SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper welcomes Abdullah Bin Abdulaziz, the former King of Saudi Arabia, to the G-20 Summit in this file 2010 photo.
The richest country in the Arab region wasted no time quoting their American arms dealers when they declared an end to their bombing campaign on the poorest Arab country last month.
'Mission Accomplished,' declared a Saudi newspaper on April 22 after Riyadh announced the end of a month-long air campaign on Yemen. Hours later, the strikes resumed. It's hard to assess which was more ironic: Quoting a banner on a U.S. warship where then-president George W. Bush declared an end to major combat operations in Iraq in 2003 -- or the fact that Riyadh continued to drop cluster bombs - while simultaneously declaring a reconstruction effort named 'Operation Renewal of Hope'?
The premature declaration of the end of 'Operation Decisive Storm' was only one of many contradictory statements put out by the Saudi-led coalition that killed at least 1,244 people, injured 5,044 and more than 100,000 homeless.
Envisage this in a country where half of its 26 million population were already malnourished before the air campaign. Aid agencies report that the Saudi air and sea blockade is preventing Yemen from importing food, hospitals are shutting down due to a lack of fuel for generators, and car owners are being asked to help move the sick and injured.
In short: Yemen is in the midst of a humanitarian disaster. Worse still, Canadian media coverage and public interest has been dismal.
For the sake of understanding what actually happened, and why it matters, let's deconstruct the contrived propaganda produced by Saudi Arabia and its allies:
1. The mission was a complete failure.
According to Sami Al Faraj, a Kuwaiti security advisor to the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), Operation Decisive Storm was needed to restore "the legitimate" government in Yemen led by former U.S.-backed president, Abd-Rabbu Mansour Hadi. They coalition also wanted to counter the growing rise of the Houthis, an embedded tribal faction backed by Shia Iran that took over the capital Sanaa in a surprise offensive last September.
But analysts concur that the Houthis are far from being eliminated. "The Houthis did not lose anything in this war," explains Houchang Hassan-Yari, a professor at Queen's University and the Royal Military College of Canada. In fact, they gained control over new territories, he says, including access to the oil-rich and largely Sunni-populated southeast province of Hadramawt.
It's indicative of a military strategy gone very wrong. "The Houthis are a militia -- they don't function as a regular military force, therefore you can't use the same techniques," explains Catherine Shakdam, a Yemen analyst with defense and security firm Anderson Consulting in London. "When the Saudi's and the GCC devised their military campaign they imagined the Houthis would function as a regular military force because of their alliance with [former Yemeni president] Ali Abdullah Saleh and the Yemeni army."
Both analysts point out that the U.S. is adopting the same strategy to destroy Islamic State (IS) and Al Qaeda, says Hassan-Yari. But it doesn't work. "Air strikes alone will not defeat your enemy. When you go into a war you have to have a clear exit plan... announcing prematurely the end of the campaign was a clear announcement of Saudi's failure." He adds: "The Saudi's have a formidable hardware...last year they purchased $60bn of arms from the U.S. If they are not capable of defeating a group like the Houthis imagine if they were to fight against Iran?"
As for re-installing Hadi? He continues to sit snug in Riyadh.
2. The war was more about re-asserting regional Sunni control than fighting the Houthi's.
Sunni Gulf nations have long had a fear of rising Iranian influence in the Arab region. As Al-Faraj puts it, "senior Iranian clerics have said they are now in control of four Arab capitals -- Damascus, Beirut, Baghdad and now Sanaa. So how [else] do we interpret their intentions?"
From the Saudi-led military operation to crush Arab Spring-inspired demonstrations in Bahrain in 2011, to the quiet stifling of protests from Shia Saudi's in their own restive Eastern Province, the GCC has never failed to "protect" Arab citizens from expanding Iranian influence. The problem with constantly citing Iran as a boogeyman, however, is that Tehran's involvement in all of these movements has in reality been minimal.
