Today honors Dr. Martin Luther King for his role in protecting the civil rights of every American. His genius was in understanding his audience. When he delivered his “I Have a Dream” speech in Washington, DC in August 1963, he knew that his primary audience was white Americans and his objective in the speech was to make civil rights palatable to those who refused to grant equal rights to black Americans.
The speech came in two parts. The first was written out and he followed the script, laying out how the idea of equal rights was the bedrock of the Constitution even though the actual text of the Constitution institutionalized slavery. It is a careful and patient outline of how the black population has been denied civil rights by segregation and Jim Crow laws. This part of the speech was to make universal civil rights consistent with the values and ideals of the United States. Because it was written out, the first part of the speech relied upon logic and evidence and suffered from the typical flaws of a speech that was read and not delivered.
The second part was not written out but was a speech that he had often given to black Americans and it begins about 10 minutes in the video below. This part of the speech demonstrated the power of the spoken word and the full meaning of rhetoric. Mahalia Jackson, a gospel singer and close associate of King, encouraged him to leave off the logic and to rely upon the emotions that flow from a sense of liberation. She gave King the license to treat white America to the true feelings of black Americans:
“The story that has been told since that day has Mahalia Jackson intervening at a critical junction when she decided King’s speech needed a course-correction. Recalling a theme she had heard him use in earlier speeches, Jackson said out loud to Martin Luther King Jr., from behind the podium on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, “Tell them about the dream, Martin.” And at that moment, as can be seen in films of the speech, Dr. King leaves his prepared notes behind to improvise the entire next section of his speech—the historic section that famously begins “And so even though we face the difficulties of today and tomorrow, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream….”
The result was one of the most powerful speeches in American history and a genuine turning point in the fight for civil rights. And the speech led to the Civil Rights Act of 1965 which laid the foundation for a more substantive understanding of what rights are. Those rights have since been extended to the rights of women and the gay community. More work needs to be done enhancing the rights of transgender individuals, disabled people, immigrants, and refugees. But King made these developments possible, and Americans should be grateful to King, and all those who supported him, for leading the way.
President Biden, in his final address to the nation as President, warned citizens against the danger of living in an oligarchy: “Today, an oligarchy is taking shape in America of extreme wealth, power and influence that literally threatens our entire democracy, our basic rights and freedoms, and a fair shot for everyone to get ahead.” He was not the first President to warn of this danger. John Adams, in a letter to Thomas Jefferson, wrote the following:
“9 July 1813
“Your “” [aristocrats] are the most difficult Animals to manage, of anything in the whole Theory and practice of Government. They will not suffer themselves to be governed. They not only exert all their own Subtilty Industry and courage, but they employ the Commonalty, to knock to pieces every Plan and Model that the most honest Architects in Legislation can invent to keep them within bounds. Both Patricians and Plebeians are as furious as the Workmen in England to demolish labour-saving Machinery.
“But who are these ““? Who shall judge? Who shall select these choice Spirits from the rest of the Congregation? Themselves? We must first find out and determine who themselves are. Shall the congregation choose? Ask Xenophon. Perhaps hereafter I may quote you Greek. Too much in a hurry at present, english must suffice. Xenophon says that the ecclesia, always chooses the worst Men they can find, because none others will do their dirty work. This wicked Motive is worse than Birth or Wealth. Here I want to quote Greek again. But the day before I received your Letter of June 27. I gave the Book to George Washington Adams going to the Accadamy at Hingham. The Title is a Collection of Moral Sentences from all the most Ancien[t] Greek Poets. In one of the oldest of them I read in greek that I cannot repeat, a couplet the Sense of which was
“‘Nobility in Men is worth as much as it is in Horses Asses or Rams: but the meanest blooded Puppy, in the World, if he gets a little money, is as good a man as the best of them.’ Yet Birth and Wealth together have prevailed over Virtue and Talents in all ages. The Many, will acknowledge no other ““. Your Experience of This Truth, will not much differ from that of your old Friend.”
Most Americans are unfamiliar with the word “oligarchy” since the Republic has tried very hard since its inception to convey the sense of equality best expressed in Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence. It would be years before any American President emphasized the idea of equality over that of freedom. Lincoln did so in his second Inaugural Address. For the first time, an American President declared that slavery was incompatible with the values of the American people, notwithstanding the inclusion of slavery in the Constitution.
An oligarchy is a political system in which the wealthy direct the machinery of government to protect and enhance their interests as opposed to the interests of the citizenry. Brooke Harrington, a Sociology Professor at Dartmouth College wrote this for the Washington Post at the beginning of Trump’s first term:
“There are no laws against a president and his super-wealthy Cabinet using their power to benefit their own class. There is nothing that compels them to look beyond their privilege to address the needs of the citizenry.
