Author: Judge John Wilson (ret.)

A well regulated Militia,
being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to
keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. –Second Amendment
to the United States Constitution 

For the balance of my legal career, I have believed New York’s
gun laws to be unconstitutional and overly restrictive.  Imagine my
surprise to find that Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas agrees.

Recently, in the case of New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn v. Bruen, 
the US Supreme Court has once more supported a plain reading of the Second
Amendment, this time to invalidate one of New York State’s more onerous
impediments to a citizen’s right to bear arms.

 Under New York Penal Law Section
265.01(1), a person is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor if “(h)e or she
possesses any firearm,” which is defined at 265.00(3)(a) as “any
pistol or revolver.”  There are a host of other definitions involving
rifles, shotguns and other weapons, but the reader will note that there is no
requirement that the pistol or revolver be loaded.

Then there is PL Section 265.01-b, enacted under former
Governor Andrew Cuomo, which makes it a Class E felony to possess “any
firearm.”  There is no qualitative difference between the language
used in the felony charge or the misdemeanor.  The reader will also notice
there is no defense to possession of a “firearm” until a person is
charged under PL Sec. 265.03(3).  Under this statute, it is a crime to
possess a “loaded firearm,” except  “(s)uch possession
shall not…constitute  a  violation  of  this 
subdivision  if  such  possession takes place in such person’s
home or place of business.”  

In other words, if you have a loaded firearm, and you are
not in either your home or place of business, you will be prosecuted under
265.03(3).  However, even if you are at home, or behind the counter of
your bodega, you could still be charged with a crime, whether the gun is loaded
or not.  

A violation of Penal Law Section 265.03 is a Class C felony,
which carries a longer jail sentence than the Class E felony of 265.01-b, or
the misdemeanor Section 265.01(1).  But whether you would be charged under
the misdemeanor or felony for the same gun possessed in your home or business
is anybody’s guess.

All this legislation is intended to force law abiding
citizens to register their guns.  But as every New Yorker knows, this is a
difficult proposition.  Under Article 400 of the Penal
Law, “No license shall issue” (a very negative way to start a
law) except if an applicant is 21 years of age; is of “good moral
character”; has not been convicted of a felony or “serious offense”;
is not a fugitive; has not had a dishonorable discharge from the Armed
Services; etc, etc, etc.

Even if an applicant can meet all this criteria (some of
which are admittedly reasonable), and get a permit for a pistol for their home
or business, there is one more hurdle the applicant must pass to get a
concealed carry license – the applicant must establish they have “proper
cause” to carry a firearm outside their home or office.  

What is “proper cause?”  Under
New York law, an applicant is required to demonstrate “a special need
for self-protection distinguishable from that of the general community or a
person engaged in the same profession.”  Self-protection alone was
not deemed sufficient “proper cause.”  Instead, an applicant
was forced to explain why their particular circumstances required them to
carry a gun; for instance, “I am in the business of selling widgets and
have access to a warehouse full of expensive widgets. I am in fear that I am a
target for attack by dangerous criminals who know I work for ACME Inc and want
to harm me to (steal) the widgets”. 

Even when an applicant makes the requisite showing, less
than 14 percent of gun permit applications were approved by the NYPD as of
March 2022.  “Gun
store owners said they’ve been hearing complaints from would-be customers
whose applications seem to have disappeared into limbo at the NYPD’s License
Division…'(t)hey just stopped doing the investigations and the processing,’
said a city gun dealer who spoke on condition of anonymity.  ‘It’s a
slowdown across the board. It’s every person that applies. Every day, I’m
speaking to frustrated people.’”

In its recent decision, the US Supreme Court invalidates the
use of the “proper cause” standard by New York.  “(T)he
Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual right to keep and bear
arms for self-defense,” Justice Thomas writes. “(W)e hold that when
the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution
presumptively protects that conduct.”  

Justice Thomas relied heavily upon the Court’s 2008 decision
in District of Columbia v. Heller, “In
Heller,” Thomas states, “(our) analysis suggested that the Amendment’s
operative clause – ‘the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be
infringed’ – ‘guarantee[s] the individual right to possess and carry weapons in
case of confrontation’ that does not depend on service in the militia…We
reiterate that the standard for applying the Second Amendment is as follows:
When the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the
Constitution presumptively protects that conduct.”

“The test that we set forth in Heller and apply today
requires courts to assess whether modern firearms regulations are consistent
with the Second Amendment’s text and historical understanding,” the Court
states. “Heller itself exemplifies this kind of straightforward…inquiry.
One of the District’s regulations challenged in Heller ‘totally ban[ned]
handgun possession in the home.’ (Citation omitted.) The District in Heller
addressed a perceived societal problem – firearm violence in densely populated
communities – and it employed a regulation – a flat ban on the possession of
handguns in the home – that the Founders themselves could have adopted to
confront that problem. Accordingly…Heller concluded that the handgun ban was
unconstitutional.”

“New York’s proper-cause requirement concerns the same
alleged societal problem addressed in Heller: ‘handgun violence,’ primarily in
‘urban area[s]'”  However, Justice Thomas writes, “(i)t is
undisputed that petitioners…two ordinary, law-abiding, adult citizens..are
part of ‘the people’ whom the Second Amendment protects…(n)or does any party
dispute that handguns are weapons ‘in common use’ today for self-defense…(w)e
therefore turn to whether the plain text of the Second Amendment protects
(petitioners) proposed course of conduct – carrying handguns publicly for
self-defense.”

“We have little difficulty concluding that it
does,” the Court finds. “Nothing in the Second Amendment’s text draws
a home/public distinction with respect to the right to keep and bear arms. As
we explained in Heller…’the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall
not be infringed’ – ‘guarantee the individual right to possess and carry
weapons in case of confrontation.’ (Citation omitted.) Heller further confirmed
that the right to ‘bear arms’ refers to the right to ‘wear, bear, or carry . .
. upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of
being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict
with another person.’ (Citation omitted.) This definition of ‘bear’ naturally
encompasses public carry… To confine the right to ‘bear’ arms to the home
would nullify half of the Second Amendment’s operative protections.”