The idea that "Iran lends support to the Houthis, particularly of the verbal and ideological kind and not excluding material and financial support, is likely," says Gillian Schreiber, a writer with Middle East magazine Muftah. "However its role in the war has been overstated. Contrary to what the GCC want us to think, this is first and foremost a Yemeni conflict -- to say otherwise "obscures the reality of what is actually happening and runs the risk of creating even more sectarian bloodshed," she adds.
Besides, the Houthis have another trusted source for their weaponry: The militia was already flush with American arms from Saleh.
3. Neither the Saudi's or the US are genuine partners in the fight against Al Qaeda or Islamic State.
The Houthis have been a fierce opponent of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), one of the most active and dangerous branches of the terror group for two decades. Their recent takeover of the Yemeni army granted them unprecedented access to strategic military bases. So when the coalition began to destroy Houthi targets, weren't they simultaneously destroying one of the only militias in the region who have successfully battled Al Qaeda? As Shakdam questions, "why is Saudi destroying the Yemeni military? Who is going to destroy Al Qaeda if you leave Yemen without an army?"
The ensuing chaos has created more opportunities for AQAP to flourish. "Now Al Qaeda has more territory than it had under Hadi in the past," says Hassan-Yari. And if that isn't disconcerting enough, consider too IS' sinister first official video release from its 'new Yemen branch' last week: The beheadings of four Yemeni soldiers and shooting of ten others.
"If the Saudi's had not intervened, or at least invited Hadi, the Houthis and others to work together, we would see a much more difficult situation for Al Qaeda and IS to maneuver in that country," he adds. Given the highly motivated and experienced nature of their force, Hassan-Yari believes there would have been a real possibility to see the beginning of the end of Al Qaeda in Yemen.
Conspiracy theorists may also consider current whisperings on the Arab street -- that one of the reasons behind the Saudi intervention in Yemen was to save Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups. After all, if Yemen ultimately became stable, the Saudi's would risk witnessing the rise of a potentially democratic government in their own backyard.
4. The Canadian government was a silent ideological partner in the coalition.
Canada was not officially a member of the coalition but it did take a position. Soon after the air strikes began, the foreign ministry released a statement: "Canada is concerned by the deteriorating situation in Yemen resulting from the ongoing military actions taken by Houthi rebels... Canada supports the military action by Saudi Arabia and its Gulf Cooperation Council partners and others to defend Saudi Arabia's border."
Our press coverage was not much better. Video and photos of the war's crippling impact on infrastructure and humanitarian lifelines were almost completely absent. Compare this to UK media, where Sky News correspondents regularly interviewed civilians, including Mohamed Al-Ammari who lost seven family members when an airstrike hit a fuel truck next to his house at 2:30 a.m. Even American media was more attentive, with intermittent, albeit U.S.-centric, reports of collateral damage.
It would be a grave mistake on our part to think Canadians don't need to know, or won't be impacted by what some might view as yet another senseless sectarian conflict between Arab countries. The truth is, we are guilty -- by association: Association of our government who on the one hand sends Canadian troops to Syria and Iraq to join the fight against terrorists, but on the other quietly backs them through miscalculated foreign policies and alliances with rogue regimes.
Let's not forget that our Saudi 'friends', in their claims to bring back democracy to Yemen, rule over a despotic monarchy whose theological foundation forms the genesis of every Islamist terror group in existence today. What could the Saudi's possibly know about democracy? And should we really be so taken aback then, when terrorist attacks are planned on Canadian soil?
A version of this piece originally appeared on Muftah and is reprinted with permission.
Dear Common Dreams reader, The U.S. is on a fast track to authoritarianism like nothing I've ever seen. Meanwhile, corporate news outlets are utterly capitulating to Trump, twisting their coverage to avoid drawing his ire while lining up to stuff cash in his pockets. That's why I believe that Common Dreams is doing the best and most consequential reporting that we've ever done. Our small but mighty team is a progressive reporting powerhouse, covering the news every day that the corporate media never will. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. And to ignite change for the common good. Now here's the key piece that I want all our readers to understand: None of this would be possible without your financial support. That's not just some fundraising cliche. It's the absolute and literal truth. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. Will you donate now to help power the nonprofit, independent reporting of Common Dreams? Thank you for being a vital member of our community. Together, we can keep independent journalism alive when it’s needed most. - Craig Brown, Co-founder |
The richest country in the Arab region wasted no time quoting their American arms dealers when they declared an end to their bombing campaign on the poorest Arab country last month.