“The problem with these prospective leaders is not their money. It’s that they — like Trump — seem more interested in what their country can do for them than in what they can do for their country.”
The concentration of wealth in the second Trump administration is staggering. The following table gives an idea of how concentrated wealth has become in recent years. Many of the people listed, like Musk, Bezos, and Zuckerberg, have actively solicited Trump on various matters and represent business interests that clearly constitute conflicts of interest with a number of important policy issues like freedom of speech in a digital world.
Source: Bloomberg, “Bloomberg Billionaires Index”, 18 January 2025, accessed at: Bloomberg Billionaires Index, on 19 January 2025
Many of these people have contributed a great deal of money to Trump’s inauguration and several of them have been quite visible in the upcoming Trump Administration. We also have a hard time realizing exactly what these numbers represent: a billion of anything is far removed from anything we come into daily contact. One way to comprehend these numbers is to translate them into more accessible terms:
If someone made one million dollars a year, they would make about $480.77 per hour and $3,846.15 per day.
On the other hand, making a billion dollars per year would mean about $480,769 per hour and $3,846,153.85 per day.
These 20 individuals possess more wealth than most countries in the world. Indeed, there are only 7 countries with GDPs larger than $3 trillion:
There are 186 countries in the world with GDPs less than $3 trillion. The combined population of these countries comprises 56% of the global population. But 20 people have more wealth than each of the 186 countries.
Concentrations of wealth lead inevitably to a distorted political system. Adam Smith was well aware of the dangers of concentrated wealth to the public interest:
“Not only the prejudices of the publick, but what is much more unconquerable, the private interests of many individuals, irresistibly oppose it. Were the officers of the army to oppose with the same zeal and unanimity any reduction in the number of forces, with which master manufacturers set themselves against every law that is likely to increase the number of their rivals in the home market; were the former to animate their soldiers, in the same manner as the latter enflame their workmen, to attack with violence and outrage the proposers of any such regulation; to attempt to reduce the army would be as dangerous as it has now become to attempt to diminish in any respect the monopoly which our manufacturers have obtained against us. This monopoly has so much increased the number of some particular tribes of them, that, like an overgrown standing army, they have become formidable to the government, and upon many occasions intimidate the legislature. The member of parliament who supports every proposal for strengthening this monopoly, is sure to acquire not only the reputation of understanding trade, but great popularity and influence with an order of men whose numbers and wealth render them of great importance. If he opposes them, on the contrary, and still more if he has authority enough to be able to thwart them, neither the most acknowledged probity, nor the highest rank, nor the greatest publick services can protect him from the most infamous abuse and detraction, from personal insults, nor sometimes from real danger, arising from the insolent outrage of furious and disappointed monopolists.”
This pattern was present as the Roman Republic began its descent into dictatorship. It was also evident in 13th Century Venice and in late-19th Century America. It is happening again, not only in the US, but in India, Russia, China, the low-population oil producers such as Kuwait, and Brazil. It is difficult to see how democracy can persist under these conditions. Active steps must be taken to create a more just distribution of wealth globally.
Last June, the US house of Representatives banned the State Department from using death statistics published by the Gaza Ministry of Health. The amendment was supported by most Republicans and many Democrats but the Senate has yet to pass on the legislation. The rationale for the amendment was best expressed by David Adesnik, Senior Fellow and Director of Research at the conservative think-tank, Fund for Defense of Democracies: “It’s a complete abdication of responsibility for the Biden administration to say it trusts the Gaza Health Ministry’s numbers because the UN considers them trustworthy. We’ve seen that the UN puts blind faith in the ministry’s numbers even when they’re completely implausible. As a result of trusting numbers from a Hamas-controlled entity, the Biden administration has become more focused on the restraints it can put on Israeli forces than how it can help accelerate Hamas’s defeat.” Israel has also criticized the Ministry’s statistics. The Anti-Defamation League published this analysis of the Gaza Minitstry of Health:
“ADL calls on all news organizations to properly caveat data and information cited from the Gaza Health Ministry with clear mention that it is controlled by Hamas and that it has shared false and misleading information in the past. Journalists and news organizations must acknowledge when their sources may be unconfirmed or unreliable.”
