Thursday, May 19, 2022

Leaking a Supreme Court draft opinion on abortion or other hot topics is unprecedented – 4 things to know about how the high court works


Eve Ringsmuth, Associate professor of poltiical science, 
Oklahoma State University
THE CONVERSATION
Wed, May 18, 2022

Signs belonging to anti-abortion protesters sit in front of a fenced U.S. Supreme Court building on May 16, 2022. Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images

The U.S. Supreme Court is set to announce a decision that could possibly overturn Roe v. Wade, the 1973 case that guaranteed the constitutional right to abortion.

The court is currently considering a case known as Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which questions the constitutionality of a Mississippi law that bans abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy.

But a leaked draft majority opinion was published by Politico on May 2, 2022, indicating that a majority of justices had voted to allow the post-15-week abortion ban, which would overturn Roe v. Wade.

The Court has confirmed the authenticity of the February draft, but a final decision in the case has not been announced.


Most of the Supreme Court’s deliberations occur behind closed doors. And while other information has leaked from the court before, this kind of public circulation of a majority opinion draft is unprecedented.

As an expert on the Supreme Court, I think understanding the court’s decision-making process can help make sense of the leaked draft’s significance and the influence it is having on the court’s credibility. Here are four key points to consider.

1. How are Supreme Court opinions drafted?

Shortly after hearing oral arguments, Supreme Court justices meet privately without legal clerks or staff to discuss and take a preliminary vote on how to resolve the case.

These initial votes are not the final decision. Justices can, and sometimes do, change their minds during the opinion drafting process. Drafting the opinion can take anywhere from a few weeks to several months in more contentious cases.

While tentative, the first votes are significant because they determine the group of justices eligible to write the opinion that could set a legally binding precedent for future cases and legal questions.

There are nine Supreme Court justices. A majority, or at least five, need to jointly support any final decision on a case in order to set precedent.

The author of the majority opinion is selected by the most senior justice who initially voted with the majority. Since Justice Anthony Kennedy’s retirement in 2018, either Chief Justice John G. Roberts or the most senior Associate Justice, Clarence Thomas, most often chooses who authors the majority opinion.

The selected justice works with his or her team of legal clerks to write an initial draft of the opinion, which explains the legal basis for voting one way or another. The draft is then shared with the eight other justices.

Next, the other justices have an opportunity to weigh in on the content of the majority opinion and attempt to modify its language. Those in the majority have the greatest influence on the draft, but majority opinion authors may respond to points made in a draft dissent. A final decision is reached once all justices have authored or signed onto an opinion.

Justices not in the majority can write or sign onto dissenting or concurring opinions, which do not carry legal authority.
2. How much can draft opinions change over time?

In theory, a Supreme Court majority opinion draft can be completely rewritten.

Enough justices could also change their minds and create a new majority, which supports a different resolution to a case. However, since justices have already read written briefs – meaning a written legal argument submitted by each side in the case – and considered the case with their colleagues, a complete overhaul of a given majority opinion draft is unlikely.

Some revision to a majority opinion draft is common, though.

This is because the majority opinion author must craft language that will secure the votes of at least four other justices. Justices can negotiate over specific wording and also push for larger, substantive revisions.

This drafting process usually results in multiple versions. A final opinion ultimately reflects the views of all of the justices in the majority.

Majority opinion authors are more likely to circulate additional opinion drafts in cases where the justices are closely split – meaning five justices plan to vote opposite four others – and in complex cases. There is more pressure for a majority opinion author to accommodate the other justices’ views in split decisions, since losing one vote would reverse the case outcome.



3. Why are draft opinions kept private?

The court sets a lot of its own policies, including which cases they accept, the format of oral arguments and opinion drafting procedures.

Justices have repeatedly argued that private deliberations are essential to the court’s decision-making. As former Justice Lewis F. Powell said in 1980, “There must be candid discussion. … The confidentiality of this process assures that we will review carefully the soundness of our judgments.”

The court’s procedures promote judicial independence and are designed to establish distance from public opinion and political pressure.

Some observers have argued the court should be more transparent, saying that increased access to things like court proceedings and information regarding when and why justices must recuse themselves from cases would strengthen the accountability of the court.

Roberts has defended the court’s decision-making process, saying in June 2018, “It’s not as if we’re doing this in secret. We’re the most transparent branch in government in terms of seeing us do our work and us explaining what we’re doing.”


4. What is the significance of a leaked opinion draft?

The release of the draft opinion is rare and meaningful – it violates the Supreme Court’s strict expectation of confidentiality among clerks, justices and staff.

Shortly after the draft opinion’s release, Roberts called the leak “absolutely appalling” and an “egregious breach” of trust.

Thomas said it was “tremendously bad,” likening it to an “infidelity” that cannot be undone.

Although the full ramifications of the leak are not yet known, this breach of trust could change the openness with which justices discuss cases internally.

Scholars and the public have previously seen records of the court’s internal discussions and early opinion drafts through justices’ personal papers. But justices typically do not make their personal papers available until they have retired or died.

Ultimately the leaked opinion draft places a spotlight on the Supreme Court that the institution prefers to avoid.

The leaked draft sparked protests outside the Supreme Court building defending Roe v. Wade and new proposed legislation that would establish abortion as a federal right. Following the leak in early May, the Supreme Court installed security fencing.

The draft opinion also brought a wave of criticism from outside experts about the legitimacy of the court.

Suggestions that the court has become politicized are a potential problem for an institution that relies on public credibility and good will to be able to enforce its decisions.

This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit news site dedicated to sharing ideas from academic experts. It was written by: Eve Ringsmuth, Oklahoma State University.

Read more:

Less than 1% of abortions take place in the third trimester – here’s why people get them


Abortion: the story of suffering and death behind Ireland’s ban and subsequent legalization

Why will abortion rights tumble? Because conservatives built a well-oiled machine.

Tessa Silverman and Oliver Ma
Thu, May 19, 2022

In a draft opinion that would overturn 50 years of precedent to eliminate the right to abortion, Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito insisted that he pays no mind to politics.

"We do not pretend to know how our political system or society will respond to today’s decision overruling Roe and Casey," Alito wrote in the leaked document. "And even if we could foresee what will happen, we would have no authority to let that knowledge influence our decision."

It does not take a law degree to understand that Alito's claims of political neutrality are specious. The draft decision advanced by Alito and four of his conservative colleagues in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization is part of a public right-wing campaign to roll back the liberties of women and pregnant people.