Since there is no distinction made by the Second Amendment
between maintaining a firearm in your home/place of business, or carrying that
same firearm on your person, New York’s requirement that an applicant for a
carry permit show “proper cause” is invalid.   “The
constitutional right to bear arms in public for self defense is not ‘a
second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the
other Bill of Rights guarantees’ (Citation omitted)” Thomas writes.
“We know of no other constitutional right that an individual may exercise
only after demonstrating to government officers some special need. That is not
how the First Amendment works when it comes to unpopular speech or the free
exercise of religion. It is not how the Sixth Amendment works when it comes to
a defendant’s right to confront the witnesses against him. And it is not how
the Second Amendment works when it comes to public carry for self
defense.”

Naturally, New York State officials were not pleased to
discover they had been in violation of the Second Amendment for so many years.
New York Governor.
Kathy Hochul called the ruling “outrageous…that at a moment of
national reckoning on gun violence, the Supreme Court has recklessly struck
down a New York law that limits those who can carry concealed weapons.”

In that regard, the New York Legislature has already
“repealed a concealed-carry restriction that the court deemed
unconstitutional but voted to enact a new set of gun laws…including
designating many public places as gun-free zones and adding more permits requirements.”

“
Under the bill, which goes into effect Sept. 1, guns will be banned from
modes of public transportation, such as subways and buses, and from schools,
shelters, government buildings, poll sites, places of worship, health
facilities, establishments that serve alcohol, libraries, day cares, zoos,
museums, theaters and stadiums, public playgrounds and parks. Other sensitive
locations where firearms will be prohibited include Times Square, a popular
tourist destination in Manhattan. There will also be a ‘presumption’ statewide
that firearms are not welcome inside private businesses unless the property
owner explicitly states otherwise with a clearly visible sign.”

In explaining her justification for the new restrictions,
Governor Hochul used this example: “Imagine you’re in Times Square. You’re on
the way to a show with your family, and you’re surrounded by people with concealed
weapons…Does that make you feel more or less safe? I think we all know the
answer to those questions.”

But let’s rephrase the question.  Do you feel safer on
that subway knowing that the people with the concealed guns have been found by
the NYPD or other licensing agency to be of “good moral character,”
without felony records or other disqualifying conditions, or do you feel safe
knowing the only person with a concealed gun on that same subway is a criminal,
in flagrant violation of New York’s restrictive gun laws?

I think reasonable people know the answer to that question.

 

 Judge John Wilson (ret.) served on the bench in NYC.

Photo: Pixabay

Nigeria is in the news for “all the wrong reasons” lately, according to several military analysts in Washington. The country, located on the west coast of Africa, is one of China’s closest trading partners and a strong ally. Earlier this month it welcomed a megaship registered in the People’s Republic of China at its new Lekki Port. It is the first vessel ever to berth at the modern, deep-water facility. It gives rise to questions about the long-term role of China’s naval forces in western Africa. Previously analysts assumed that other states, such as Equatorial Guinea, might one day host Chinese naval vessels. The China connection at the port facility is only one of many Beijing maintains in Nigeria.

In 2010 China’s Harbor Engineering, with funding primarily from the China Development Bank and a few smaller local African partners, began work on the project. As late as last year western security analysts presumed China would seek a permanent naval presence on the west coast, most likely at the port in Equatorial Guinea. It looks like the situation may be evolving or, perhaps, the US miscalculated Chinese intentions in the region. The Nigerian port is located less than an hour from Africa’s largest metropolitan area, Lagos (est. 21.3 million pop.), and is situated inside the Chinese-controlled Lekki Free Trade Zone. The Chinese-built port increases shipping container capacity from 3,000 to 20,000 containers and has space for five mega container ships to dock simultaneously at the port. Each container ship can carry approximately 20,000 shipping containers. 

What is of greater concern is its close location to a Nigerian-multinational oil refinery and new urea and ammonia fertilizer plant. The granularized urea producer is, during a time of global shortage of fertilizer, critical as it is the second largest in the world, according to the Jamestown Foundation. The oil refinery can produce 650,000 barrels a day. Bother are critically needed to help Beijing insure domestic stability in the communist state. This could become even more critical if President Xi Jinping’s foreign policy becomes more aggressive in the coming years and the communist regime faces economic sanctions from western, democratic states.

The Stealth Newsletter published by the Jamestown Foundation points out that “… given its state of completion, its controlling interests, and the potential debt-trap Nigeria may be in with Beijing, it is possible that this new port could be repossessed or repurposed for the People’s Liberation Army’s Navy (PLAN). Of particular note is a controversial “sovereignty clause” in which the PRC is entitled to reclaim whatever assets were given and whatever collateral Nigeria put forth to obtain the loan.” Nigerian journalists report that there is little transparency concerning the Chinese loan program. Some have questioned the long-term viability of the port loan given its similarities to other Chinese loans where “debt-trap diplomacy” ended with the loss of local control of facilities to China. Should China gain control over the Nigerian facilities it would have clear access to the Atlantic Ocean. In recent years Nigeria has become overly dependent on imports from China, creating a significant trade imbalance. Chinese exports account for approximately 80 percent of total bilateral trade volume between the two countries. Reuters reported that in September 2018, Nigeria signed a $328 million loan with China to heavily boost the development of telecommunication infrastructures in Nigeria. In 2020 China began supplying the Nigerian military with equipment. As the Nigerian economy and government become increasingly intertwined with China, it will be more difficult for it to resist pressure for concessions from Beijing and the PLAN. Last year marked the 50^th anniversary of formal relations between the two countries. In June 2022 the Defense News of Nigeria tweeted that “Chinese military hardware are competitive in price and loans are provided for countries that cannot afford it. Most African militaries are looking to modernise and China is interested to develop this aspect of relations to enlarge its presence in the African arms market.” Already Nigeria is promoting China to other African states. Oluwatosin Adeshokan, writing in The Diplomat, says that “For China the establishment of banks in Nigeria presents an opportunity to further integrate itself with the financial systems of the African continent.” He adds that “Since the early 2000s, China’s trade with Africa has increased by over 2,000 percent, reaching $200 billion in 2019. China has since announced its $1 billion Belt and Road Africa infrastructure development fund to help build roads and necessary infrastructure to aid trade on the continent. But the African continent has also seen a change in its business landscape. As of 2017, there were reportedly over 10,000 Chinese-owned firms operating across the continent.” As African states turn away from former colonial powers to trade with the communist state, the risk of Chinese militarization grows in the region. The China connection at Lekki port facility is significant but, it clearly represents only one prong in China’s long-term African strategy.

Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.

Defining war is more nuanced today than on December 6, 1941, despite attempts by academics and policymakers to create descriptive labels encompassing a definition of modern warfare. Putin declared his February invasion of Ukraine a “special military operation.” The rest of the world identified it as a blatant “undeclared war” with tens of thousands killed in the kinetic conflict and innumerable physical damage done to the sovereign nation’s infrastructure. It is more challenging to recognize and label a country’s aggressive actions overseas that don’t involve kinetic warfare but do injure a foreign state, commercial entities, or a targeted population. Chinese foreign policy and military actions today represent a greater long-term threat to the free world than Putin’s special military operation in Ukraine. The communist regime in Beijing threatens the safety and stability of foreign governments and economies across the globe with, at times, 100% impunity. The CCP, using Huawei as one of its instruments, aggressively targets western regimes and other entities using its advanced technologies. 

In response to the Chinese threat this week, the Biden Administration announced it is investigating Huawei’s operations inside the United States. Reuters is reporting that two US individuals with knowledge of the case admitted that Washington has concerns that American “cell towers fitted with its [Huawei’s] gear could capture sensitive information from military bases and missile silos that the company could then transmit to China….”

Due to the confidentiality and sensitive nature of the investigation, notes Reuter, the identity of the investigators remains protected. What is known is that US authorities are concerned that China could obtain sensitive data on military drills and the readiness status of American bases and personnel via Huawei’s equipment used on cell towers in the US. It is an almost invisible national security threat to our country but one that typically falls below the threshold for most definitions of war. Several policy analysts in Washington argue that the breadth of China’s intrusive operations in the US are reaching a critical point and may be preparation for more overt aggressive action in the future. 

“The previously unreported probe was opened by the Commerce Department shortly after Joe Biden took office early last year, the sources said, following the implementation of rules to flesh out a May 2019 executive order that gave the agency the investigative authority,” writes AP’s Alexandra Alpers. Eight current and former US officials said the probe reflects lingering national security concerns about the company, she added. The Trump Administration imposed a series of restrictions on Huawei over concerns of espionage involving Chinese military-connected operations aimed at the United States. The current probe by the Commerce Department, if it determines Huawei poses a national security threat, could extend beyond existing restrictions imposed by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the US telecoms regulator.

The Trump Administration created encompassing rules permitting the Commerce Department to ban potentially all US transactions with Huawei. If a telecom carrier still relies on Huawei technology it could be forced to remove it or face fines or other penalties, according to the Reuters report. In a 2020 speech FBI Director Christopher Wray said: “If Chinese companies like Huawei are given unfettered access to our telecommunications infrastructure, they could collect any of your information that traverses their devices or networks.” The danger level increases dramatically when Huawei’s equipment is located next to a US military installation. Capturing data enables China to make predictions about US capabilities, readiness levels, and other vital national security-related information. Under Chinese law Huawei is required to spy for the government and must turn over whatever information it collects when Beijing demands it. The civilian-military fusion program in China virtually eliminates any line dividing the private and public sectors. “If you can stick a receiver on a [cellphone] tower, you can collect signals and that means you can get intelligence. No intelligence agency would pass an opportunity like that,” said Jim Lewis, a technology and cybersecurity expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), a Washington D.C.-based think tank,” Alper writes. 

The looming question that remains unanswered concerns an answer to this question. Is this a form of warfare or a prelude to a kinetic war? China’s government plans for the long-term. In some cases, it is generational. By 2030, China estimates it will operate a fully-modernized military. The US is only in recent years taking action to protect against non-kinetic actions by China. There remains no consensus in Washington concerning the definition of an act of war. What is known is that the United States today is vulnerable to technology-based attacks on our infrastructure by the communist regime.

Invade… Capture… Annex… Repeat….  Where and when will Russia stop?

• Transnistria (1992)
• Abkhazia (1992)
• South Ossetia (2008)
• Crimea (2014)
• Luhansk People’s Republic (2014)
• Donetsk People’s Republic (2014)
• Ukraine (2022?)

Russia has a violent history of annexing the territory of nearby over the border states in the post-Soviet era. The current war in Ukraine is Moscow’s latest attempt to dissect the country. President Vladimir Putin first ordered troops into the Crimean Peninsula eight years ago in February. On March 16, 2014, with armed men guarding the polls to ensure pro-Moscow results, Russia “won” a referendum in which Crimea voted to secede from Ukraine. Actual voter turnout was estimated at 30% with only about half of that number voting to secede. In a public ceremony four days later, Putin signed a treaty incorporating Crimea into the Russian Federation. Donbas and the Crimean Peninsula are recognized internationally as part of Ukraine. According to a White House official this week, Putin is using the same “playbook” as in past military incursions. John Kirby, the National Security Council’s coordinator for strategic communications, said in a White House briefing that “The Russian government is reviewing detailed plans to purportedly annex a number of regions in Ukraine, including Kherson, Zaporizhia, all of Donetsk, and Luhansk oblasts.”

Ukraine recaptured Snake Island from Russia earlier in July but, in the eastern part of the country the military continues to lose territory to Putin’s armed forces. Luhansk is now under total Russian control. Kirby says that Russia is following a pattern similar to its earlier incursions that included installing illegitimate proxy officials in areas under its control in eastern Europe. The White House this week is predicting that Putin will call for a sham referendum in Ukraine to claim that the sovereign nation-state wants to join the Russian Federation. Kirby says the timeline for the Russian-sponsored  “referendum” may coincide with regional elections scheduled for September 11. Already Russian banks are opening offices in eastern Ukraine, notes Defense One’s Jacqueline Feldscher. To give the appearance of normality, Moscow is forcing Ukrainians living in those eastern areas under its controls to apply for Russian citizenship and is issuing them new Russian passports. Feldscher reports that Kirby’s announcement is an example of Washington continuing to expose Putin’s gameplan so the world can be prepared for Russia’s next moves, and his attempts to obfuscate his intentions. 

