Pierre Poilievre’s dangerous dance with a Diagolon extremist
By Max Fawcett | Opinion, Politics | August 23rd 2022

Jeremy MacKenzie is at the forefront of an increasingly dangerous community of anti-government agitators, writes columnist Max Fawcett. Photo via Facebook

If you aren’t already familiar with something called the “Diagolon” movement, well, you will be. That’s because Pierre Poilievre, the prohibitive favourite in the Conservative Party of Canada’s leadership race, was photographed at a recent event with its founder, Jeremy MacKenzie. A far-right activist and former member of the Canadian military who was arrested earlier this year on numerous weapons charges, MacKenzie is at the forefront of an increasingly dangerous community of anti-government agitators. And for some reason, he wanted to have his picture taken with Poilievre.

The name Diagolon refers to the imaginary nation MacKenzie and his followers have created, one that runs from Alaska to Florida. As the Canadian Anti-Hate Network’s Peter Smith and Mathew Kriner noted in a piece on the movement, this imaginary nation is “unencumbered by the sinister burdens of communism, moral degeneracy, and the World Economic Forum.” But that’s more than just a bad joke. As they write, the online community of pro-Diagolon livestreamers and their audience “have grown into an anti-government movement with militant accelerationist overtones.”

“Militant accelerationism” is, according to Kriner, “a set of tactics and strategies designed to put pressure on and exacerbate latent social divisions, often through violence, thus hastening societal collapse.” Other similar militant accelerationists include the “Boogaloo Movement,” a group of American anti-government and anti-police agitators who believe in the inevitability (and necessity) of a future civil war, and the Atomwaffen Division, which the Southern Poverty Law Centre describes as “a series of terror cells that work toward civilizational collapse.”

When MacKenzie’s presence at a Poilievre event was brought to his campaign’s attention, he eventually released a predictably petulant statement about the encounter. “As I always have, I denounce racism and anyone who spreads it. I didn’t and don’t know or recognize this particular individual. Likewise, I can’t be responsible for Justin Trudeau’s many racist outbursts just because I’ve met him or shaken his hand.”

But the photo with MacKenzie wasn’t Poilievre’s first exposure to the Diagolon movement. On Canada Day, the Conservative leadership hopeful marched with James Topp, another Canadian Forces veteran who has appeared numerous times on MacKenzie’s podcast. That wasn’t an accident, and Poilievre and his staff must have done their due diligence on Topp before deciding to march with him. That they chose to do so in spite of his affiliation with someone like MacKenzie speaks volumes — and raises some uncomfortable questions about the Conservative movement’s persistent proximity to far-right groups.

So far, those questions have been answered in one of two ways: feigned ignorance or whataboutism. The first was perhaps best exemplified by Brock Harrison, the executive director of communications and planning for Alberta Premier Jason Kenney, who insisted he’d never heard of MacKenzie. “Who?” he said in response to journalist Stephen Maher’s tweet asking if Poilievre wanted Diagolon’s support. But Harrison surely knows who MacKenzie is, given the four men arrested in Coutts, Alta., earlier this year and charged with conspiring to murder RCMP officers had direct and documented ties to MacKenzie’s movement.

The other popular response was modelled by Dimitri Pantazopoulos, a pollster and strategist for numerous conservative leaders, including Doug Ford, Kenney, Christy Clark and Stephen Harper. In his own series of tweets with me, he repeatedly tried to redirect the conversation back to Laith Marouf, an anti-racism consultant who has received $133,000 from the federal government — and who has a documented history of using racist and hateful language himself towards Jews and Israelis. When I pressed him about this whataboutism, he said: “The federal gov is literally paying this assclown. Please link me to the story or tweet you did about that.”

For what it’s worth, the news about Marouf only broke over the last couple of days. But let me be perfectly clear: his views are intolerable, especially in light of the role he serves and the funding he receives from our federal government. I’m a Liberal-leaning columnist who has supported the Palestinian people and their push for independence for more than 20 years, so I suppose I have some things in common with Marouf. But it’s not difficult for me to say that his comments and conduct are immediately disqualifying, and that the government must answer for how and why he was hired in the first place.

So why do Conservatives fall back on equivocation and deflection when it comes to people like MacKenzie and his fellow travellers? Maybe it’s because they think they need their votes. The Conservative movement in Canada right now seems consumed with winning back voters who defected to Maxime Bernier’s People’s Party of Canada in the 2021 election. We see that in Alberta, where the candidates to replace Kenney seem to be engaged in a contest to see who can flirt most aggressively with the province’s separatist movement. We see that in Ottawa, where Poilievre seems determined to transform the Conservative Party of Canada into the Convoy Party of Canada.

And while there are some conservative voices speaking out against this rightward drift, they aren’t exactly the successful ones. Jean Charest tweeted over the weekend: “Hate and intolerance have no place in Canada or in the Conservative Party … it’s long past time for @PierrePoilievre to loudly and clearly tell MacKenzie, Diagolon and their supporters they are not welcome. Some votes should not be courted.”

Meanwhile, Leela Aheer, who’s running well behind people like Danielle Smith and Brian Jean in Alberta’s UCP leadership race, denounced a debate co-hosted by Rebel News and a separatist group called the Prosperity Project. “If I become leader of our party & Premier of Alberta, there will be no room for those who support this agenda — Alberta has a set of core values, and they are in direct opposition to what’s on display here,” she tweeted.

These are good and important words, but they’re directed to versions of their parties that no longer really exist — or perhaps never did in the first place.

Either way, Canadians need to pay close attention to how their leaders react to these sorts of situations. It’s true that, as Poilievre’s campaign said, he meets thousands of people and can’t do background checks on each one. But it’s also true that he’s entirely in control of how he responds after the fact and the message that sends to the Jeremy MacKenzies of the world. That it’s anything other than an unqualified disavowal speaks volumes — and rest assured, Diagolon is listening.


August 23rd 2022

Max Fawcett
Lead Columnist
@maxfawcett

Rosa Luxemburg Was the Great Theorist of Democratic Revolution

A new edition of Rosa Luxemburg’s writings, most of which have never appeared in English before, gives us a unique perspective on her thought. Luxemburg believed that a socialist revolution would have to be democratic or else it would be doomed to failure.

Polish Marxist philosopher Rosa Luxemburg. (Fine Art Images / Heritage Images / Getty Images)

BYPETER HUDIS
08.26.2022
JACOBIN

Generations of socialist thinkers and activists have grappled with the life and thought of Rosa Luxemburg. Yet there are many surprises still in store for those interested in her legacy, as seen in the recent publication of Volume Four of the English-language Complete Works. Along with the previously published Volume Three, the new collection brings together her writings on the 1905 Russian Revolution, one of the most important social upheavals of modern times.

Luxemburg’s analysis of 1905 in her pamphlet The Mass Strike, the Political Party, and the Trade Unions is already well known (and appears in Volume Four in a new translation). However, more than four-fifths of the material in the new volume, covering the period from 1906 to 1909, is appearing in English for the first time. Most of her writings that were originally composed in Polish — about half of the volume’s 550 pages — have never appeared in any other language.

