The father of Chief Special Warfare Operator William “Ryan” Owens, who was killed during a U.S. military raid in Yemen in January, says he refused to meet with President Trump and is calling for an investigation into his son’s death. When President Trump made his way to Dover Air Force Base to pay his respects to the returning body of Ryan Owens, Bill Owens refused to meet with the president. Bill Owens stated “My conscience wouldn’t let me talk to him.” The SEALs’ widow Carryn Owens met with Trump instead. The Yakla raid on the Yemeni village left 25 civilians dead, including nine children under the age of 13.
Owens, 36, was a Virginia-based Navy SEAL from Peoria, Illinois and was killed during the controversial nighttime raid. The married, father of three-joined the Navy in 1998 and joined the Navy Seals in 2002. Owens was twice awarded the Bronze Star medal with V for valor in combat.
During President Trump’s first speech to Congress, he honored Navy SEAL Ryan Owens and referred to the raid as being “highly successful.” Owens’s widow, Carryn Owens, fought back tears as Trump called her late husband a “warrior and a hero.”
The raid took place in central Yemen on Jan. 29th and was Trump’s first counter terrorism operation after taking office. Administration and Defense Department officials have praised the operation for gathering intelligence from documents and electronic devices in the house, and for killing at least a dozen combatants including Abdulrauf al Dhahab, a leader of al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula.
The aftermath of the raid has been controversial with some lawmakers, pundits and news reports being highly critical of its’ “so-called” success. The raid has been called an intelligence-gathering operation but it quickly turned into a lengthy firefight that killed Owens and potentially dozens of civilians, wounded three American soldiers, and destroyed a $70 million Osprey. Critics have also questioned the quality of the intelligence gathered.
Senator John McCain has called the operation “a failure” because the terrorists were allegedly tipped off in advance. The Trump administration has emphasized that a trove of intelligence was gathered but various news reports, citing anonymous administration officials, have produced inconsistent reports about the quality of the intelligence gathered. There hasn’t been an official investigation or report on the operation yet, so how the event actually played out and the value of the intelligence gathered is not completely clear.
The administration was initially hesitant to confirm reports from local witnesses that Yemeni civilians were killed in the firefight. On February 1st, U.S. Central Command announced that “regrettably, civilian noncombatants were killed” and “casualties may include children.”
The Pentagon has opened at least three investigations into the Yemen raid. The Pentagon is “following standard procedures for reviews into the death of a service member, the deaths of civilians and the destruction of hardware.”
Read more
In January, President Trump said he wanted to empower local law enforcement to act as immigration officers and help with the “investigation, apprehension, or detention” of immigrants in the country illegally. Traditionally, local police departments are not involved in immigration enforcement and those duties are carried out by federal authorities.
Police chiefs from cities across the U.S. are resisting the move by the administration to enlist local police officers to help deport undocumented immigrants. In a joint letter sent to Congress, 61 sheriffs and police chiefs wrote, “We can best serve our communities by leaving the enforcement of immigration laws to the federal government. Threatening the removal of valuable grant funding from jurisdictions that choose not to spend limited resources enforcing federal immigration law is extremely problematic.” The White House plan would also withhold federal funds from sanctuary cities that refuse to cooperate with federal immigration authorities.
Some of the cities that have vowed not to participate in the involvement of immigration laws include Los Angeles, Newark, New York, Philadelphia, Chicago, Seattle, Providence and Denver. Many expressed concerns that immigrants already wary of reporting crimes or being interviewed as witnesses will retreat further into the shadows.
Trump’s plan is not a new idea but is not regularly practiced throughout the country. A 1996 federal law opened up the possibility for local agencies to participate in immigration enforcement on the streets and do citizenship checks of people in local jails. Immigration and Customs Enforcement trained and certified roughly 1,600 officers to carry out these checks from 2006 to 2015.
The Obama administration phased out all the arrest power agreements in 2013, but still let agencies check whether people jailed in their jurisdiction were citizens. If an inmate is found to be in the country illegally, the department typically notifies federal authorities or hands them over to immigration officers. Today, more than 30 local agencies participate in the jail program.
Experts said Trump’s outreach to local law enforcement will create an even bigger split between sanctuary cities that keep police out of immigration enforcement and those eager to help the new president bolster deportations.
During the election, Trump found support among some law enforcement officers who viewed him as more pro-police than his Democratic opponent. But even officers who privately said they had voted for him- are not eager to help with his immigration agenda. Many officers feel that they have enough on their plate. They are too busy answering 911 calls, arresting robbers, stopping erratic drivers and solving homicides to add federal immigration enforcement to their to-do lists.