“Annexation by force would be a gross violation of the UN charter and we will not allow it to go unchallenged or unpunished,” says Kirby. The US, in response to Russian moves is sending additional weapons to Ukraine, including more HIMARS (High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems). On Tuesday the top Ukrainian military official, Defense Minister Oleksii Reznikov, called the HIMARS, along with drones and longer-range rockets a “game changer.”  He noted that the HIMARS already helped destroy 30 Russian command stations and an ammunition storage area, slowing Russia’s advance. The Defense Minister reported that his country is not using the weapons to attack inside Russian territory but is “using HIMARS systems precisely like… surgery.” He contrasted it with Russian strategy he compared to a “meat grinder” that has led to the deaths of hundreds of civilian casualties. Former US Ambassador to Ukraine, John Herbst, called the Biden Administration risk adverse and argued that it is too timid. “Instead of giving… all the HIMARS… and the longer ranges, they parceled it out in very small dosages.” It appears that protracted warfare will continue in Ukraine as Putin shows no signs of ending his “special operation.” Some military analysts in Washington now are questioning whether Putin intends to stop once the conflict in Ukraine ends or if, as in the past, the Russian leader will continue on his quest to remake the Russian empire. Looking a map outlining the borders of the old empire, Putin has not completed his adventure.

Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.

Photo: Russian Defence Ministry

It is understandable to see China as the dominant threat in the Pacific, but unfortunately, it is not alone.

A Lowry Institute study notes that “Moscow has moved beyond platitudes about a ‘turn to the East’ and is pursuing a multi-dimensional approach towards the region: reinforcing the partnership with China; reaching out to other major players; and promoting itself as a significant security and economic contributor.”

According to Admiral John C. Aquilino, who leads the U.S. Indo-Pacific Command, “Russia also presents serious risks to the United States as well as our allies and partners, and has the ability to threaten the homeland. As evident from their unprovoked and unjustified attack on the Ukraine, Russia has no regard for international law, its own prior commitments, or any principles that uphold global peace.”

In mid-2021, the Russian Pacific Fleet completed the largest naval exercise since the Soviet era, deploying approximately 20 ships, including the fleet’s flagship and other large combatants, to within 20-30 nautical miles off the Hawaiian island of Oahu. While in the area, Russia twice flew Tu-95 strategic bombers into the region as a further show of force, and an intelligence collection ship operated near Hawaii before, during, and after the exercise. All these actions were an attempt to demonstrate expeditionary and long-range strike capabilities.

He notes that Russia’s Eastern Military District continues to field new and improved weapons and platforms across all services. These expanding capabilities threaten the United States and our allies, including Japan, particularly in connection with its territorial dispute with Russia over the southern Kuril Islands.

The Russian Pacific Fleet increased its precision land attack and anti-ship cruise missile capacity in 2021 with two new upgraded Kilo-class submarines, one guided-missile frigate, and the modernization of one guided-missile destroyer. Eleven more new ships and submarines are expected to arrive in the next four years, including at least two Severodvinsk II class nuclear cruise missile submarines and four more advanced Kilo submarines.

The Russian Pacific Fleet employs Kalibr cruise missiles and the newly tested Tsirkon hypersonic cruise missiles. In the air domain, Moscow recently announced it would station its most advanced fighter aircraft, the fifth generation Su-57, in the Eastern Military District.

These aircraft will join an air defense structure already boasting significant numbers of fourth-generation fighters, interceptors, and advanced air defense missiles, including the state-of-the-art S-400 surface-to-air missile system. Since 2016, Russia has stationed coastal defense cruise missiles (CDCM) in the disputed Kuril Islands, expanding its capability to threaten Japan and potentially U.S. forces. Moscow announced in late 2021 formation of a new CDCM unit to make their presence permanent.

Russia maintains a modern nuclear triad with upgraded Tu-95MSM bombers, armed with new Kh-101/102 land-attack cruise missiles. New capabilities will include at least one Dolgorukiy II class nuclear ballistic submarine, which will join two Dolgorukiy I missile submarines already in the Pacific Fleet, and a special purpose Belogorod nuclear submarine that Moscow announced would arrive in 2022. The Belogorod will carry the Poseidon unmanned nuclear weapon.

The first launch of the SARMAT heavy ICBM is expected by mid-2022. Russia is rapidly advancing its space and counter-space capabilities, conducting the thirdhighest number of space launches in 2021.

Russia is also developing a suite of anti-satellite capabilities, such as the PL-19 Nudol direct ascent missile, high-powered lasers, and various electronic warfare systems. These capabilities allow Russia to disrupt or destroy adversary satellites during peacetime or conflict. Moscow’s extensive cyber capabilities are well known and globally active. Advanced and emerging techniques, including artificial intelligence-enabled deep fakes, coupled with existing and new relationships with deniable proxy groups, are expected to expand Russia’s ability to deceive, deny, and destroy adversary networks and control systems.

Photo: Pixabay

One of the most common complaints many on the right make about those on the left, is that no one on the left will ever admit they are wrong.  Caught in the process of either spreading misinformation, or simply incorrect about a belief or assumption, when does a progressive ever utter the words, I was wrong?

Those of us on the right are never afraid to admit a mistake.  In general, we believe we can learn from our errors.  But in order to find the path to truth, we must begin by acknowledging the wrong path.

Without an ounce of shame, I hereby admit to my own mistaken belief – I never thought the US Supreme Court would reverse Roe v. Wade in my lifetime, if at all.  I believed the Court would continue to limit Roe, or carve out yet another exception.

But, I was wrong.  In Dobbs v. Jackson,    the US Supreme Court reversed the 50 year old precedent of Roe, without hesitation or equivocation of any sort. 

The misconceptions, and outright lies about the Dobbs decision began almost immediately.  President Biden said “(n)ow with Roe gone, let’s be very clear, the health and life of women across this nation are now at risk…the court has done what it’s never done before – expressly taking away a constitution right that is so fundamental to so many Americans.”     According to Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra, “Today’s decision is unconscionable. Abortion is a basic and essential part of health care – and patients must have the right to make decisions about their health care and autonomy over their own bodies.” 

