SUMMARY: Syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks join Judy Woodruff to discuss the week’s political news, including reports of a whistleblower complaint that might involve President Trump, the debate about whether a sitting President can commit a crime and the U.S. response to attacks on Saudi oil facilities.
Judy Woodruff (NewsHour): And now we turn to the political analysis of Shields and Brooks. That is syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks.
Hello to both of you.
Let's start with our lead story tonight. And that is the whistle-blower from the intelligence community.
The word gets out — or this person is alleging that he that the President, in a conversation with — now we think it's the President of Ukraine, urged the president of Ukraine, Mark, to investigate Joe Biden's son.
And we have a — there's still no — the President denies it, and others do, but now we have several news outlets backing up the story. And I was just handed — and you have seen it — a statement by Joe Biden.
He says:
"If these reports are true, there's truly no bottom to President Trump's willingness to abuse his power and abuse our country. This behavior is particularly abhorrent because it exploits the foreign policy of our country and undermines our national security for political purposes."
How seriously should we be taking these allegations?
Mark Shields, syndicated columnist:I think they're enormously serious.
And the fact that The Wall Street Journal is leading this story, along with The New York Times and The Washington Post, but this is not false or fake news or anything of the sort. It's not a political vendetta of any sort.
And this is quite beyond a Playboy model or a frat party at an Ivy League school or anything of the sort. This is really serious. This is totally exploiting the national security, putting at risk the national security of the United States for narrow political, personal interests, if, in fact, the reports are true.
And I guess the most disturbing thing to me, Judy, was the President accused the whistle-blower, who, at enormous risk, and it required considerable courage, of being an extreme partisan, which means, (A) that somebody in the White House knows who the whistle-blower is.
This is mafia-like threats. We know who you are. And they have investigated his political affiliation or her political affiliation. I mean, so, I think it's enormously grave.
Judy Woodruff: And, in fact, the President — David, the President was saying today to the television cameras that people in the White House were making fun of all this.
Are we looking at something where it's going to be a he said/he said situation going forward?
David Brooks, New York Times:Well, presumably, the call was listened to by others and recorded. So, I'm not sure it was recorded, but it was certainly listened to. These calls are not — it's not just a one-on-one call. There's people on the line.
You know, I think it is pretty grave. Most Presidents go into the White House thinking, I'm here to serve the office, I'm here to serve America.
Donald Trump is using America to serve him and American foreign policy to serve him. And most Presidents go into the office thinking that the phrase my fellow Americans means something and that we have greater loyalty to our fellow Americans than we do the people in outside countries.
And he's basically using another country to be oppo research on his fellow American.
And I think this rises to more a level — I'm not sure this really is foundationally changing, but it rises to a different revel, if there's a connection between the foreign aid and the promise.
Judy Woodruff: Right.
David Brooks:That really is using — suborning U.S. government money for your own private gain. And that's clearly corruption of a high order.
Judy Woodruff: And, as both of you are saying, Mark, we don't know for a fact that this happened. But the evidence is now building, the reporting is building.
And there are two strands. It is urging the leader of another country to get involved in a political campaign, but then the quid pro quo, potentially.
Mark Shields: No, exactly, Judy.
To say, look, be in touch with my Dr. Dirt, my oppo research guy, who once was America's mayor and is now doing smear jobs.
Judy Woodruff: Rudy Giuliani.
Mark Shields: Rudy Giuliani. How the mighty have fallen to that point where he's an errand boy to be a hit man on political opponents.
No, David put it very well. I mean, this is a total, total corruption of the — if it's valid and if it's accurate — and I think that the news reports are done very soberly, quite honestly, because they take their position — their mission seriously.
If it's true, Judy, then I don't see how the Democrats can back off on impeachment investigation.
Judy Woodruff: And I want to ask you about that because this week, David, as both of you have pointed out, the President's lawyers were in court.
They were arguing against a New York lawsuit, an attempt to get the President's tax returns to be turned over, to be made public. And the President's lawyers are saying you can't investigate a President while he's sitting in office.
What we're learning today in these reports about Ukraine raise questions about that.