It turns out that the Gaza Ministry of Health undercounted the casualties (it only counts bodies that are visible, and does not search through destroyed buildings to find bodies that are covered by rubble). The amendment to legislation was According to the Lancet, one of the world’s premier medical journals, the death toll in the war against Gaza has been significantly undercounted. The study was limited to the period 7 October 2023 to 30 June 2024 so it does not include any reported deaths since July. The Lancet study came to this conclusion: “We estimated 64 260 deaths…due to traumatic injury during the study period, suggesting the Palestinian MoH under-reported mortality by 41%.” The Gaza Ministry of Health currently tallies about 47,000 deaths. If the undercounting of 41% holds from the period of 1 July 2025-11 January 2025, then a straight extrapolation would suggest a death total of about 67,000.
The Lancet study only looked at deaths attributed to military action. The report states that “our findings underestimate the full impact of the military operation in Gaza, as they do not account for non-trauma-related deaths resulting from health service disruption, food insecurity, and inadequate water and sanitation.” It is extraordinarily difficult to make precise estimates of these deaths (called “indirect” deaths in the literature), but the Watson Institute at Brown University has done a solid study. The Center for Strategic and International Studies has also done a report on the long-term effects of such conditions in Gaza.
It is very clear that we lack knowledge of the actual conditions in the Gaza Strip. But we should be extremely wary of attempts to undermine the credibility of sources by parties which have a vested interest in particular conclusions. It appears as if the Gaza Ministry of Health was, and is, the most reliable source in this dispute.
President-Elect Trump’s press conference yesterday was an excursion into the mind of a seriously deranged individual. National Public Radio reports in an interview with Laura Barron-Lopez of NPR:
“And in it, the president-elect talked about using force to gain control over countries and territories. He raised the possibility of using military force to secure Greenland and the Panama Canal. He also talked about using economic control to pressure Canada to acquire it.
“And he said that — as you played there, Geoff, renaming the Gulf of Mexico as the Gulf of America. And he also said that — quote — “all hell will break out” if Hamas doesn’t release hostages by the time he takes office.
“In addition to that, he said that he wants to use tariffs at a high level against Denmark to try to pressure it to cede control of Greenland to the United States. And on that idea of the annexation of Canada, Geoff, outgoing Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said that — just outright rejected it on X, saying that there wasn’t a snowball’s chance in hell that it would happen.”
One never knows whether Trump is actually serious–he has a long history of making outrageous statements and never following through on them. But the mind-set revealed in the press conference is straight out of Nineteenth Century Europe when the balance of power was the operating system of global politics and manifested most dramatically in the carving up of Africa by the colonial powers. The period from 1870 to 1914 is commonly known as “The Scramble for Africa“.
After World War II, the US tried to create a different system, based upon multilateral organizations such as the United Nations, the World Bank, NATO, and various other organizations. The aspirations for this system were quite simple. Instead of the system of power politics characterized by Thucydides as one in which “The strong do as they will, and the weak suffer what they must“, the hope was that international politics could be governed by rules and norms agreed upon by the major powers. That aspiration was never realized, and it seems clear that Trump intends to govern US foreign policy by the maxims of power politics and to return the world to the 1800s.
Trump should read some history. He would find that the US did in fact invade Canada in 1812 and gained nothing from that war (forget the Battle of New Orleans and focus instead on the British burning down the White House). He should also learn that the Gulf of Mexico was named the Gulf of Mexico long before the US was even a state. He also needs a refresher course on what it means to be an ally–if Russia or China would dare to invade Greenland, the NATO treaty would obliged the US to defend the island because Denmark is a member of NATO. THe US does not need to “own” Greenland in order to defend it.
What is deeply troubling is that Trump uses the phrase “national security” to justify his fantasies in such a sloppy manner. He seems to be worried that Chinese companies on each end of the Panama Canal gives China a strategic advantage (conveniently ignoring that China is 6000 miles away from the Panama Canal while the US has easy access to the canal). China would have the same problems defending its troops that Russia had when it tried to place nuclear missiles on Cuba in 1962. When confronted with American military power in the Gulf of Mexico, the Russians had no choice but to capitulate.
Unfortunately, Trump seems to be following the policies of Putin and Netanyahu: grabbing land when it appears to be a task with few immediate downsides. Both Putin and Netanyahu seem oblivious to the long-term costs of being an imperial power: the immense cost and the serious damage to the reputation of their states. Randy Newman wrote a song about the phenomenon which is macabrely funny:
And while we are at changing names, Trump should now start thinking about purging foreign names from American geography. We should call Los Angeles the City of the Angels, Baton Rouge should be called Red Stick, and by all means we should get rid of Native American names like Massachusetts (“Large Hill Place”) and Connecticut (“Long Tidal River”). I am not sure I can survive this stupidity for four years.
“Mussolini did not have any philosophy: he had only rhetoric” — Umberto Eco, 1955
Today has been very difficult for many. This post was written in a state of confusion, fear, and rage. So you should tread carefully here, because there are dragons.