Read more
The Trump administration announced that it will enforce federal laws barring the use of marijuana, reversing an Obama administration policy that gave wide latitude to states to determine their own pot laws. Eight states – Washington, Oregon, California, Nevada, Alaska, Colorado, Massachusetts, and Maine – and Washington, D.C. have legalized both medicinal and recreational marijuana. The Obama administration had opted not to enforce federal prohibitions in states that had passed legislation legalizing the drug. It’s classified as a Schedule 1 drug — putting it in the same category as heroin — and the government can restrict cross-state shipment and financing as a result.
White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer said the Trump administration would prioritize enforcement in states that have passed laws allowing for the recreational—rather than medical—use of the drug. Just a day after the announcement, publicly traded shares of marijuana-related companies were tumbling and executives at recreational marijuana businesses were expressing their disappointment in the announcement.
The announcement was not a surprise to legalization advocates after Trump’s nomination of Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions as attorney general. Many advocates feel that Mr. Sessions has been “the single biggest opponent to legalization in the US Senate.”
In August 2013, a four-page directive issued by then-Deputy Attorney General James M. Cole essentially instructs that a hands-off approach be taken by the federal government in states that have voted on laws to legalize marijuana, regardless of the fact that marijuana is illegal at the federal level. The directive has been dubbed the “Cole Memo”.
President Trump has issued differing stances on marijuana legalization. In the 1990s, Trump told the Miami Herald that the US needed to “legalize drugs to win” the war on drugs. And in an interview with Fox News’s Bill O’Reilly a year ago, Trump said he was in favor of medical marijuana “a hundred percent” while also calling Colorado’s recreational marijuana industry “a real problem.”
The industry is still new and is estimated to be worth over $6 billion so the reversal will cost some states millions in revenue and a loss of jobs. Recreational marijuana retailers in Oregon sell about $7 million worth of cannabis every week, or about $364 million a year.
In 2016, the marijuana industry in Colorado created more than 18,000 new full-time jobs and over $1 billion in retail sales. The industry also generated over $1 billion in additional economic activity such as growers renting warehouse space and the purchases of sophisticating lighting and irrigation equipment. Marijuana retailers also boost the economy when they rely on other companies, like contractors, lawyers and bookkeeping services, to conduct their own businesses. If the Trump Administration’s promise of a crackdown does take effect- all of this new found revenue will be lost.
Read more
Many are outraged after a viral video showed an off-duty LAPD officer firing a gun near a group of kids after the officer grabbed a 13-year-old boy by his hoodie and restraining him. The incident took place near the officer’s home in Anaheim, California.
The cellphone video shows a man in plainclothes holding a boy against his will. The boy repeatedly says, “Let me go” but the man refuses. The man, who never identifies himself as an officer is surrounded by other children as he pulls the boy down the street over lawns. Eventually, the other kids come to the aid of the boy, pushing the officer over a row of hedges. The man, who still has hold of the boy is then seen drawing a pistol from his waistband before a gunshot rings out. No one was injured in the incident.
According to one of the youths, the group was walking home from school when the incident took place. The 13 year old says it quickly escalated and turned physical when the man tackled him and choked him. While the video does not show what happened prior, it starts with the boy being restrained and asking to be let go. He then says “why are you grabbing me, I just said not to talk to a girl like that! You called her a dumb c**t.” The man replies that she shouldn’t have been on his lawn.
Anaheim police say the officer had an ongoing dispute against children who were walking on his lawn. Both the 13-year-old boy and his 15-year-old brother were arrested. The off-duty officer, who has not been identified, was questioned by Anaheim police and released.
Overnight, around 300 protesters gathered near the officer’s home, before marching through Anaheim’s streets and blocking intersections. Some protesters shouted “hands up, don’t shoot” and “no justice, no peace.” Some demonstrators threw rocks and kicked police cars, while others broke windows or residences and cars, according to the LA Times.
There was also a small group of protestors who lingered around the officer’s home chanting “Don’t shoot the children.” The officer’s home and vehicle were vandalized before riot police arrived to protect the officer’s home. Twenty-four people were arrested on misdemeanor charges of failure to disperse.
The LAPD says the officer is on paid administrative leave while the department evaluates if his “use of deadly force complied with LAPD’s policies and procedures.” Anaheim police say they are reviewing other videos of the altercation to get a clearer picture of what happened.
Anaheim mayor Tom Tait and Police Chief Raul Quezada both said they were thankful no one was wounded when the officer fired a handgun into the ground. They also both said they are disturbed by video that shows an off-duty Los Angeles police officer firing his gun during a confrontation with a teenager.
