TODAY'S PAPER
30° Good Morning
SEARCH
30° Good Morning

Category: Nation

Puerto Rico after Maria: What you need to know

Posted on by Erin Geismar

Hurricane Maria has devastated Puerto Rico, but the full picture of the damage and the grim situation facing residents is still unclear. Loss of power and phone service to nearly the entire island has made communication spotty so many Americans have yet to hear from family and friends there. Here’s what you need to know about storm’s damage and how you can help:

The storm immediately left nearly all 3.4 million people without basic necessities like water and power.

The storm tore up the U.S. territory on Sept. 20, killing at least 34 people and leaving nearly all 3.4 million people in Puerto Rico without power and most without water.

Gov. Ricardo Rossello has said he believes the hurricane caused $90 billion in damage across the island.

The storm smashed poles, downed power lines and damaged electricity-generating plants, knocking out a grid that would be considered antiquated on the United States mainland.

Generators are providing power to the fortunate few who have them.

This is without a doubt the biggest catastrophe in modern history for Puerto Rico
– Gov. Ricardo Rossello

Conditions in Puerto Rico remain dire. 

Food and water shortages plague the island amid the widespread power outage. Communications are spotty and roads are clogged with debris.

Flights are infrequent.

Officials said electrical power may not be fully restored for more than a month.

Many others are also waiting for help from anyone from the federal or Puerto Rican government.

National Guard Soldiers arrive at Barrio Obrero in Santurce on Sept. 24. Photo credit: AP

But the scope of the devastation is so broad, and the relief effort so concentrated in San Juan, that many people from outside the capital say they have received little to no help.

“The devastation in Puerto Rico has set us back nearly 20 to 30 years,
– Puerto Rico Resident Commissioner Jenniffer Gonzalez.

“I can’t deny that the Puerto Rico of now is different from that of a week ago. The destruction of properties, of flattened structures, of families without homes, of debris everywhere. The island’s greenery is gone,” Gonzalez said.    

The island’s economy and infrastructure were in sorry shape long before Maria struck.

A $73 billion debt crisis has left agencies like the state power company broke. As a result the power company abandoned most basic maintenance in recent years, leaving the island subject to regular blackouts.

Car headlights illuminate a storefront in San Juan on Sept. 22. Photo credit: AP

 

The future looks grim as it’s feared that financial losses from the storm and the inability of young people to find work will perpetuate economic turmoil.

Tax collections will drop, and Puerto Rico’s tourism industry “will not recover for some time,” according to James Eck, a vice president with the credit-rating agency Moody’s.

With no power, more young workers may leave Puerto Rico for better opportunities elsewhere.

People line up for gas in San Juan on Sept 25. Photo credit: AP

That would further a vicious cycle already underway, where fewer workers means less tax revenue, which hurts the economy, which encourages even more people to leave. Puerto Rico’s population dropped by 8 percent from 2010 through the middle of 2016.   

How to  help

While the urge to donate clothes and other supplies is natural, money is the best way to contribute during times of disaster, charities and philanthropy experts say.

A woman sits in her hurricane-damaged home in Montebello on Sept. 22. Photo credit: AP

Donating directly through a website gets money to a charity faster than a text donation, even though the text might seem easier.

Places to donate money

More on what’s needed

Still, there’s never a time and place for supplies. Diapers, for example, are often requested, as are construction supplies.

Bottled water was gone from stores throughout Puerto Rico in the few stores open five days after the earthquake. Photo credit: AP

 

How the United States is responding

  
  • President Donald Trump visited storm-ravaged Puerto Rico on Tuesday, touting the federal response amid power, food and water shortages, but also making what critics saw as insensitive comments about the struggling island. Trump congratulated Puerto Ricans for avoiding a high death toll of “a real catastrophe like Katrina.” As many as 1,800 people died in 2005 when Hurricane Katrina breached levees protecting New Orleans
  • The Trump administration is temporarily waiving the Jones Act, which prohibits foreign-flagged ships from shuttling goods between U.S. ports, for Puerto Rico.
  • The federal government will pick up 100 percent of the costs for debris removal and other emergency assistance. U.S. states and territories typically cover 25 percent of the costs, with the federal government paying the remaining 75 percent.