We had hoped that Mr. Trump had effectively diminished his allure to voters, but that was not the case. Instead, we now face the prospect of a mob boss political system, bent on enriching only those who submit and disenfranchising those who do not submit.
This terrain will be difficult to navigate, and it creates a problem for those of us who opposed Mr. Trump. Knowing that he will punish anyone who disagrees with him and knowing that the Congress and the Supreme Court will not restrain his basest instincts leaves us in uncharted territory. The Supreme Court has completely abdicated its responsibility to maintain checks and balances in Trump v. The United States and has decided that it does not have the power to check executive power as long as there is some mention in the Constitution of the powers of the President, no matter how indirect or peripheral the reference. With the Republicans in control of the Senate and possibly of the House as well, there is no posssibility that that party will restrain Mr. Trump given his ruthless purge of malcontents in the party.
We should place the blame for this situation squarely on the Republican Party which has completely abandoned its responsibility to defend the Constitution. The Democrats ran a very effective campaign which was not sufficient. What does the failure of opposition to Mr. Trump mean?
The election of 2024 was essentially a rerun of the early 20th Century. The end of the 19th Century brought about a wave of globalization powered by advances in refrigeration, telecommunications, shipping, and transportation. The result was a phenomenal explosion of wealth at the expense of those with limited access to capital and whose only link to the global economy was the sale of their labor. The growing inequality between rich and poor ultimately led to widespread dissatisfaction which resulted in the abandonment of traditional political norms and the adoption of new ideologies, fascism and communism, which channeled that dissatisfaction into acceptance of authoritarian rule. That inequality also led to the Great Depression.
Similarly, the technological revolutions of the 1980s and 1990s led to the creation of fabulous wealth–think Gates, Musk, Jobs, and Zuckerberg. But that wealth was accumulated by tapping into the labor markets of poor states such as China and Vietnam, leading to a massive loss of manufacturing jobs in the developed world. Those unemployed by the 2nd wave of globalization are the ones who abandoned traditional political norms, not only in the US, but in India, Hungary, Italy, France, Sweden, Denmark, and the Cech Republic. They have reasons to be angry.
The pattern of the early 20th century is repeating because the conditions are roughly similar. And, I suspect, the outcome will be the same: economic collapse and war.
The question for me is how do I respond to this situation? My gut instinct is to resist as Trump attempts to create a White, Male, and Christian Republic. I should resist any attempts to cut Obamacare, Social Security, health and safety regulations, and the proposed deportations. These are the issues that Trump used to secure the support to win the election. My suspicion is that those who supported Mr. Trump did not believe that he would truly implement those policies. But they knew exactly who Mr. Trump was: a person who cheated on his taxes, who assaulted women and bragged about his conquests, who punished anyone who did not support him, and who showed little regard for the rule of law. He will, I am certain, insure that everyone appointed to his government will share the same contempt for integrity and lawfulness. Those who voted for Mr. Trump cannot plead ignorance of who he was and how he defined his interests as the single guide for public policy. They knew what they were buying when they voted.
I fear, however, that, for the next two years, resistance will be futile. So I think there should be a second course of action, a course of action which deeply offends my sensibilities as a civic person. The Democrats should simply withdraw from the process of governing. It will be a huge waste of time and, ultimately, counterproductive. The Democrats should simply sit in Congress and refuse to vote or participate in any hearings. Those who supported Mr. Trump should live in the world they voted for. And with tariffs, deportations, and the lack of income security and health insurance, they can figure out how to survive. That economic collapse is inevitable given the obscene inequalities of power and wealth that Trump’s Administration will foster.
Then the Republican Party will have to decide whether it cares more about the Constitution than raw power. And the American people might learn to appreciate the idea of Justice and Equality and to temper their infatuation with unaccountable freedom.
Israel bombed a school being used as a shelter for displaced Palestinians in Gaza today, killing as many as 100 civilians according to the Gaza Healthy Ministry. The Israelis claimed that the school was being used by Hamas as a command center and asserted that 20 terrorists were killed in the strike and disputed the number of civilians killed. The Israelis have destroyed most of the schools in Gaza: “The U.N. previously said that as of July 6, 477 out of 564 schools in Gaza had been directly hit or damaged in the war, adding that Israel has a duty under international law to provide safe shelter for the displaced.” Moreover, the Israelis claimed to have used precision weapons which may have included weapons supplied by the US: “Unverified reporting indicated that at least one of the missiles dropped on the al-Tabin school overnight may have been a U.S.-made MK-84 bomb weighing 2,000 pounds.”
