Wednesday, September 24, 2025
■ Today's Top News
"As history shows, no nation can kill their way out of the drug problem," argued one critic.
By Brad Reed
US President Donald Trump has now repeatedly ordered the American military to use deadly force against boats in international waters that are allegedly engaged in drug smuggling, and many experts are raising red flags about both its legality and its effectiveness.
In an essay published by Just Security on Wednesday, Ret. Army Lt. Col. Daniel Maurer argued that Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth had issued “a patently illegal order” with the attacks on the alleged drug boats, and warned that the service members who carried it out could be exposed to “to a range of criminal punishments” under both federal criminal law and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
However, Maurer said it was highly unlikely that the service members who followed Trump’s orders would actually face consequences given the broad criminal immunity that the US Supreme Court granted presidents last year for carrying out official acts.
Regardless, Maurer concluded that Trump has “prejudiced good order and discipline within the armed forces” by “placing US service members in the position of having to contemplate whether they’d escape justice” by carrying out an illegal action.
John Yoo, an attorney who has long embraced a maximalist view of presidential powers and who has in the past authored legal memos justifying the torture of prisoners in American military custody, nonetheless also argued Trump’s drug boat bombing goes too far.
Writing in The Washington Post on Tuesday, Yoo made the case that ordering the military to use deadly force against suspected drug traffickers risks blurring the line between military action and law enforcement in ways that could lead to an “amorphous military campaign against the illegal drug trade, which would violate American law and the Constitution.”
Yoo said that the only way the Trump administration could possibly justify military action against cartels would be if it could prove that the cartels were carrying out acts of violence at the behest of a foreign government whose intention was to harm American citizens.
But he cautioned that the administration “has yet to provide compelling evidence in court or to Congress” that this is the case, and he said any action taken without such evidence would constitute “the misuse of the tools of war to fight the eternal social problem of crime.”
Daniel DePetris, a fellow at the national security think tank Defense Priorities, argued in Time on Wednesday that Trump’s drug boat bombings were not only “likely illegal and unconstitutional,” but would prove to be tactically ineffective as well.
“As history shows, no nation can kill their way out of the drug problem,” he argued. “Various governments have prefaced their entire anti-drug campaigns on military force before and have consistently failed. For example, the Mexican government declared war on the cartels in 2006 and tasked the military with prosecuting counter-drug operations, only to see those very same cartels get even more violent in their response.”
DePetris said that Trump doesn’t seem to grasp that as long as US citizens are willing to pay for illegal drugs, there will be criminal enterprises willing to go to extreme lengths to make money from them.
“As long demand is strong and the US remains the world’s top market, these criminal outfits will have billions of dollars’ worth of reasons to continue their operations, no matter the risk,” he concluded.
In a Wednesday editorial criticizing Trump’s bombing of suspected drug boats, The New York Times noted that the Trump administration has actually harmed efforts to reduce the demand for drugs in the US, despite considerable evidence that doing so is the surest way to hurt cartels.
“The White House has sought huge cuts to programs designed to bring down that demand, including widely praised addiction medicine and harm reduction efforts,” the Times editors wrote. “And it is cutting Medicaid, which will leave many users without access to effective treatment programs. It is doing so even though these programs helped produce a 26% decline in overdose deaths in 2024 from the year before.”
The Times editorial also linked Trump’s use of the military to take out purported drug traffickers with his deployment of the National Guard in US cities under the pretense of combating crime.
“His attacks at sea fit a disturbing pattern of using the military to address law-enforcement problems,” the editors wrote. “Just as he continues to send the National Guard into cities in a supposed effort to reduce street crime, he wants to achieve the illusion of dominance over drug smuggling, even if his actions make little difference and even if he kills people, guilty or innocent, in the process.”
“All people in the United States are entitled to due process—without exception,” said an attorney at the ACLU of Massachusetts.