Learning to Speak Russian

Luxemburg, like most Marxists of her generation (as well as Karl Marx himself) held that a democratic republic with universal suffrage was the formation best suited for waging the class struggle to a successful conclusion. Like many of her contemporaries in the Second International, she saw no contradiction between fighting for democratic reforms within capitalism while reaching for a revolutionary transformation that would abolish capitalism — even as she relentlessly battled those who separated the two.Rosa Luxemburg distinguished between forms of struggle employed in ‘peaceful’ as against those used in revolutionary periods.

In doing so, Luxemburg distinguished between forms of struggle employed in “peaceful” as against those used in revolutionary periods. The aim in both scenarios was to enhance the consciousness and power of the working class. However, “in peacetime, this struggle takes place within the framework of the rule of the bourgeoisie,” which required that the movement operate “within the bounds of the existing laws governing elections, assemblies, the press,” trade unions, etc.

Luxemburg referred to this as “a sort of iron cage in which the class struggle of the proletariat must take place.” Hence, mass struggles in such periods “only very seldom attain positive results.” A revolutionary phase was very different, she argued:

Times of revolution rend the cage of “legality” open like pent-up steam splitting its kettle, letting class struggle break out into the open, naked and unencumbered . . . the consciousness and political power [of the proletariat] emerge during revolution without having been warped by, tied down to, and overpowered by the “laws” of bourgeois society.

For Luxemburg, the activity and reason of the masses during the 1905 Revolution, in which millions engaged in mass strikes aimed at bringing down the tsarist regime, was a clear example of such a moment. As she wrote in early 1906: “With the Russian Revolution, the almost-sixty-year period of quiet parliamentary rule of the bourgeoisie comes to a close.” The time had come for the socialist movement in Western Europe to begin to “speak Russian” by incorporating the mass strike into its political and organizational perspectives:

Social Democratic tactics, as employed by the working class in Germany today and to which we owe our victories up until now, is oriented primarily toward parliamentary struggle, it is designed for the context of bourgeois parliamentarianism. Russian Social Democracy is the first to whom the hard but honorable lot has fallen of using the foundations of Marx’s teaching, not in a time of the correct, calm parliamentary course of state life, but in a tumultuous revolutionary period.

Immediate Tasks

In the years since Luxemburg penned these words, numerous commentators have praised her efforts to push the rather staid social democratic parties in a more revolutionary direction, while others have criticized Luxemburg’s perspective on the grounds that it downplays the stark differences between the absolutist regime in Russia and Western liberal democracies. There are several points worth noting in this context.Luxemburg held that the immediate task in the Russian Empire was the formation of a democratic republic under the control of the working class.

Firstly, Luxemburg held that the mass strike “is and will remain a powerful weapon of workers’ struggle,” but went on to stress that it was “only that, a weapon, whose use and effectiveness always depend on the environment, the given conditions, and the moment of struggle.” Secondly, she held that the Russian proletariat was “not setting itself utopian or unreachable goals, like the immediate realization of socialism: the only possible and historically necessary goal is to establish a democratic republic and an eight-hour workday.”

In Luxemburg’s view, socialism could not be on the immediate agenda in Russia for two main reasons: the working class at the time constituted only a small minority of the populace of the Russian Empire (less than 15 percent), and it was impossible for socialism to exist in a single country:

The socialist revolution can only be a result of international revolution, and the results that the proletariat in Russia will be able to achieve in the current revolution will depend, to say nothing of the level of social development in Russia, on the level and form of development that class relations and proletarian operations in other capitalist countries will have achieved by that time.

In a lengthy essay addressed to the Polish workers’ movement, she further developed this point:

In its current state, the working class is not yet ready to accomplish the great tasks that await it. The working class of all capitalist countries must first internalize the aspiration to socialism; an enormous number of people have yet to arrive at an awareness of their class interests. . . . When Social Democracy has a majority of the working people behind it in all the largest capitalist countries, the final hour of capitalism will have struck.

A Workers’ Revolution

However, this did not mean that the Russian Revolution would be confined to a liberal or bourgeois framework. Much like Vladimir Lenin’s Bolshevik current — and in direct opposition to their Menshevik rivals — Luxemburg held that the immediate task facing revolutionaries in the Russian Empire was the formation of a democratic republic under the control of the working class. Since the liberal bourgeoise was too weak and compromised to lead the revolution, “the proletariat had to become the only fighter and defender of the democratic forms of a bourgeois state.”Luxemburg consistently upheld the need for majority support from the exploited masses in achieving any transition to socialism.

She stressed that conditions in Russia today were not like those existing in nineteenth-century France:

The Russian proletariat fights first for bourgeois freedom, for universal suffrage, the republic, the law of associations, freedom of the press, etc., but it does not fight with the illusions that filled the [French] proletariat of 1848. It fights for [such] liberties in order to instrumentalize them as a weapon against the bourgeoisie.

She further expanded on this point elsewhere:

The bourgeois revolution in Russia and Poland is not the work of the bourgeoisie, as in Germany and France in days gone by, but the working class, and a class already highly conscious of its labor interests at that — a working class that seeks political freedoms not so that the bourgeoisie may benefit, but just the opposite, so that the working class may resolve its class struggle with the bourgeoisie and thereby hasten the victory of socialism. That is why the current revolution is simultaneously a workers’ revolution. That is also why, in this revolution, the battle against absolutism goes hand in hand — must go hand in hand — with the battle against capital, with exploitation. And why economic strikes are in fact quite nearly inseparable in this revolution from political strikes.

Luxemburg consistently upheld the need for majority support from the exploited masses in achieving any transition to socialism, including those pertaining to freedom struggles in the technologically developed capitalist lands. As she later wrote in December 1918, on behalf of the group she led during the German Revolution: “The Spartacus League will never take over governmental power except in response to the clear, unambiguous will of the great majority of the proletarian mass of all of Germany, never except by the proletariat’s conscious affirmation of the views, aims, and methods of struggle of the Spartacus League.”

One Step Forward

Luxemburg’s perspective on the 1905 Russian Revolution raises a host of questions, which relate to the problems faced by revolutionary regimes in the non-Western world in the decades following her death. How can the working class maintain power in a democratic republic after the overthrow of the old regime if it represents only a minority of the populace? How can it do so if, as she claims, “Social Democracy finds only the autonomous class politics of the proletariat to be reliable” — since the hunger of the peasants for landed private property presumably puts them at odds with it? And how is it possible for such a democratic republic under the control of the proletariat to be sustained if revolutions do not occur in other countries that can come to its aid?Luxemburg’s perspective raises a host of questions which relate to the problems faced by revolutionary regimes in the non-Western world following her death.