  • Active-duty military forces have been sent in to help relief efforts.
  • Part of the $15 billion Congress passed early this month for hurricanes Harvey and Irma relief also applied to Puerto Rico.
  • A group of Democratic senators has requested that Congress immediately take up a supplemental spending bill to be able to send more aid to Puerto Rico.

Key facts about the new Trump travel ban

Posted on by achoi

Citizens of more than half a dozen countries will face restrictions on entry to the U.S. under a proclamation signed by President Donald Trump in September. The Supreme Court decided Monday that the policy can take full effect.

The ban has faced legal challenges since the first version was proposed in January. Critics of the latest iteration have said it’s a mystery why some countries are included and that some countries were added to provide legal and political cover for what they said remains a “Muslim ban.”

What exactly did the Supreme Court just decide?

To grant a Trump administration request that the September ban be enforced even as it is challenged in lower courts.

The order also asked appeals courts to move quickly to determine the legality of the ban. Quick resolution by appellate courts would allow the Supreme Court to hear and decide the issue this term, by the end of June.

What does the latest decision mean for the legal process?

Federal judges in Hawaii and Maryland blocked implementation of major parts of the ban in October, while other legal challenges continue in lower courts.

Judges in both states found the ban in violation of federal law. The Trump administration appealed both decisions to federal appeals courts in San Francisco and Richmond, Va., and arguments are expected to be heard this week.

The Supreme Court’s action Monday suggests the high court could uphold the latest version of the ban when it reaches them.

Who does the ban affect?

The restrictions cover citizens of Chad, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Somalia, Syria, and Yemen — and some Venezuelan government officials and their families.

The last iteration of the ban covered people from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen.

What are the restrictions based on?

The restrictions are based on new baseline factors such as whether countries issue electronic passports with biometric information to prevent fraud and report information about potential terror threats. That baseline was shared with countries across the globe, and they were given 50 days to comply.

Those that failed to satisfy the “objective process of measuring whether countries met the baseline” are now subject to new restrictions.

What you need to know about the countries included

1. Some, such as Iran and Syria, pose legitimate national security threats to the United States and refuse to cooperate with U.S. consular investigations.

2. Another category includes countries such as Yemen and Libya, where local authorities have sought to be as cooperative as possible but lack full control over their territory and the basic ability to provide the information the United States wants. In those cases, officials said, the United States tried to stress that inclusion on the list wasn’t an indictment of those nations’ commitment to fighting terrorism.

3. The final category includes countries such as North Korea and Venezuela whose citizens don’t necessarily pose a major threat to the United States but where the administration wanted to send a message that the government’s broader actions are unacceptable.

The new visa sanctions on Venezuela, for instance, apply only to officials from five government security agencies and their immediate families.

The restrictions on North Korea will have little impact because so few of its citizens visit the United States.

Are there any exemptions for the ban?

Unlike the first iteration of Trump’s travel ban, which sparked chaos at airports across the country and a flurry of legal challenges after being hastily written with little input outside the White House, officials stressed they had been working for months on the new rules, in collaboration with various agencies and in conversation with foreign governments.

To limit confusion, valid visas would not be revoked as a result of the proclamation. The order also permits, but does not guarantee, case-by-case waivers for citizens of the affected countries who meet certain criteria.

That includes: having previously worked or studied in the U.S.; having previously established “significant contacts” in the U.S.; and having “significant business or professional obligations” in the U.S. Still, officials acknowledged the waiver restrictions were narrower than the exemptions for people with “bona fide” ties to the United States that the Supreme Court mandated before the expiring order went into effect in late June.

Donald Trump at the United Nations: What to expect

Posted on by Erin Geismar

UNITED NATIONS – When Donald Trump steps up to the podium Tuesday during the UN General Assembly, the real estate tycoon-turned-reality show celebrity and 45th U.S. president will hold sway on the diplomatic world’s biggest stage.