By Brad Reed
Several New England affiliates of the American Civil Liberties Union have filed a new class-action lawsuit that challenges the immigration detention policies of US President Donald Trump.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Massachusetts announced on Tuesday that it is joining with the ACLU of New Hampshire, the ACLU of Maine, ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project, the law firm Araujo and Fisher, the law firm Foley Hoag, and the Harvard Immigration and Refugee Clinic to sue the Trump administration over its policy of denying bond hearings to people detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
The ACLU of Massachusetts described the denial of bond hearings for ICE detainees as “a violation of statutory and constitutional rights” that are “upending decades of settled law and established practice in immigration proceedings.” The end result of this, the ACLU of Massachusetts warned, is that “thousands of people in Massachusetts will be denied due process.”
The complaint contends that the US Department of Justice (DOJ) has been denying ICE detainees their rights by “systematically reclassifying these people from the statutory authority of 8 U.S.C. § 1226, which usually allows for the opportunity to request bond during removal proceedings, to the no-bond detention provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1225, which does not apply to people arrested in the interior of the United States and placed in removal proceedings.”
The ACLU of Massachusetts said that the administration’s misclassification of detainees stems from actions taken by the Tacoma Immigration Court in Washington, which in 2022 started “misclassifying § 1226 detainees arrested inside the United States as mandatory detainees under § 1225, solely because they initially entered the country without permission.”
The lawsuit has been filed on behalf of Jose Arnulfo Guerrero Orellana, an immigrant who resides in Massachusetts and has no criminal record, but who was detained by ICE last week and has been denied the right to challenge his detention. The complaint asks that due process be restored for Orellana and others who have been similarly detained and held unlawfully.
Daniel McFadden, managing attorney at the ACLU of Massachusetts, argued that the administration’s actions violate fundamental constitutional rights.
“All people in the United States are entitled to due process—without exception,” he said. “When the government arrests any person inside the United States, it must be required to prove to a judge that there is an actual reason for the person’s detention. Our client and others like him have a constitutional and statutory right to receive a bond hearing for exactly that purpose.”
Annelise Araujo, founding principal and owner at Boston-based law firm Araujo and Fisher, argued that the administration’s detention policy “violates due process and upends nearly 30 years of established practice.”
“The people impacted by this policy are neighbors, friends, and family members, living peacefully in the United States and making important contributions to our communities,” she said. “Currently, the only recourse is to file individual habeas petitions for each detained client—a process that keeps people detained longer and stretches the resources of our courts.”
"This is more than a victory," said organizers in Arizona. "It is a mandate. A signal that voters are ready for fearless leadership, not capitulation, not confusion, but action."
By Julia Conley
Economic and social justice organizers in Arizona applauded Wednesday after Democrat Adelita Grijalva, the daughter of late US Rep. Raúl Grijalva and a longtime local political leader, easily won a special election to succeed her father and represent the state’s 7th District in Congress.
The local organization Living United for Change in Arizona (LUCHA) emphasized that in the primary election she won in July and her contest against Republican opponent Daniel Butierez, Grijalva ran a campaign “fueled by working-class voters, young people, Latinos, and long-time movement builders.”
“As the first Latina elected to represent Arizona, her win sends a clear message: The old playbook isn’t working, and voters are demanding something different,” said the group. “This is more than a victory. It is a mandate. A signal that voters are ready for fearless leadership, not capitulation, not confusion, but action.”
Grijalva campaigned on defending Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security from Republican cuts and attacks; protecting workers’ right to unionize; and lowering the cost of housing. She won endorsements from Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) ahead of the primary.
“Adelita’s win is a turning point,” said Alejandra Gomez, executive director of LUCHA. “She’s not going to Congress to blend in. She’s going to lead, to fight, and to remind the Democratic Party what it looks like to be grounded in people, not corporate donors.”
It is unclear when Grijalva will officially be sworn in, with the House out of session until October and lawmakers currently working to avert a government shutdown that could begin October 1, but when she takes office the Democrats will have narrowed the Republican Party’s majority to 219-214. There are two remaining vacancies that also need to be filled.