David Brooks:Yes, this was the Nixon defense with David Frost, that, if a President does it, it's not illegal. And it didn't work for Nixon. I'm not sure it would work for here.
I mean, a basic principle of our government is that no person is above the law. And so I don't think that will work.
I am struck — I do think, if there's a link to the foreign aid, the Democrats obviously have to launch a different and new investigation.
I'm struck mostly by, when President Trump does something out in the open, or Rudy Giuliani does something out in the open, like, it doesn't become a big thing. Now that we have something secret that the press have uncovered, suddenly, it blows up.
But Giuliani wasn't shy about this. And the fall of Giuliani is one of the great stories of our age. I covered him a lot when he was mayor, extremely brilliant, extremely sharp, not the man I see today.
The one continuity is that he would sit around with his staff and watch "The Godfather" movies over and over again.
Mark Shields: Wow.
David Brooks: And the mob behavior — this really is mob behavior. It's like, let's dig up dirt on this guy.
That's the way it strikes me, more than anything else.
Judy Woodruff: Well, and, again, Mark, with these — with the President's lawyers fighting back, which they have been — they have been fighting all these attempts to get any information turned over.
Mark Shields: Right.
Judy Woodruff: But this is the first time we have heard them argue a President can't be investigated.
Mark Shields: Can't be investigated.
I agree with David about the Nixon defense. Nixon, of course, invoked that defense in 1977, three years after he had been forced out, in an interview with David Frost.
But no President — he did prove that, and by his own statement and his own actions, that no President can be above the law.
And, no, I really think the gravity of this is yet to be fully appreciated.
SUMMARY:Airstrikes on Saudi oil facilities over the weekend disrupted markets and increased tensions between the U.S. and Iran. The U.S. blames Tehran for the attacks and has reportedly shared intelligence with Saudi Arabia to back up the assertion. Lisa Desjardins reports, and Judy Woodruff talks to Frederic Wehrey of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace about the risk of escalation.
SUMMARY:In Riyadh on Wednesday, Saudi Arabia showcased evidence it says proves Iran’s involvement in weekend airstrikes on two major Saudi oil facilities. Iran denies the claim, and given the strained relations between the two countries, how should the U.S. respond? Yamiche Alcindor talks to Danielle Pletka of the American Enterprise Institute and Rob Malley of the International Crisis Group.
SUMMARY:The U.S.-led coalition fighting ISIS in Iraq and Syria released its latest estimate of civilians killed by U.S. airstrikes since 2014. Over the past four years, 1,139 civilians were killed by accident. But how was this figure calculated, and is it accurate? Larry Lewis of the Center for Naval Analyses, a former official at the Defense and State Departments, joins Nick Schifrin to discuss.
SUMMARY:The airstrikes launched by the U.S., UK, and France to punish the Assad regime's alleged use of chemical weapons have renewed questions about Presidential warmaking powers. Lisa Desjardins reports on the reaction to the strikes, then talks to Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del) about Congress’ role in authorizing military action, as well as concerns about protecting Robert Mueller’s investigation.
Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the U.S. Constitutiongrants Congress the power to declare war. The President, meanwhile, derives the power to direct the military after a Congressional declaration of war from Article II, Section 2, which names the President Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces. These provisions require cooperation between the President and Congress regarding military affairs, with Congress funding or declaring the operation and the President directing it. Nevertheless, throughout the 20th and 21st centuries, Presidents have often engaged in military operations without express Congressional consent. These operations include the Korean War, the Vietnam War, Operation Desert Storm, the Afghanistan War of 2001 and the Iraq War of 2002.
Commander in Chief
The questions of whether the President possesses authority to use the military absent a Congressional declaration of war and the scope of such power, if it exists, have proven to be sources of conflict and debate throughout American history. In general, scholars express various views on the amount of power that the President actually has and the amount of power that the Constitution promises to the holder of that position.
After the Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon Administrations had spent nearly a decade committing U.S. troops to Southeast Asia without Congressional approval, Congress responded by passing the War Powers Resolution in 1973. The War Powers Resolution requires that the President communicate to Congress the committal of troops within 48 hours. Further, the statute requires the President to remove all troops after 60 days if Congress has not granted an extension.