Police Chief Quezada told reporters “As a father and as a police chief, I too am disturbed by what I saw on the videos that were posted on the Internet,” He said he hopes a criminal investigation into the matter, which involved several teens and an off-duty Los Angeles police officer who lives in Anaheim, will be completed within two weeks. No one has been formally charged in the incident.
Read more
President Trump signed legislation to repeal a Dodd-Frank anti-corruption measure requiring oil and mining companies to disclose payments to governments. The rule had required public oil, gas and mineral extraction companies to disclose annually its payments to both foreign governments and the U.S. government.
According to lawmakers, these disclosures help fight corruption in resource-rich countries. The requirement was the Cardin-Lugar Anti-Corruption Provision of 2010’s Dodd-Frank Act – signed by former President Barack Obama and named for former Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., and Sen. Ben Cardin, D-Md. The regulation was widely support from Democrats, who argued the transparency requirement could reduce instances of corruption in resource-rich countries overseas.
The goal of the rule is to prevent foreign leaders from skimming off the payments that drillers and miners make to their countries. It was put in place to stop the corruption that enriches the politically connected but deprives regular people of their country’s mineral wealth.
The oil industry had fiercely lobbied against the measure. The resource extraction rule has been controversial since it was mandated in 2010, which is why it took six years for it to be finalized. Exxon, Chevron (CXW) and the National Mining Association were among the dozens of entities to submit comments opposing the rule.
Longtime ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson, who is now secretary of state, personally lobbied against the rule, flying to Washington, D.C., to meet with then-Senator Richard Lugar in 2010 to try to get the measure removed from Dodd-Frank. The American Petroleum Institute, the chief U.S. energy lobbying organization”s main argument against the rule was that it puts U.S. companies at a disadvantage, because their foreign competitors are not subject to the requirements.
However, many major European drillers like BP, Total and Royal Dutch Shell, Russian oil and gas giants Rosneft and Gazprom, as well as Canadian firms must report what they pay to foreign governments. The U.S. rules would have forced some Chinese and Brazilian firms to do so as well.
House Speaker Paul Ryan said in a statement that the provision in question “would have put American oil and natural gas companies at a disadvantage on the world stage, and actually could have threatened the safety of American workers abroad.”
Lawmakers used the Congressional Review Act, a seldom-used legislative route that essentially fast-tracks the regulatory repeal process. By accessing the provisions laid out, it allows lawmakers to expedite a resolution that requires little notice before introduction and is not subject to filibuster. It also requires only a simple majority of 51 votes in the Senate to pass.
Read more
On February 9th, a federal appeals court in San Francisco unanimously upheld a suspension of President Trump’s executive order barring all refugees from entering the U.S. and restricting travel from seven Muslim-majority countries. In the unanimous decision, a three-judge panel on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled courts have the authority to review constitutional challenges to executive actions.
Last week, U.S. District Judge James Robart in Seattle issued a temporary restraining order halting the ban after Washington state and Minnesota sued. The ban temporarily suspended the nation’s refugee program. After the ban was put on hold, the State Department quickly said people from the seven countries — Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen — with valid visas could travel to the U.S. The decision led to tearful reunions at airports around the country.
Justice Department lawyers appealed to the 9th Circuit, arguing that the president has the constitutional power to restrict entry to the United States and that the courts cannot second-guess his determination that such a step was needed to prevent terrorism.
The panel declined to block a lower-court ruling that suspended the ban and allowed previously barred travelers to enter the U.S. The judges rejected the administration’s argument that courts did not have the authority to review the president’s immigration and national security decisions. They also said the administration failed to show that the order met constitutional requirements to provide notice or a hearing before restricting travel and presented no evidence that any foreigner from the seven countries cited by the travel ban had committed terrorism in the U.S.
This controversial court battle has just begun. Now, the lower court must debate the merits of the ban, and an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court seems likely. When that happens, it could put the decision in the hands of a divided court that has a vacancy. A potential 4-4 tie would leave the appeals court’s ruling in place.
The appeals court only sided with the administration on one issue: the argument that the lower court’s temporary restraining order could not be appealed. While under 9th Circuit precedent such orders are not typically reviewable, the panel ruled that due to the intense public interest at stake and the uncertainty of how long it would take to obtain a further ruling from the lower court, it was appropriate to consider the federal government’s appeal.
Trump’s nominee, Neil Gorsuch, could not be confirmed in time to take part in any consideration of the ban. President Trump responded to the ruling on Twitter, tweeting “SEE YOU IN COURT, THE SECURITY OF OUR NATION IS AT STAKE!” The ban was set to expire in 90 days, meaning it could run its course before the Supreme Court would review the issue.