Luxemburg addressed these questions in a remarkable essay written in Polish in 1908, “Lessons of the Three Dumas,” which has never previously appeared in English. By 1908, the situation in Russia had radically changed since the revolution was by then defeated. She surveyed the course of its development, encouraging Marxists to “redouble their commitment to subjecting every detail of their tactics to rigorous self-criticism.” She did so by evaluating the history of the three Dumas — the parliamentary bodies established in the Russian Empire from 1906 as a concession to the revolution, with a restricted franchise that became progressively more biased in favor of the upper classes:

The Third Duma has shown — and from this flow its enormous political significance — that a parliamentary system that has not first overthrown the government, that has not achieved political power through revolution, not only cannot defeat the old power (a belief the First Duma vainly held), not only cannot hold its own against that power as an instrument of opposition (as the Second Duma tried to do), but can and must become, on the contrary, an instrument of the counterrevolution.

She proceeded to look ahead in thinking about the possible fate of a future revolution that, unlike the one in 1905, did succeed in overthrowing the old regime:

If the revolutionary proletariat in Russia were to gain political power, however temporarily, that would provide enormous encouragement to the international class struggle. That is why the working class in Poland and in Russia can and must strive to seize power with full consciousness. Because once workers have power, they can not only carry out the tasks of the current revolution directly — realizing political freedom across the Russian state — but also establish the eight-hour workday, upend agrarian relations, and in a word, materialize every aspect of their program, delivering the heaviest blows they can to bourgeois rule and in this way hastening its international overthrow.

Revolutionary Realism

Yet the question remained: How could the workers maintain themselves in power in a democratic republic over the long haul if they constituted a minority of the populace? Luxemburg’s answer was that they could not — and yet the effort would still be worth it:


The revolution’s bourgeois character finds expression in the inability of the proletariat to stay in power, in the inevitable removal of the proletariat from power by a counterrevolutionary operation of the bourgeoisie, the rural landowners, the petty bourgeoisie, and the greater part of the peasantry. It may be that in the end, after the proletariat is overthrown, the republic will disappear and be followed by the long rule of a highly restrained constitutional monarchy. It may very well be. But the relations of classes in Russia are now such that the path to even a moderate monarchical constitution leads through revolutionary action and the dictatorship of a republican proletariat.

Shortly before writing this, in an address to a Congress of the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party, she made the following remarks:

I find that it is a poor leader and a pitiful army that only goes into battle when victory is already in the bag. To the contrary, not only do I not mean to promise the Russian proletariat a sequence of certain victories; I think, rather, that if the working class, being faithful to its historical duty, continues to grow and execute its tactics of struggle consistent with the unfolding contradictions and the ever-broader horizons of the revolution, then it could wind up in quite complicated and difficult circumstances. . . . But I think that the Russian proletariat must have the courage and resolve to face everything prepared for it by historical developments, that it should, if it has to, even at the cost of sacrifices, play the role of the vanguard in this revolution in relation to the global army of the proletariat, the vanguard that discloses new contradictions, new tasks, and new paths for class struggle, as the French proletariat did in the nineteenth century.

She did not shy away from acknowledging the implications of this argument:

Revolution in this conception would bring the proletariat losses as well as victories. Yet by no other road can the entire international proletariat march to its final victory. We must propose the socialist revolution not as a sudden leap, finished in twenty-four hours, but as a historical period, perhaps long, of turbulent class struggle, with breaks both brief and extended.

This was a remarkable expression of revolutionary realism. Luxemburg was fully aware that even a democratic republic under the control of the working class — which is how she as well as Marx understood “the dictatorship of the proletariat” — was bound to be forced from power in the absence of an international revolution, especially in a country where the working class constituted a minority. And yet, even though the revolution would therefore have “failed” from at least one point of view, it would have produced important social transformations, providing the intellectual sediment from which a future uprooting of capitalism could arise.Luxemburg did not think that it made sense to sacrifice democracy for the sake of staying in power.

In short, Luxemburg did not think that it made sense to sacrifice democracy for the sake of staying in power, since the political form required to achieve the transition to socialism was “thoroughgoing democracy.” If a nondemocratic regime stayed in power, the transition to socialism would become impossible, since the working class would be left without the means and training to exercise power on its own behalf. Yet on the other hand, if a proletarian democracy existed even for a brief period of time, it could help inspire a later transition to socialism.

Self-Examination

This argument speaks to what would unfold a decade later, when tsarism was finally overthrown in the February 1917 Revolution, followed in short order by the Bolshevik seizure of power in October of the same year. Lenin and the Bolsheviks were fully aware at the time that the material conditions did not permit the immediate creation of a socialist society, even as they proclaimed the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat. This was why Lenin worked so hard to foster proletarian revolutions in Western Europe.

However, two fundamental issues separated Lenin’s approach from that of Luxemburg. Firstly, his regime did not take the form of a democratic republic, as seen in its suppression of political liberties — a development that Luxemburg sharply opposed in her 1918 critique of the Russian Revolution. Secondly, Lenin held that once the Bolsheviks seized power, they intended to keep it — permanently. This was very different from Luxemburg’s statement that “the inability of the proletariat to stay in power” would not be the worst outcome, so long as the vision of liberation projected to the world through its creation of a democratic society based on the rule of the working class inspired others to take up the fight against capitalism.Luxemburg was fully aware that the bourgeoisie would always resort to violent suppression in the aftermath of a defeated revolution.

Luxemburg’s position is especially striking because she was fully aware that the bourgeoisie would always resort to violent suppression in the aftermath of a defeated revolution. Indeed, she lost her own life following the defeat of the January 1919 Spartacus League uprising in Berlin, which she initially opposed on the grounds that it lacked sufficient mass support. However, Luxemburg was equally aware that any effort to forge a transition to socialism through nondemocratic means was doomed to fail. In this sense, she anticipated the tragic outcome of many revolutions in the decades following her death.

Whatever one makes of Luxemburg’s reflection on these issues, one thing is clear: she developed a distinctive, though rarely discussed, conception of the transition to socialism (especially for developing societies, which is what the Russian Empire was at the time) that has received far too little attention. The publication of these writings in English will hopefully remedy that neglect.

Although many of Luxemburg’s ideas speak to issues that democratic socialists, anti-imperialists, and feminists are grappling with today, on at least one critical issue, her perspective has not stood the test of time. It is to be found in her oft-repeated insistence: “When the sale of workers’ labor to private exploiters is abolished, the source of all today’s social inequalities will disappear.”

Luxemburg’s contention that the abolition of private ownership of the means of production would provide the basis for ending “every inequality in human society” was not hers alone. Virtually every tendency and theorist of revolutionary social democracy in the Second International shared it, including Lenin, Karl Kautsky, Leon Trotsky, and many others. Yet it is hardly possible to maintain this view today.

Neither the social democratic welfare states, which sought to limit private property rights, nor the regimes in the USSR, China, and elsewhere in the developing world, which abolished them through the nationalization of property, succeeded in developing a viable alternative to the capitalist mode of production. A much deeper social transformation that targets not alone private property and “free” markets but most of all the alienated form of human relations that define capitalist modernity is clearly needed.