Not to be outdone, Attorney General Merrick Garland made this statement; “Today, the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade…and held that the right to abortion is no longer protected by the Constitution….(t)he Supreme Court has eliminated an established right that has been an essential component of women’s liberty for half a century – a right that has safeguarded women’s ability to participate fully and equally in society…(t)his decision deals a devastating blow to reproductive freedom in the United States. It will have an immediate and irreversible impact on the lives of people across the country. And it will be greatly disproportionate in its effect – with the greatest burdens felt by people of color and those of limited financial means.”  

Has the Supreme Court really eliminated a woman’s “right” to an abortion?  Has “reproductive freedom” been dealt a “devastating blow?”  Has the health and safety of women across the country been placed at risk?

Considering the source of these allegations, the answer should be obvious.

In his majority opinion, Justice Alito notes that “(f)or the first 185 years after the adoption of the Constitution, each State was permitted to address (the issue of abortion) in accordance with the views of its citizens. Then, in 1973… (e)ven though the Constitution makes no mention of abortion, the Court held that it confers a broad right to obtain one…(a)lthough the Court acknowledged that States had a legitimate interest in protecting ‘potential life,’ it found that this interest could not justify any restriction on pre-viability abortions. The Court did not explain the basis for this line, and even abortion supporters have found it hard to defend Roe’s reasoning.”

Further,  “(a)t the time of Roe, 30 States still prohibited abortion at all stages. In the years prior to that decision, about a third of the States had liberalized their laws, but Roe abruptly ended that political process. It imposed the same highly restrictive regime on the entire Nation, and it effectively struck down the abortion laws of every single State. As Justice Byron White aptly put it in his dissent, the decision represented the ‘exercise of raw judicial power,’ (citation omitted), and it sparked a national controversy that has embittered our political culture for a half century.”

“Americans continue to hold passionate and widely divergent views on abortion,” Justice Alito writes, “and state legislatures have acted accordingly. Some have recently enacted laws allowing abortion, with few restrictions, at all stages of pregnancy. Others have tightly restricted abortion beginning well before viability. And in this case, 26 States have expressly asked this Court to overrule Roe…and allow the States to regulate or prohibit pre-viability abortions.”

“We hold that Roe…must be overruled. The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision, including the one on which the defenders of Roe…now chiefly rely—the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. That provision has been held to guarantee some rights that are not mentioned in the Constitution, but any such right must be ‘deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition’ and ‘implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.’” (Citation omitted.)

“The right to abortion does not fall within this category. Until the latter part of the 20th century, such a right was entirely unknown in American law. Indeed, when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted, three quarters of the States made abortion a crime at all stages of pregnancy…Roe was egregiously wrong from the start. Its reasoning was exceptionally weak, and the decision has had damaging consequences. And far from bringing about a national settlement of the abortion issue, Roe…enflamed debate and deepened division.”

“It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives. ‘The permissibility of abortion, and the limitations, upon it, are to be resolved like most important questions in our democracy: by citizens trying to persuade one another and then voting.’ (Citation omitted.) That is what the Constitution and the rule of law demand.”

I encourage the reader to reread, and then read once more the above-stated quotes taken directly from Justice Alito’s majority opinion in Dobbs.  Does this language “eliminate” the “right” to an abortion?  Of course not.  Instead, the Court recognizes that there is not, and never has been, a Constitutional Right to abortion.  Instead, historically, before Roe, this issue was subject to State regulation, not federal.

In other words, States are once more recognized as being free to allow or prohibit abortion as their legislatures, elected by their citizens, see fit.   

Of course, this is the heart of the matter. For 50 years, abortion supporters have been satisfied with mandating and imposing their beliefs on the entire nation, without regard to the objections, sensibilities and opinions of their fellow citizens.  Now, thanks to the Supreme Court, abortion supporters must “try and persuade” their fellow citizens through the democratic process that abortion is necessary for “reproductive freedom,” and if necessary, what, if any, limitations should be placed on the procedure.

President Biden seemed to understand the nature of this change as he “implored voters to turn out in November to elect members of Congress willing to write abortion protections into law. Speaking from the White House, Biden said, ‘This is a sad day for the country in my view, but it doesn’t mean the fight is over.’”

But then there are abortion supporters like Maxine Waters (D-CA), who don’t appear to have any faith in the democratic process.  “Women are going to control their bodies no matter how they try and stop us,” Waters stated. “The hell with the Supreme Court. We will defy them. Women will be in control of their bodies…(w)e are going to make sure we fight for the right to control our own bodies.” 

Waters is joined by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) in supporting the effort to “persuade” voters to support abortion legislation through reasoned discussion; “Ocasio-Cortez has called the Supreme Court ruling…’illegitimate’ and called for supporters to take to ‘the streets’ to fight for abortion.”

Expect more temper tantrums from people like Waters and AOC as they bully and threaten their fellow citizens, rather than follow the clear path pointed out by the Supreme Court – that is, to argue with and persuade the citizens and legislatures of the various states where abortion is more heavily restricted.  But let’s face it, after 50 years of having their way, it’s hard for abortion supporters to suddenly realize there are other opinions on this issue that must be respected if a consensus is to be reached.  

Abortion proponents could start the discussion by admitting that Roe‘s interpretation of the Constitution was wrong.  I don’t see that happening, but if it does…well, I can admit when I’m wrong…

Judge John Wilson (ret.) served on the bench in NYC.

Photo: Pixabay

In January of this year, we discussed the Supreme Court decision in National Federation of Independent Business v. Department of Labor.  There, the Court found that the Department’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) did not have the authority to mandate that private employers with more than 100 employees must require their employees to receive the Covid-19 vaccine.  We noted at that time, “(u)nder Article 1 of the United States Constitution…it is basic to our structure of government that Congress makes the laws, and can delegate to ‘any department or officer’ whatever power is necessary to execute and enforce those laws.”  Further, under Article 2 of the Constitution, “'(t)he President is responsible for implementing and enforcing the laws written by Congress.’  That is, the President does not make the laws.” 

Seems simple enough, doesn’t it? If Congress does not delegate a power to a department or officer, that department or officer of the government cannot act.  If Congress does not enact a law, the President cannot act.  Power resides with the Congress, who are the elected representatives of the People of the United States.  The President, and the various Departments (who are all under the authority of various Secretaries of the President’s Cabinet), can only “implement and enforce the laws written by Congress.”  