Read more
In northern Afghanistan, six Red Cross workers were killed and two others were missing on Wednesday after an attack. The Taliban quickly denied any involvement in the attack. The governor of Jowzjan Province, Lutfullah Azizi, blamed affiliates of the Islamic State, also known as ISIS, for the attack.
Mr. Azizi said that the Red Cross had begun a mission to distribute livestock material in the Qush Tepah area of Jowzjan Province, where the attack happened, but that its work was suspended by recent avalanches. When workers went to resume giving out aid, they were targeted.
“They were a team of eight people in three vehicles, including three drivers and five staff,” Mr. Azizi said. “Islamic State attacked the convoy, killed the three drivers and three staff members on the spot and took two staff members with them.”
The plan was for the Red Cross staff to help distribute the 1,000 tons of feed, which is critical for farmers because there is nowhere for animals to graze in the winter months. Before the vehicles got to the distribution point, they were ambushed by armed men. The panic button sent an alert to Red Cross offices in Kabul, but efforts to reach the staffers by satellite phone and other means failed. “We couldn’t get hold of them,” says Thomas Glass, head of communications for the International Committee of the Red Cross in Afghanistan. The Red Cross is “desperately” searching for the two missing field staff members.
Glass stated that the Red Cross has 30 years of continuous presence in Afghanistan and they are well-known and respected for their work within the communities they serve. The vehicles are clearly marked so the ambush has all the signs of a deliberate attack. Red Cross workers being attacked in Afghanistan is nothing new but the loss of 6 lives at one time seems like another level of violence.
In Afghanistan, the Red Cross helps with many efforts for the communities such as supporting health care, anti-poverty work and sanitation efforts. The Red Cross issued a statement that activities are suspended until Tuesday, possibly longer. Certain activities will continue, such as the treatment of patients at medical facilities will continue but any movement in the field, including the transfer of war-wounded to hospitals, has been put on hold.
Qush Tepah is about 37 miles from the provincial capital and is rife with militant groups, including five Islamic State factions with an estimated 200 fighters. A spokesman for the northern police zone said there were about 600 foreign fighters in five Northern provinces.
In recent weeks, officials in northern Afghanistan had expressed concern about an increase in foreign fighters there, many of them suspected of affiliation with the Islamic State. Amnesty International condemned the attack and noted that violence has intensified recently in Afghanistan. The work of humanitarian workers and journalists has become increasingly dangerous as there has been an increase of deliberate attacks on aid workers and journalists.
Read more
Immediately after swearing in Sessions as attorney general, President Trump signed three new executive orders addressing crime and immigration. One executive order seeks to increase penalties on those found guilty of assaulting police officers. A second order directs law enforcement agencies to increase intelligence sharing while going after drug cartels. A third order directs Attorney General Sessions to prioritize fighting “illegal immigration” alongside drug trafficking and violent crime.
President Trump also green-lighted construction of a wall along the U.S. border with Mexico, a proposal he repeatedly mentioned while campaigning. The wall is just one component of sweeping action Trump took to clamp down on immigration to the U.S. “Building this barrier is more than just a campaign promise, it is a common-sense first step to securing our border. This will stem the flow of drugs, crime, and illegal immigration into the United States. And yes, one way or another, as the President has said, Mexico will pay for it,” White House spokesman Sean Spicer said.
Other actions recently taken by President Trump include:
- Ending federal grant funding to sanctuary cities and states, which opt out of reporting undocumented immigrants.
- Ordering the Department of Homeland Security to allocate funds or establish contracts for the construction or operation of detention facilities.
- Ending the policy known as “catch and release,” under which some immigrants are released from detention while they await a hearing with an immigration judge.
- Prioritizing the deportation of immigrants who have committed crimes.
During the White House press briefing on Wednesday, Spicer reiterated earlier statements that the President’s priority would be on criminals. “His priorities, first and foremost, are the people in this country that seek to do us harm,” he said.
Reactions to the immigration actions were swift from eight immigration and refugee-rights groups who joined a conference call to denounce the new orders. They argue that the orders make the U.S. less safe and tear apart families and communities across the country. Advocates said the executive orders are “anti-immigrant, anti-refugee and anti-religious freedom”. None of the advocacy organizations that were on the call had been briefed or received any guidance from the Trump Administration on the orders and future immigration plans.