That is a task for our generation, which can be much aided by returning with new eyes to the humanist implications of Marx’s critique of the logic of capital. This entails a critical reevaluation of the meaning of socialism that may not have been on the agenda in Luxemburg’s time, but which the overall spirit of her work surely encourages. As she wrote in 1906:

Self-examination — that is, making oneself aware at every step of the direction, logic, and basis for the class movement itself — is that store from which the working mass draws its strength, again and again, to struggle anew, and by which it understands its own hesitation and defeats as so many proofs of its strength and inevitable future victory.

CONTRIBUTORS
Peter Hudis is professor of philosophy at Oakton Community College and the author of Frantz Fanon: Philosopher of the Barricades.

Need for US Ethics Reform Is Far from History: Kushner-MBS Deal Reflects Broken System

by Virginia Canter and Gabe Lezra
August 26, 2022

Jared Kushner’s new “soulless and very selective” (New York Times) memoir, released this week, reveals deep problems with the U.S. government’s ethics laws that go far beyond his “self-aggrandiz[ing]” spin. The U.S. ethics system allows politicians to use their government positions for self-serving profit, continuing to reap benefits – financial, professional, and social – long after they have left office.

Kushner is the example par excellence of this legal failing. Throughout former President Donald Trump’s term, Kushner cultivated a strategic and personal alliance with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, or MBS (a relationship he defended in his book), which erupted back into the public eye in April, when MBS overruled the Saudi Public Investment Fund’s (PIF) expert investment panel’s decision not to invest $2 billion in Kushner’s private equity fund. MBS’s involvement in the deal, and particularly his rejection of the panel’s scathing review of Kushner’s fund and the risk it was asking the Kingdom to take on, is a stunning reminder that Saudi Arabia views Kushner as a strategic ally worth cultivating, seemingly both as payback for his work during the Trump administration, and as a potential bid for future favor should Trump be elected to a second term.

The PIF’s panel, which is charged with overseeing Saudi Arabia’s $620 billion sovereign wealth fund, left no doubt that an investment in Affinity Partners had no business justification, the New York Times reported. The panel panned the fund’s leadership for having little to no experience in private equity and were rightfully concerned that the structure of the proposed deal would leave the PIF holding “the bulk of the investment and risk,” while paying an “excessive” asset management fee. And, importantly, they underscored the potential “public relations risks” should they agree to enter a substantial business deal with Kushner due to his prior role in the Trump White House. Ultimately, they said, Kushner’s fund was “unsatisfactory in all respects.” That was an unacceptable conclusion for MBS, whom Kushner had befriended, protected, and aided throughout his time overseeing Middle East policy for his father-in-law.

This incident highlights the extent to which the U.S. legal system allows former high ranking government officials to engage in shady business dealings once they leave office, in part because MBS’s reported reasons for rejecting the panel’s advice appear so thoroughly corrupt. MBS justified the fund’s decision to ultimately invest, arguing that an investment in Kushner’s firm would help the Saudis capitalize on their “deep understanding of different government policies and geopolitical systems.” That sounds a lot like a decision based on outside political interests rather than a decision motivated by legitimate business considerations. And that’s why it’s not at all surprising that the House Oversight Committee has opened an investigation into Kushner’s dealings with the Kingdom and MBS.

MBS’s statements leave little doubt: the investment is due to the relationship Kushner cultivated with MBS when Kushner served as a senior White House advisor to President Trump a role he used to shelter the Kingdom from criticism and sanction. For example, Kushner reportedly played a key role in guiding the Trump administration’s response to MBS’s role in the assassination of Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi, protecting the Crown Prince from United States government sanctions, condemnation, and investigation. And, Kushner also reportedly encouraged Trump and Congress to forge ahead with weapons sales to the Kingdom, including an immense $110 billion deal that Kushner personally negotiated, despite the conclusion of international observers that Saudi Arabia likely had committed war crimes during its illegal war in Yemen, violations that humanitarian watchdogs believe are ongoing today. Former President Obama had previously refused to sell the Kingdom some of the weapons included in the $110 billion 2017 package out of now-realized fear that the Saudis would use them on civilians in Yemen.

For those who followed the Trump administration’s ethics entanglements from the earliest days, Kushner’s problematic relationship with Saudi Arabia and MBS comes as no surprise. Kushner’s foreign business entanglements were so deep that he was initially denied a security clearance – until his presidential father-in-law stepped in and overruled that decision. That intervention was also no surprise, as Trump has embraced corruption and foreign business entanglements and accepted political favors that help his business empire in violation of the Constitution.

These actions set the stage for Kushner’s own foreign business dealings. Ultimately, the fact that Kushner is legally allowed to operate with this level of barely-disguised corruption is a window into the United States’ own deficient government ethics regime.

Congress has enacted little, if any, legislation that effectively deters former senior government officials from exploiting foreign relationships they cultivated while in office for personal profit, even though a fear of corruption, particularly from foreign influence, lies at the foundation of the United States’ Constitutional framework.

Under the current ethics regime, former officials’ business dealings with foreign governments are largely unregulated by Congress, except for certain lobbying-related activities after leaving office. For example, the primary post-employment statute that pertains to dealings with foreign entities includes a one-year prohibition on former senior and very senior officials engaging in representational activities before the United States on behalf of a foreign government, or aiding and advising foreign governments behind the scenes, when these actions are knowingly undertaken with intent to influence a decision of any U.S. federal government officer or employee.

While these types of prohibitions may prevent a former government official from appearing to “switch sides,” that framework is woefully unable to address more sinister threats arising from longer-lasting conflicts of interest. Not only has the Department of Justice never reported prosecuting a single individual under that statute, the law does not address circumstances where senior White House officials seemingly undermine U.S. foreign policy and national security by adopting stances at odds with U.S. interests while in government to enhance their opportunities for personal financial profit after leaving office.

Additionally, unless it is proven that a government official had an actual or imputed financial interest, the primary conflict-of-interest statute would not bar them from participating in a particular matter involving a particular country while in office.

The $2 billion deal Jared secured from MBS may be a “bid for future favor.” In funding Kushner, the Saudis are taking steps to ensure they maintain close ties and access to his father-in-law, who is reportedly considering another run for the Republican presidential nomination in 2024. Kushner could soon become subject to the Foreign Agent Registration Act’s (FARA)’s registration requirements applicable to agents of foreign principals who engage in political activities, public relations, and other specified activities. If he were to become a backdoor channel for the Saudis seeking to influence a future Trump presidential campaign or administration on U.S. domestic or foreign policy issues, Kushner would likely be required to register as a foreign lobbyist under FARA.

At the outset of his administration, Trump barred FARA covered activities on the part of his political appointees after they left office. However, just before he left office, former Trump revoked his Ethics Pledge. If the Trump Ethics Pledge had not been rescinded, Kushner, as a political appointee, would have been barred permanently from engaging in FARA covered activities on behalf of a foreign government or foreign political party.

Kushner, of course, is not the only former government official to obtain monies from the Saudis. Both Trump and former Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin are also now in business with the Saudis. And other former government officials have been criticized for much, much less: former President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton were criticized after they disclosed in 2008 that Saudi Arabia donated between $10 million and $25 million to their charitable foundation. While a charitable donation undoubtedly seems more benign than a $2 billion cornerstone investment, critics, including many Republicans, nevertheless expressed concern that the donations “[gave] foreign donors a way to potentially gain favor outside the traditional political limits.”