'Mission Accomplished,' declared a Saudi newspaper on April 22 after Riyadh announced the end of a month-long air campaign on Yemen. Hours later, the strikes resumed. It's hard to assess which was more ironic: Quoting a banner on a U.S. warship where then-president George W. Bush declared an end to major combat operations in Iraq in 2003 -- or the fact that Riyadh continued to drop cluster bombs - while simultaneously declaring a reconstruction effort named 'Operation Renewal of Hope'?
The premature declaration of the end of 'Operation Decisive Storm' was only one of many contradictory statements put out by the Saudi-led coalition that killed at least 1,244 people, injured 5,044 and more than 100,000 homeless.
Envisage this in a country where half of its 26 million population were already malnourished before the air campaign. Aid agencies report that the Saudi air and sea blockade is preventing Yemen from importing food, hospitals are shutting down due to a lack of fuel for generators, and car owners are being asked to help move the sick and injured.
In short: Yemen is in the midst of a humanitarian disaster. Worse still, Canadian media coverage and public interest has been dismal.
For the sake of understanding what actually happened, and why it matters, let's deconstruct the contrived propaganda produced by Saudi Arabia and its allies:
1. The mission was a complete failure.
According to Sami Al Faraj, a Kuwaiti security advisor to the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), Operation Decisive Storm was needed to restore "the legitimate" government in Yemen led by former U.S.-backed president, Abd-Rabbu Mansour Hadi. They coalition also wanted to counter the growing rise of the Houthis, an embedded tribal faction backed by Shia Iran that took over the capital Sanaa in a surprise offensive last September.
But analysts concur that the Houthis are far from being eliminated. "The Houthis did not lose anything in this war," explains Houchang Hassan-Yari, a professor at Queen's University and the Royal Military College of Canada. In fact, they gained control over new territories, he says, including access to the oil-rich and largely Sunni-populated southeast province of Hadramawt.
It's indicative of a military strategy gone very wrong. "The Houthis are a militia -- they don't function as a regular military force, therefore you can't use the same techniques," explains Catherine Shakdam, a Yemen analyst with defense and security firm Anderson Consulting in London. "When the Saudi's and the GCC devised their military campaign they imagined the Houthis would function as a regular military force because of their alliance with [former Yemeni president] Ali Abdullah Saleh and the Yemeni army."
Both analysts point out that the U.S. is adopting the same strategy to destroy Islamic State (IS) and Al Qaeda, says Hassan-Yari. But it doesn't work. "Air strikes alone will not defeat your enemy. When you go into a war you have to have a clear exit plan... announcing prematurely the end of the campaign was a clear announcement of Saudi's failure." He adds: "The Saudi's have a formidable hardware...last year they purchased $60bn of arms from the U.S. If they are not capable of defeating a group like the Houthis imagine if they were to fight against Iran?"
As for re-installing Hadi? He continues to sit snug in Riyadh.
2. The war was more about re-asserting regional Sunni control than fighting the Houthi's.
Sunni Gulf nations have long had a fear of rising Iranian influence in the Arab region. As Al-Faraj puts it, "senior Iranian clerics have said they are now in control of four Arab capitals -- Damascus, Beirut, Baghdad and now Sanaa. So how [else] do we interpret their intentions?"
From the Saudi-led military operation to crush Arab Spring-inspired demonstrations in Bahrain in 2011, to the quiet stifling of protests from Shia Saudi's in their own restive Eastern Province, the GCC has never failed to "protect" Arab citizens from expanding Iranian influence. The problem with constantly citing Iran as a boogeyman, however, is that Tehran's involvement in all of these movements has in reality been minimal.