As law students, we feel it would be helpful to share how conservative politics, like the fight to outlaw abortion, are incubated on law school campuses across the country. From there, these ideas travel through a well-funded pipeline to the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito delivers remarks during a Federalist Society dinner gathering in November 2006 less than a year after his confirmation.

If the name "Federalist Society" sounds familiar, you may recall that Donald Trump committed on the campaign trail to appoint "great judges, conservative, all picked by Federalist Society." As president, Trump delivered on that promise. Now six of the nine justices sitting on the Supreme Court have ties to the Federalist Society: Alito, Amy Coney Barrett, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, John Roberts and Clarence Thomas.


Just one veteran: Judge Jackson's historic rise leaves Alito as only justice with military experience

Text with the USA TODAY newsroom about the day’s biggest stories. Sign up for our subscriber-only texting experience.

Leaders of the Federalist Society often describe it as a nonpartisan forum for the free exchange of ideas. From the start, though, the group has been intensely political.
What is the Federalist Society?

It was founded in 1982 by conservative law students at the University of Chicago, Yale University and Harvard University. The statement of purpose for the inaugural Federalist Society symposium read: "Law schools and the legal profession are currently strongly dominated by a form of orthodox liberal ideology. ... No comprehensive conservative critique or agenda has been formulated in this field. This conference will furnish an occasion for such a response to begin to be articulated." At the conference, featured speakers railed about "the onslaught of the New Deal" and argued that abortion and "acceptable sexual behavior" should be "reserved to the states."

In the 40 years since, the Federalist Society has concentrated power through the support of prominent conservative legal figures and politicians. The group is fueled by more than ideology, though. In 2019, the Federalist Society listed almost 50 "Madison Club Platinum" benefactors who contributed $100,000 or more.

Less publicly, its leaders are embedded in a network of nonprofits that feed each other millions of dollars to disseminate right-wing talking points and pack the courts with conservative judges.

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia speaks at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington in 2012. AEI and the Federalist Society held a book discussion with Scalia, who coauthored "Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts." Scalia served on the Supreme Court until his death in February 2016.

Essentially, the Federalist Society has vast resources that it uses to recruit, train and prop up new generations of conservative lawyers. That project starts on law school campuses. There are more than 200 student chapters of the Federalist Society across the country. Some law students join these chapters because they are just fervently devoted to the Federalist Society’s mission.

Many, though, are enticed by the prestigious professional advantages that only the society can offer them. A big part of that is clerkships.

Great Replacement Theory?: Try language of death wielded by opportunistic right-wing figures

Clerking is a popular, incredibly competitive opportunity for law students to work closely with judges after graduation. The Federalist Society has a track record of securing elite clerkships for its members early in their law school tenure. These clerkships function as launching pads to high-profile careers in government, private practice and the judiciary. For the Federalist Society, they are the channel between arming law students with conservative principles and positioning lawyers to implement conservative policies.


Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas addresses the Federalist Society in 1995 in Washington. Thomas spoke about how the concepts of victimhood and group rights have affected public debate and decision-making. Thomas has served on the court since 1991.

Take, for example, Scott Stewart, a graduate of Stanford Law School and member of the Federalist Society. Stewart first clerked at the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals before serving as a law clerk to Thomas at the Supreme Court. Last year, Stewart became Mississippi's solicitor general. In that capacity, he brought Dobbs to the Supreme Court, urging the justices to overturn Roe v. Wade and eviscerate abortion rights.
They'll go after other rights next

The Supreme Court's final decision in Dobbs, which is likely to come in late June, will emerge from the ecosystem of conservative ideology and policy constructed by the Federalist Society over the past four decades. And the same system will be used to attack other well-established freedoms that conservatives disfavor, like the right to same-sex marriage and to contraception.

So how should those of us who are serious about protecting women, LGBTQ+ people, people of color, people in poverty and other vulnerable communities respond?

First and foremost, we have to stop pretending the law is apolitical. There is a fear that, if we acknowledge the politicization of the Supreme Court, we will erode its institutional legitimacy. But that ship has sailed. A recent Pew Research Center survey found that public opinions of the court are "among the least positive" in 40 years, and that only 16% of Americans say the justices are doing a good job keeping political views out of their decisions.

Insisting on the neutrality of the court does nothing to improve that reality; it only gives cover to conservatives to continue abusing the system to their advantage.

We need to take action: Our well-meaning hashtags won't stop racist mass shootings

What would actually help are reforms to the Supreme Court, such as term limits, a binding ethics code and expansion of the bench. In the meantime, though, we need to equip ourselves to deal with the judiciary we have.

Law schools have a critical role to play here. Far too often, our classes train us to argue before an impartial court that simply does not exist. Professors should be explicit about the extralegal influences that shape judicial decisions and teach future lawyers how to leverage them to achieve fair, humane outcomes.
Progressives need their own machine

More broadly, we need to build a movement that can compete with the Federalist Society to imbue our courts and public offices with progressive values. That’s a heavy lift, but the work is already underway.

The American Constitution Society is a network of progressive law students, lawyers, judges, government officials and many others who are committed to equality, democracy and justice. Although ACS, which was founded in 2001, is much younger than the Federalist Society, it has begun to pick up steam.

Last year, the group supported President Joe Biden's efforts to nominate diverse candidates for judicial office and other federal positions. More than 200 people affiliated with ACS obtained federal appointments. ACS also fosters conversation about the discriminatory underpinnings of the law and promotes a view of the Constitution as a living document meant to serve the people – all people.

Constitution won't interpret itself: Ketanji Brown Jackson owes us an answer on her judicial philosophy

This is the kind of movement that liberals and progressives must rally around if we hope to reclaim our country’s judicial system. The law is political, which means politics should matter to lawyers. But it also means the law should matter to anyone who wants to see real change take place for the better. For those who are ready to join the fight, we welcome you.


Tessa Silverman is a first-year student at Stanford Law School. Oliver Ma is a second-year student at Harvard Law School. Silverman and Ma are incoming co-presidents of American Constitution Society chapters at their respective institutions. The opinions in this article reflect their views as individuals.

This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: SCOTUS abortion ruling draft - Progressive lawyers must push back
Elon Musk Has a Bigger Problem Than Twitter Bots: A Huge Debt Burden




Paula Seligson
Tue, May 17, 2022,

(Bloomberg) -- Elon Musk may be directing his buyer’s remorse at Twitter Inc.’s bot problem. But underpinning the deal is a $13 billion debt bill that’s looking like a bigger burden by the day.

The package, drummed up in a rush and signed by banks before the end of the billionaire’s beloved April 20 weed holiday, will leave the social media platform with an annual interest expense approaching $1 billion, giving the company an alarmingly small margin for error.