Given the serious allegations against Kushner of “payback” for supporting MBS, and the real possibility that the Saudis’ entered into the $2 billion deal as a “bid for future favor,” it is in the United States’ best interest for Congress to expand and tighten the post-employment statute. In addition to exploring more expansive reforms to the Foreign Agent Registration Act and other statutes regulating how private citizens are allowed to interact with foreign powers, Congress should, at a minimum, prohibit former senior and very senior government officials from directly or indirectly soliciting or accepting funding for any purpose from sovereign wealth funds, foreign governments, or political parties of countries that fell under such officials’ official responsibility, for at least two years after they leave office. This two-year ban would be easy to implement, would deter powerful U.S. officials from engaging in corrupt foreign business deals, and would bolster confidence in the integrity of services being provided by senior government officials before they leave office.

IMAGE: White House Advisor Jared Kushner, watches alongside a member of the Saudi Delegation during a meeting between President Donald Trump and Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in the Oval Office at the White House on March 20, 2018 in Washington, D.C. (Photo by Kevin Dietsch-Pool/Getty Images)

About the Author(s)

Virginia Canter

Virgina Canter (@VirginiaRCanter) joined CREW as its Chief Ethics Counsel following a career in public service. Her prior experience includes serving as Ethics Advisor to the International Monetary Fund, White House Associate Counsel to Presidents Obama and Clinton, Senior Ethics Counsel for the Department of the Treasury and Assistant Ethics Counsel for the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Gabe Lezra

Gabe Lezra (@GabeLezra) is the Federal Policy Manager and a Senior Counsel at Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), where he specializes in anti-corruption, democracy reform, and government ethics law.

Sanna Marin, from youngest elected leader to 'partying PM'
Agence France-Presse
August 27, 2022

Sanna Marin is Finland's youngest ever PM Gent SHKULLAKU AFP

Since Sanna Marin became Finland's youngest prime minister in December 2019, the "child from a poor family" has risen to become the Nordic country's most popular leader of government in the 21st century.

But the 36-year-old's reputation as a firm crisis leader -- deftly navigating her small nation through the Covid pandemic and a historic NATO membership application -- has been challenged in the last few days.

Marin has become entangled in controversies over her partying, earning her the nickname "Party Sanna" in Finland's tabloid press.

A poll published by leading newspaper Helsingin Sanomat on Friday showed that 42 percent of Finns had a worse opinion of their prime minister due to the scandals.

A video leaked last week -- which made headlines around the world -- showed Marin dancing and partying with a group of friends and celebrities.

That controversy was quickly followed by another, when Marin was forced to apologise for a photo taken at her official residence of two women lifting their tops to bare their torsos, as she hosted friends after attending a music festival.

In December 2021, Marin came under sustained criticism after it was revealed she stayed out dancing until the early hours despite having been exposed to Covid-19.

Humble origins

"Some of the general public consider that partying like that and appearing in such company does not fit the norm for a politician," professor Anu Koivunen told AFP.

Koivunen noted that while the leaks would likely have caused a stir with any prime minister, she believes that the fact that Marin is a young female politician played a role in the ensuing brouhaha.


"There's been a debate about her qualifications, whether she's up to the job," Koivunen said, suggesting that this probably would not have been the case with a male prime minister.

But for her, this "ignores Marin's history as a crisis leader and a competent actor."

"I am human. And I too sometimes long for joy, light and fun amidst these dark clouds", Marin said this week in an emotional speech where she appeared close to tears.

Battling controversies about her lifestyle or stereotypes is nothing new for Marin.

She was relatively unknown before she became prime minister, her rise to power a swift one.

The slender, dark-haired Marin grew up in the southern Finnish town of Pirkkala, in a "rainbow, low-income family, and lived in the municipality's rental housing", in her own words.

"My parents divorced because of my father's drinking problem when I was only a few years old," she wrote in her blog.

Although Marin's childhood with her mother and mother's female partner did not include "material abundance", it was full of "love and ordinary life," she described.

'Shop girl'

Marin was the first in her family to go to university, earning a Masters degree in Administrative Sciences.

She supported her studies by working as a cashier, something which her opponents have later used to discredit her.

When Marin became prime minister, Finnish daily newspaper Iltalehti called it "a remarkable rise from shop cashier to the top of Finland."

Even Estonia's then interior minister Mart Helme caused a row by labelling Finland's new prime minister a "shop girl".

The negative comments prompted many prominent Finns to reveal on social media their own "rise to the top" from humble beginnings as cashiers or cleaners.

The comments and frequent controversies about her lifestyle and looks are in stark contrast with how the young politician got noticed and how she is now perceived, analysts say.

"As a politician, she is well respected. She is both firm and also open to discussion," Emilia Palonen, a political scientist at Helsinki University, told AFP.

Her Social Democratic party, the SDP, "needed strong, responsible and charismatic people like her", she said.

Marin was first elected as an MP in 2015. But for many Finns, the first time she entered the spotlight was in 2016 when a Tampere city council debate she chaired went viral on social media.

On the video which has racked up nearly a million views, Marin keeps a marathon debate on Tampere's new tram lines on track, despite it dragging on for more than five hours as representatives came up with ever more hilarious and absurd arguments for and against the tram.

Many praised her professionalism in the face of bickering councilmen, earning her a reputation as "a fearless leader".

"Sanna Marin showed how to keep the hecklers in check", Helsingin Sanomat daily wrote.

© 2022 AFP

Leaked video confirms disturbing history of Amy Coney Barrett’s faith sect: ‘Women were always crying’

Travis Gettys

RAW STORY
August 26, 2022

Amy Coney Barrett (AFP)

Leaked video of a recent event hosted by People of Praise, a secretive Christian sect to which Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett belongs, shows one of its leaders admitting the group's teachings drove women into tears.

The video from the group's 50th anniversary celebration shows Dorothy Ranaghan, wife of founder Kevin Ranaghan, telling members that women who first made a "covenant" to join People of Praise in the 1970s cried intensely in response to teachings about their roles in relationships with men, reported The Guardian.

“Some of the women – who are still in my women’s group, as a matter of fact – were wearing sunglasses all the time, because they were always crying and would have to hold on to their chairs every time somebody started teaching, because ‘What are we going to hear this time?’” Ranaghan said. “But it all worked out just fine in the end.”

The video was leaked to The Guardian by a source who wished to remain anonymous, and it's the first time a statement from the group has been issued about women's response to teachings about men's "headship" of the family and dominance over women.

Barrett lived with the Ranaghans when she attended law school at Notre Dame, although she has never publicly disclosed or discussed her membership in People of Praise, where her father served in a leadership role and she served as a "handmaid," saying only that she is a devout Catholic and her faith would have no bearing on her duties as a judge.

A former group member stated in a sworn affidavit filed in the 1990s that Kevin Ranaghan exerted almost total control over her when she lived in the family's household and made all decisions about her dating relationships and finances.