The idea that "Iran lends support to the Houthis, particularly of the verbal and ideological kind and not excluding material and financial support, is likely," says Gillian Schreiber, a writer with Middle East magazine Muftah. "However its role in the war has been overstated. Contrary to what the GCC want us to think, this is first and foremost a Yemeni conflict -- to say otherwise "obscures the reality of what is actually happening and runs the risk of creating even more sectarian bloodshed," she adds.
Besides, the Houthis have another trusted source for their weaponry: The militia was already flush with American arms from Saleh.
3. Neither the Saudi's or the US are genuine partners in the fight against Al Qaeda or Islamic State.
The Houthis have been a fierce opponent of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), one of the most active and dangerous branches of the terror group for two decades. Their recent takeover of the Yemeni army granted them unprecedented access to strategic military bases. So when the coalition began to destroy Houthi targets, weren't they simultaneously destroying one of the only militias in the region who have successfully battled Al Qaeda? As Shakdam questions, "why is Saudi destroying the Yemeni military? Who is going to destroy Al Qaeda if you leave Yemen without an army?"
The ensuing chaos has created more opportunities for AQAP to flourish. "Now Al Qaeda has more territory than it had under Hadi in the past," says Hassan-Yari. And if that isn't disconcerting enough, consider too IS' sinister first official video release from its 'new Yemen branch' last week: The beheadings of four Yemeni soldiers and shooting of ten others.
"If the Saudi's had not intervened, or at least invited Hadi, the Houthis and others to work together, we would see a much more difficult situation for Al Qaeda and IS to maneuver in that country," he adds. Given the highly motivated and experienced nature of their force, Hassan-Yari believes there would have been a real possibility to see the beginning of the end of Al Qaeda in Yemen.
Conspiracy theorists may also consider current whisperings on the Arab street -- that one of the reasons behind the Saudi intervention in Yemen was to save Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups. After all, if Yemen ultimately became stable, the Saudi's would risk witnessing the rise of a potentially democratic government in their own backyard.
4. The Canadian government was a silent ideological partner in the coalition.
Canada was not officially a member of the coalition but it did take a position. Soon after the air strikes began, the foreign ministry released a statement: "Canada is concerned by the deteriorating situation in Yemen resulting from the ongoing military actions taken by Houthi rebels... Canada supports the military action by Saudi Arabia and its Gulf Cooperation Council partners and others to defend Saudi Arabia's border."
Our press coverage was not much better. Video and photos of the war's crippling impact on infrastructure and humanitarian lifelines were almost completely absent. Compare this to UK media, where Sky News correspondents regularly interviewed civilians, including Mohamed Al-Ammari who lost seven family members when an airstrike hit a fuel truck next to his house at 2:30 a.m. Even American media was more attentive, with intermittent, albeit U.S.-centric, reports of collateral damage.
It would be a grave mistake on our part to think Canadians don't need to know, or won't be impacted by what some might view as yet another senseless sectarian conflict between Arab countries. The truth is, we are guilty -- by association: Association of our government who on the one hand sends Canadian troops to Syria and Iraq to join the fight against terrorists, but on the other quietly backs them through miscalculated foreign policies and alliances with rogue regimes.
Let's not forget that our Saudi 'friends', in their claims to bring back democracy to Yemen, rule over a despotic monarchy whose theological foundation forms the genesis of every Islamist terror group in existence today. What could the Saudi's possibly know about democracy? And should we really be so taken aback then, when terrorist attacks are planned on Canadian soil?
A version of this piece originally appeared on Muftah and is reprinted with permission.
The richest country in the Arab region wasted no time quoting their American arms dealers when they declared an end to their bombing campaign on the poorest Arab country last month.
'Mission Accomplished,' declared a Saudi newspaper on April 22 after Riyadh announced the end of a month-long air campaign on Yemen. Hours later, the strikes resumed. It's hard to assess which was more ironic: Quoting a banner on a U.S. warship where then-president George W. Bush declared an end to major combat operations in Iraq in 2003 -- or the fact that Riyadh continued to drop cluster bombs - while simultaneously declaring a reconstruction effort named 'Operation Renewal of Hope'?
