What do al-Qaeda and Mexican Drug Cartels have in Common?

              Al-Qaeda and Mexican drug cartels both are considered foreign terrorist organizations according to President Trump. President Trump on Tuesday said he was in the process of making the cartels considered foreign terrorist organizations according to the United States Government. Mexico is against this idea because they want to work out their internal problems by themselves. Mexican officials are also worried about this designation because of the United State’s past with terrorist organizations. Since 9/11, the United States has had the policy to defeat terrorism no matter where it is at. The current administration has already said they offered the Mexican government the opportunity for the U.S. military to go into Mexico and “clear them out” but they refused this. While it is unlikely that the United States military would go into Mexico with a military force, it is still worrisome to the Mexican people. Just the idea that the United States military could go into Mexico unauthorized is enough for them to be worried. Mexico has stated that if the United States would enter Mexico without their permission, this would go against their sovereignty and they would work within international law.

              If the cartels were to be designated as terrorist organizations that would mean the members of the cartels would not be allowed on US soil and if they were already in the U.S., then they would face deportation. It would also mean that it is illegal to support the groups in any way. This would probably affect people in the United States because over 150,000 firearms were traced from Mexican criminals back to the United States in the form of factories or gun shops. If this were the case, then business owners in the United States would not want to face the legal issues of selling guns to these organizations. This might scale back the number of guns in Mexico.

              The designation of Mexican drug cartels as a terrorist group could have large implications for both the United States and Mexico. However, there could also be little to no impact. Everything depends on how the public and the respective governments act if the designation goes through.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/27/politics/donald-trump-mexican-cartels-terrorist-organizations/index.html

https://www.france24.com/en/20191129-mexico-warns-will-not-allow-us-military-operations-against-cartels

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-50577522

Eddie Gallagher's SEAL Trident and the Commander in Chief

Presidential pardons are part of our justice system, like it or not. Presidential pardons are also a part of our political system, and may be used to score partisan points. That's just part of the deal.

Questions surrounding the case of Navy SEAL Eddie Gallagher, however, extends beyond a high-profile court martial and the justice system. There's also the matter of the chain of command to consider. President Donald Trump has stepped at multiple points during Gallagher's trial, often using Twitter to do so.

The President tweeted in March that he had ordered Gallagher be moved to "less restrictive confinement." He tweeted in July that the prosecution team would be stripped of medals they had received. He also tweeted support for Gallagher in July the day after he was acquitted.

Gallagher was acquitted of the most serious charges brought against him but convictions on other charges still led to his demotion. The CNO eventually reduced his demotion but still busted him down one rank, which was plenty controversial. Most recently, Trump restored his rank fully and returned his SEAL trident. The fallout has been swift, including the resignation of the Secretary of the Navy and

It's worth wondering whether the fallout could go further than that. Trump's decision to overturn the decision also goes against the CNO's decision and the order from Rear Adm. Collin Green, the commander of the SEALs, to strip Gallagher of his trident. Military officers at the flag level are used to politics playing a role in their job, but such a public reversal of their decisions may be more than they are comfortable with. That's to say nothing of the ethical implications and fallout from the international community; those are important issues that merit consideration in their own space.

A simple pardon might have been odious but palatable for some military commanders. The President remains Commander in Chief and he retains the right to overturn the orders of his military commanders, but doing so repeatedly and in so many different ways also threatens to destabilize the chain of command at some level. That shouldn't be lost in the discussion about the crimes, acquittal, and subsequent politicking.

International Courts: Chagos Island Ruling

What happens when countries have disputes? One option is to take those disputes to the International Court of Justice (ICJ). The ICJ is the principal judiciary mechanism for the United Nations, it began operations in April of 1946. The ICJ is located in The Hague (Netherlands) and is composed of 15 judges, who are elected for nine-year terms by the UN General Assembly and the Security Council. The court was established to settle, in accordance with international law, legal disputes submitted by countries and give advisory opinions on legal questions referred to it by the UN. The UN General Assembly recently did just that, adopting resolution 71/292, requesting the ICJ's advisory opinion in regards to Chagos Islands and whether or not the United Kingdom should return them to Mauritius.