 HEALTHCARE

Watchdog: VA mishandled one-third of Camp Lejeune contaminated water claims

BY ZACK BUDRYK - 08/25/22 

The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) mishandled up to 1 in 3 veterans’ claims relating to water contamination at Camp LeJeune, according to a report released Thursday by the department’s Office of Inspector General (OIG). 

Some 1 million people may have been exposed to contaminated water at the training facility between August 1953 and December 1987, according to the OIG report. OIG investigators found that the department prematurely denied more than 17,000 of the claims before sending the claimants’ letters asking for further documentation of exposure.  

In another 2,300 cases, the department recorded incorrect effective dates for benefit eligibility, according to the report. Not all the mishandled cases would necessarily have resulted in benefit payouts, but veterans were underpaid by at least $13.8 million over a four-year period due to failure to assign the earliest effective date, according to the watchdog. 

The contaminants in question are associated with a number of medical conditions and complications, including kidney cancer, liver cancer, Parkinson’s disease and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. The VA has also expanded eligibility for disability payments to people who have a different condition than the eight listed that they can prove is connected to exposure to contaminated water. 

“The OIG found that errors were less likely to occur at the Louisville Regional Office, which processes most Camp Lejeune-related claims; staff from other VA regional offices lacked experience processing these claims,” the report states. The watchdog recommended the Veterans Benefits Administration either develop a plan to reduce the processing errors at regional offices or centralize Camp Lejeune-related claims at the Louisville office. 

Earlier this month, President Biden signed the Promise to Address Comprehensive Toxics Act, which included $300 billion for benefits for veterans exposed to burn pits but also includes a provision allowing lawsuits against the federal government in connection with exposure to contaminated water at Camp Lejeune.  

 

A tractor running on ammonia was presented in the USA

26 August 2022

Source: ammoniaenergy.org\

Earlier this month, Amogy demonstrated a new ammonia-powered tractor in Stony Brook, New York. A 100 kW ammonia-to-power system was successfully integrated into a John Deere mid-size standard tractor, which can operate on liquid ammonia fuel for a period of several hours. The tractor conversion demonstration was made possible by significant seed funding secured in late 2021.

The unique system is comprised of a standard liquid-storage tank and highly efficient ammonia-cracking modules integrated into a hybrid fuel cell system, which can provide consistent primary power for several hours per refueling. Therefore, the pioneering vehicle maintains the functionality and duration requirements operators rely on to support farming tasks, which has never been offered with other alternative energy solutions. The ammonia-powered tractor was driven for separate periods, with a refueling session in between. Refueling a tractor with liquid ammonia is fast and simple, similar to gas or diesel refueling.

Details of the ammonia-powered tractor, from Amogy’s official press release, 1 June 2022

Ammonia is a viable zero-emission fuel for all heavy-duty vehicles, but especially farming and agriculture, where the readily-available chemical has been used as a fertilizer for decades. Amogy is at the forefront of efforts to establish zero-carbon ammonia as a leading fuel for these vehicles. Ammonia offers a high energy density and there are plentiful existing infrastructures, such as pipelines, terminals and storage methods, in the U.S. and globally, to support such a transition.

Amogy CEO Seonghoon Woo in his organisation’s official press release, 1 June 2022

In the press release, Amogy indicates that their focus for the next year is demonstrating an ammonia-powered Class 8 truck, a shipping vessel, and a compact, 1 MW ammonia-to-power system.

“Trump never pays his bills”: Truth Social reportedly stiffs contractor amid financial “disarray”

Trump's Twitter knockoff is already in a "bitter battle" with its web host over $1.6 million in unpaid bills

By IGOR DERYSH

Deputy Politics Editor
SALON
PUBLISHED AUGUST 26, 2022 

Donald Trump and Devin Nunes (Photo illustration by Salon/Getty Images)

Former President Donald Trump's Twitter knockoff Truth Social stiffed a contractor in the latest sign of financial "disarray" at the troubled social network, according to Fox Business.

Truth Social, which is headed by former Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Calif., is in a "bitter battle" with RightForge, the network's web host and one of its largest vendors, over $1.6 million in unpaid bills, according to the report.

The company entered into an agreement with Truth Social in October. Sources told Fox Business that Truth Social made just three payments and hasn't paid anything since March. The company is now threatening legal action unless it is paid, according to the report.

RightForge CEO Martin Avila did not deny the report but told the outlet he would not comment on "any private matters."

"RightForge believes in the mission of President Trump's free speech platform and wish to continue supporting the president in his media endeavors," he said in a statement.
Advertisement:

A spokesperson for Truth Social likewise did not deny the allegations.

Trump and his companies have a long record of stiffing contractors. "Trump never pays his bills," tweeted Jeff Jarvis, a media professor and blogger.


Related
Trump's "free speech" platform Truth Social bans users who post footage from Jan. 6 hearings

RightForge, which aims to provide right-wingers with alternatives to Silicon Valley products, previously announced big plans for Truth Social. Avila told Axios last year that the company was "laying the groundwork" for Truth Social to compete with Twitter and have more than 75 million users.

"If you believe that the president should be de-platformed, we believe that you're not really interested in living in a free country," he told the outlet. "And that's really what we're all about is making sure that America stays true to its core ideas, and that the marketplace of ideas stays open."

But less than a year later, the company is accusing Truth Social of breach of contract.

The network got off to a disastrous launch as users were plagued by technical glitches, outages and an extensive waitlist. Truth Social's planned merger with Digital World Acquisition Corp., a special purpose acquisition company (SPAC), has been indefinitely delayed amid questions about its financial health. The blank check company is facing a Securities and Exchange Commission investigation into whether it illegally negotiated the Truth Social deal before going public. The company was also subpoenaed by a federal grand jury in New York last month amid a Justice Department investigation into the merger.

The probes have upended the two sides' business plans. Digital World said that the investigations "could materially delay, materially impede, or prevent the consummation of the business combination."

The company in an SEC filing this week set a September 6 shareholder meeting to determine whether to delay the deadline to finalize the merger and warned that it could go under if the merger is not completed, according to CNBC. The company warned in the filing that Trump's mounting scandals threaten to harm the deal.

"If President Trump becomes less popular or there are further controversies that damage his credibility or the desire of people to use a platform associated with him, and from which he will derive financial benefit, [Trump Media's] results of operations, as well as the outcome of the proposed Business combination, could be adversely affected," the filing said.

Want a daily wrap-up of all the news and commentary Salon has to offer? Subscribe to our morning newsletter, Crash Course.

Shares of Digital World have fallen by more than 42% since the start of the year.

Despite Trump's big plans for the company, Digital World said in May that it is far from certain that the venture would succeed.

"There is no operating history upon which to base any assumption as to the likelihood that [Trump Media] will prove successful and [Trump Media] may never generate any operating revenues or ever achieve profitable operations. If TMTG is unsuccessful in addressing these risks, its business will most likely fail," Digital World said in a regulatory filing, adding that Truth Social does not yet generate revenue and may not until at least next year.