The premature declaration of the end of 'Operation Decisive Storm' was only one of many contradictory statements put out by the Saudi-led coalition that killed at least 1,244 people, injured 5,044 and more than 100,000 homeless.
Envisage this in a country where half of its 26 million population were already malnourished before the air campaign. Aid agencies report that the Saudi air and sea blockade is preventing Yemen from importing food, hospitals are shutting down due to a lack of fuel for generators, and car owners are being asked to help move the sick and injured.
In short: Yemen is in the midst of a humanitarian disaster. Worse still, Canadian media coverage and public interest has been dismal.
For the sake of understanding what actually happened, and why it matters, let's deconstruct the contrived propaganda produced by Saudi Arabia and its allies:
1. The mission was a complete failure.
According to Sami Al Faraj, a Kuwaiti security advisor to the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), Operation Decisive Storm was needed to restore "the legitimate" government in Yemen led by former U.S.-backed president, Abd-Rabbu Mansour Hadi. They coalition also wanted to counter the growing rise of the Houthis, an embedded tribal faction backed by Shia Iran that took over the capital Sanaa in a surprise offensive last September.
But analysts concur that the Houthis are far from being eliminated. "The Houthis did not lose anything in this war," explains Houchang Hassan-Yari, a professor at Queen's University and the Royal Military College of Canada. In fact, they gained control over new territories, he says, including access to the oil-rich and largely Sunni-populated southeast province of Hadramawt.
It's indicative of a military strategy gone very wrong. "The Houthis are a militia -- they don't function as a regular military force, therefore you can't use the same techniques," explains Catherine Shakdam, a Yemen analyst with defense and security firm Anderson Consulting in London. "When the Saudi's and the GCC devised their military campaign they imagined the Houthis would function as a regular military force because of their alliance with [former Yemeni president] Ali Abdullah Saleh and the Yemeni army."
Both analysts point out that the U.S. is adopting the same strategy to destroy Islamic State (IS) and Al Qaeda, says Hassan-Yari. But it doesn't work. "Air strikes alone will not defeat your enemy. When you go into a war you have to have a clear exit plan... announcing prematurely the end of the campaign was a clear announcement of Saudi's failure." He adds: "The Saudi's have a formidable hardware...last year they purchased $60bn of arms from the U.S. If they are not capable of defeating a group like the Houthis imagine if they were to fight against Iran?"
As for re-installing Hadi? He continues to sit snug in Riyadh.
2. The war was more about re-asserting regional Sunni control than fighting the Houthi's.
Sunni Gulf nations have long had a fear of rising Iranian influence in the Arab region. As Al-Faraj puts it, "senior Iranian clerics have said they are now in control of four Arab capitals -- Damascus, Beirut, Baghdad and now Sanaa. So how [else] do we interpret their intentions?"
From the Saudi-led military operation to crush Arab Spring-inspired demonstrations in Bahrain in 2011, to the quiet stifling of protests from Shia Saudi's in their own restive Eastern Province, the GCC has never failed to "protect" Arab citizens from expanding Iranian influence. The problem with constantly citing Iran as a boogeyman, however, is that Tehran's involvement in all of these movements has in reality been minimal.
The idea that "Iran lends support to the Houthis, particularly of the verbal and ideological kind and not excluding material and financial support, is likely," says Gillian Schreiber, a writer with Middle East magazine Muftah. "However its role in the war has been overstated. Contrary to what the GCC want us to think, this is first and foremost a Yemeni conflict -- to say otherwise "obscures the reality of what is actually happening and runs the risk of creating even more sectarian bloodshed," she adds.
Besides, the Houthis have another trusted source for their weaponry: The militia was already flush with American arms from Saleh.
3. Neither the Saudi's or the US are genuine partners in the fight against Al Qaeda or Islamic State.
The Houthis have been a fierce opponent of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), one of the most active and dangerous branches of the terror group for two decades. Their recent takeover of the Yemeni army granted them unprecedented access to strategic military bases. So when the coalition began to destroy Houthi targets, weren't they simultaneously destroying one of the only militias in the region who have successfully battled Al Qaeda? As Shakdam questions, "why is Saudi destroying the Yemeni military? Who is going to destroy Al Qaeda if you leave Yemen without an army?"