This is the structure, the framework, of our Republic.  Yet once more, the Supreme Court, which is tasked with interpreting those laws written by Congress, has been forced to explain to the Biden Administration why it cannot act without Congressional approval.

In West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency, Chief Justice Roberts delivered the opinion of the Court.  “The Clean Air Act authorizes the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate power plants by setting a ‘standard of performance’ for their emission of certain pollutants into the air,” the Court explained.  “Since passage of the Act 50 years ago, EPA has exercised this authority by setting performance standards based on measures that would reduce pollution by causing plants to operate more cleanly. In 2015, however, EPA issued a new rule concluding that the ‘best system of emission reduction’ for existing coal-fired power plants included a requirement that such facilities reduce their own production of electricity, or subsidize increased generation by natural gas, wind, or solar sources.”

The EPA used Section 111 of the Clean Air Act, which “directs EPA to (1) ‘determine[],’ taking into account various factors, the ‘best system of emission reduction which . . . has been adequately demonstrated,’ (2) ascertain the ‘degree of emission limitation achievable through the application’ of that system, and (3) impose an emissions limit on new stationary sources that ‘reflects’ that amount… Section 111…’operates as a gap-filler,’ empowering EPA to regulate harmful emissions not already controlled under the Agency’s other authorities.”

According to Justice Roberts, “EPA has used (Section 111) only a handful of times since the enactment of the statute in 1970…(i)t was…only a slight overstatement for one of the architects of the 1990 amendments to the Clean Air Act to refer to Section 111…as an ‘obscure, never-used section of the law.’”

In 2015, under the Obama Administration, the EPA decided that “the ‘best system of emission reduction . . . adequately demonstrated’ was one that would reduce carbon pollution mostly by moving production to cleaner sources” such as wind, solar and natural gas.  To this end, “(t)he Agency settled on what it regarded as a “reasonable” amount of shift, which it based on modeling of how much more electricity both natural gas and renewable sources could supply without causing undue cost increases or reducing the overall power supply. (Citation omitted.) Based on these changes, EPA projected that by 2030, it would be feasible to have coal provide 27% of national electricity generation, down from 38% in 2014.”

The problem? “From these significant projected reductions in generation, EPA developed a series of complex equations to ‘determine the emission performance rates’ that States would be required to implement. (Citation omitted.) The calculations resulted in numerical emissions ceilings so strict that no existing coal plant would have been able to achieve them…(t)he point, after all, was to compel the transfer of power generating capacity from existing sources to wind and solar. The White House stated that the Clean Power Plan would ‘drive a[n] . . . aggressive transformation in the domestic energy industry.'”

Roberts notes also that “EPA’s own modeling concluded that the rule would entail billions of dollars in compliance costs (to be paid in the form of higher energy prices), require the retirement of dozens of coal-fired plants, and eliminate tens of thousands of jobs across various sectors…(t)he Energy Information Administration reached similar conclusions, projecting that the rule would cause retail electricity prices to remain persistently 10% higher in many States, and would reduce GDP by at least a trillion 2009 dollars by 2040.”

Lucky for the US economy, the 2015 EPA rules were halted by the Trump Administration, in 2019.  At that time, the EPA determined that the 2015 rule change ” fell under the ‘major question doctrine.’ (Citation omitted.) Under that doctrine, EPA explained, courts ‘expect Congress to speak clearly if it wishes to assign to an agency decisions of vast economic and political significance’…no section 111 rule of the scores issued ha[d] ever been based on…that novel reading of the statute (which) would empower EPA ‘to order the wholesale restructuring of any industrial sector’ based only on its discretionary assessment of ‘such factors as ‘cost’ and ‘feasibility.’”

In other words, the EPA of the Trump Administration had concluded that the EPA of the Obama Administration had overstepped their authority.

Enter yet another change of Administration.  Much like the Obama Administration, the Biden Administration wanted the 2015 interpretation of the Clean Air Act to stand, and in 2019, a lower Appellate Court agreed, concluding “that the major questions doctrine did not apply, and thus rejected the need for a clear statement of congressional intent to delegate such power to EPA.”

Before the Biden EPA could annihilate the coal industry, and impose regulations that would ruin the American economy even further, the Supreme Court stepped in.

“’Congress could not have intended to delegate’ such a sweeping and consequential authority ‘in so cryptic a fashion,'” Roberts writes.  “Extraordinary grants of regulatory authority are rarely accomplished through ‘modest words,’ ‘vague terms,’ or ‘subtle device[s]’… Agencies have only those powers given to them by Congress, and ‘enabling legislation’ is generally not an ‘open book to which the agency [may] add pages and change the plot line…(w)e presume that ‘Congress intends to make major policy decisions itself, not leave those decisions to agencies.’” (Citations omitted.)  

Finding that this was a “major questions” case, the Court held that the “EPA ‘claim[ed] to discover in a long-extant statute an unheralded power’ representing a ‘transformative expansion in [its] regulatory authority’…(i)t located that newfound power in the vague language of an ‘ancillary provision[]’ of the Act…one that was designed to function as a gap filler and had rarely been used in the preceding decades. And the Agency’s discovery allowed it to adopt a regulatory program that Congress had conspicuously and repeatedly declined to enact itself…(g)iven these circumstances, there is every reason to ‘hesitate before concluding that Congress’ meant to confer on EPA the authority it claims under Section 111.” (Citations omitted.)

“(W)e cannot ignore,” Roberts continued, “that the regulatory writ EPA newly uncovered conveniently enabled it to enact a program that, long after the dangers posed by greenhouse gas emissions ‘had become well known, Congress considered and rejected’ multiple times…(a)t bottom, the Clean Power Plan essentially adopted a cap-and-trade scheme…for carbon. (Citation omitted.) Congress, however, has consistently rejected proposals to amend the Clean Air Act to create such a program…(i)t has also declined to enact similar measures, such as a carbon tax…(g)iven these circumstances, our precedent counsels skepticism toward EPA’s claim that Section 111 empowers it to devise carbon emissions caps.”

Thus, while the Court believes that “(c)apping carbon dioxide emissions at a level that will force a nationwide transition away from the use of coal to generate electricity may be a sensible ‘solution to the crisis of the day’…it is not plausible that Congress gave EPA the authority to adopt on its own such a regulatory scheme in Section 111…(a) decision of such magnitude and consequence rests with Congress itself, or an agency acting pursuant to a clear delegation from that representative body.”