Trump has also complained about his app's absence from the Android app store, with the app only available for download on iOS devices.

"Is Google trying to f**k me?" he questioned over the spring, according to Rolling Stone, even though a source told the outlet at the time that Truth Social had not even submitted an app for Google to review because it was still in development.

The former president suffered another setback after the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office denied his application to trademark "Truth Social." The office determined that the company's name is "confusingly similar" to the social media platform Vero – True Social and the Truth Network, a Christian radio network.

"Ideally," trademark attorney Josh Gerben, who surfaced the filing, told Axios, "you would pick a name where this wasn't going to happen."

Read more about Truth Social's woes

Trump's Truth Social partners just got hit with grand jury subpoenas — and it could blow up merger
Trump supporters use Truth Social to dox investigators in Mar-a-Lago raid — and their families
New Trump business partners compile list of his business failures — showing he poses financial risk

Igor Derysh is Salon's Deputy News and Politics Editor. His work has also appeared in the Los Angeles Times, Chicago Tribune, Boston Herald and Baltimore Sun.

U$A

Long COVID Is Keeping 4.1M People Out Of Work, Study Shows

Aug 26, 2022 05:44 AM By Dawn Geske

Long COVID symptoms may be preventing as many as 4.1 million people from working, according to a new study from the Brookings Institution.

The study bumped up the number of people out of work due to the virus disorder more than twice earlier estimates of 1.6 million full-time workers – a fact that could be key in solving labor shortages.

By looking at four new questions about long COVID from the Census Household Pulse Survey, Brookings Institution nonresident senior fellow Katie Bach said that the impact from long COVID could "worsen over time if the U.S. does not take the necessary policy actions."

According to Bach, about 16 million Americans aged 18 to 65 have long COVID, with 2 to 4 million of these people out of work due to their symptoms. Lost wages for these individuals are around $170 billion a year and potentially skyward of $230 billion, she said.

But what is more startling is the unknown reason why people get long COVID and how to treat the condition that can linger for months, then go away, and then come back.

Symptoms of long COVID vary by person but can include tiredness, malaise, fever, shortness of breath, cough, heart palpitations, headache, sleep problems, dizziness, change in taste or smell, depression, or anxiety, among several others, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

"With 16.3 million working-age Americans afflicted and annual wage losses totaling nearly $200 billion, long COVID is already a meaningful drag on U.S. economic performance and household financial health. And absent intervention, the situation is likely to worsen," Bach said, adding that the "government should take the threat of long COVID as seriously as the numbers show it to be..."

Up to four million Americans may be out of work due to long COVID

Researchers estimate that at least $170b in wages may be lost annually due to long COVID symptoms, report says.

Aug 26, 2022, 

Suffering long COVID (illustrative)iStock

A new report published this week by the Brookings Institution showed that up to four million people in the US may be out of work due to long COVID, NBC News reported.

The report noted that this number could add up to at least $170 billion per year of lost wages.

The report examined US adults who worked full-time or the equivalent of full-time hours prior to suffering long COVID. This number was estimated based on federal data to be around 12 million people in the US.

The researchers then examined how many people were out of work or working less hours due to persistent health issues following a COVID-19 infection, NBC added. They used the Census Bureau’s Household Pulse Survey, including as long COVID sufferers only those whose symptoms lasting three months or longer, and who did not suffer those symptoms before they contracted COVID-19.

The Brookings Institute then determined that between two and four million people in the US are working reduced hours or not at all due to long COVID.

Katie Bach, the report's author and a nonresident senior fellow at Brookings, was quoted by NBC as saying, "This is a shocking number. If this looks like other post-viral illnesses, some people will recover, but there will be this big stock of people who don't, and it will just continue to grow over time."

"Every time you get COVID, you risk getting long COVID. It's not like once you've had COVID once, or once you've been vaccinated, then you're all clear," Bach said. "If people keep getting infected and reinfected, we will continue to have new cases of long COVID emerging."

In June, a study from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) found that 19% of adults who had previously been infected with COVID-19, and 1 in 13 adults in the US, suffer from long COVID symptoms.

Top Experts Raise Questions Regarding Legal Basis of Zawahiri Strike


by Just Security
August 4, 2022


A note from co-editors-in-chief Tess Bridgeman and Ryan Goodman: Although Just Security is on hiatus this week, we wanted to be sure to examine and reflect on the U.S. airstrike that killed al Qaeda’s top leader, Ayman al-Zawahiri. We asked members of our board of editors to assess the US government’s strongest argument for the legal basis for the strike and any significant weaknesses or flaws in that argument. We invited them to consider international and domestic law.

Brian Finucane, senior adviser with the U.S. Program at the International Crisis Group and a Non-Resident Senior Fellow at the Reiss Center on Law and Security at NYU School of Law. Prior to joining Crisis Group in 2021, he served as an attorney-adviser in the Office of the Legal Adviser at the U.S. Department of State.

As a matter of international law, the U.S. government would likely argue that Zawahiri was targeted as an enemy commander in the ongoing non-international armed conflict with al Qaeda. Further, I would expect the U.S. government to claim that the strike in Kabul was a lawful measure of self-defense as the de-facto authorities were either unable or unwilling to effectively address the threat posed by al Qaeda.

But such arguments raise questions: Twenty years after 9/11, what threat to the United States does al Qaeda still pose, whether from Afghanistan or elsewhere?

Is the threat from al Qaeda such that the use of force in self-defense remains “necessary” as a matter of international law? Or are other non-military tools sufficient to mitigate the threat such that force is no longer necessary?

Does the Biden administration have a theory for when the armed conflict with al Qaeda ends? If so, what is that theory?

The killing of Zawahiri also raises questions of domestic law and the future of the war on terror. After two decades, what is al Qaeda for the purposes of the 2001 AUMF? Which affiliates of al Qaeda are “associated forces” for the purposes of AUMF? Will the Biden administration publicly release the list of all groups it deems covered by the AUMF?

Professor Adil Haque, is Executive Editor at Just Security. He is also Professor of Law and Judge Jon O. Newman Scholar at Rutgers Law School, and author of Law and Morality at War (Oxford University Press):

The U.S. will almost certainly argue that the strike was an exercise of its inherent right of self-defense under the U.N. Charter. The Obama administration took the position that the right of self-defense is triggered by an actual or imminent armed attack by a non-state armed group. Once triggered, the right of self-defense remains activated, and justifies the use of force, as long as “hostilities” with the group continue. Importantly, there is no requirement that further armed attacks are ongoing or imminent, so long as further attacks are expected at some point in the future. Relatedly, there is no requirement to seek the consent of the state on whose territory the strike will take place, if that state is deemed “unwilling or unable” to prevent the armed group from using its territory. That position was adopted by the Obama and Trump administrations, and there is no reason to think that the Biden administration will look elsewhere.