To sober-minded credit analysts, second thoughts about the deal are to be expected.

The purchase will be funded with a leveraged loan and high-yield bonds. CreditSights estimates this will dramatically increase Twitter’s annual interest expense to around $900 million, while Bloomberg Intelligence sees $750 million to $1 billion.

With numbers like those, Twitter looks poised to burn cash, boosting the pressure on Musk to transform the company by finding new sources of revenue and slashing costs. That’s even the case with Wall Street analysts estimating record earnings in 2022, though those rosy forecasts could be imperiled if predictions for a US recession -- Musk said Monday one is already under way -- come true.

“This is just a bad capital structure to put on a business like Twitter that has never proven to be highly profitable,” said John McClain, portfolio manager at Brandywine Global Investment Management. “It’s been a public company for quite some time and they never have seemed to really figure out how to attractively monetize the consumer.”

Musk himself is casting doubt over his own deal, saying this week that he won’t proceed unless Twitter proves bots make up fewer than 5% of its users.

Debt is only one of three components of Musk’s financing. He’s found 19 other equity investors to join him in $27.25 billion of equity commitments. And he’s taken out a $6.25 billion margin loan against his Tesla shares, but he’s currently trying to replace that by bringing in preferred equity investors, which could include Apollo Global Management Inc. and Sixth Street.

Bankers pulled all-nighters and worked through the Easter and Passover holiday weekend, rushing to meet Musk’s April 20 deadline to build the financing package. What they cooked up will take Twitter far deeper into debt, boosting its interest costs from $53.5 million during the past 12 months.

That gives Musk little room for error, though he’s not on the hook for the debt. As is typical in a leveraged buyout, Twitter will be stuck repaying if anything goes wrong, while Musk and his fellow equity investors can only lose the cash they put into the deal.

“Leverage is really high and free cash flow is going to be negative out of the gate, so that certainly adds an element of risk to the deal,” Jordan Chalfin, a senior analyst at credit research firm CreditSights, said in an interview. “Twitter really needs to grow into their capital structure and drive earnings higher in order to cover both their capital expenditures and their interest expense.”

Confused by Musk’s Twitter LBO? Here’s What’s Weird: QuickTake

Fears are also growing that a recession could be on the horizon, which would make this an even worse time to load debt onto Twitter, as most of its revenue comes from advertising. “In a poor macroeconomic background, the first things that companies pull in terms of marketing budgets is advertising spending,” said Bloomberg Intelligence analyst Robert Schiffman.

Meanwhile, selling corporate debt has gotten more difficult in recent weeks. Rising rates have hit junk bonds the hardest, and the average yield, a proxy for the cost of borrowing, has increased by more than a full percentage point since banks agreed to the Twitter deal to about 7.6%. The leveraged loan market has cooled, too.

Analysts see Twitter posting record earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization of $1.67 billion in 2022. Twitter has forecast roughly $925 million of capital expenditures. Deduct that and Twitter’s newly increased interest expense from its Ebitda, and the company would be burning through cash.

If Musk successfully grows Twitter, the debt load would become more manageable over time, and the company could hit neutral cash flow in 2023 and positive cash flow in 2024, Chalfin said. If Musk can’t make good on his promises to turn around the company, the debt load could become a problem.

Twitter does have about $6.3 billion in cash and short-term investments that could support burning cash for a few years, Bloomberg Intelligence’s Schiffman said.
Tucker Carlson Is Happy To Make Excuses For Mass Shooters -- When They're White

Ben Blanchet
Thu, May 19, 2022, 3:50 AM·2 min read

A clip shared Wednesday compared Fox News host Tucker Carlson's coverage of acts of mass violence. (Photo: Fox News)

A clip shared Wednesday compared Fox News host Tucker Carlson's coverage of acts of mass violence. (Photo: Fox News)

Some mass shootings and violence bring out a different side of Tucker Carlson than others.

In a clip shared by MSNBC host Ari Melber, the Fox News host shows a “double standard” when he covers violence committed by white perpetrators versus covering violence against white people.

The clip starts off with Carlson’s coverage of the Buffalo, New York mass shooting that left 10 people dead at a supermarket Saturday. Most of the victims were Black and the attack took place in a predominantly Black neighborhood.


The alleged shooter, who is white, stated that he wanted to “kill as many Blacks as possible” and cited the baseless “replacement theory” in a 180-page document that was posted online.

In his coverage of the attack, Carlson stopped short of calling the document, which was filled with racist ideology, a “manifesto.”

“It is not a blueprint for a new extremist political movement,” Carlson said.

“Because a mentally ill teenager murdered strangers, you cannot be allowed to express your political views,” he added.

Carlson’s coverage of last year’s parade attack in Waukesha, Wisconsin, struck a different tone.

The alleged attacker, who is black, reportedly drove an SUV through a Christmas parade route, killing 6 people in the predominantly white city. White supremacists later used the incident, along with conspiratorial beliefs by the attacker, to ”[sow] racist and antisemitic conspiracy theories,” according to a blog post from the Anti-Defamation League.

Carlson’s take on the Waukesha attack mimicked those of racist conspiracy theories online. He also linked Black nationalism and the Black Lives Matter movement to the “slaughter” in Wisconsin.

You can look for the difference in Carlson’s coverage in the clip below:



The ADL’s Center on Extremism ruled out “overarching extremist ideology” in an overview of the alleged Wisconsin attacker’s social media posts.

“Waukesha has become yet another current event, as seen through the white supremacist lens, supporting unsubstantiated but perceived claims of escalating crimes targeting white victims,” the ADL stated.

This article originally appeared on HuffPost and has been updated.


Tucker Carlson ‘Not Sure’ About Great Replacement Theory After Pushing It 400 Times

Fox News host Tucker Carlson tried to distance himself Tuesday from the white supremacist “great replacement” theory he’s peddled on his prime time show for years, before launching into a long rant about Democratic plots to encourage immigration to win elections, a key tenet of the conspiracy idea.

Carlson opened his program Tuesday denouncing the 18-year-old suspect accused of killing 10 people at a grocery store in Buffalo, New York last week. The man, Payton Gendron, is accused of targeting the store, which sits in a predominantly Black neighborhood, after posting a 180-page screed online featuring racist, white supremacist tropes. The document references extreme versions of what’s known as “replacement theory,” which baselessly claims powerful Democrats and others are plotting to replace white Americans with people of color through immigration policies.

Carlson has spent years pushing the idea, and a New York Times investigation found he has promoted it in more than 400 episodes of his program since he joined Fox News’ prime time lineup in 2016.

