Politics The American State–Media Complex Is Escalating the Ukraine War Civilians pay the price as Western elites cheer on an unwinnable war. A pair of recent military strikes on civilian targets in the Ukraine war demonstrate the expanding risk of escalation. Unfortunately, the United States and its European allies are directly contributing to that risk through their provision and likely operation of advanced weapons systems in Ukraine—all while simultaneously refusing to countenance a realistic solution to the conflict. The first attack took place several weeks ago when an American provided ATACMS utilizing cluster munitions struck a packed beach in Crimea. The result was over 100 injuries and multiple deaths among the beachgoers. Those killed included three children.  Coming from the Russian side, a children’s hospital in Kiev was likewise hit this past week with a missile. It is believed that at least two people were killed and 17 wounded in the attack, drawing significant rebuke in the Western press. These twin attacks demonstrate the ways in which the U.S. decision to supply long-range precision munitions in Ukraine is not merely prolonging the war, but also forcing Putin’s hand in regard to expanding the scope of the conflict. Russia maintains escalation dominance in the area—or at least should—but the actions of the United States continue to push the boundaries. The stakes therefore keep getting higher, with no apparent off-ramp for either side.  This was evidenced in both of the recent strikes on civilians. In Crimea, it was speculated that the Ukrainian-fired ATACMS missile was intercepted by Russian air defense, causing the projectile to disperse over the beach rather than at its intended military target.  Of course, many on the Russian side instead perceived an intentional and symbolic strike on ethnic Russians celebrating an Orthodox holiday in formerly held Ukrainian territory. The attack even raised tensions enough to elicit a direct phone call between U.S. Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin and Russian Defense Minister Andrei Belousov. That in itself was evidence of the situation’s gravity given the fact that diplomatic relations between the two countries are practically nil. Permanent Representative of Russia to the UN Vasily Nebenzya subsequently laid the blame for the attack squarely at the feet of the United States, stating, Ukraine launched 5 U.S. supplied ATACMS missiles armed with cluster munitions. All flight missions were introduced by U.S. experts based on the U.S. satellite intelligence. An American global hawk UAV was patrolling the airspace over the Crimea peninsula. “The involvement of the United States, the direct involvement, as a result of which Russian civilians are killed, cannot be without consequences,” added the Kremlin spokesman Dmitri Peskov. Meanwhile, the attack on the hospital in Kiev came as a part of a massive wave of Russian missile strikes on major military and infrastructure targets across the entire country. Ukraine claims that the missile that struck the hospital was a Russian KH-101cruise missile. The hospital was hit amid a salvo of KH-101s launched at the Artyom factory, which is located less than one kilometer away from the Okhmatdyt children’s hospital. Moscow claims that Artyom is a major munitions and military components producer—although that claim is disputed by Western sources—and six Russian missiles did indeed reach their destination and strike the factory. As with the attack on the beach in Crimea, Russia of course has its own side of the story. Kiev is one of the most heavily defended Ukrainian regions in terms of aerial defense capabilities. Missile systems in the area include Patriot anti-ballistic missile systems, as well as Western provided (and likely operated) NASAMS (National or Norwegian Advanced Surface-to-Air Missile Systems); the latter fires AIM-120 AMRAAMs (Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missiles), which resemble the projectile seen in the footage of the hospital strike.  Moscow therefore posits that the terrible strike on the hospital was the result of Ukrainian aerial defense attempting to shoot down Russian missiles on their way to the Artyom factory. Of course, the Ukrainians—with the backing of the entire international press—perceive only a sadistic and intentional attack, perhaps even in response to the Crimean beach incident. Both narratives seem plausible. Yet the very exchange demonstrates the dynamic that is currently prolonging the war—and how the United States and the collective West are directly implicated in enabling that dynamic.  Things like strikes on civilian targets in Crimea elicit a strong emotional response from the Russian public, increase resolve, and assert greater subsequent pressure to expand the conflict. In turn, the Russian response—in which developments such as that at the Okhmatdyt children’s hospital are inevitable, whether they be collateral and unfortunate or spiteful and vengeance-seeking—then further increases the likelihood of retaliatory strikes by Ukraine on Russian targets, and so on and so on.  Of course, that spiral does aid in the Ukrainian sales pitch for the continued flow of U.S. weaponry in both greater volume and of more deadly kind. In order to stay in the fight, Kiev must be provided offensive military capabilities; however, it also requires a means of replenishing its rapidly diminishing stock of manpower. Ukraine’s long-term hope is therefore almost exclusively in Russia either directly attacking Western elements in the country, or asymmetrically responding to provocatory actions—perhaps in a particularly heinous manner that could then be amplified by the international press—and thus inducing the greater involvement of foreign forces. Support for the latter remains very low in both Europe and the United States (especially the United States), so changing public opinion requires emotionally appealing to Western audiences.  As mentioned, the press is more than happy to fulfill that function. For instance, headlines and individual commentators continue to mix reporting on the hospital strike with general coverage of the massive missile attack that took place across the entire country. That allows them to link the total number killed everywhere—about 40—with dead children. Any dead civilian is a tragedy, but there is clearly an active attempt to portray the strike as resulting in dozens of murdered children. Putting the image of 40 dead kids in the public’s mind is of course much more striking than the real number killed in the hospital strike, which appears to be zero (the two deaths were both adults). The media is right to report on the event, but there is also clearly an attempt to push a political agenda through the manner of that reporting. This is not unique to the Western press. In the information age—although really in all ages—the media consumer is an essential part of the war effort, even if it is in providing tacit consent. Those who want—need, even—greater foreign involvement in the war are very aware of this fact. Getting dragged into a war with Russia is obviously not in the American national interest. Yet that is the logical conclusion of Washington’s current Ukraine policy. It is apparent to all honest observers that Kiev is rapidly losing territory and hemorrhaging men, with no hope of reversing the tide unless foreign forces become directly involved in the conflict. While the more sober elements of Western leadership acknowledge the folly of such a prospect, they also appear incapable of changing the current trajectory.  The likelihood of escalation therefore seems very likely as more and deadlier weaponry continues to be provided to Ukraine. So too while actions such as the Crimea beach strike and children’s hospital tragedy continue to proliferate. The recent announcement that F-16s are currently in transit to Ukraine will certainly increase that risk. Such provocatory developments will in turn continue to elicit larger and deadlier Russian attacks on Ukraine—as well as expand the scope of what Moscow classifies as legitimate targets for its offensive operations, including the logistical and operational support capabilities that are provided by foreign forces.  It is only a matter of time until this then precipitates a direct confrontation between Russia and a member of NATO, perhaps even the United States. While that it is not guaranteed to trigger Article 5, it will certainly risk spiraling toward that end. Unfortunately, that is an end to which our ideology-driven ruling caste seems entirely committed. And, as always, the loyal press is more than happy to oblige the sentiment. The post The American State–Media Complex Is Escalating the Ukraine War appeared first on The American Conservative.