The Chagos Islands, located halfway between Africa and Indonesia, once belonged to Mauritius. Mauritius was a British Colony until it gained independence in 1968. Mauritius claims that it was forced to sell the Islands, which the UK now refers to as British Indian Ocean Territory, for 3 million dollars in order to gain its independence. Mauritius has now turned to the UN to get them back. Complicating the matter further is the fact that the United States leases one of the Islands, Diego Garcia, which houses a US military base and the lease is not set to expire until 2039. In early 2019 the ICJ issued its advisory opinion to the General Assembly and it stated the separation of the Chagos Islands was illegal according to international law and the UK was instructed to properly finish the decolonization process, and return the Chagos Islands to Mauritius.

With the advisory opinion in mind, the General Assembly voted 116 to 6, with 56 abstentions in May of 2019 on a resolution demanding that the UK unconditionally withdraw its Colonial administration from the area within 6 months. However, it was reported on 11/22/19 that the 6 month period has since past and the Islands have not been returned. The official statement out of the UK is that it has every right to hold on to the islands. It has yet to be seen how the international community will react and if sanctions or other immediate punishment will follow.

The War Powers Resolution that Doesn’t Matter

The War Powers Resolution originally passed in 1973 is supposed to restrict the powers of the President in foreign affairs. It does not. In fact, Presidents of both parties have regularly ignored it and denied that it is constitutional. Obama did not but that administration was the exception. Either way of accepting it or not does the resolution actually matter? Is the President restrained by the law? Could Congress actually do anything to stop a Presidential action? Would they?

The Obama-Syria-red lines case is a good example of Congressional will and ability to act on foreign policy with clarity. Everyone condemned the Syrian government's actions in the civil war even before the use of chemical weapons. The red line was not a controversial thing. However, when Obama sought approval from congress for approval to act, they failed to speak. This resulted in the greatest failure of the Obama administration. How this connected to the War Powers Resolution? Simple it demonstrates that even when Congress appears to support an action it may not be able to act.

When Congress opposes a foreign act involving the military could it successfully act against a President? Several issues exist. The War Powers Resolution does not provide any enforcement mechanisms. Not only that any judicial challenge would be nearly impossible to achieve standing. But the true nail in the coffin is the extreme partisanship in Washington. It is nearly impossible for any action to be apolitical. Much foreign policy is politicized beyond belief. Uniting Congress long enough to stop funding for military intervention or pass a veto proof bill would be difficult and useless. Divided government is here to stay. The last two administrations have had two years of unified government each. That’s four of twelve years. Simply partisan thinking on international policy is bad thing. It hampers the ability of the U.S. to conduct itself in the world. Until Congress can agree on a foreign policy direction and preference the Executive should retain the foreign policy making process.

Implications Regarding the Impeachment Inquiry

As the United States is in the middle of an impeachment inquiry against the president, what are the implications for the US people? There are two arguments to this. The first being that this process will make the United States look weaker as it tries to remove its own chief of staff. The second is the opposite. Some argue that the impeachment inquiry against President Trump is a sign of upholding the constitution as well as democracy to uphold the innermost values of the United States. 

Historically, the judicial branch has taken the president’s side in regards to foreign policy. What Trump did with Ukraine could loosely be considered foreign policy, but it is unlikely that it was the case. Normally, an action like this would have been veiled by executive privilege, but due to the nature of the phone call congress had it brought to their attention for a formal investigation. Because this information was released to the public, and the subsequent inquiry, there are arguments over how this will affect the citizens and security of the US.

Does this process make the United States look weaker? Although regularly criticized in the media, President Trump has in fact done good things for the United States. His economic policies have helped the unemployment rate fall to a historic low, his meetings with North Korea have opened the door for future talks, and his overall message of “make America great again” has inspired thousands. With an impeachment inquiry, it is likely that there will be angry citizens foreign and abroad who don’t necessarily agree with the inquiry, and could cause civil unrest. However, this argument may be too far reaching.

Through this impeachment process, the United States is upholding its core values held within the Constitution. Upholding the values of democracy is key to the overall success of the United States, as the US has preached democracy and freedom abroad for decades. If there were no checks on the executive branch, it would simply not be considered a true democracy. As the inquiry heads into its third week, it is important to keep in mind that this process is in fact vital to the overarching structure of the US government machinery. Only after the inquiry is finished, can it be revealed whether conducting “foreign policy” in the manner Trump did is in fact an impeachable offense.