But Carlson said Tuesday he’s still unsure what the conspiracy theory is.

“You’ve heard a lot about the great replacement theory recently, it’s everywhere … we’re still not sure exactly what it is,” the host said Tuesday. He quickly pivoted to accuse Democrats of touting immigration as a means to secure electoral victories. “Here’s what we do know for a fact: There’s a strong political component to the Democrats’ immigration theory. We know this because they have said so ... They say, out loud, ‘we are doing this because it helps us win elections.’”

“The Democratic Party has decided that rather than convince you, people who are born here, that their policies are helping you and making the country better and stronger, they will change the electorate,” Carlson went on, adding Democrats were “importing” people that would vote for them.

The comments build on the host’s claim Monday that Democrats — namely President Joe Biden — are using the Buffalo massacre to strip Americans of their First Amendment right to free speech.

Democrats have directly pointed at Carlson in recent days for his role in promoting the great replacement idea. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) called on Fox News leadership to stop amplifying the racist idea, saying doing so was “reckless.”

“In a craven quest for viewers and ratings, organizations like Fox News have spent years perfecting the craft of stoking cultural grievance and political resentment that eerily mirrors the messages found in replacement theory,” Schumer said on the Senate floor Monday.

This article originally appeared on HuffPost and has been updated.

Related...

Fox News Host Mark Levin Proudly Stokes 'Great Replacement Theory'

Fox News host Mark Levin blatantly supported the “great replacement theory” Tuesday on his radio show, joining colleague Tucker Carlson and top House Republican Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.) in pushing a racist conspiracy embraced by the gunman charged in the Buffalo, New York, mass killing. (Listen below.)

Carlson, denounced by political leaders for promoting the baseless idea hundreds of times on his prime time show, on Tuesday attempted to dance around the controversy by declaring he wasn’t sure what it was.

Levin took the direct route.

The theory stokes white fear by asserting that elite Democrats and others are scheming to replace white Americans with people of color through immigration or to undermine white influence in other ways. It has gained footing among conservatives, including several mainstream Republican Senate candidates.

The accused Buffalo shooter repeatedly cited the white supremacist theory in a 180-page racist screed.

“The ‘great replacement’ ideology is indeed a policy of the Democrat policy,” Levin said. “They have celebrated it. They’ve spoken of it. Obama has, Biden has.”

Levin, the host of “Life, Liberty and Levin” on Fox News, praised Stefanik for her leadership and for her ad asserting that “illegal immigrants ... will overthrow our current electorate and create a permanent liberal majority in Washington.”

“Isn’t that why the Democrats are doing this? Is there some other reason?” Levin asked on “The Mark Levin Show.” “Does anybody believe if people coming across the border illegally would potentially be Republicans, that the Democrat Party would support it?”

“How many people have died as a result of the Democrat Party and Biden’s great replacement ideology? I’m just wondering.”

H/T Media Matters

Legendary sniper Olena Bilozerska on her war, enemy tactics

Thu, May 19, 2022, 2:58 AM·6 min read

According to Olena Bilozerska, in the Ukrainian army today almost 20% of service members are women

Russia has been waging war against Ukraine for the ninth year in a row, and, with the exception of a few short breaks, sniper Olena Bilozerska has been defending her homeland all this time. The New Voice of Ukraine asked her what was happening at the front and when the turning point would come.

- What tactics is the enemy employing? How different are they from the ones used in February-March?

- In the first days of the war, it was like a safari: enemy vehicles moving in dense columns were destroyed by ambushes on roads passing through forests. The surviving personnel fled into the woods, where they were caught by the territorial defense or simply local hunters.


Now the enemy primarily resorts to “pressing-out by firing” tactics, using a large number of artillery pieces and a large number of shells. The enemy's task is to "grind" our positions and then try to occupy them. Nothing new – these are classic tactics since the First World War.

Read also: Texas paratrooper and Iraq veteran reveals his reasons for protecting Ukraine

- How many women are currently fighting in the Armed Forces? How comfortable do they feel in such extremely difficult and dangerous conditions?

- A lot. Currently, 17% of Ukrainian service members are women. Of course, the vast majority of them do not fight directly on the front line, but there are more and more girls on the front line too. They feel the same way as guys. Women do not have any specific needs that prevent them from fighting. If some women do have such needs, then the war is no place for them.

- What are the strengths and weaknesses of the Russian army?

- Strength: they have mechanisms to influence personnel to achieve their goals at any cost. Soldiers are simply treated as cannon fodder, and they are forced to accept it as their due.

The weakness is the absolute lack of initiative on the part of sergeants and junior officers. As a result, an inability to make autonomous decisions.

- Has the personnel of the Russian army changed qualitatively in comparison with the offensive in February?

- It has not changed. And why would it change? The same mercenaries, diluted by contractors.

Read also: South Korean ex-navy seal shares story of fighting in Ukraine

- How do you assess the operation to rescue the fighters from Azovstal, and was it possible to save them earlier by military means?

- Like all normal people, I rejoice in every saved life of the Ukrainian soldier.

It was absolutely impossible to save Azovstal's defenders by military means from the very beginning. Mariupol can be liberated only as part of a general counteroffensive by the Ukrainian army, which requires lengthy training.

The only chance Azovstal's defenders had for survival was through diplomacy. At the same time, it is the seriously wounded that are the most likely to be spared, because there is a worldwide practice of exchanging wounded soldiers who will not be able to return to battle.

- What, in your opinion, does the front line lack today, and how important a factor for the war is the signing of the lend-lease for Ukraine?

- Many things are missing because when almost the whole state became an army at once, the bureaucratic army machine does not keep up with these processes. There are problems with not responding quickly to daily challenges, and the rest stems from this.

Lend-lease is very important, it will give the opportunity to replenish the existing military units with the latest weapons, and to arm the newly created ones. With the "full-fledged" arrival of the lend-lease, we can hope for the deployment of military units that will quickly and completely liberate Ukraine.

Read also: Escape from hell: Women of Mariupol tell their stories of living under occupation and escaping the siege

- And how significant is the volunteer help for the front?

- No less significant than in 2014. The army has long since ceased to be hungry or barefoot, and the front still stood, stands and will stand on the shoulders of volunteers. It goes beyond supplies – it is about the phenomenon of national mindset. For example, only a few of the Russian “experts” have expensive high-quality equipment that helps to identify the enemy in time and hit it well; in this aspect, they are far inferior to us. And it’s all because they do not have a developed volunteer movement.

- What is your most vivid impression of this war?