Politics Can the President Now Kill Americans? Never mind the Supreme Court and immunity; he’s had the power to kill an American citizen since 2010. Credit: Isaac Brekken/Getty Images/AFP via Getty Images Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in her dissent from the Supreme Court’s majority decision in Trump v. United States to grant the president immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts he commits while in office, wrote:  The long-term consequences of today’s decision are stark…. The president of the United States is the most powerful person in the country, perhaps the world. When he uses his official powers in any way, under the majority’s reasoning, he will now be insulated from criminal prosecution. Orders the Navy’s Seal Team Six to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Picking up on Sotomayor’s fears, left-wing media and pundits fantasized about President Joe Biden having Donald Trump and the conservative Supreme Court justices killed as an official act following the Supreme Court’s presidential immunity decision. “If I was Biden I’d hurry up and have Trump murdered on the basis that he is a threat to America’s security,” a radio host wrote on X. Is that OK now, as he reasoned? The biggest problem with willy-nilly assassinations is the Fifth Amendment, which provides for due process before an American is deprived by the government of life, liberty, or property. Capital cases require a grand jury. So while Biden may claim immunity if ordering Trump’s murder, he can’t get around the unconstitutional nature and thus impeachability of his action, immunity or not. Right? Where things start to get fuzzy is with the assassination thing and Seal Team Six. The Seals conduct targeted killings all the time, nailing a terrorist here, an insurgent there across the Middle East. Officially these are labeled as “catch or kill” missions, but there seems to be very little catching. The bin Laden raid is one high-visibility example where the kill option was explicit and primary. Of course when the Seals are busy elsewhere, drone assassinations are always a presidential option, as in the case of the Iranian General Qasem Soleimani. None of these people are Americans with any Constitutional rights, and none were killed on American soil, so it all falls loosely under some category of acts of war (or whatever). Which brings us to Anwar al Awlaki. Al Awlaki and his 16-year-old son were American citizens assassinated via targeted drone attack in Yemen by the United States in autumn 2011. Al Awlaki was once friendly with the American military; in the aftermath of 9/11, he lunched at the Pentagon. A few years later, the same U.S. government linked al Awlaki to al Qaeda, deciding he was a propagandist who might be agitating online for Westerners to join the cause. In 2012, defending the al Awlaki killing, Attorney General Eric Holder said the “U.S. can lawfully target American citizens” and “that a careful and thorough executive branch review of the facts in a case amounts to ‘due process’ and that the Constitution’s Fifth Amendment protection against depriving a citizen of his or her life without due process of law does not mandate a ‘judicial process.’” It was unknown at the time, but Holder was citing a then-secret white paper prepared by the Office of the Legal Counsel, which gave the legal justification for the American government to kill one of its own citizens extrajudicially in apparent violation of the Fifth Amendment. The white paper was finally released in 2014 and showed a convoluted process had been created to sort of legalize the American citizen killings and thus render the president immune for having ordered them. The document’s central argument is that “an informed, high level official of the U.S. government has determined that the targeted individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States.” Capture must be for all practical purposes off the table, and the kill must conform to the laws of war. The justification flows perversely from there: The president is obligated to protect the nation, al Qaeda vel sim. pose threats to the nation, and being in al Qaeda is more relevant than the target’s citizenship or where he is at the time (“citizenship does not immunize the target”). If the U.S. decides the host nation is “unwilling or unable to suppress the threat posed by the individual targeted,” sovereignty issues are no object. But what about that due process promised Americans in the Fifth Amendment? The Fifth Amendment right to due process (and, perhaps, the Fourth Amendment right against unwarranted seizure—that is, seizure of a life) is shrugged off. The white paper claims that the U.S. interest in “forestalling the threat