When passed, Congress intended the War Powers Resolution to halt the erosion of Congress's ability to participate in war-making decisions. This resolution, however, has not been as effective as Congress likely intended (see the "War Powers Resolution" section in the Commander in Chief Powers article). The terrorist attacks against the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001 further complicated the issue of war powers shared between the President and Congress. After September 11, the United States Congress passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force against Terrorists (AUMF). When the United States invaded Afghanistan, the U.S. military rounded up alleged members of the Taliban and those fighting against U.S. forces. The military then placed these "detainees" at a U.S. base located at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba at the direction of the Bush Administration who designed the plan under the premise that federal court jurisdiction did not reach the base. Consequently, the Bush Administration and military believed that the detainees could not avail themselves of habeas corpus and certain protections guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.
As the military held many of these prisoners at the base for years without bringing formal charges against them, the prisoners found counsel within the United States to file habeas corpus petitions within U.S. federal courts. A series of cases then came before the U.S. Supreme Court dealing with the constitutionality of the prisoners' detentions at Guantanamo.
In 2004 Rasul v. Bush became the first case in which the Supreme Court directly discussed the Bush Administration's Guantanamo detention policies. 542 U.S. 466. The Court held that 28 U.S.C. § 2241 permits federal district courts to hear habeas corpus petitions by aliens held within territory over which the United States exercises "plenary and exclusive jurisdiction." This holding included Guantanamo detainees. The Court then instructed the district courts to hear the petitions.
After the Bush Administration responded to Rasul by permitting detainees to bring their petitions before military tribunals, the Supreme Court again addressed the matter in 2006 when they decided Hamdan v. Rumsfeld. 548 U.S. 557. The Court in Hamdan held that the President lacks constitutional authority under the Commander-in-Chief Clause to try detainees in military tribunals. The tribunals also violated the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the Geneva Conventions. Furthermore, the Court rebuked the government's arguments that the AUMF expanded Presidential authority.
Congress responded by passing the Detainee Treatment Act, which provides that "no court, court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider . . . an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by . . . an alien detained . . . at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba." In 2008, an Algerian citizen challenged the constitutionality of this statute in Boumediene v. Bush (06-1195). The Court held that a Congressional suspension of habeas corpus requires an explicit suspension of the writ and that merely stripping the federal courts of jurisdiction does not actually suspend the writ. The Court also stated that the detainees lacked proper procedural safeguards to ensure they obtained fair trials and the ability to ascertain the nature of the charges against them.
Post-Boumediene, the Supreme Court has continued to uphold the constitutionality of the Detainee Treatment Act. In 2014 the Supreme Court refused two separate appeals for certiorari which related to the Detainee Treatment Act. In the first appeal, the Supreme Court refused to hear a case in which a Syrian man sought to sue the United States over his alleged torture at Guantanamo. In the second appeal, the Supreme Court blocked the release of images purported to show evidence of a Saudi man's mistreatment by Guantanamo officials.
The Supreme Court deferred to the lower appeals courts, which found that due to the Detainee Treatment Act, "courts do not have the authority to hear lawsuits like the one[s] filed [here]."
Emergency Powers The Constitution does not expressly grant the President additional powers in times of national emergency. However, Presidents have claimed they have this power, often conflicting with the Supreme Court's interpretation of the extent of Presidential powers.
President Abraham Lincoln's suspended habeas corpus without Congressional approval in 1861, and he claimed he could do so due to emergency war powers. Lincoln claimed that the rebellion created an emergency that permitted him the extraordinary power of unilaterally suspending the writ. With Chief Justice Roger Taney sitting as judge, the Federal District Court of Maryland struck down the suspension in Ex Parte Merryman, although Lincoln ignored the order. 17 F. Cas. 144 (1861).
President Franklin Delano Roosevelt similarly invoked emergency powers when he issued Order 9066, placing Japanese Americans into internment camps during World War II. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld this order in Korematsu v. United States. 323 U.S. 214 (1944).