- My most vivid impression from the previous eight years has nothing to do with fighting or stories like the one where I was blown out of a burning building or hit in the face with a tracer bullet.

It was April 2014, I had just arrived in the sun-drenched, but tense — unlike in peacetime — Dnipro, got out of the car in a military uniform with a machine gun, and walked down the street towards the hotel. I openly, without hiding from anyone, walked through the center of a big city with a machine gun! It was such a surreal feeling for me at the time! And at that moment came the realization that reality had changed, that I was now at war.

And after the start of the full-scale invasion, the most vivid impression was the dawn of Feb. 24, when my husband woke me up and said, "It's started." As we were getting ready, I admit that we seemed ready, but my hands were still shaking from the stress.

Because it is one thing to fight in the Donbas, having a strong rear in Kyiv, and quite another – not to have a rear at all and realize that your destiny is somewhere here, not far from your home, to stand to the end, because I cannot be captured, you know.

On the first day, I recruited new fighters and perused Telegram channels every free second, and my partner Nadia, who had two children left at home, told me: “Come on, leave it! Don't read the bad news." And then, in a couple of days, there was such relief and such pride for the state and the people that there was nothing to be scared of at all.

- What are your personal conclusions about the 2.5 months of the all-out war in Ukraine?

- The same as everyone else. That the (Russians) turned out to be easier to defeat than we all expected.

Read also: Ukraine’s upcoming counterattack will change the tide of the war, amidst massive Russian losses

- How do you see the prospects of the Russo-Ukrainian war? When to expect the turning point and when do you think this war will end?

- The turning point will come when new units are formed and deployed, armed with the help of our Western allies. In particular, when we get a significant amount of modern aviation.

No one knows when the war will end. In my opinion, it will last at least another year. And it will end, of course, with our victory – the restoration of control over Ukrainian territories within internationally recognized borders, i.e. with Donbas and Crimea.
US military may get access to strategic Somaliland port, airfield

Wed, May 18, 2022

The US military could gain access to the self-declared state of Somaliland's strategically positioned port and airfield at Berbera, to counter the Islamic extremist rebel group al-Shabab in Somalia.

This is after US President Joe Biden signed an order on Monday to redeploy hundreds of American troops to Somalia, days after top Pentagon officials visited the Somaliland capital Hargeisa and met President Muse Bihi Abdi.

At the end of his term in 2021, Biden's predecessor Donald Trump withdrew some 700 troops from Somalia as part of America's policy of pulling out of global military missions abroad - a move Biden promised to reverse.

Do you have questions about the biggest topics and trends from around the world? Get the answers with SCMP Knowledge, our new platform of curated content with explainers, FAQs, analyses and infographics brought to you by our award-winning team.

The US is reportedly courting Somaliland to use its Berbera port as an alternative to its Djibouti military base.

China, meanwhile, has appointed a special envoy for the Horn of Africa, Xue Bing, and plans to hold the first peace conference in the ­conflict-ridden region. Beijing advocates for Africa to be left to chart its own course out of problems ­without "external" interference.

The US troop redeployment came a day after Somalia re-elected former leader Hassan Sheikh Mohamud on Sunday. Beijing welcomed his re-election, saying: "China stands ready to work with the international community to continue to play a constructive role in helping Somalia realise lasting peace and national reconstruction."

Al-shabab has been waging a deadly insurgency against Somalia's fragile central government for more than a decade.

Last week, General Stephen J. Townsend, head of the US Africa Command (Africom), became the highest-ranking US military official to visit Somaliland since 1991. Townsend, US ambassador to Somalia Larry Andre and other US officials travelled to Berbera where they toured the newly renovated port and airport that US Air Forces in Europe-Air Forces Africa assessed last year. US defence department officials also surveyed the facilities in August.

"That assessment and this visit are a part of routine efforts to assess potential operating locations to be able to prepare for contingencies, exercise readiness or adjust force posture as needed," according to a readout from Africom at the end of the trip.

President Bihi said the visit "reflects a new chapter in our relations", and that Somaliland's coastguard contributed to the protection of vital sea routes that benefit all countries.

The visit came less than two months after Bihi's trip to the United States, when he met government, Congress and Senate members and "requested the US government to recognise Somaliland and have maritime and security cooperation to deter China's influence".


US Army General Stephen J. Townsend meets President Uhuru Kenyatta in Nairobi on Monday. 
Photo: Handout 

Townsend also visited Kenya - a key American ally in the fight against al-Shabab that has been targeted by the group's terror attacks - and met President Uhuru Kenyatta in Nairobi on Monday. Kenyatta's discussion with Townsend centred on peace and security in the Horn of Africa region with a special focus on Somalia.

David Shinn, an American diplomat and professor, said the US was "clearly interested in investigating the prospects for some kind of military use of the port and large airfield at Berbera on Somaliland's coast" following the decision to return troops to Somalia.

But the situation is complicated. "Washington has good relations with Mogadishu, which says Somaliland is part of Somalia, and the government in Hargeisa might insist on US recognition before it agrees to any kind of military arrangement," Shinn said.

"I believe the primary goal is to find a more effective way to counter terrorism in the region, especially al-Shabab in Somalia. Berbera's airfield would be especially useful for this purpose," Shinn said.

"China is more concerned about the impact of US-Somaliland relations on Hargeisa's growing ties with Taiwan," he added.

Guled Ahmed, a non-resident scholar at the Middle East Institute, said: "Townsend's visit may be a sign that talks of security cooperation are moving along and may be entering their operational phase of actually seeking a base in Somaliland."

Ahmed said the US game plan was to use the Berbera port as an alternative to the Djibouti military base to adjust its posture in the Horn of Africa region by partnering with the Somaliland government.

That would give the US a key geostrategic location to counter Chinese influence, protect trading routes, and deter human trafficking, terrorism and piracy, he said.

Camp Lemonnier, a military naval base in Djibouti, is the only permanent US military base in Africa with more than 4,500 military and civilian personnel.

A few miles from there, China in 2017 set up its first overseas military base - a facility that continues to cause unease in Washington. China has between 1,000 and 2,000 military personnel at its base, according to various reports.

In 2018, the US accused China of pointing lasers at its pilots from Djibouti base, but Beijing dismissed the reports as "inconsistent with facts". The US alleged the military-grade lasers originated from the Chinese naval base.

In addition, a move by Taiwan - which Beijing sees as part of its territory - to open a representative office in Hargeisa in August 2020, and Somaliland's move to have a similar office in Taipei in 2020, has annoyed Beijing. Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi in February said the Taiwanese-Somaliland relationship threatened "the sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity" of China and Somalia.