“The White House is ‘deeply concerned’ about reports of civilian deaths in Gaza related to Israel striking a school in Gaza City that killed at least 80 people, saying the strike “underscores the urgency of a ceasefire.”
“’We are deeply concerned about reports of civilian casualties in Gaza following a strike by the Israel Defense Forces on a compound that included a school,’ NSC spokesperson Sean Savett wrote in a statement to The Hill. ‘We are in touch with our Israeli counterparts, who have said they targeted senior Hamas officials, and we are asking for further details.’
“’This underscores the urgency of a ceasefire and hostage deal, which we continue to work tirelessly to achieve,’ Savett added.”
The US position is indefensible. On the same day that the attack occurred, the US sent $3.5 billion in military assistance to Israel without any assurances that “precision” bombs would be used with more precision (the idea that a 2000-lb bomb can be “precise” in a densely populated area is malicious doublespeak). Israel’s procedures which permit the killing of civilians as long as there are Hamas militants in the general area is completely at odds with the laws of war. There have been 40,000 deaths in Gaza since the war started last October. The US has a law (the Leahy Law) which prohibits “the U.S. Government from using funds for assistance to units of foreign security forces where there is credible information implicating that unit in the commission of gross violations of human rights.” The US has sent about $310 billion in military aid to Israel since its sounding–by far the most supported country in the world despite the fact that its per capita GDP ranks 14th in the world.
The US-led alliance that thwarted Iran’s mille attack last April undoubtedly contributed to Prime Minister Netanyahu’s sense of immunity to attacks in the future, and the subsequent killing of Hamas leader, Haniyeh in Tehran. Because of the US missile shield, the Prime Minister has pursued policies aptly described as rogue. He appears to ignore international condemnation and any pressures from the US to move toward a cease-fire. Indeed, the Prime Minister appears willing to risk a war with Iran, believing that the US would defend Israel. The US should announce an arms embargo on Israel until a cease-fire is reached and to withold future military assistance to Israel until an agreement between Israel and the Palestinian people is reached on the future of the Occupied Territories.
The chances of a wider regional war in the Middle East have increased over the last few days. Up until recently, the main military activity has been the Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip, while there have been sporadic military operations between the Israelis and Houthi and Hezbollah forces. Israel has escalated its attacks in Lebanon, attacking a site in Beirut to target a Hezbollah operative, and today it targeted a Hamas leader, Ismail Haniyeh , in Teheran, Iran. According to the Associated Press:
“Iranian U.N. Ambassador Amir Saeid Iravani in a letter on Wednesday blamed both strikes on Israel. He and said they ‘suggest an intention to escalate conflict and expand the war through the entire region.’ He called on the international community for ‘decisive action to address these violations and hold the perpetrators accountable.’”
Israel has taken responsibility for the strike in Beirut, saying it killed a top Hezbollah commander. But Israel has been silent about the strike that killed Haniyeh, though it had vowed to kill him and other Hamas leaders over the group’s Oct. 7 attack that sparked the war in Gaza.
Israel has not claimed responsibility for the assassination of Haniyeh, but has in the case of senior Hezbollah commander Fouad Shukur in Lebanon. Israel, however, has a long list of targeted assassinations in the region. It is difficult to overstate the significance of the more recent assassinations. To be clear, bombing another country is always regarded as an act of war, and Israel has now bombed targets in Lebanon, Syria, and Iran. Israel believes that its actions are simply a logical extension of its war against Hamas, but that narrow perspective is not justified: no state can ignore the consequences of such attacks on its sovereignty.
The attacks confirm my suspicions that Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu is trying to escalate the conflict. First, Haniyeh was killed while he was attending the inauguration of the new Iranian President, Masoud Pezeshkian. Pezeshkian is considered a moderate, breaking away from the hardline views of his two predecessors. But the attack will only strengthen the hands of the hardliners in Iran, particularly since the attack was an embarassment to the Iranian defense forces–the attack was done by a precision-guided missile against a target in the capital city of Tehran. Moreover, Haniyeh was a guest in Tehran and the protection of guests is a sacred obligation in Islam.
Second, Haniyeh was a principal negotiator in the current negotiations for a cease-fire in Gaza. There is probably no greater way to sabotage negotiations than to actually kill one of the interlocutors. Moreover, Israel has recently attached more preconditions to a ceasefire that was described by an Israeli official in these terms in an article in Axios: “Netanyahu wants a deal that is impossible to get. At the moment he isn’t willing to move and therefore we might be headed for a crisis in the negotiations rather than a deal”.