The grassroots progressive group Our Revolution called Grijalva’s victory “a big step toward building the progressive power we need to block MAGA’s extremist agenda and deliver for working people.”
“There’s real energy right now for a different kind of politics, one that puts working people first. Voters are tired of politicians who hide in the pockets of their billionaire donors,” said Maurice Mitchell, national director of the Working Families Party. “We know that Adelita is going to be a tireless fighter for working families in her district.”
Grijalva’s victory also gives a crucial 218th vote to a bipartisan effort led by Reps. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) and Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) to force a vote ordering the Justice Department to release unredacted files related to Jeffrey Epstein, the financier and convicted sex offender who died in prison while awaiting trial on sex trafficking charges in 2019 and who was a friend of President Donald Trump.
Grijalva said this week that “if elected, on my very first day in Congress, I’ll sign the bipartisan discharge petition to force a vote on releasing the Epstein files.”
House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) has refused to call a vote on releasing the files, which Trump opposes. Khanna and Massie introduced a discharge petition to circumvent the House leadership, which has been signed by every Democratic member.
Three Republicans—Reps. Lauren Boebert of Colorado, Nancy Mace of South Carolina, and Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia—have joined the Democrats in supporting the maneuver, and Grijalva’s signature will give the Democrats the 218th vote they need.
Grijalva told CNN ahead of the election that she heard on the campaign trail from voters who want the files to be released.
“They believe the survivors deserve justice,” said Grijalva, “and Congress must fulfill its duty to check the executive branch and hold Trump accountable.”
Rep. Yassamin Ansari (D-Ariz.) said Grijalva will be “a true progressive fighter and partner in our fight against authoritarianism.”
“Arizona’s delegation just got even stronger,” she said.
"States have a responsibility to ensure the safe passage of the flotilla," said Amnesty International.
By Stephen Prager
The Italian government says it has sent a naval ship to assist the Global Sumud Flotilla after it was attacked by several drones.
Organizers of the flotilla said that the boats, which are carrying humanitarian aid for the starving people of Gaza, were attacked by a swarm of 15 drones early Wednesday morning, with the convoy in the Mediterranean Sea about 600 nautical miles from the enclave.
According to Drop Site News, at least eight attacks and six explosions were reported as flash bang grenades hit at least six of the boats. One person has been injured, and two of the boats have been damaged. They also reported that an “unidentified chemical device” was dropped onto one of the boats before falling off into the water.
In a statement issued Wednesday, Italy’s defense minister Guido Crosetto said: “Regarding the attack suffered in recent hours by the Sumud Flotilla vessels, which also include Italian citizens, carried out using drones by currently unidentified perpetrators, we can only express the strongest condemnation. In a democracy, even demonstrations and protests must be protected when they are conducted in compliance with international law and without resorting to violence.”
“To ensure assistance to the Italian citizens on the flotilla,” Crosetto said that he had “authorized the immediate intervention of the Italian Navy’s multi-purpose frigate Fasan,” which he said was “already en route to the area for possible rescue operations.”
The deployment comes after labor unions in Italy led a nationwide strike in solidarity with Gaza on Monday, with hundreds of thousands of people in 75 cities and towns rallying to support Palestinians as well as the Global Sumud Flotilla.
Hundreds of other elected representatives to the European Union also issued calls on Wednesday for their own governments to provide protection to the flotilla.
While the perpetrator of the attack is not yet known, the flotilla organizers have suggested that ”Israel and its allies” were responsible. Israel blocked two other efforts by activists to reach Gaza earlier this summer.
The flotilla’s roughly 350 participants—which include humanitarians, doctors, journalists, lawyers, and other activists from at least 44 countries around the world—have repeatedly insisted that they are unarmed and that their goal is to peacefully protest Israel’s siege of Gaza and deliver about 250 tons of food and medical aid to the people of Gaza, who are starving en masse under a near-total blockade by Israel.