John Calabrese, head of the Middle East-Asia Project at American University, said the US was in a "tight spot" in trying to build constructive relations with Somaliland, which is seeking independence.

Calabrese said the US would be reluctant to extend recognition to Somaliland because it could strain ties with Somalia, whose cooperation Washington sees as useful in pursuing its counterterrorism agenda.

He added that Townsend's visit was "aimed at assessing the potential for Somaliland's port and airfield to be used for contingency operations rather than as a substitute for, or to pair with, Camp Lemonnier".


Copyright (c) 2022. South China Morning Post Publishers Ltd. All rights reserved.
Gunman targets Taiwanese faith with long pro-democracy link




Taiwan PresbyteriansFILE - In this photo released May 16, 2022, by the Orange County Sheriff's Department is David Chou. Authorities said Chou, the gunman in Sunday's deadly attack at a Southern California church, was a Chinese immigrant motivated by hate for Taiwanese people. Chou was booked on one count of murder and five counts of attempted murder.
 (Orange County Sheriff's Department via AP, File)


DEEPA BHARATH
Wed, May 18, 2022


LOS ANGELES (AP) — The recent deadly shooting at Irvine Taiwanese Presbyterian Church in California didn’t just violate a sacred space. Taiwanese Americans across the country say it ripped through their cultural bastion.

It is where the congregation in Laguna Woods worshipped. But it was also where their native language and support for a democratic Taiwan thrived. Sunday's mass shooting by man officials say was motivated by political hate of Taiwan has spotlighted the Presbyterian Church of Taiwan's close connections to the nation's democracy movement.

Jerry Chen, a church member who dialed 911 after fleeing the gunman, calls himself a “proud Presbyterian” and says the congregation, while avoiding politics in church, likes to talk about what is going on in Taiwan.

“We care deeply because we grew up in Taiwan,” he said.

Chen, 72, has been a congregant since the church's founding 28 years ago. He is puzzled why a man who has no apparent connection to the church would drive from Las Vegas to Laguna Woods, a town of 16,000 populated mostly by retirees, to carry out such an attack.

Members had gathered on Sunday for the first time since the coronavirus pandemic struck for a luncheon honoring their former pastor, Billy Chang, who was visiting from Taiwan.

Investigators are still piecing together information about the gunman, 68-year-old David Chou, who was born in Taiwan after his family was forced to leave China when the Communists took power. They said they obtained Chou's handwritten notes documenting his hatred of Taiwan. In addition to murder and attempted murder, Chou could also face hate crime charges.

The small, tight-knit congregation was a space where older Taiwanese immigrants supported each other, said Sandy Hsu, whose in-laws made a last-minute decision not to attend the luncheon. The shooting has sowed fear and anxiety in the Taiwanese community nationwide, she said.

“My in-laws are questioning if it's safe to get together in the future,” Hsu said. “We're asking ourselves if it's safe any more to talk about politics or freely express our views.”

Second-generation Taiwanese Americans like Leona Chen say their churches — Presbyterian or any other denomination — have been a “social haven.”

“I have very visceral memories of potlucks where aunties would cook traditional dishes and play matchmaker for the young adults,” said Chen, editor of Bay Area-based TaiwaneseAmerican.org, the website and nonprofit serving the Taiwanese American community.

“Uncles who were retired engineers would help kids with calculus and SAT prep. Church was also a place where everyone figured out life in a foreign country together – from jury duty and homeownership to their kids’ college applications.”

But, she also views the church as “a political space.”

“Especially in the (Taiwanese) Presbyterian Church, there is a theological commitment to activism, to fight against injustice,” she said. “Churches became sanctuaries for pro-democracy groups."

Taiwan is majority Buddhist and Taoist; Christians make up only 4% of the population.

The Presbyterian Church carved a niche and grew in political stature in the 1950s after the Kuomintang — or KMT party — came into power in Taiwan, said Christine Lin, who published a book in 1999 about the Presbyterian Church as a vital advocate of local autonomy in Taiwan. The party imposed what many perceive as an oppressive regime and targeted Presbyterians, even labeling them “terrorists,” she said.

On June 28, 1997 – three days before Hong Kong’s reversion to China – Lin recalls being at a rally with 60,000 people outside Taipei’s World Trade Center. She said nearly a third of those gathered were Presbyterians who arrived by bus from across the country.

Lin, who grew up going to a Taiwanese Presbyterian church in St. Louis, saw a Presbyterian minister leading the crowd in singing phrases in Taiwanese like “Make Taiwan Independent” to the tune of “Glory, Glory Hallelujah.”

Lin's uncle and aunt, who both attend the Laguna Woods church, stayed home on Sunday, she said. Even though she was left wondering why the attacker chose this particular congregation, Lin said she wasn't surprised that he chose a Taiwanese Presbyterian church. Her undergraduate thesis as an Asian Studies major in Dartmouth College was centered on this very topic.

“The Presbyterians not only succeeded in Romanizing the spoken Taiwanese language but also provided services such as education and healthcare that other churches did not provide,” she said.

The church distinguished itself as a “native church” that represented Taiwanese, Hakka and Indigenous people, with a political vision rooted in democracy and self-determination – ideals many Taiwanese found attractive, Lin said.

The Presbyterian Church was also instrumental in bringing members of the Democratic Progressive Party into power, said Jufang Tseng, dean of the School of Theology at Charisma University, an online institution based in the Turks and Caicos Islands.

Tseng worked in the Presbyterian Church of Taiwan’s media department from 2001 to 2003. Raised in a family that favored Taiwan’s reunification with China, Tseng said her mindset later changed thanks to the Presbyterians.

“The Presbyterian Church has always been more inclusive,” she said, adding that church leaders were adept at navigating secular spaces while not imposing their religious beliefs on others. “Their motivation was faith-based, but they didn’t push Christianity on anyone.”

In the U.S. most Taiwanese Presbyterian churches largely stayed away from politics, Lin said.

“The Presbyterian Church of Taiwan was certainly involved politically especially from the 1970s,” she said. “But, the churches here, while they promoted the Taiwanese language and supported self-determination and democracy in Taiwan, did not make overt political statements or engage in activism.”

It is common to find people with connections to mainland China in many U.S. Taiwanese churches, said Daisy Tsai, associate professor of the Old Testament at Logos Evangelical Seminary in El Monte, California.

The two groups may hold different political beliefs, but their Christian faith binds them, she said.

“People generally mingle and get along,” said Tsai, who is Taiwanese American. “In many churches, there is an unwritten rule that we don’t discuss politics. But sometimes, those discussions could spill over to social media and turn into debates.”