There is little question but that Iran and its proxies, Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis, will respond to the Israeli attacks. The last time Israel provoked Iran back in April by killing senior Hezbollah officials in Damascus, the Iranians chose a relatively calibrated response. According to The Economist:
“Iran has struck Israel directly once before: it launched more than 300 missiles and drones at Israel in April, retaliation for an Israeli strike that killed several high-ranking officers at Iran’s embassy compound in Damascus. Israel hit back with a pinpoint strike on an Iranian anti-aircraft radar, and the round was over.
“This time, Iran will have to decide whether it can risk a bigger conflagration. It is going through a sensitive political moment. Mr Haniyeh was killed hours after he attended the inauguration of Masoud Pezeshkian, the new Iranian president, who was elected after his predecessor was killed in a helicopter crash in May. This was probably not how he envisioned his first day on the job.”
The calibrated Iranian response was also blunted by a coalition of forces in the region to shoot down most of the missiles fired from Iran. The Center for Strategic and International Studies assessed the missile defense effort:
“This episode represents an outstanding success story for air and missile defense. Despite the over 300 ballistic missiles, drones, and cruise missiles launched, there appears to have been minimal damage to Israeli infrastructure and military assets, and the attack resulted in only one Israeli casualty.
It was also a joint effort. The coalition was led by the United States and featured the United Kingdom, France, and Jordan, in addition to Israel. Coordination took place at the Combined Air Operations Center at Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar, which helped to prevent any friendly fire incidents. Although Saudi Arabia has denied direct involvement, the kingdom at least allowed U.S. aircraft stationed in the country to engage Iranian air threats. Israel’s Arab neighbors also may have contributed intelligence and sensor assets to detect and track Iranian air threats, although the extent of this cooperation remains unclear. U.S. policymakers have long advocated for an integrated missile defense in the region, and this joint operation helps illustrate why.”
The Iranian government thus has to decide what an “appropriate” response should be, but it needs to take into account the lessons of the earlier April attack and try to overwhelm the missile defense capabilities of Israel and the US-led coalition. I do not have the technical expertise to speculate on what that number of missiles might be, and I suspect that the US will try to shoot down as many of those missiles as it can which is also a number I do not know.
But there is a more important insight to gain from the April attack. The US and the coalition of allies offering missile defenses are providing a shield which insulates Israel from any real consequences to its actions. That course if action is unwise since it allows the Netanyahu government to take actions which have negatively affected the US, Israel, and the Palestinian people.
The decision of the Supreme Court on the matter of Trump vs. United States today was a profound disappointment. It offered little on the critical question of whether Mr. Trump’s actions within the Justice Department were official or unofficial acts. Those actions involved replacing certain members of the Justice Department with a new Attorney General (Jeffrey Clark) who wanted to write a letter to various state legislatures suggesting that there were irregularities in the votes cast in the 2020 election which would justify the naming of alternate Electors. The Washington, DC Bar Association moved to disbar Mr. Clark because of these actions, noting that
“‘We must do what we can to ensure that this conduct is never repeated. The way to accomplish that goal is to remove from the profession lawyers who betrayed their constitutional obligations and their country. It is important that other lawyers who might be tempted to engage in similar misconduct be aware that doing so will cost them their privilege to practice law. It is also important for the courts and the legal profession to state clearly that the ends do not justify the means; that process matters; and that this is a society of laws, not men,’ wrote disciplinary counsel Hamilton Fox III. ‘Jeffrey Clark betrayed his oath to support the Constitution of the United States of America. He is not fit to be a member of the District of Columbia Bar.’”
Apparently, the US Supreme Court thinks that Mr. Clark’s behavior fell within the scope of Presidential authority. The majority decision held that
“The indictment’s allegations that the requested investigations were shams or proposed for an improper purpose do not divest the President of exclusive authority over the investigative and prosecutorial func- tions of the Justice Department and its officials. Because the President cannot be prosecuted for conduct within his exclusive constitutional authority, Trump is absolutely immune from prosecution for the alleged conduct involving his discussions with Justice Department officials.”
Additionally, the Special Prosecutor, Mr. Smith, charged that Mr. Trump tried to improperly influence the actions of the Vice-President, Mr. Pence, to delay the certification of Electoral votes. The Supreme Court held that “The indictment’s allegations that Trump attempted to pressure the Vice President to take particular acts in connection with his role at the certification proceeding thus involve official conduct, and Trump is at least presumptively immune from prosecution for such conduct.”
Critical to both of these findings is the curious statement by the Supreme Court that
“In dividing official from unofficial conduct, courts may not inquire into the President’s motives. Such a ‘highly intrusive’ inquiry would risk exposing even the most obvious instances of official conduct to judicial examination on the mere allegation of improper purpose. Fitzgerald, 457 U. S., at 756. Nor may courts deem an action unofficial merely because it allegedly violates a generally applicable law. Otherwise, Presidents would be subject to trial on ‘every allegation that an action was unlawful,’ depriving immunity of its intended effect.”