On Tuesday, Israel’s foreign ministry threatened to take “the necessary measures” to prevent what it described as the “Hamas flotilla” from breaking what it called a “lawful” blockade of Gaza.
In a statement posted to Instagram, the flotilla organizers said, “We welcome the recognition by Minister Crosetto of the democratic and non-violent nature of our mission, and his condemnation of the recent attacks on our vessels.”
The group called on other UN member states, “in particular those whose nationals are aboard our ships—to ensure and facilitate effective protection, including maritime escorts, accredited diplomatic observers, and an overt protective state presence.” The group emphasized that “such measures must remain protective and facilitative in nature, consistent with the principles of non-interference and the humanitarian purpose of our mission.”
Israel ordered the group to turn over its humanitarian aid to Israel for it to be distributed in the strip. Organizers have refused to do this, arguing that Israel’s blockade of aid, which has allowed only small amounts of aid into the strip, is illegal under international law.
Brazilian organizer Thiago Ávila, has said there is no reason to believe Israel’s promises to distribute aid.
“We can never believe an occupying force who is committing genocide that they will deliver aid–it’s not in their interests,” Ávila said on his Instagram.
Last week, a commission of independent experts at the United Nations released an extensive report concluding that Israel was committing genocide in Gaza. This has included its blockade of aid entering the strip, which has resulted in the deaths of more than 400 people, including at least 145 children, with many dying in recent months.
At least 65,419 Palestinians have also been killed in Israeli attacks on Gaza since October 2023, and at least 167,160 have been wounded.
In a statement Wednesday morning, Amnesty International condemned the attacks on the flotilla and Israel’s “threatening and dehumanizing statements” against its organizers, which it described as “a shameless attempt to intimidate them and their supporters.”
“States have a responsibility to ensure the safe passage of the flotilla, especially as they have repeatedly failed to get Israel to comply with its most basic obligations to ensure Palestinians in Gaza have adequate access to food, water, medicine, and other supplies indispensable to their survival,” Amnesty said. “They must step up pressure on Israel to ensure safe passage for the flotilla and to lift the blockade once for all.”
The suspected shooter was also reported dead of a self-inflicted gunshot wound.
By Brad Reed
Update (5:00 pm ET):
The US Department of Homeland Security now says that only one of the three detainees shot in the incident has been confirmed dead and that the others are in critical condition. An earlier version of this story, based on local reporting, stated that two detainees had been killed.
Earlier:
Two detainees in the custody of immigration enforcement officials were killed and a third was wounded in a shooting in Dallas, Texas on Wednesday morning, according to local reporting.
As reported by local news station NBC Dallas-Forth Worth, the shooting occurred at an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facility in the northwest area of the city.
All three people shot were ICE detainees. Two of the shooting victims have been pronounced dead, while the third has been taken to a nearby medical facility for treatment.
No ICE officers were hurt in the shooting, law enforcement officials told NBC Dallas-Fort Worth.
The person suspected of opening fire at the facility has also been reported dead from an apparent self-inflicted gunshot wound.
Police are unsure whether the suspect in the shooting acted alone, and law enforcement sources told local news station WFAA that police are searching for additional potential shooters.
Despite that all those reportedly killed or wounded in the shooting were ICE detainees, and even though the motivation of the shooter is not yet known, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem framed the incident as an attack on law enforcement.
“While we don’t know motive yet, we know that our ICE law enforcement is facing unprecedented violence against them,” she wrote on X. “It must stop. Please pray for the victims and their families.”
“Pressure is mounting on today’s politicians to hold those most responsible for the climate crisis to account," said one Greenpeace campaigner.
By Jon Queally
Thirty-eight former world leaders on Wednesday used the occasion of the United Nations General Assembly this week in New York—as well as other global summits on the horizon—to demand a new global framework for steeper taxes on the world’s wealthiest and most powerful fossil fuel giants to pay for an urgent transition away from dirty energy sources toward a healthier planet and more equitable economy.