Harry Truman declared the use of emergency powers when he seized private steel mills that failed to produce steel because of a labor strike in 1952. With the Korean War ongoing, Truman asserted that he could not wage war successfully if the economy failed to provide him with the material resources necessary to keep the troops well-equipped. The U.S. Supreme Court, however, refused to accept that argument in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, voting 6-3 that neither Commander in Chief powers nor any claimed emergency powers gave the President the authority to unilaterally seize private property without Congressional legislation. 343 U.S. 579.
SUMMARY: Fighting in Yemen struck a new chord over the weekend, when a Saudi Arabian airstrike on a funeral gathering killed more than 140 people. Saudi forces have been bombing the country for months, with logistical help from the U.S. in fighting Houthi rebels and al-Qaida forces. Jeffrey Brown speaks with Michael Hanna of The Century Foundation about why this attack is creating a different reaction.
HARI SREENIVASAN (NewsHour): We turn now to the ongoing civil war in Yemen, where the civilian death toll grew over the weekend.
More than 140 people died after what witnesses say was an airstrike on a funeral on Saturday in the capital city of Sanaa. The Saudi air force has been bombing the country for months, with logistical assistance from the U.S. Reports from the scene said it was U.S.-made bombs that were dropped on the funeral.
The Saudi-backed government in Yemen is fighting Houthi rebels, as well as al-Qaida forces. At least 10,000 people have died over the last 18 months, and more than million have been displaced. And on Sunday, a U.S. Navy guided missile destroyer in the Red Sea was targeted by Houthi missiles fired from the Yemeni coast. The Navy says the missiles detonated short of the target, leaving the ship untouched.
We begin with this report from Neil Connery of Independent Television News.
NEIL CONNERY, ITN: They're burying the dead in Sanaa, dozens of burials for those killed in this weekend's funeral attack.
On the streets, thousands came to mourn the capital's governor, his picture looking down on his own procession. The governor was one of hundreds of people packed into the funeral hall when it was hit by a Saudi-led coalition airstrike. But even as they pay their respects to the governor's family, the jets are back again, their roar heard overhead.
As Sanaa buries its dead, there is rising anger at the weekend funeral attack, and, with it, calls for revenge. Hopes for peace here have never seemed so far away.
MAN: It means to us war. We need war. We will kill or be killed. That's for us, blood for blood, and eye for eye.
NEIL CONNERY: Yemen's tragedy has a new chapter, the single deadliest attack in its 19-month war. In the capital, as they cover the graves of its victims, how many more will follow?
HARI SREENIVASAN: And to Jeffrey Brown.
JEFFREY BROWN (NewsHour): Yesterday, Secretary of State Kerry spoke with Saudi officials and called for an immediate cessation of hostilities. And a National Security Council spokesman said that the U.S. would review its support of the Saudi-led coalition.
For more on the situation, I'm joined by Michael Hanna, a senior fellow at the Century Foundation.
Welcome to you.
There was already so much concern and anger over civilian casualties and deaths in this conflict. How important is this new incident?
MICHAEL HANNA, The Century Foundation: Well, it's gotten a lot more attention than this war usually does.
And I think that's partly because of the nature of this attack and the scope of the damage. This was a really horrific attack. It happened on a funeral hall with a huge number of senior Yemeni figures, tribal figures and political leaders. And it does seem like a difference in time, like a red line had been crossed in bombing this kind of funeral gathering.
And for that reason, it's gotten a lot of attention and a lot of negative attention. And the reaction of the United States has been different. We have seen horrific bombings in the past, but this has elicited a different kind of response from the United States.
SUMMARY: For the first time, the Obama administration has released the number of enemy combatants and civilians killed in drone attacks and airstrikes in some countries. The President also issued an executive order aimed at reducing civilian casualties. John Yang talks with Naureen Shah of Amnesty International USA and Sarah Holewinski, former executive director of the Center for Civilians in Conflict.
JOHN YANG (NewsHour):Today's release is the first time the White House has said how many terrorists and innocent civilians it believes have been killed by airstrikes, including by drones. Between 2009 and 2015, the administration says it launched 473 airstrikes in Pakistan, Yemen and Africa.
It estimates that as many as 2,581 combatants, and as many as 116 noncombatants were killed. Now, these numbers do not include airstrikes in Iraq, Afghanistan or Syria, what the administration calls areas of active hostilities.