What will the World Think if President Trump is Impeached?

Impeachment is a serious and rare proceeding in America, and this is only the fourth time in our history that a President is facing an impeachment hearing. The previous presidents were President Andrew Johnson, President Richard Nixon, and President Bill Clinton. None of them were removed from office by Congress. Nixon did resign from office but that was of his own volition. If President Trump is removed from office, he would be the first one in American history.

There are plenty of views coming from America about the idea of impeachment. Some have said it is long due and others say that it is a witch hunt and un-American. What the rest of the world thinks is important as well. President Trump has been under scrutiny from our most important allies. Leaving the Kurds to face Turkey by themselves was a huge news event. The Kurds have been an ally to the United States for a long time and if the President had decided to leave them, it may say that he is likely to leave other allies. It has not boded well with our allies. Most people will probably welcome the Impeachment. They will see it as a way for our democracy to survive since we do not have a vote of no confidence. Most other countries have a vote of confidence and can remove a leader from office if they believe they are unfit for the job. While this may seem unpalatable to Americans, it is common in most other parts of the world for the government to be dissolved and then reelected. Ousting leaders in most of the democratic world is usually just a vote in their parliament. This is foreign to the American people, but the rest of the democratic world usually is quick to respond by a vote of confidence.

Once all the information comes out from the proceedings, most of the world will probably say that President Trump should be impeached and then removed. If he just impeached but not removed this may make some nations think our President is all-powerful and that our democracy is broken. If he is not impeached at all our image would probably be even worse to the rest of the world which can be very damaging. World leaders may believe the government is working for Trump so he can get his way. This is in stark contrast to the view of the world during the Obama administration where the view was favorable, and people had confidence in Obama.

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/10/09/how-the-world-views-the-u-s-and-its-president-in-9-charts/

What if the Supreme Court expanded the number of its Justices?

With 2019 coming to a close, the democratic presidential candidate race has been intensifying. One topic of debate, brought up by Pete Buttigieg, is that the Supreme Court should be reorganized and/or expand the number of justices^[1] to further cultivate an apolitical court climate. This proposal, although breaking a longstanding norm, would be constitutional. Due to the abstractness nature of the US constitution, the number of justices has varied since the inception of the US in 1776. Though having 9 justices has been the longest-lasting norm with the ratification of The Judiciary Act of 1869, there were periods where there were as few as 5 justices and as many as 10.

Buttigieg’s proposal is not original, in 1937 President Roosevelt propositioned the idea of 15 justices. Though Roosevelt’s intention was self-serving to appoint justices that would support his New Deal programs and legislation, the proposal did bring up a different lens to view the court through. This legislative proposal intentioned to add a justice every time a justice that hit the age of 70 years and 6 months did not retire. This unapproved proposal was nicknamed the “court-packing plan”. While Roosevelt’s implicit reason to expand the Supreme Court to stack the court in the executive branch’s favor, the 165-day discussion surrounding the bill in a Senate committee further solidified the courts’ importance to stay apolitical.

Why would Buttigieg feel as though adding more justices is a necessity? He feels that if the power of appointment was granted to current Supreme Court justices, in his proposed scenario there would be 5 justices with this power, it would help the court stay apolitical and would further the courts’ superior breadth of knowledge.

Nevertheless, this topic is speculative since Buttigieg just a candidate and the Democratic Nominee has not been selected, it is important to discuss what could come with an expanded Supreme Court. The most important question is, what is the saturation point of the Supreme Court? It needs to be determined if the saturation point of the Justices’ decision making has been reached. If so, then the expansion would not change the outcome of cases. While Supreme Justice level expansion is a hot topic, if the outcome would not be altered then the expansion would not be necessary. Once the saturation point is determined through research then it would make more sense to discuss at that time.