Reaction to the Supreme Court’s decision was predictable.  According to California Governor Gavin Newsome, “SCOTUS sided with the fossil fuel industry, kneecapping EPA’s basic ability to tackle climate change. CA will lead this fight with our $53.9 BILLION climate commitment. We’ll reduce pollution, protect people from extreme weather & leave the world better off than we found it.”  White House Spokesperson Abdullah Hasan claimed that “This is another devastating decision from the Court that aims to take our country backwards. While the Court’s decision risks damaging our ability to keep our air clean and combat climate change, President Biden will not relent in using the authorities that he has under law to protect public health and tackle the climate change crisis.”  

But the Attorney General for West Virginia, Patrick Morrisey, has a more realistic position, in keeping with the language used by Justice Roberts in his opinion; “Huge victory against federal overreach and the excesses of the administrative state. This is a HUGE win for…those who care about maintaining separation of powers in our nation.” 

In other words, to paraphrase Justice Roberts and AG Morrisey, the issue isn’t whether or not the nation needs to transition from fossil fuels to “greener” energy sources.  At heart, the EPA only has the powers granted to it by Congress, and if this issue has a solution, that solution must come from Congress, and not unelected bureaucrats.  

Now, if only the Biden Administration showed as much respect for the Constitution as the Supreme Court…

Judge John Wilson (ret.) served on the bench in NYC

One of the jobs of American Presidents is to protect the citizens of this great nation from harm. The threat may come from the barrel of a gun or from an enemy’s economic policies. It should not come from inside the White House.

In June, President Biden ordered the sale of part of the US strategic petroleum reserve to communist China. Much of the five million barrels sold to foreign entities went to Sinopec, a company with which his son, Hunter Biden, may still have ties from his financial ventures. The President released the emergency reserves at a time when domestic oil prices are hitting the average American family hard amidst rising across-the-board inflation that this week reached a 41-year high.

Biden’s immediate response to the fallout from his decision was to blame American oil producers and call on US oil companies and gas stations to cut prices. The Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) through October is releasing a million barrels a day through at least this October. The flow is draining the SPR, which last month fell to the lowest since 1986.

This week, after the strategic petroleum sale, the president headed to Saudi Arabia with the announced goal of securing more oil for the United States. It appears he will return to Washington with a little short-term help from Saudi Arabia. The kingdom agreed to raise oil production 50% above planned levels for July and August. The White House has not commented on what happens in six weeks at the end of August when the warm summer heat dissipates and the demand for heating oil increases as temperatures drop. Energy analysts suggest that the temporary help from Saudi Arabia is not enough to forestall more price increases in the coming months.

The former head of Saudi Arabian intelligence, Prince Turki Al-Faisal, on Friday called Biden a “much diminished president” since he assumed office in January 2021. In a television interview on Friday the Prince said: “As an example, on energy issues, he [Biden] came in with a policy to stop completely fossil fuel usage not only in the United States, but worldwide, and now he is finding himself having to rely on fossil fuels as a means of meeting the energy shortage that has come about, not only because of the Ukraine war, but also because of US policy itself that shut down pipelines and stopped issuing … discovery of oil on US soil.” If the Saudi prince can understand the energy situation, one must question what is going on in the halls of power in Washington, DC and who is sculpting our downward-spiraling energy policy.

Biden, a vocal critic of the kingdom, is expected to raise human rights in his meetings in Riyadh over the weekend. Although relations between the US and the kingdom remain tense, and the US needs Saudi Arabian oil this summer. Biden has vowed to raise the human rights issue in bilateral talks with Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. Prince Turki added: “So what I would say is, any visitor and not just the American president who has complaints about Saudi issues like human rights and so on, please get off your high horse.” Prince Turki added that it will be difficult for Saudi Arabia to believe Biden on issues including peace, energy, terrorism, and Iran in the future. 

Saudi Arabia is helping the US and Europe to stabilize domestic oil prices in the short-term. The US still needs a coherent energy policy. “If the administration is serious about increasing supply, they should be meeting with producers here at home instead of looking to governments overseas,” added American Petroleum Institute spokeswoman Christina Noel. The Biden Administration is attempting to stop oil production domestically while, at the same time, pay for increased Saudi production. On Tuesday nearly 70 House Republicans sent a letter to the president urging him to prioritize American energy sources, calling the trip to Saudi Arabia “a confusing display of weakness.” US foreign policy with Saudi Arabia under the Biden Administration remains inconsistent and hostile and oil prices remain high.

Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.

China may possess advanced technology but without other countries continuously supplying it, the communist giant could not compete with the United States or other post-industrial nations for long. Min-hua Chiang, a research fellow and economist with Heritage Foundation, reports this week that China is far more dependent on the United States than most people think. Its critical supply chain requires vast numbers of imported chips and capital equipment. That, in part, is one reason China is seeking to become more self-reliant. There is a push in Beijing to increase domestically produced, advanced technologies in the event that other states impose economic sanctions on China in the future. Second, despite China’s effective overseas industrial espionage network supplying stolen technology, it pays a high price for legally obtained technology from other advanced countries.

President Xi Jinping’s long-term, geopolitical ambitions threaten to isolate China from the world’s advanced economies. Xi wants to ensure the Chinese economy can fulfill demand should Beijing seek to force reunification of Taiwan or initiate a conflict in the South China Sea. His policy of self-reliance preceded the lessons China is learning from Russia’s war in Ukraine, although the conflict is serving to reinforce Xi’s message. 

According to Chiang, China’s direct political confrontation with the United States has exposed its weakness in the solid technology hierarchy and its unbreakable dependence on the US. Its lack of technological superiority in key areas also serves as a constraint on Xi’s global plans. She notes that “China’s late start is the main reason for its inferior level of technology. The communist regime didn’t start actively promoting the industry’s development until the 1980s. Drawing lessons from the experiences of the East Asian Tigers—the four highly developed economies of Hong Kong, Singapore, South Korea, and Taiwan—China had stepped up its efforts by encouraging foreign direct investment in assembling products such as smartphones, laptops, computers, etc., in China.” 