A new executive order has also been issued, with the aim of decreasing the number of civilian deaths.
We get two views on all this Sarah Holewinski. She was recently with the U.S. mission to the United Nations. And before that, she was the executive director of the Center for Civilians in Conflict, an advocacy group that seeks to reduce the number of civilian casualties. And Naureen Shah is the director of the Security and Human Rights Program at Amnesty International USA.
Sarah, Naureen, thank you both for joining us.
Naureen, let me start with you.
The first time these numbers have been released, what do you make of these numbers?
NAUREEN SHAH, Amnesty International USA: Well, this is a remarkable shift.
We have been asking for exactly these numbers for years. But the numbers are extremely low, and they come along with a claim of extraordinary precision. For the people whose cases Amnesty International has documented, it's anything but precise.
We're talking about kids struck by shrapnel, a woman killed in front of her grandchildren, families losing breadwinners. These are names. They're individuals. hey're not numbers. And we need to hear more acknowledgment from the Obama administration of that.
JOHN YANG:I should say, the Obama administration acknowledges that these numbers are estimates. They say that the NGOs, non-government organizations, like yours actually have more access to research these numbers.
But, Sarah, the policy has been and will continue to be that no airstrikes if there's a near certainty that a noncombatant would be killed. But we have, on average, out of these airstrikes, one in every four of these airstrikes has claimed a noncombatant life. What does that say about this system and the precision that Naureen was talking about of the system?
SARAH HOLEWINSKI, Former Executive Director, Center for Civilians in Conflict: Yes, precision is a really tricky thing.
Precision means that you are hitting the thing that you think you're going to hit. I am going to hit this folder. I am going to hit this glass of water. It doesn't mean that the folder or the glass of water is actually the thing that we think it is.
So if you are striking from the air with a drone, for example, you may be hitting a person that you thought was something, but is actually something else. And sometimes those are civilians.
SUMMARY: The Pentagon revealed that the bombing of an Afghan hospital occurred when U.S. forces preemptively fired to clear the way for an Afghan offensive. U.S. and Afghan forces were not under fire when U.S. aircraft destroyed the hospital. Hari Sreenivasan takes an in-depth look at the series of errors with Jamie McIntyre of the Washington Examiner.
HARI SREENIVASAN (NewsHour): The Pentagon laid out the key findings of its full investigation today, as well as the fallout affecting 16 service members.
Head of U.S. Central Command, General Joseph Votel:
GEN. JOSEPH VOTEL, Commander, U.S. Central Command: The investigation concluded that certain personnel failed to comply with the rules of engagement in the law of armed conflict.
HARI SREENIVASAN:The bombing of the Doctors Without Borders hospital last October in Kunduz, Afghanistan killed 42 people. Of the 16 service members who were punished, one was a two-star general and some were specials ops forces. They face administrative actions, but Votel maintained their actions didn't constitute a war crime.
GEN. JOSEPH VOTEL: The label war crimes is typically reserved for intentional acts, intentionally targeting civilians or intentionally targeting protected objects or locations.
The investigation found that the incident resulted from a combination of unintentional human errors, process errors and equipment failures, and that none of the personnel knew they were striking a hospital.
HARI SREENIVASAN:Even though they didn't know they were hitting a hospital, the investigation found they made multiple fundamental and fatal errors.
For example, the AC-130 gunship's targeting system became misaligned after its crew attempted to avoid fire over Kunduz. That resulted in their target appearing as an empty field, instead of a building filled with Taliban fighters firing on Afghan troops. The crew then switched its focus to the hospital, thinking it was the original target, based on descriptions relayed from special forces on the ground.
GEN. JOSEPH VOTEL:So the aircraft is looking at one location. The ground force is thinking they're looking at another location. There's no way to visually confirm that back and forth between them, and their discussions, as you look at the transcripts, don't add clarity to that.
SUMMARY: The plight of refugees fleeing the war in Syria has been well documented across the last year, but what is life like for those who stayed behind? Jeffrey Brown talks to journalist and activist Rami Jarrah about how civilians are living in Aleppo.
RAMI JARRAH, Journalist and Activist: This is the place of the attack yesterday where the Russian airstrike took place on Central Aleppo. This is called the Kalako (ph) area.