In my view, both aspects of the U.S. position are fundamentally flawed. There is no right to use force in self-defense absent an ongoing or imminent armed attack, and there is no right to use force on the territory of another state, without its consent, absent its responsibility for an ongoing or imminent armed attack. The U.S. has not claimed that Zawahiri was orchestrating an imminent armed attack that the strike preempted, nor has it alleged that the Afghan government is substantially involved in Al Qaeda’s ongoing operations. It appears that members of the Taliban regime may have provided Zawahiri with safe haven. But that alone is not enough to justify the strike.

Zawahiri was a wretched man, and few will mourn his passing. But legal judgment should not be biased by hindsight. The U.S. tried to kill Zawahiri at least twice before. Those strikes killed 76 children and 29 adults according to Reprieve. The U.S. claims that its latest strike killed no civilians. That may be. If so, it is only by sheer luck that the U.S. did not kill even more civilians for no reason that the law accepts.

Professor Oona Hathaway, is Executive Editor at Just Security. She is the Gerard C. and Bernice Latrobe Smith Professor of International Law at Yale Law School, Professor of International Law and Area Studies at the Yale University MacMillan Center, Professor of the Yale University Department of Political Science, Director of the Yale Law School Center for Global Legal Challenges, and Counselor to the Dean at Yale Law School. She served as Special Counsel to the General Counsel of the Department of Defense:


From a domestic law perspective, the legal basis for the strike on Zawahiri is, most lawyers would agree, straightforward: The 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force, enacted mere days after the 9/11 attacks, authorizes the President to use all “necessary and appropriate force against those … organizations he determines planned … the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.” Zawahiri, as the leader of the organization that carried out the attacks—and a prominent figure in the organization on 9/11, falls squarely within that authority. That surface clarity, however, ignores a deeper question about whether that 2001 authorization has expired. There is no sunset clause in the 2001 AUMF, but Congress clearly did not contemplate an endless war when it enacted the law more than two decades ago. There is a strong argument that the authorization has effectively expired, though that argument has yet to win in court when raised by those who continue to be detained at Guantanamo Bay under the authority indirectly granted by the authorization. Indeed, the successful strike on Zawahiri is likely to lead to a new set of challenges to those detentions on the ground the conflict in which they were detained has now run its course.

The international law basis for the strike is similarly easy on the surface and harder on deeper reflection. On the surface, the strike is justified as an act of “self defense” under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter and almost certainly is considered by the administration to fall within the Article 51 letter filed with the UN shortly after the attacks. But when we consider the fact that the attack on Zawahiri comes more than two decades after the 9/11 attacks, the legal argument gets harder to sustain. Granted, Al Qaeda has more fighters than it did on 9/11 despite two decades of our best efforts—during which we spent trillions of dollars—to defeat the group. But it’s far from clear that any of the affiliates have plans to attack the United States or that Zawahiri was involved in such plans if they do. Under international law, acts of self defense need to be aimed at averting active ongoing threats to the state undertaking the self defensive action (or, if it is an act of collective self defense, threats to a state that has requested that state’s assistance). There is also the issue of Afghanistan’s sovereignty. The Afghan government clearly did not consent to the strike. The United States has long sought to justify strikes against nonstate actors located in states that are “unable” or “unwilling” to address the threat they pose as falling within the scope of Article 51. But this theory has been explicitly endorsed by fewer than a dozen states. It may be conventional wisdom in Washington that such strikes are justified, but that conventional wisdom is one of many ways in which what is taken for granted in Washington is at a disconnect with traditional methods of international law. (Under a separate body of international law—international humanitarian law—the strike seems to have been clearly legal, assuming Zawahiri was a legitimate military target. According to current reporting, there was, remarkably, no collateral damage—which would be a testament to the careful planning, techniques, and technology developed over two decades of war.)

In short, the strike reflects the ambiguities inherent in the current U.S. counterterrorism program: It was at once a great success that falls squarely within widely accepted legal theories that have guided U.S. conduct for two decades and it demonstrates how flawed and strained those very same theories are.

Stephen Pomper, Chief of Policy at the International Crisis Group. During the Obama administration, he served as Special Assistant to the President and NSC Senior Director for Multilateral Affairs and Human Rights. He also served as Senior Director for African Affairs. Prior to moving to the NSC, he was the Assistant Legal Adviser for Political-Military Affairs at the Department of State. He is a Non-Resident Senior Fellow at the Reiss Center on Law and Security at NYU School of Law:

The much celebrated recent U.S. strike that killed Ayman Zawahiri sheds some useful light on the Biden administration’s approach to the so-called the global war on terror (GWOT) including some of the tensions in the administration’s approach to warmaking.

On the one hand, President Biden pledged on the campaign trail to end what he referred to as “forever wars”. He pulled American troops from Afghanistan in the face of withering criticism; told the United Nations that the U.S. is no longer at war; and appears to have diminished the tempo of military counterterrorism operations considerably.

On the other hand, the Biden administration continues to engage in counterterrorism operations from a war footing. It has maintained the capacious legal interpretations that enabled the GWOT to branch out to countries far from Afghanistan; has spent no visible political capital to repeal or narrow the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force that undergirds this framework; and – as evidenced by the Zawahiri operation – continues to strike senior al-Qaeda leadership.

None of this is especially surprising. Candidate Biden and his team were always careful to hedge their commitments to end unproductive U.S. military entanglements in a way that left space for military counterterrorism, and have never shown much appetite for yielding the expansive authority that executive branch lore and practice – and congressional acquiescence – afford them in this space. But they also have other challenges, including most immediately a Russian war in Ukraine and a tense situation in the Taiwan strait. The result is arguably a sort of GWOT-lite, which has the full legal contours of the longstanding war on terror but a more limited op tempo that generally keeps strikes off the front pages, lowers the volume on criticism, and preserves the resort to force as an option for when policymakers feel it is needed. (Of course there is nothing inherently durable about the “lite” aspect of the current scheme: the same legal architecture could be used in a much more heavy-handed way by a different group of policymakers.)

Given who Zawahiri was, and so long as major reports of civilian casualties do not emerge, it is hard to imagine too much by way of criticism against the strike. But the operation does present some interesting questions that lawyers and commentators can be expected to probe. Among them:What facts could the U.S. present to make the case that the Taliban’s relationship to Zawahiri’s activities and whereabouts violated the 2020 Doha agreement (in which the Taliban committed to prevent any groups or individuals, including al-Qaeda, from “using its soil” for and “recruiting, training, and fundraising” “to threaten the security of the United States and its allies”).

 Beyond a passing comment by a White House official, will it publicly try to make that case?

Under what theory did President Biden disclose an action reportedly taken by intelligence operatives under what appear to be covert authorities? 

Did the strike fall under the 2001 AUMF or is the U.S. deeming it an act of national self-defense and why?

If the latter is the U.S. going to notify the United Nations or rely on its 2001 notification following the September 11 attacks?

Looking ahead, does the U.S. consider itself to be still at war in Afghanistan for purposes of international and domestic law and if so against specifically what groups and on what bases?

The answers are unlikely to depart significantly from what this and past administrations have offered, which is a useful reminder that while September 11 continues to recede and the GWOT fades from view, the changes they wrought to the U.S. national security apparatus endure.