Its export-oriented economic development, based on using and assembling foreign countries’ capital equipment and industrial components, has trapped the country into technology reliance on foreign countries. The Economist’s Intelligence Unit points out that advanced foreign industrial goods is evidenced by its growing trade deficit in electrical machinery (including semiconductor chips) from $15 billion in 2001 to $217 billion in 2021. Jenny Leonard, of Bloomberg, reports that “Chinese orders for chip-manufacturing equipment from overseas suppliers rose 58% in 2021, making it the biggest market for those products for a second year running, according to data provided by industry body Semi.” This is evidence of China’s rush to stockpile equipment from the United States before any new US export restrictions came into effect.

China’s Ministry of Commerce admits that the United States is its biggest source of intellectual property. Data from its Bureau of Economic Analysis indicates that exports of US intellectual property tripled in the last decade. That is not accounting for any stolen or reverse-engineered technology it obtained. Chiang says that “ According to the US Bureau of Industry and Security, the number of license applications from China for purchasing ‘tangible items, software, and technology’ increased from 3,747 in 2020 to 5,923 in 2021. The total amounts paid for those applications increased from $106 billion to $545 billion. As a result, the licensing amounts per application went up from $28 million to $92 million. Although the cost of foreign technology has increased, and the length of time to obtain US licenses is longer, there are no major technological breakthroughs in China to counter its dependence on foreign technology. Slower technological advancement means slower economic growth, says Chiang. This is one area that threatens the legitimacy of the Chinese Communist Party and its hold on power. Without a strong global supply chain network, China could be faced with a long-term dependence on more advanced overseas technologies. Maintaining that gap could provide protection for Taiwan, the South China Sea, and other states threatened by China’s rapid rise to power. However, the Biden Administration and the US Department of Commerce appear unwilling to crack down on China to ensure it abides by the rule of the international norms-based trading system. 

“If the Biden administration is serious about securing the semiconductor supply chain in the United States and allied and partner countries, it’s absurd to let the Chinese Communist Party buy up and stockpile the global supply of tools and equipment to make semiconductors,” says US House Representative Michael McCaul, a Republican from Texas. “At the center of the growing debate, the US Department of Commerce said it’s so far found nothing other than normal market forces at play,” according to Bloomberg News. Economists are watching closely this summer to see if China will increase orders during a period of global shortages. If the Biden Administration joins with Japan, the Netherlands, and some of its other allies, it could ward off China jumping to the front of line with offers of higher that market value on critical technology products. Such a policy also could forestall Chinese moves toward forced reunification with Taiwan.

Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Department

Photo: Bund area of Shanghai (Pixabay)

Putin is separating Ukrainian children from their parents and coercing, or forcing, their parents to relocate inside Russia in a systematic “filtration” operation, according to US Secretary of State Tony Blinken. In a serious breach of the Fourth Geneva Convention on the protection of civilians, Russia is unlawfully transferring and deporting protected persons. It is a “war crime.” On the day before the Ukraine Accountability Conference on July 14, Blinken announced the United States will hold President Putin and his government accountable for the unlawful transfer and forced deportations in Russian-controlled regions of Ukraine. “Russian authorities must release those detained and allow Ukrainian citizens forcibly removed or coerced into leaving their country the ability to promptly and safely return home,” says Blinken.  

The US Government is calling for Russia to provide outside independent observers access to the “filtration” facilities and to forced deportation relocation areas in Russia. The numbers involved are staggering. Sources estimate that they total between 900,000 and 1.6 million Ukrainian citizens. Over 260,000 are young victims of Putin’s policy, that often sends them to isolated regions in the Far East. Families are not kept together, according to the policy. 

Military analysts familiar with the operation note that it is pre-meditated and resembles Russian actions during its war in Chechnya. The “filtration” operation is well-organized. Putin’s foot soldiers first separate families. They then confiscate the Ukrainian citizens’ passports and issue the victims Russian papers. One demographer suggested that this effort was in part due to Putin’s desire to change the demographic makeup of Ukraine. The “filtration” extends to abductions of children living in orphanages inside Ukraine, where there are seized and put up for adoption inside Russia. 

Eyewitnesses and survivors of “filtration” operations, detentions, and forced deportations report frequent threats, harassment, and incidents of torture by Russian security forces, according to Blinken.” During this process, Russian authorities also reportedly capture and store biometric and personal data, subject civilians to invasive searches and interrogations and coerce Ukrainian citizens into signing agreements to stay in Russia, hindering their ability to freely return home,” he adds.

Worse yet, according to the State Department, is mounting evidence that Russian authorities are detaining or disappearing thousands of Ukrainian civilians who do not pass “filtration” tests. Those detained or “filtered out” include Ukrainians deemed threatening because of their potential affiliation with the Ukrainian army, territorial defense forces, media, government, and civil society groups. 

Ukraine’s General Prosecutor, along with eyewitnesses and other survivors, have reported that Russian authorities recently transported tens of thousands of people to detention facilities inside Russian-controlled Donetsk, where many are reportedly tortured. Reports coming in from the region charge that many of the targeted individuals have been summarily executed. The evidence, notes a State Department official, is consistent with Russian atrocities committed in Bucha, Mariupol, and other locations inside Ukraine. Blinken said President Putin and his government will not be able to engage in these systematic abuses with impunity. “Accountability is imperative.  This is why we are supporting Ukrainian and international authorities’ efforts to collect, document, and preserve evidence of atrocities.  Together, we are dedicated to holding perpetrators of war crimes and other atrocities accountable.” The situation is complex and disorganized as the war moves into its sixth month. The United Nations reports that a full two-thirds of all Ukrainian children have been forced from their homes by the war. Tens of thousands of those children already were in Ukrainian institutions without a stable home life. Their fate is in more jeopardy now.

Speaking in June before the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva, Michelle Bachelet, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, said her office has been looking into allegations of children forcibly deported from Ukraine to the Russian Federation. She told the Council: “we are concerned about the alleged plans of the Russian authorities to allow the movement of children from Ukraine to families in the Russian Federation… do not appear to include steps for family reunification or respect the best interest of the child.” It is proving a challenge to document the expansive number of cases and total abductions and executions of civilians. The full number may never be known, even if the West holds Putin accountable for the atrocities.

Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.

Illustration: Pixabay