JEFFREY BROWN (NewsHour): Footage captured by Syrian journalist and activist Rami Jarrah in Aleppo, Syria’s largest city, and one of the world’s most ancient urban centers.
RAMI JARRAH: A child was caught here under the rubble yesterday, and his father here was screaming for the people to get him out.
JEFFREY BROWN: Today, it’s a scene of destruction and despair, after nearly five years of civil war.
RAMI JARRAH: All the children have now been taken away. There are still children here. The situation is tense at the moment.
JEFFREY BROWN: Jarrah has spent the last weeks in Aleppo documenting the impact of Russian bombing.
Russia says it’s attacking terrorist groups, including ISIS. Jarrah and Syrian human rights groups say civilians are being targeted and killed, more than 2,000 of them since Russian airstrikes began in September.
I spoke with Rami Jarrah by Skype and began by asking him about those still living in Aleppo, whether they have water, electricity, food, any semblance of normal life.
JUDY WOODRUFF (NewsHour): Russian military aircraft bombed a number of sites in Syria today, deepening its involvement in that nation’s civil war. But there are conflicting reports about exactly what Russia was targeting.
Hari Sreenivasan has this report.
HARI SREENIVASAN (NewsHour): This amateur video purports to be the first evidence of Russian warplanes in action over Syria, plumes of smoke rising over cities as fighters streak across the skies. The assault began hours after the Russian parliament authorized action and President Vladimir Putin vowed to forge ahead.
PRESIDENT VLADIMIR PUTIN, Russia (through interpreter): The only right way to fight international terrorism in Syria is to act preemptively, to fight and eliminate fighters and terrorists on the territories they have already occupied, not to wait until they come to our home.
HARI SREENIVASAN: But exactly what the Russians hit, and why, remained unclear. There were strikes near Homs and in Hama province, and Moscow reported attacking eight Islamic State targets. But, by all accounts IS, or ISIL, has no significant presence in those areas.
Instead, the Free Syrian Army charged its forces were targeted. The western-backed faction has fought Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, an ally of Russia. U.S. officials agreed the strikes may have hit moderate rebel factions, and not Islamic State forces. The Kremlin denied it, but also claimed most of the Free Syrian Army has now joined ISIL ranks.
And, at the United Nations, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov was dismissive.
SERGEI LAVROV, Foreign Minister, Russia: Everything — everything was said by the Russian Ministry of Defense. Don’t listen to Pentagon about the Russian strikes.
HARI SREENIVASAN: Secretary of State John Kerry was also at the U.N. He said Washington would welcome any genuine effort to defeat ISIL, but he issued a warning as well.
JOHN KERRY, Secretary of State: We would have grave concerns should Russia strike areas where ISIL and al-Qaida affiliated targets are now operating — are not operating.
HARI SREENIVASAN: Meanwhile, at a U.S. House hearing, a top Pentagon official complained the Russians gave just one hour’s notice of the strikes.
ROBERT WORK, Deputy Secretary of Defense: We are alarmed by what happened this morning. What was agreed by the two presidents is that our militaries would talk, so that we would deconflict operations.
HARI SREENIVASAN: Defense Secretary Ashton Carter said later those military-to-military talks are set to take place in the coming days. But he said the Kremlin is making a mistake.
ASHTON CARTER, Secretary of Defense: By supporting Assad and thereby, seemingly, taking on everybody who is fighting Assad, you’re taking on the whole rest of the country of Syria. That is not our position. And so that’s one of the reasons why — in fact, it is the central reason why the Russian approach here is doomed to fail.
HARI SREENIVASAN: Carter said the Russian actions will not deter the U.S.-led air war on Islamic State fighters that’s been under way for a year.
SUMMARY: How do Russian military actions affect the conflict in Syria and American operations against the Islamic State? Judy Woodruff speaks with Steven Simon of Dartmouth College and Andrew Weiss of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
SUMMARY: Unleashing another round of airstrikes in Syria, the Russian military maintain they’re targeting the Islamic State, but the Pentagon and a rebel group backed by the CIA challenged that account. Amid the conflicting claims, Russian and American military officials discussed airspace via teleconference. Chief foreign affairs correspondent Margaret Warner discusses the situation with Judy Woodruff.