Advocacy groups are preparing to take legal action and provide lawyers to protect people who are concerned about pending visa applications, hate crimes and continued confusion at the U.S. border. Many mayors of U.S. cities who have adopted sanctuary policies have said they are ready and willing to push back on Trump’s funding plans.
Read more
The Army Corps of Engineers appears ready to approve the final permit required to build the $3.8 billion Dakota Access pipeline. The Dakota Access project has faced months of resistance from hundreds of indigenous nations and non-Native allies. Policing the protests in North Dakota has cost the taxpayers over 22 million dollars.
North Dakota Senator John Hoeven said that acting Secretary of the Army Robert Speer has directed the Army Corps to issue the easement for Energy Transfer Partners, the company behind the pipeline. The easement allows the company to drill underneath the Missouri River.
Energy Transfer Partners is poised to begin drilling under Lake Oahe as soon as approval is given. Workers have drilled entry and exit holes for the crossing and oil has been put in the pipeline leading up to the lake in anticipation of finishing the project. CEO Kelcy Warren has said the company should be able to finish the project in about three months once the permit is granted.
The 1,200-mile pipeline would carry North Dakota oil through the Dakotas and Iowa to a shipping point in Illinois. Dallas-based developer Energy Transfer Partners had hoped to have the pipeline operating by the end of 2016, but construction has been stalled while the Corps and the company battled in court over the crossing.
An assessment conducted last year determined the crossing would not have a significant impact on the environment. However, on Dec. 4th, then-Assistant Army Secretary for Civil Works Jo-Ellen Darcy declined to issue permission for the crossing, saying a broader environmental study was warranted. The Corps launched a study of the crossing on Jan. 18th. President Donald Trump signed an executive action Jan. 24 telling the Corps to quickly reconsider Darcy’s decision and shortly after court documents were filed that include a proposed Federal Register notice terminating the study.
The Corps has notified the remaining protesters that the government-owned land will be closed Feb. 22nd 2017. The Standing Rock Sioux and supporters fear a pipeline spill could contaminate the river, which serves as a drinking water source for millions.
Water protectors say that if the easement is granted, the government would be illegally circumventing the process of an environmental impact statement, which was ordered in December under President Obama’s administration. Members of the resistance camp Sacred Stone on the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation in North Dakota have called for water protectors to come to support the resistance to the Dakota Access pipeline.
Read more
President Trump has imposed a controversial 90-day ban on travelers from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen. On January 27th, Trump signed the order banning travel from the seven Muslim-majority countries for 90 days and suspending all refugee admission for 120 days. Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) leadership saw the final details shortly before the order was finalized.
The result was widespread confusion across the country on Saturday as airports struggled to adjust to the new directives. Stories of families separated or detained for hours starting circulating news outlets.The policy team at the White House developed the executive order on refugees and visas and avoided the traditional inter-agency process that allowed the Justice Department and homeland security agencies to provide operational guidance.
DHS arrived at the legal interpretation that the executive order restrictions did not apply to people with lawful permanent residence, referred to as green card holders. The White House overruled that guidance overnight and decided that on a case by case basis, DHS could allow green card holders to enter the US. The Department of Homeland Security decided that green card holders would be allowed to board international flights but would be considered on a case-by-case basis after passing a secondary screening.
Acting Attorney General Sally Yates announced the Justice Department would not defend Trump’s executive order temporarily banning all refugees, as well as all citizens, from the seven Muslim-majority nations. Just hours after her announcement, President Trump fired her. Yates had served in the Justice Department for 27 years and Trump had asked her to serve as acting attorney general until the Senate confirmed Sen. Jeff Sessions.
Yates is not the only one to publicly disagree with the executive order. More than 200 State Department officials and diplomats have signed on to drafts of a dissent memo that condemns Trump’s executive order. Executives at a growing number of corporations have spoken out against Trump’s immigration ban, including Google, Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, Facebook, Netflix, Tesla, Airbnb, Ford and Goldman Sachs. World-wide protests has erupted across the globe as well.
Then, Federal Judge James Robart, who presides in Seattle, halted the enforcement of Trump’s order Friday night, effective nationwide. Ruling in a lawsuit brought by the attorneys general of Washington state and Minnesota who sought to stop the order, he said the states “have met their burden of demonstrating that they face immediate and irreparable injury as a result of the signing and implementation of the Executive Order. ” He said the order adversely affects residents in areas of education, employment, education and freedom to travel.
The Department of Homeland Security announced it has suspended all actions to implement the immigration order and will resume standard inspections of travelers as it did prior to the signing of the travel ban. They said the Justice Department — which is expected to file an emergency motion to stop the order — needed to challenge the ruling “at the earliest possible time.”
Read more