of violence and death to other Americans that arises” outweighs a citizen’s constitutional right. This is described as part of a Fifth Amendment “balancing process.” This process, according to the white paper, stems from a 1976 Supreme Court case, Mathews v. Eldridge, where the Court held that individuals have a statutorily granted property right in Social Security benefits, that the termination of those benefits implicates due process, but that the termination of those benefits does not require a pre-termination hearing. The Fifth Amendment balance test to apply to murders has three components (notes added): (1) The importance of the private interest affected. [In a kill case, the private interest is the life of an American citizen.] (2) The risk of erroneous deprivation through the procedures used, and the probable value of any additional or substitute procedural safeguards. [In a kill case, since the American will be dead, it is impossible to ever “correct” the mistake. The Court held that “If the risk of error is minimal, then the need for additional procedures declines. If the risk is high then additional procedures would be merited.” So, with the potential of a recoverable error, less process is needed. The more serious a mistake might be if committed, the more (perhaps non-judicial) process needed.] (3) The importance of the state interest involved and the burdens which any additional or substitute procedural safeguards would impose on the state. [According to the kill white paper, the idea that killing the American saves potentially thousands of other Americans lies is the state’s interest. The burden of the U.S. government to follow any procedural safeguards, such as a trial in absentia where the target could have his side presented by a lawyer, is not addressed in the kill white paper] In short, the balancing test says that in some situations, the president can kill an American citizen extrajudicially. No need for Supreme Court–granted immunity; like Dorothy in the Wizard of Oz, he has always (at least since 2010) had the power. “Where national security operations are at stake, due process takes into account the realities of combat,” then-Attorney General Eric Holder said. “Some have argued that the president is required to get permission from a federal court before taking action against a United States citizen who is a senior operational leader of al Qaeda or associated forces. This is simply not accurate… our government has the clear authority to defend the United States with lethal force [and] our legal authority is not limited to the battlefields of Afghanistan.” So can the president really kill an American in America? There are no known test cases, but some very disturbing testimony by then–FBI Director Robert Mueller. Mueller, appearing before a House subcommittee in 2012 on whether the same criteria used to kill Americans abroad also would apply in the United States, and whether the President retained the “historical” right to order such an assassination on American soil, said that he simply did not know. “I have to go back. Uh, I’m not certain whether that was addressed or not,” he said. “I’m going to defer that to others in the Department of Justice.” Note that Mueller had the option of saying, flat-out, “No, no, of course not, the FBI can’t order an American killed in the U.S.” Or, maybe, “No, even the President can’t order a hit on an American here in the U.S. where the full judicial system, Constitution, and other protections apply.” Mueller did not say those things. Instead, under oath before Congress, the senior G-man of the United States, bound by oath to uphold the Constitution, was so worried about perjury that he was unable to say whether or not the U.S. government can indeed kill one of its own citizens inside the United States without trial. Immunity 2024 may have its dangers, but it is only a small part of the problem given the vast expansion of presidential capital power in the aftermath of 9/11. Best watch your back. The post Can the President Now Kill Americans? appeared first on The American Conservative.

UTL COMMENT:- Trump assassination psyop explained, noting some peculiarities in the assassination attempt. The ONLY gunshot that we could hear was the gunshot from the secret service agent that was pointing in the other direction towards the assassin!!?? So how was the bullet that nicked Trump ever shot in the first place? Many people are calling the attempt a fake psyop??? Watch this video and you decide.... Question everything!! Quite convincing evidence to be honest....

Can We Unite?

Complete Nonsense: Joe Biden, “'he 14th Best President'

Could Trump Become the Great Unifier?

A Call to Our Better Angels

He Would Have Just Been One More