SUMMARY: Special correspondent Jane Ferguson introduces us to a Free Syrian Army commander who has received training by the U.S. The injured rebel said he's eager to rejoin the fight after U.S. and Turkey intensify their efforts against the Islamic State.
JUDY WOODRUFF (NewsHour): But, first, the Pentagon has denied reports that al-Qaida linked fighters have abducted several U.S.-trained Syrian rebels outside of Aleppo, Syria. The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights stated that the men were taken by members of the al-Nusra Front.
In May, the U.S. military launched a program to train up to 5,000 so-called moderate rebels per year. So far, they’re nowhere near that number.
Special correspondent Jane Ferguson caught up with one of the few fighters who has been trained by the U.S. in Southern Turkey.
JANE FERGUSON (NewsHour): In the world outside Syria, Mohammed seems nervous. He has good reason. As a Free Syrian Army commander, he and his men are waiting to see if foreign intervention will change the direction of the war. He says he has already been trained by Americans.
MOHAMMED, Free Syrian Army Commander (through interpreter): In the beginning, they asked for our three names, our first name, our surname, and father’s name. We gave our names and pictures. There were about 100 of us. They took us to the camp. They trained us for 50 days in working with guns. The training was very good. They taught us how to use some of the weapons we weren’t familiar with, advanced weaponry, like rockets.
JANE FERGUSON: Mohammed says he has seen and spoken with Americans inside Syria who were coordinating airstrikes.
MOHAMMED (through interpreter): They were telling us, these are the lines which you shouldn’t cross, or the airstrikes will hit you.
JANE FERGUSON: Now a new deal between Turkey and the U.S. could push the Islamic State away from Turkey’s border. American airstrikes against ISIS will now be launched from Turkish soil, the idea being, if ISIS pulls back, fighters like Mohammed could then move in.
SUMMARY: Israel reportedly launched airstrikes against Syrian military targets believed to be connected to Hezbollah. Jeffrey Brown reports on various responses to Israel's actions, as well as the continuing conversation within the international community about what should be done about the possible use of chemical weapons in Syria.
JEFFREY BROWN (Newshour): Israel today played down a weekend of airstrikes that hit Syria. The Syrians, in turn, threatened to strike back, but there were no signs of new hostilities in the offing.
On Syrian state television today, images of the smoldering remains of a military complex near Damascus. It was hit early Sunday by airstrikes attributed to the Israeli military, the second in three days. Israel didn't officially claim responsibility, but senior officials there said the targets were advanced Iranian missiles being shipped to Hezbollah militants in Lebanon.
Israeli leaders warned again Sunday that Hezbollah must not obtain -- quote -- "game-changing weapons."
UZI LANDAU, Israeli Minister of Tourism: It's vital for the security and the stability of the Middle East that no weapons of mass destruction will spill over to the hands of terror organizations.
JEFFREY BROWN: A similar Israeli strike last January apparently targeted anti-aircraft missiles that were being shipped to Hezbollah.
I am Retired U.S. Navy (22yrs) and a Vietnam Veteran. After my Navy retirement I was in the computer related industry, now retired. In 2000 I was a registered Republican and voted for George W. Bush. Six months of having Bush in the Whitehouse forced me to re-evaluate my political stance. I had always thought of myself as a Moderate Republican, but was a Republican by "default" NOT because of close examination of the GOP. Due to what has happened in America since 2000, I now consider myself a progressive, and registered as a Non-Affiliated voter.
*Anti-First Amendment policies that attempt to turn America into a theocracy by enshrining ANY religious belief as law.
* Any attempt to suppress human or Constitutional rights.
* Any law or policy that supports discrimination based on religion, ethnicity, race/color, gender, sexual orientation, or any law that does NOT support Equal Treatment under the law.
*Any law or policy that attempts to suppress Freedom of the Press or Free Speech.
LINK DISCLAIMER:
There is no guarantee that any link provided in this blog will always work, especially for older links. The validity of any link is governed by the source-site policies. Some sites will archive articles and require subscription to access. Very small sites, such as a local town newspaper, may not archive at all.