The ensuing chaos has created more opportunities for AQAP to flourish. "Now Al Qaeda has more territory than it had under Hadi in the past," says Hassan-Yari. And if that isn't disconcerting enough, consider too IS' sinister first official video release from its 'new Yemen branch' last week: The beheadings of four Yemeni soldiers and shooting of ten others.
"If the Saudi's had not intervened, or at least invited Hadi, the Houthis and others to work together, we would see a much more difficult situation for Al Qaeda and IS to maneuver in that country," he adds. Given the highly motivated and experienced nature of their force, Hassan-Yari believes there would have been a real possibility to see the beginning of the end of Al Qaeda in Yemen.
Conspiracy theorists may also consider current whisperings on the Arab street -- that one of the reasons behind the Saudi intervention in Yemen was to save Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups. After all, if Yemen ultimately became stable, the Saudi's would risk witnessing the rise of a potentially democratic government in their own backyard.
4. The Canadian government was a silent ideological partner in the coalition.
Canada was not officially a member of the coalition but it did take a position. Soon after the air strikes began, the foreign ministry released a statement: "Canada is concerned by the deteriorating situation in Yemen resulting from the ongoing military actions taken by Houthi rebels... Canada supports the military action by Saudi Arabia and its Gulf Cooperation Council partners and others to defend Saudi Arabia's border."
Our press coverage was not much better. Video and photos of the war's crippling impact on infrastructure and humanitarian lifelines were almost completely absent. Compare this to UK media, where Sky News correspondents regularly interviewed civilians, including Mohamed Al-Ammari who lost seven family members when an airstrike hit a fuel truck next to his house at 2:30 a.m. Even American media was more attentive, with intermittent, albeit U.S.-centric, reports of collateral damage.
It would be a grave mistake on our part to think Canadians don't need to know, or won't be impacted by what some might view as yet another senseless sectarian conflict between Arab countries. The truth is, we are guilty -- by association: Association of our government who on the one hand sends Canadian troops to Syria and Iraq to join the fight against terrorists, but on the other quietly backs them through miscalculated foreign policies and alliances with rogue regimes.
Let's not forget that our Saudi 'friends', in their claims to bring back democracy to Yemen, rule over a despotic monarchy whose theological foundation forms the genesis of every Islamist terror group in existence today. What could the Saudi's possibly know about democracy? And should we really be so taken aback then, when terrorist attacks are planned on Canadian soil?
A version of this piece originally appeared on Muftah and is reprinted with permission.
"They're now using the failed War on Drugs to justify their egregious violation of international law," the Minnesota progressive said of the Trump administration.
Congresswomen Ilhan Omar and Delia Ramirez on Thursday strongly condemned the Trump administration's deadly attack on a boat allegedly trafficking cocaine off the coast of Venezuela as "lawless and reckless," while urging the White House to respect lawmakers' "clear constitutional authority on matters of war and peace."
"Congress has not declared war on Venezuela, or Tren de Aragua, and the mere designation of a group as a terrorist organization does not give any president carte blanche," said Omar (D-Minn.), referring to President Donald Trump's day one executive order designating drug cartels including the Venezuela-based group as foreign terrorist organizations.
Trump—who reportedly signed a secret order directing the Pentagon to use military force to combat cartels abroad—said that Tuesday's US strike in international waters killed 11 people. The attack sparked fears of renewed US aggression in a region that has endured well over 100 US interventions over the past 200 years, and against a country that has suffered US meddling since the late 19th century.
"It appears that US forces that were recently sent to the region in an escalatory and provocative manner were under no threat from the boat they attacked," Omar cotended. "There is no conceivable legal justification for this use of force. Unless compelling evidence emerges that they were acting in self-defense, that makes the strike a clear violation of international law."
Omar continued:
They're now using the failed War on Drugs to justify their egregious violation of international law. The US posture towards the eradication of drugs has caused immeasurable damage across our hemisphere. It has led to massive forced displacement, environmental devastation, violence, and human rights violations. What it has not done is any damage whatsoever to narcotrafficking or to the cartels. It has been a dramatic, profound failure at every level. In Latin America, even right-wing presidents acknowledge this is true.