Al Hsu, a second-generation Taiwanese American who lives in the Chicago area, agrees that church is not necessarily a place where people talk politics.

“But it is a place where we foster a sense of our peoplehood, our heritage and national identity,” he said.

Hsu said his mother holds dual citizenship and travels to Taiwan to vote because she cares about the country’s future.

“The church has been a safe place for the older generation to talk with others who share those concerns,” he said. “For someone to come into such a sacred space and target our amahs and agongs (grandmothers and grandfathers) – to attack the elderly whom we hold in such reverence – is an attack on our entire community.”

___

Associated Press religion coverage receives support through the AP’s collaboration with The Conversation US, with funding from Lilly Endowment Inc. The AP is solely responsible for this content.


Laguna Woods shooting highlights growing tensions between Taiwan and China

Stephanie Yang
Wed, May 18, 2022,

Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-wen, center, attends her inauguration ceremony in Taipei on May 20, 2020.
 (Taiwan Presidential Office)

The man accused of opening fire inside a Taiwanese church in Laguna Woods on Sunday is believed to have been driven by hatred for Taiwanese people and the political belief that Taiwan is a part of China, highlighting the increasingly fraught geopolitical situation in the Taiwan Strait.

David Wenwei Chou, a 68-year-old man from Las Vegas, is accused of shooting six people and killing one of them at the Irvine Taiwanese Presbyterian Church. Orange County Sheriff Don Barnes said Monday that the attack appeared to be a "politically motivated hate incident," and that Chou had left notes in his car stating he did not believe Taiwan should be independent from China.

Cross-strait relations have grown strained in recent years, as Beijing has ramped up calls for unification, while more Taiwanese oppose the mainland's aggression and influence. Officials from the Taipei Economic and Cultural Office in Los Angeles — Taiwan's de facto consulate — said Chou was born in Taiwan and was a "second generation waishengren," meaning his parents were from mainland China.

Here's a look at the issues bedeviling the two rivals across the Taiwan Strait.

Is Taiwan a part of China?


China's claim on the island of 23 million people dates back to the Qing dynasty, though today's Communist Party has never ruled over Taiwan. The Republic of China, founded in 1912, took the island from Japanese forces at the end of World War II, in 1945, and the Kuomintang, China's Nationalist Party, fled there in 1949 after its defeat by Mao Zedong's Communists. Taiwan became a democracy in the 1990s, though the Kuomintang, or KMT, is still one of the island's dominant political parties.

Members of the KMT in Taiwan favor closer ties with mainland China and potential unification, while the ruling Democratic Progressive Party leans toward independence. Increasingly, Taiwanese people, particularly younger generations, oppose unification and consider their culture and identity as separate from China.

What is the threat from China?

For Chinese President Xi Jinping, reuniting Taiwan with the mainland is a priority of his rule. While he has called for reunification through peaceful means, he hasn't ruled out the use of force. Beijing sent record numbers of military jets into Taiwan's Air Defense Identification Zone last year, and has used sand-dredging ships to wear down defenses on Taiwan's islands off the coast of mainland China.

Rising nationalism in China, encouraged by Xi and state propaganda, has spurred enthusiasm for reunification with Taiwan among Chinese citizens. China has embarked on a broad military buildup as part of Xi's vision for China's modernization and growing international might.

Dwarfed by China's People's Liberation Army, Taiwan's military has begun to bolster its defenses as well. Taiwan plans to spend another $8.6 billion in defense on top of a record $17-billion budget this year. Lawmakers are also considering increasing the duration of mandatory military service for Taiwanese men. Conscription used to be two years, but has since been pared down to four months.

Where does the U.S. fit in?

The U.S. maintains economic and political ties with Taiwan, but does not have formal diplomatic relations. The U.S. adheres to the "one China policy," under which it acknowledges that China considers Taiwan a part of its territory, but doesn't take its own explicit stance. The U.S. also sells arms to Taiwan under the Taiwan Relations Act.

The balancing of different policies is part of an attempt to maintain stability in the region. The "strategic ambiguity" means that the U.S. has remained deliberately vague on whether it would interfere if China were to attempt to take Taiwan by force. A declaration that it would not come to Taiwan's aid could hearten Beijing, while an outright guarantee of support could provoke military action.

In recent years, the relationship between the U.S. and Taiwan has strengthened as U.S.-China relations have deteriorated. While the U.S. still maintains strategic ambiguity, it has shown support for Taipei through diplomatic envoys at times of heightened tension, defense discussions and assistance with military training.

Will there really be war in Taiwan?


As tensions between Taiwan and mainland China have increased, some defense experts have warned that a military conflict over the next decade has become more likely. Russia's attack on Ukraine has also ignited concerns that China could attempt a similar assault on Taiwan.

However, Beijing would face several challenges if it were to pursue an outright invasion. The Taiwan Strait acts as a natural barrier between the island and mainland China, forcing China to mount an amphibious attack to reach Taiwan's shores. While Taiwan is not internationally recognized as an independent country, it maintains close relations with other democracies, such as Japan and the U.S., which have a vested interest in its defense.

Taiwan also is a crucial link in the global electronics and semiconductor supply chain. Its chip industry, where nearly all of the world's most advanced chips are manufactured, has been referred to as its "silicon shield" and "the sacred mountain protecting the country." Any damage to those facilities could bring the broader supply chain to a grinding halt.

This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
China’s demographic crisis is reaching into the ranks of the Communist Party

REUTERS/ALY SONG          Not enough young blood.

By Mary Hui
Reporter
Published May 19, 2022

China is getting older. So is the Chinese Communist Party.

Beyond the broad societal effects of a demographic decline—including a shrinking workforce and an unstable pension system—the CCP also has to grapple with the reality of its rapidly aging membership. How is the party to keep up revolutionary fervor when its cadres are aging faster than new blood can be recruited?

Get working, old cadres

To that end, the CCP this week released a set of guidelines on “strengthening Party building work for retired officials.”

Recognizing that the ranks of its retired cadres will swell rapidly in the coming years, the CCP now aims to make the most of what it dubs the “valuable wealth” of the party and the state. In particular, it wants to ensure that retired cadres stay loyal and “continue to listen to the Party and follow the Party.”

The elder cadres probably shouldn’t expect too quiet of a retirement, either: the guidelines call for “organizing and guiding retired cadres to make new contributions” to the party.

It won’t be an easy task. Already, CCP membership is significantly older than the national population. While nearly 20% of China is now aged 60 and above, about a quarter of party cadres now fall into that age group. Meanwhile, the share of young cadres among party membership has shrunk over the past decade.