[1] Currently the expansion idea, which Mayor Buttigieg has not fully committed to, would be increasing the number of justices from nine to fifteen. https://www.vox.com/2019/10/30/20930662/pete-buttigieg-court-packing-anthony-kennedy-citizens-united

Web Links:

https://www.jurist.org/commentary/2019/11/nguyen-frye-court-packing/

https://www.vox.com/2019/10/30/20930662/pete-buttigieg-court-packing-anthony-kennedy-citizens-united

https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/faq_general.aspx

William McRaven, James Mattis, and Civ-Mil Relations

War on the Rocks' recent podcast on civ-mil relations raises some important points, but still only went skin deep on a few topics. The hour-long show is worth listening to in its entirety, but here are a few ideas that weren't raised, or were only touched on briefly:

1. Different ethical standards for different professions
The panel points out early on that it is a violation of ethics for military professionals to overstep their bounds in public discourse, using former Adm. William McRaven's recent New York Times op-ed as an example. They also discuss the prospect of journalists seeking out opinions from military professionals as "problematic."

While it may be a violation of military ethics to enter the fray like this, journalists are not beholden to military ethics. Journalists are beholden to their own set of ethics. It is well within a journalist's ethical bounds to seek out the opinion of an expert on a subject and to provide a platform for that individual's expression of free speech. There may well be a conflict here, but it's only on one side. Lawyers aren't beholden to the same ethical norms as doctors. Politicians have a different set of ethics than lobbyists. It's up to each group to set and enforce its own norms.

2. A severe lack of understanding of civ-mil norms
Even among those with experience in military matters, there's a dearth of knowledge about norms, expectations, and forces at work in civ-mil relations in the US. One panelist relates a story about an ROTC student stating in class that the SECDEF is always an active duty member of the military.

The gaps in American civics education are cavernous. This particular lack of knowledge would be understandable if it came from a civilian and not a future military officer. But in 2019, it's likely past time for public schools to devote a bit of time to an understanding of how the military does and does not work. At the least, it should be reinforced that the US military remains under civilian control (and why that is the case). It's a fundamental part of our origin as a nation. In the modern world, the US military probably plays as big a role in public discourse and daily life as other parts of civics which are given greater attention in classrooms.

3. Degrees of political involvement by military figures
Though not explicit, the decision of a retired general or admiral to join a president's administration may be interpreted as a tacit endorsement of that president. Similarly, the decision to resign may be interpreted as a sign of disapproval. Look no further than James Mattis for an example of the latter.

This also raises the sticky issue of how far removed former military figures should be when they enter another line of work. Mattis needed a congressional waiver to become SECDEF (retired military members must be out of the armed forces for seven years to serve as SECDEF). Should there be a similar waiver for former military members running for federal office? For state office? What about those who become lobbyists?

Current Problems Between Civilian Policy Makers and Military Advisors

Relations between civilian policy makers and military personnel are being tested in today's global environment in the US. In the Trump administration, there is great public concern about the administration's military personnel initiatives. President Trump has a tendency to push decision-making and responsibility to field level commanders. Within public discourse, there is a pervasive narrative that current and former members of the military are the “adults in the room” and will save us. However, this idea only distorts and manipulates public discourse negatively, and the military is held to an unhealthy level of sacrosanctity. Another problem facing civilian-military relations is the use of people's respect for military to undercut non-military matters. In the Trump administration, transgender people were not allowed to join the military because of Trump’s officer’s “respectful disobedience”. This “respectful disobedience” is unhealthy for democracy in the United States if these military officials are allowed to simply choose which policies to heed. 

If the problems between civilian and military policy advisers continue, it is likely that civilians will begin to resent the military policy makers. Additionally, if these policies become more useful, more people will react uncritically of any policy that has to do with “the troops”. The “military expertise” offered by these policy advisers cannot go unquestioned, else there will be future implications for foreign and domestic policy. 

There are three main ways that the issues within civilian and military relations can be more productive. First, civilian policy advisers need to call out these negative trends so they don’t become part of the status quo. If the civilian side of these relations sit idly by while the military personnel practice “respectful disobedience” and choose policies that only work for them, nothing can be accomplished productively. Next, Society needs to talk with, and about, military personnel without characterizing them as either “heroes” or “broken” individuals. Finally, there need to be new norms in the relationship between civilian and military policy advisers. If norms and taboos are not clearly established between the two parties, “respectful disobedience” could become part of the status quo. There needs to be better dialogue between military personnel and civilian policy makers for mutual understanding and better relations. As problems around the world become more complex, it is more important now than ever that civilian policy makers and military advisers work more cohesively to formulate better policies to help each other, and the country.