Under the auspices of the nonpartisan Club de Madrid, the world’s largest forum of former democratically-elected presidents and prime ministers, an open letter—signed by Carlos Alvarado, former President of Costa Rica; Mari Kiviniemi, former Prime Minister of Finland; Chandrika Kumaratunga, former President of Sri Lanka; former UN Secretary General Ban-Ki Moon; and dozens of others—calls the climate crisis “a defining challenge of our time” and urges current leaders to “place the question of fair taxation of fossil fuel company profits firmly on national and international agendas” before it is too late.
“With wealthier countries leading by example,” say the leaders, increased taxation of the world’s coal, oil, and gas giants coupled with a redirection of taxpayer subsidies away from the fossil fuel sector and toward a just renewable energy transition “could be transformative, enabling a faster and fairer global transition and strengthening public trust that climate action can deliver tangible benefits for all.”
“Taxing fossil fuel profits is not only fair—it is also essential to ease the economic burden of the climate crisis, felt by ordinary people through higher food prices, lost working days, pressure on energy bills and higher home insurance premiums.”
Citing the need for global cooperation and ambition to address the warming planet and ongoing climate breakdown, the open letter states:
It is time to consider innovative solutions that can simultaneously establish a clear incentive for companies to shift investment to renewable energy as quickly as possible, while mobilising significant funds to address climate damages and advance both equality and equity. Today, we call on you to consider permanent polluter profit taxes applied to high-emitting industries, designed to ensure contributions come from those with the greatest capacity to pay rather than from ordinary consumers of fossil fuels. With wealthier countries leading by example, these taxes should place the primary responsibility on those with the greatest capacity, not on middle- and low-income communities.
The former world leaders acknowledge the strain governments feel about generating the necessary revenue, estimated at approximately $6.5 trillion per year by 2030, to fund the rapid transition scientists and experts say is necessary to avoid the worst future impacts of an increasingly hotter planet. However, they argue that the polluting companies that have profited most from the fossil fuel era are best positioned to foot the bill, and that the cost of action is far less than the cost of fixing the damage that future climate change will cause if left unaddressed.
“During the oil and gas price crisis in 2022, many governments implemented windfall taxes. We must consider making such approaches permanent,” the letter argues. “A polluter profits tax modestly applied to normal returns and significantly higher on windfall gains could, if applied just to oil, coal, and gas companies, generate up to $400 billion in its first year.”
Rebecca Newsom, Greenpeace International’s global political lead for its “Stop Drilling Start Paying” campaign, said the letter represents what real leadership looks like and that forcing fossil fuel giants to pay higher taxes to help solve the planetary crisis their insatiable greed has spurred has never been more popular with the people worldwide.
“This is a powerful call from former world leaders to make oil and gas corporations pay their fair share for the destruction they have caused,” said Newsom.
Noting recent survey data, Newsom said 8 out of 10 people around the world now “support taxing these polluters for climate damages—the backing of former political leaders adds more weight to this urgent demand.”
“Pressure is mounting on today’s politicians to hold those most responsible for the climate crisis to account,” she said. “Taxing fossil fuel profits is not only fair—it is also essential to ease the economic burden of the climate crisis, felt by ordinary people through higher food prices, lost working days, pressure on energy bills and higher home insurance premiums.”
With the upcoming G20 summit in South Africa and the UN Global Tax Convention in Kenya, both scheduled for November, the former world leaders say the moment is right for global leaders to finally show urgency on the issue.
“The world has the tools, the knowledge, and the resources to act,” their letter concludes. “What is needed now is the political courage to ensure that those with the greatest capacity contribute their fair share. This will not only advance climate justice but also strengthen the foundations of a more stable, resilient, and prosperous global economy.”
Greenpeace’s Newsom said the message is clear. “Governments must find the courage to decisively tax oil and gas corporations and redirect those funds towards a just transition away from fossil fuels and a safe future in the face of a climate crisis.”
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.