As a CCP official put it to state media (link in Chinese):“With the increasing number of retired cadres and party organizations nationwide, the task of party building work for retired cadres is getting heavier and more demanding.”

Retirement age, pensions, and childcare

A graying CCP is just one facet of China’s broader demographic crisis.

Beijing, which for years enforced a one-child policy, now wants couples to have up to three. The Chinese people aren’t so keen. A state-financed “fertility fund” that lowers the cost of raising children could help. But marriages are at a decades-low, and a more feminist nation is pushing back against the state’s reproductive goals. There’s also the problem of China’s underfunded pension system.

Meanwhile, the idea of raising China’s problematic retirement age isn’t being readily embraced. And even if it were, allowing people to retire later could discourage younger women from having children. That’s because young couples would find it harder to get childcare help from their parents and in-laws, who would now be working for more years.

It’s a knotty problem—and one that won’t be solved by pulling elderly party cadres out of retirement.
As feds stay quiet on state’s largest-ever wildfire, theories circulate about its cause

Patrick Lohmann
Wed, May 18, 2022

This story was originally published by Source New Mexico.

The United States Forest Service on Monday again declined to provide any more details about the prescribed burn that caused the Hermits Peak fire or the sequence of events leading to the nearby Calf Canyon fire, saying it would be “premature” due to ongoing investigations.

Meanwhile, Twitter chatter is alight, and state leaders are asking, too: Did Hermits Peak embers spark the Calf Canyon blaze?

The question comes as local leaders seek to hand the federal government the whole bill for the state’s largest-ever wildfire. Hermits Peak was ignited by the U.S. Forest Service as a prescribed burn in early April, but the crew lost control of it. If an ember from the resulting wildfire drifted on to ignite Calf Canyon, a liability question gets all buttoned up: The massive blaze in northern New Mexico would be entirely the feds’ fault.

More: New Mexico wildfire — one-quarter the size of Delaware — now largest in state's history


The Hermits Peak-Calf Canyon fire burns on a recent night. The fire is now the biggest in New Mexico's history.

Dave Bales, incident commander in charge of fighting the fire, said winds the day of the Calf Canyon fire did not lead from Hermits Peak to the site of Calf Canyon ignition site, so he doesn’t think it’s possible. But, he added, it’s plausible for embers to travel the roughly 3-mile distance, especially with the winds we’ve had lately.

New Mexico State Forester Laura McCarthy declined to comment on the question last week, saying it’s under investigation. But she said containing and understanding the blazes is increasingly complex, complicated by the historic wind surges we’ve seen in recent weeks.

“Part of what makes both fires so difficult to contain when you have wind events like we did… is that a spark, an ember, can move carried by the wind a mile or more,” she told Source New Mexico early last week. “And in fact yesterday, I learned that on the north side of the Hermit’s Peak and Calf Canyon fire, an ember blew two miles.”

“So how do you predict where that ember is going to go?” McCarthy asked.

Another layer of mystery is that the Calf Canyon fire’s cause has not yet been determined. That’ll likely take a forensic investigation, similar to a crime scene, experts said.

More: Cost of fighting New Mexico wildfires reaches $65M

Even without knowing Calf Canyon’s cause, elected officials in New Mexico place responsibility with the federal government, saying the United States should take responsibility for at least a good chunk of present and future costs to fight the fire, rebuild communities and replenish forests. Hermits Peak and Calf Canyon are enmeshed, regardless of whether one started the other, they say, and teasing out which damages were caused by what fire is impossible.

Matthew Hurteau, a forest management expert at the University of New Mexico, said it is possible to build a computer model to evaluate the effects both fires independently, though he noted the fires have also interacted in complicated ways as they’ve spread over more than 400 square miles.

“​​It would be really hard to truly untangle it,” Hurteau said. “But I think you could get a decent estimate for attribution.”

Date of origin

In addition, dispatch records and an email obtained by Source New Mexico from the days after the Hermits Peak fire began to raise new questions about the origins of the Calf Canyon fire.

The Santa Fe Interagency Dispatch Center records various callouts and wildfire events in the area of the Santa Fe National Forest.

Even though they haven’t named a cause, officials have identified the start date for the Calf Canyon fire as April 19. However, the dispatch records show that a fire in Calf Canyon was reported April 9.

A resident nearby spotted the smoke and sent an email to a public affairs official for the Santa Fe National Forest Service, who responded to confirm that crews had responded to a fire there April 9. (Source New Mexico has agreed not to name the official or the resident, who cited fears of retaliation.)

“We too have seen a pattern in smoke reports from that area, “ the forest official wrote April 21. “Just in the last couple of weeks, we had a smoke report on Saturday, April 9. Crews responded immediately and found the fire.”

“They built fire line around it and did not leave the scene until they thought it had been put out. At that time, it was about an acre. And then of course, this week, the same fire lookout reported smoke from the same area. Crews again responded and found some pretty active fire behavior due to the extreme winds and dry conditions.”

Hurteau said it’s entirely possible that a fire could smolder without anyone being aware of it for a week and a half, which is how much time elapsed between April 9 and April 19, or even longer.

“There’s a number of examples of things like that where you can have an ignition that people are even unaware of, and it sits there and does nothing until conditions change,” he said.

The dormant ember theory also has a proponent in Bill Gabbert, who runs the Wildfire Today website. He speculates that the offending ember could have been there for as long as four months, tucked away in a pile of debris burned as part of Las Gallinas prescribed burn in early January. Some observers think that’s way too long, though.

The site of the Calf Canyon fire from April 9 is about 4 miles from where the Hermits Peak was at that time — quite a haul for a live ember carried by the wind.

On Monday, Michelle Burnett, a spokesperson for the United States Forest Service, declined to comment on whether investigators are looking into whether the Calf Canyon fire started earlier than April 19. The service also did not answer how it arrived at April 19 as a start date.

“The comprehensive internal Declared Wildfire Review of the Las Dispensas prescribed fire is still ongoing, and the cause of the Calf Canyon fire remains under investigation. It would be premature to comment until either of those is complete,” she said.

There are now two investigations unfolding while the merged Hermits Peak-Calf Canyon fire grows: One into Calf Canyon’s origins and another as to how the prescribed burn escaped to become Hermits Peak.

Some answers to the second question lie in the past, said Tom Ribe, a wildland firefighter and author of “Inferno by Committee.” Just look at the last time we were in this mess — 22 years ago.

Patrick Lohmann reports for Source New Mexico.