The congresswoman's remarks came on the same day that US Secretary of State Marco Rubio designated a pair of Ecuadorean drug gangs as terrorist organizations while visiting the South American nation. This, after Rubio said that US attacks on suspected drug traffickers "will happen again."
"Trump and Rubio's apparent solution" to the failed drug war, said Omar, is "to make it even more militarized," an effort that "is doomed to fail."
"Worse, it risks spiraling into the exact type of endless, pointless conflict that Trump supposedly opposes," she added.
Echoing critics including former Human Rights Watch director Kenneth Roth, who called Tuesday's strike a "summary execution," Ramirez (D-Ill.) said Thursday on social media that "Trump and the Pentagon executed 11 people in the Caribbean, 1,500 miles away from the United States, without a legal rationale."
"From Iran to Venezuela, to DC, LA, and Chicago, Trump continues to abuse our military power, undermine the rule of law, and erode our constitutional boundaries in political spectacles," Ramirez added, referring to the president's ordering of strikes on Iran and National Guard deployments to Los Angeles, the nation's capital, and likely beyond.
"Presidents don't bomb first and ask questions later," Ramirez added. "Wannabe dictators do that."
"The fact that a facility embedded in so much pain is allowed to reopen is absolutely disheartening!" said Florida Immigrant Coalition's deputy director.
Two judges appointed to the US Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit by President Donald Trump issued a Thursday decision that allows a newly established but already notorious immigrant detention center in Florida, dubbed Alligator Alcatraz, to stay open.
Friends of the Everglades, the Center for Biological Diversity, and the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida sought "to halt the unlawful construction" of the site. Last month, Judge Kathleen Williams—appointed by former President Barack Obama to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida—ordered the closure of the facility within 60 days.
However, on Thursday, Circuit Judges Elizabeth Branch and Barbara Lagoa blocked Williams' decision, concluding that "the balance of the harms and our consideration of the public interest favor a stay of the preliminary injunction."
Judge Adalberto Jordan, an Obama appointee, issued a brief but scathing dissent. He wrote that the majority "essentially ignores the burden borne by the defendants, pays only lip service to the abuse of discretion standard, engages in its own factfinding, declines to consider the district court's determination on irreparable harm, and performs its own balancing of the equities."
The 11th Circuit's ruling was cheered by the US Department of Homeland Security, Republican Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier, and Gov. Ron DeSantis, who declared in a video that "Alligator Alcatraz is, in fact, like we've always said, open for business."
Uthmeier's communications director, Jeremy Redfern, collected responses to the initial ruling by state and federal Democrats, and urged them to weigh in on social media. Florida state Sen. Shevrin "Shev" Jones (D-34) did, stressing that "cruelty is still cruelty."
In a Thursday statement, Florida Immigrant Coalition deputy director Renata Bozzetto said that "the 11th Circuit is allowing atrocities to happen by reversing the injunction that helped to paralyze something that has been functioning as an extrajudicial site in our own state! The Everglades Detention Camp isn't just an environmental threat; it is also a huge human rights crisis."
"Housing thousands of men in tents in the middle of a fragile ecosystem puts immense strain on Florida's source environment, but even more troublesome, it disregards human rights and our constitutional commitments," Bozzetto continued. "This is a place where hundreds of our neighbors were illegally held, were made invisible within government systems, and were subjected to inhumane heat and unbearable treatment. The fact that a facility embedded in so much pain is allowed to reopen is absolutely disheartening! The only just solution is to shut this facility down and ensure that no facility like this opens in our state!"
"Lastly, it is imperative that we as a nation uphold the balance of powers that this country was founded on," she added. "That is what makes this country special! Calling judges who rule against you 'activists' flies in the face of our democracy. It is a huge tell that AG Uthmeier expressed this as a 'win for President Trump's agenda,' as if the courts were to serve as political weapons. This demonstrates the clear partisan games they are playing with people's lives and with our democracy."