These presumptions are bullshit. Essentially the Court is holding that subverting a valid electoral outcome is not unconstitutional as long as the subversion is done by the President and anyone who serves under the authority of the Executive Branch. By refusing to examine the motivations for the action, the Court is saying that replacing the appointed Attorney General with someone who would subvert the Electoral College was normal activity within the Justice Department. No one questions whether the President had the authority to name a new Attorney General; the only relevant question is whether that action contitutes a crime against the Constitution.
On this question, the Court punts:
“On Trump’s view, the alleged conduct qualifies as official because it was undertaken to ensure the integrity and proper administration of the federal election. As the Government sees it, however, Trump can point to no plausible source of authority enabling the President to take such actions. Determining whose characterization may be correct, and with respect to which conduct, requires a fact-specific analysis of the indictment’s extensive and interrelated allegations. The Court accordingly remands to the District Court to determine in the first instance whether Trump’s conduct in this area qualifies as official or unofficial.”
In this paragraph, the Court contradicts itself. Having said that an inquiry into the motives of the President are not permissable, the Court ends up holding that whether Mr. Trump was taking action to “ensure the integrity and proper administration of the federal election” is something that needs to be determined. The Court apparently believe that the motive of ensuring the integrity and proper administration of the federal election is both legitimate and appropriate.
Now the lower courts have to make such a determination. But is there any reason to think that the Supreme Court lacked the ability to make such a determination? Did this decision require more evidence as to whether Mr. Trump’s actions were motivated by his strong desire for a legitimate election outcome? The Court wanted to assure that future Presidents are not paralyzed by the fear of prosecution for official acts. But it now appears that the Court wants lower courts to make such decisions on a case-by-case basis. Future Presidents may not be “paralyzed” by threats to prosecute. However, they will undoubtedly be hamstrung by the Supreme Court’s invitation to anyone who differs on the meaning of an “official act” to sue in the lower courts. It has released the Kraken.
The US vetoed a resolution in the UN Security Council which would have enabled the Palestinians to secure a seat in the United Nations. There were two abstentions (the UK and Switzerland) and all the other members of the Security Council voted in favor of the resolution. At the daily Press Briefing at the State Department, Vedant Patel, the spokesperson at the State Department, explained the US decision in a Question and Answer exchange:
“MR PATEL: So Matt, since October 7th, we have been pretty clear that sustainable peace in the region can only be achieved through a two-state solution, with Israel’s security guaranteed. And it remains our view that the most expeditious path towards statehood for the Palestinian people is through direct negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority with the support of the United States and other partners who share this goal. We believe this approach can tangibly advance Palestinian goals in a meaningful and enduring way.
We also have been very clear consistently that premature actions in New York, even with the best intentions, will not achieve statehood for the Palestinian people. Additionally, as reflected in the report of the admission committee, there was not unanimity among the committee members as to whether the applicant met the criteria of membership set forth in Article 4 of the UN Charter. Specifically, there are unresolved questions as to whether the applicant can meet criteria to be considered as a state.
And Matt, as you also know, we’ve long called on the Palestinian Authority to undertake necessary reforms to establish the attributes of readiness for statehood and note that Hamas, which is – as you all know – a terrorist organization, is currently exerting power and influence in Gaza, which would be an integral part of the envisioned state in this resolution. And for that reason, the United States is voting no on this proposed Security Council resolution….
QUESTION: All right. And then you said the most – you believe, the U.S. believes that the most expeditious way to statehood is through direct negotiations. So just to make sure, I just kind of – I just googled “expeditious”: “Marked by or acting with prompt efficiency.” How many years has it been since Oslo?
MR PATEL: It’s been —
QUESTION: Isn’t the most expeditious way to Palestinian statehood to have a – have some kind of an announcement or a determination by the UN? Unless you’re not —
MR PATEL: We don’t think so.
QUESTION: Unless you don’t really mean expeditious, because expeditious means fast.
MR PATEL: We do mean expeditious, and we do not believe that the pathway through New York and the United Nations is the best path forward. And as I so noted, such action through the United Nations would statutorily require the United States to cease its funding to the UN. That’s certainly not something we’re interested in doing either.
I take your point on the number of years it has been Oslo, but this is something that we will continue to pursue, because we so firmly believe that it is in – not just in the interest of the Palestinian people, but it is a key tenet of establishing peace and security for the people of Israel as well.
