman tells Kennedy, played by Mamie Gummer. “And now that person will be immortalized forever. I only wish she had lived long enough to be remembered for something else.”

Freeman’s lament echoes one that Caroline Kennedy voices earlier in this last episode of the Ryan Murphy-produced FX and Hulu limited series. “The only thing he’ll be remembered for is what he could have become,” she says of her now-late brother, the son of a revered American president who also died suddenly in the prime of his life. In this fictionalized version of history, and perhaps in real life, these women wish for a more nuanced legacy for their loved ones and resent how the media flattens and distorts their existences. That’s a fair sentiment perhaps, but it’s also a disorienting thing to process while watching a series that flattens and distorts the existences of those same loved ones to ensure the main thing they will be remembered for is their tumultuous relationship and the tragic manner in which they died.

A woman, left, puts her hands around the neck of a man. The lighting of the scene is very warm.
Sarah Pidgeon, left, who plays Carolyn Bessette, and Paul Anthony Kelly, who plays John F. Kennedy Jr., during a scene in “Love Story.” Courtesy FX Networks and Hulu

This type of hypocrisy has gotten harder to ignore over the past decade as scripted, realistic-seeming stories based on actual celebrities, crimes and scandals have become omnipresent. Murphy has been responsible for a lot of the entries in this genre and actually set the bar for it 10 years ago, with “American Crime Story: The People vs. O.J. Simpson.”

Like “Love Story,” that limited series revisits a high-profile narrative from the 1990s: the murder trial of O.J. Simpson. “The People vs. O.J. Simpson,” which was produced and partly directed by Murphy but developed for television by Scott Alexander and Larry Karaszewski, ticked all the scripted true crime boxes that subsequent shows would strive to hit. It featured strong performances from an exceptional ensemble cast. It won nine Emmy Awards. Most importantly, it revisited a story that most people felt they knew — the prosecution and acquittal of Simpson in the stabbing deaths of his former wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and her friend Ron Goldman — but did so with an eye toward the racial and gender dynamics that affected the media coverage of the case and public perception of it.

Rather than simply rehashing old news, “The People vs. O.J. Simpson” seemed to want to help us understand this volatile chapter in modern American history from a more nuanced perspective.

Certainly there were concerns about the ghoulishness of revisiting the deaths of Brown Simpson and Goldman, particularly from their respective families. But overall, the show was sensitive and substantive enough to shake accusations of being exploitative for exploitation’s sake.

I watched all of this and wondered what, exactly, I was doing other than rubbernecking at the scene of a past tragedy.

But as these types of shows have proliferated and Murphy has added murder anthology series “Monster”to his roster, it has become harder to argue that these fictionalized versions of the truth serve a more noble purpose. Which brings us back to “Love Story,” and its final hour, “Search and Recovery.” Inevitably, the show puts us in the Piper Saratoga plane with Carolyn, Lauren Bessette and John just before it goes down off the coast of Martha’s Vineyard.

But mercifully, series creator Connor Hines, who wrote the finale, and director Anthony Hemingway, don’t actually depict the crash itself, only the moments just before, when Kennedy starts to lose control of the aircraft. “John, just breathe,” Carolyn reassures her husband in their final — and fictionalized — moments together.

I watched all of this and wondered what, exactly, I was doing other than rubbernecking at the scene of a past tragedy. Witnessing this interpretation of these terrifying scenes does not add anything to our understanding of their relationship. It just allows us to see what (allegedly) happened before their lives ended, which feels like an invasion of privacy.

Honestly, most of “Love Story” feels like an invasion of privacy. That does not mean that it was made completely without care. As is always the case in the Murphy-verse, there are some very strong performances in this series, particularly from Zimmer, Gummer and, especially, Sarah Pidgeon as Carolyn. Largely known to the public as the image of perfect bridal elegance, Bessette becomes a real flesh-and-blood person in Pidgeon’s hands. The actress captures her vibrancy, her quick wit and her allure. This is the most we’ve ever gotten to see of the real Carolyn Bessette, even though this is only a facsimile of her.

John F. Kennedy, Jr. kisses Carolyn Bessette Kennedy on the cheek.
John F. Kennedy, Jr. kisses Carolyn Bessette Kennedy on the cheek during the annual White House Correspondents dinner on May 1, 1999, in Washington, D.C. Tyler Mallory / Getty Images

But is that enough to justify making nine episodes of a series that picks apart the arguments, pressures and therapy sessions from her complicated relationship with one of the most high-profile, frequently photographed men who ever lived?

In a recent op-ed for The New York TimesDaryl Hannah, an ex-girlfriend of Kennedy’s who is portrayed in an extremely unflattering light in “Love Story,” argued that it is not. “Many people believe what they see on TV and do not distinguish between dramatization and documented fact — and the impact is not abstract,” she wrote. “In a digital era, entertainment often becomes collective memory. Real names are not fictional tools. They belong to real lives.”

That doesn’t mean that Hollywood should never make TV shows or movies based on actual people. The industry has been doing that forever, long before Murphy came along. But I think the creators of this form of entertainment need to ask themselves what they are hoping to achieve, not just as they prepare a pitch to a network, but every single day they are working on the project.