While Alligator Alcatraz has drawn widespread criticism for the conditions in which detainees are held, the suit is based on the government's failure to follow a law that requires an environmental review, given the facility's proximity to surrounding wetlands.
In response to the ruling, Elise Bennett, a senior attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity, told The Associated Press that "this is a heartbreaking blow to America's Everglades and every living creature there, but the case isn't even close to over."
The report found that seven of America's biggest healthcare companies have collectively dodged $34 billion in taxes as a result of Trump's 2017 tax law while making patient care worse.
President Donald Trump's tax policies have allowed the healthcare industry to rake in "sick profits" by avoiding tens of billions of dollars in taxes and lowering the quality of care for patients, according to a report out Wednesday.
The report, by the advocacy groups Americans for Tax Fairness and Community Catalyst, found that "seven of America's biggest healthcare corporations have dodged over $34 billion in collective taxes since the enactment of the 2017 Trump-GOP tax law that Republicans recently succeeded in extending."
The study examined four health insurance companies—Centene, Cigna, Elevance (formerly Anthem), and Humana; two for-profit hospital chains—HCA Holdings and Universal Health Services; and the CVS Healthcare pharmacy conglomerate.
It found that these companies' average profits increased by 75%, from around $21 billion before the tax bill to about $35 billion afterward, and yet their federal tax rate was about the same.
This was primarily due to the 2017 law's slashing of the corporate tax rate from 35% to 21%, a change that was cheered on by the healthcare industry and continued with this year's GOP tax legislation. The legislation also loosened many tax loopholes and made it easier to move profits to offshore tax shelters.
The report found that Cigna, for instance, saved an estimated $181 million in taxes on the $2.5 billion it held in offshore accounts before the law took effect.
The law's supporters, including those in the healthcare industry, argued that lowering corporate taxes would allow companies to increase wages and provide better services to patients. But the report found that "healthcare corporations failed to use their tax savings to lower costs for customers or meaningfully boost worker pay."
Instead, they used those windfalls primarily to increase shareholder payouts through stock buybacks and dividends and to give fat bonuses to their top executives.
Stock buybacks increased by 42% after the law passed, with Centene purchasing an astonishing average of 20 times more of its own shares in the years following its enactment than in the years before. During the first seven years of the law, dividends for shareholders increased by 133% to an average of $5.6 billion.
Pay for the seven companies' half-dozen top executives increased by a combined $100 million, 42%, on average. This is compared to the $14,000 pay increase that the average employee at these companies received over the same period, which is a much more modest increase of 24%.
And contrary to claims that lower taxes would allow companies to improve coverage or patient care, the opposite has occurred.
While data is scarce, the rate of denied insurance claims is believed to have risen since the law went into effect.
The four major insurers' Medicare Advantage plans were found to frequently deny claims improperly. In the case of Centene, 93% of its denials for prior authorizations were overturned once patients appealed them, which indicates that they may have been improper. The others were not much better: 86% of Cigna's denials were overturned, along with 71% for Elevance/Anthem, and 65% for Humana.
The report said that such high rates of denials being overturned raise "questions about whether Medicare Advantage plans are complying with their coverage obligations or just reflexively saying 'no' in the hopes there will be no appeal."
Salespeople for the Cigna-owned company EviCore, which insurers hire to review claims, have even boasted that they help companies reduce their costs by increasing denials by 15%, part of a model that ProPublica has called the "denials for dollars business." Their investigation in 2024 found that insurers have used EviCore to evaluate whether to pay for coverage for over 100 million people.
And while paying tens of millions to their executives, both HCA and Universal Health Services—which each saved around $5.5 billion from Trump's tax law—have been repeatedly accused of overbilling patients while treating them in horrendous conditions.
"Congress should demand both more in tax revenue and better patient care from these highly profitable corporations," Americans for Tax Fairness said in a statement. "Healthcare corporation profitability should not come before quality of patient care. In healthcare, more than almost any other industry, the search for ever higher earnings threatens the wellbeing and lives of the American people."