QUESTION: Thanks.
MR PATEL: Humeyra, go ahead.
QUESTION: Vedant, so what is the U.S. alternative and the expeditious path to two-state solution, then, if you guys have blocked this?
MR PATEL: You’ve heard us talk about this pretty clearly, Humeyra. We’re continuing to press for a ceasefire, one that is coupled with the release of hostages, one that is coupled with the influx of additional humanitarian aid, and one that we hope can create additional conditions for broader diplomatic conversations that we think can lead to greater peace and stability in the region. This is a process. I will note that “expeditious” does not mean easy, but it is a process, and we’re going to —
QUESTION: Yeah, but it does mean fast.
MR PATEL: But it is one that we’re going to continue to work at.
This tortured exchange reflects the reality that the US has no coherent plan for the fate of the Palestinian people. The US veto was ill-advised and short-sighted.. After asserting the two-state solution was the only possible solution to the conflict in the Gaza Strip, the US is now on record as opposing the move unless that outcome was determined by negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians. But successful negotiations have been stalled for thirty years, due to the emergence of a settler movement which holds that all the lands occupied by Israel in the 1967 war belong to Israel and Israel alone. The US offered no substantive reason to believe that negotiations now will lead to a Palestinian state.
The Oslo Accords, signed by the Palestinians and Israel in 1994, called for the creation of a Palestinian State. That initative was derailed by the assassination of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin in November 1995 by ” Yigal Amir, an Israeli law student and ultranationalist who radically opposed Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin‘s peace initiative, particularly the signing of the Oslo Accords.” Since that time, Israel has exercised almost complete control over the lives of the people living in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. The settler movement has now placed about 700,00 Israelis in the West Bank (all the settlers were forcibly removed from the Gaza Strip by Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in 2005). And the current violence against Palestinians in the West Bank surpasses all previous levels.
The irony is that the state of Israel was created by a vote in the United Nations General Assembly in 1947. The vote was 33-13 in favor partitioning the British Mandate called Palestine into three zones: a Jewish zone, an Arab zone, and an internationalized city of Jerusalem (no state could claim sovereignty over the city). The six Arab states walked out of the vote in protest. The UN made the state of Israel possible; there is no reason why it could not create a Palestinian state. But that possibility cannot occur as long as those in Israel who believe that all the lands were reserved for Jews have such power in Israeli politics. And we wait for the US to take some effective action to foster the two-state solution.
On 1 April 2024 Israel attacked the Iranian Consulate in Damascus, Syria. The attack killed seven members of the Islamic Revolutinary Guard, including two senior members. The Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (1961) governs the status of such missions. Article 22 of the Convention spells out some of the protections for diplomatic sites:
Article 22 1.The premises of the mission shall be inviolable. The agents of the receiving State may not enter them, except with the consent of the head of the mission. 2.The receiving State is under a special duty to take all appropriate steps to protect the premises of the mission against any intrusion or damage and to prevent any disturbance of the peace of the mission or impairment of its dignity. 3.The premises of the mission, their furnishings and other property thereon and the means of transport of the mission shall be immune from search, requisition, attachment or execution.
Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin spoke with Gallant on Monday and again on Thursday to discuss the current situation and “reaffirm the U.S. ironclad commitment to Israel’s security against threats from Iran and its proxies,” Ryder said.
Secretary of State Antony Blinken also spoke with Gallant on Wednesday to reiterate that same message, State Department spokesperson Matthew Miller said at the time.
And President Biden publicly warned Tehran on Wednesday during a White House Rose Garden press conference with Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida.
“We also want to address the Iranian threat to launch a … significant attack on Israel. As I told [Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu], our commitment to Israel’s security against these threats from Iran and its proxies is ironclad,” Biden said.
I hope that these words are merely diplomatic fluff. Prime Minister Netanyahu committed an act of war against Iran with US-supplied weapons but without US knowledge or support. If he thinks that provoking Iran into an open conflict advances the interests of Israel, he is profoundly and criminally mistaken. The US should not allow itself to be manipulated into a larger, and unwinnable, war.
” [aristocrats] are the most difficult Animals to manage, of anything in the whole Theory and practice of Government. They will not suffer themselves to be governed. They not only exert all their own Subtilty Industry and courage, but they employ the Commonalty, to knock to pieces every Plan and Model that the most honest Architects in Legislation can invent to keep them within bounds. Both Patricians and Plebeians are as furious as the Workmen in England to demolish labour-saving Machinery.
a Collection of Moral Sentences from all the most Ancien[t] Greek Poets. In one of the oldest of them I read in greek that I cannot repeat, a couplet the Sense of which was
World Politics News 