During that moving conversation between Freeman and Caroline Kennedy, the women agree that there is no sense to be made of the deaths of these promising young Americans. As the Kennedy family has learned far too many times, life can be random and cruel for no good reason. That’s the feeling that persists as this “Love Story” ends: that what happened to Carolyn, John and Carolyn’s sister Lauren was terribly sad and there’s nothing that can be done to change it. But there is one thing that Hollywood and the public can actually do: Just let them rest in peace.

Jen Chaney is a freelance TV and film critic whose work has been published in The New York Times, TV Guide and other outlets.

Read More

Continue Reading

The Dictatorship

The Epstein class thinks it runs America. Today, No Kings protesters send their response.

Published

on

Thousands of Americans plan to gather on Saturday for No Kings protests across the country. They have a simple message: People are tired of a government that protects the powerful and abandons ordinary Americans.

They are tired of fighting costly and illegal overseas wars while we face an affordability crisis at home. They are horrified by the Trump administration’s cover-up of the Epstein files and the lack of accountability for the rich and powerful who crossed lines. And they are sick of Immigration and Customs Enforcement terrorizing our communities.

The American people are uniting to demand accountability.

As more Americans are sent to fight abroad and the survivors of abuse are silenced at home, people increasingly feel dispensable.

But we are not disposable. We are not dispensable. The American people are uniting to demand accountability.

For too long, Americans have seen our leaders fight harder for the Epstein class than for the working class. They have watched our system shield elites instead of delivering fundamentals such as affordable health care, housing and education.

The fight to release the Epstein files exposed not only a broken justice system, but also a deep economic and moral divide.

Jeffrey Epstein built a network of elite and powerful individuals, some of whom believed they could abuse young girls and women — many from working-class backgrounds — without consequences. Many survivors of Epstein’s abuses have courageously spoken outand over the past year, sparked a moral reckoning in our country. They have exposed a two-tier system of justice that protects the wealthy and powerful and fails those who have been abused.

The administration’s failure to hold accountable those involved in Epstein’s abuses has fueled deep distrust in our government and its ability to deliver for the public good.

Rebuilding faith in our system requires transparency and accountability.

That is why I led the fight with Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., to release the files. The Epstein Files Transparency Act wasn’t about politics. It was about justice for the survivors and accountability for their abusers.

Since our bill was signed into law in November, the Justice Department has released some three million documents. These files expose the brazenness of the Epstein class. They show how extensive Epstein’s network was and that this wasn’t just one individual but a group of powerful people who operated within a culture of elite impunity.

While most of those powerful people aren’t accused of criminal involvement with Epstein, the emails, photos and other materials demonstrate the willingness of this well-connected group to associate with Epstein even after he was convicted of sex crimes involving minors.

While these files and survivors’ stories have shocked our national conscience, the work is far from over. Transparency is only the first step. Now we must deliver accountability for those involved in Epstein’s abuses.

That means, in part, holding the administration accountable for essentially perpetuating a cover-up. The Justice Department has failed to release millions of remaining documents, which is a flagrant violation of our law. Many of the documents that have been released are heavily redacted in some areas — including concealing the names of several powerful individuals — yet in other areas fail to redact the names of survivors.

Survivors and the public deserve answers.

When Attorney General Pam Bondi appears before the House Oversight Committee next month, I will demand an explanation under oath of why the remaining files have not been released and why the administration has not acted to hold those involved accountable.

In other countries, we have started to see steps toward accountability. Peter Mandelson was fired as Britain’s ambassador to the United States and is being investigated over information he may have passed to Epstein while holding other government positions. The former prince known as Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor was arrested last month on suspicion of misconduct in public office, also related to confidential information he may have passed to Epstein. The former prime minister of Norway was charged with aggravated corruption over his Epstein links.

All of these individuals deny wrongdoing. But the arrests and investigations show that action is possible when governments have the courage to take on powerful individuals.

So why hasn’t there been action until now?

The truth is that no one has been willing to take on powerful interests. President Franklin D. Roosevelt warned of the “economic royalists” — wealthy and connected individuals who concentrated power and sought to rig the system against the working class. The emergence of the Epstein class is not so different.

The arrests and investigations show that action is possible when governments have the courage to take on powerful individuals.

For years, the wealthy have influenced our government and political system by pouring money into elections. That is how they secured tax breaks, dragged us into foreign wars and steered policies that benefit them over the working class. This is why I have stood for banning super PACs and getting money out of politics. I don’t take a dime of PAC money.

We need to take our government back for the people. That means rooting out corruption, dismantling ICE and creating a government that is going to provide Medicare for all, universal child care and a living wage.

It also means justice for the survivors of Epstein’s abuses, putting an end to elite impunity and prosecuting those who were involved in Epstein’s crimes.

Ultimately, that is why it is so important that Americans are gathering this weekend. This show of unity should remind our country that the people, not just the wealthy few, hold the power.

Rep. Ro Khanna

Ro Khanna represents California’s 17th congressional district in the House of Representatives.

Read More

Continue Reading

Trending