Trump is scheduled to be the second speaker Tuesday. He is likely, scholars said, to use the opportunity in his first General Assembly address to spell out his priorities — and to say how, or whether, American interests will be helped or hindered by the multilateral organization that he referred to in a December 2016 tweet as “a club for people to get together, talk and have a good time.”

A senior White House official said his remarks Tuesday will condemn the “North Korean menace” and Iran for their nuclear ambitions while also discussing the threat of terrorism at large.

He will also discuss why countries must apply their own “America First” approach, the official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity.

In advance of his visit, experts weighed in on how Trump might use this global platform.

How will the ‘America First’ President outline his foreign policy?

Trump’s speech also symbolizes, perhaps like no other address in his eight-month tenure, a milestone in which all eyes focus on the leader of the world’s most powerful nation as he talks directly to the rest of the world.

Several scholars predict Trump’s appearance will be among the most closely watched, as it poses an opportunity for the new president, who ran on an “America First” platform, to outline his foreign policy.

“One of the biggest questions with President Trump in general, in the way that he enunciates foreign policy,” said Stewart Patrick, director of the International Institutions and Global Governance Program at the Council on Foreign Relations, “is there hasn’t been so far a major foreign policy speech where he in a sense explains what the United States is for or what the place of the United Nations is within the instruments of, or vehicles for, advancing U.S. foreign policy goals.”

But the president has repeatedly criticized the United Nations.

In March 2016, he said: “The United Nations is not a friend of democracy, it’s not a friend to freedom, it’s not a friend even to the United States of America.”

On Monday, he referenced his “Make America Great Again” campaign slogan when asked about what he seeks to convey to the multilateral institution.

“I think the main message is ‘make the United Nations great.’ Not again. ‘Make the United Nations great, ’ ” he said. “Such tremendous potential, and I think we’ll be able to do this.”

The White House official said that Trump’s speech Tuesday shouldn’t be taken as a criticism of the United Nations, but that the president won’t “appeal to a top-down model of global bureaucracy,” but rather “a model that’s from the nation-state up.”

Past presidents focused on the U.S. role as a leader in the world and the UN’s function in furthering it.

Previous U.S. presidents came to the UN prepared to deliver speeches that often echoed comments they had made elsewhere, and emphasized the U.S. role as a leader in the world and the UN’s function in furthering it, said Patrick, who is also author of “The Sovereignty Wars: Reconciling America with the World.”

Barack Obama praised the institution for its multilateral might, while his predecessor, George W. Bush, questioned its “relevance,” famously bypassing the UN’s consensus in order to launch a war in Iraq in 2003.

Bill Clinton, however, spoke of expanding the world’s democracies, and George H.W. Bush mapped out a “New World Order” after he sought and received UN approval for a multinational force to remove Iraqi President Saddam Hussein’s forces from Kuwait in January 1991.

“Speeches like the one Trump will give at the UN are a typical forum for U.S. presidents to lay out their views of international relations and U.S. policy, and this would typically be a time when a president will try to fit his various ideas into a coherent world view or ‘doctrine,’” said Julian Ku, who teaches courses including U.S. foreign affairs law at Hofstra Law School in Hempstead.

Trump “has done some of this during his speeches in Saudi Arabia and Poland, but this will be an opportunity to do so in the global as opposed to just the regional context,” Ku said.

Trump will have at least one staunch supporter in the audience.

Nikki Haley, the U.S. ambassador to the UN, has been a vocal proponent for the Trump agenda, at times being more hawkish than her boss — Secretary of State Rex Tillerson — and Trump himself. For example, she has scolded Russia’s ambassador at Security Council debates over the country’s stances on Syria and North Korea and its intervention in Ukraine, despite Trump’s favorable view of Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Haley also has criticized the nations comprising the UN Human Rights Council for the body’s many resolutions condemning Israel.

Her pro-Israel positions are consistent with those of many former ambassadors, including Samantha Power and Susan Rice, who served under Obama, observers said.

Arriving at the UN in January stating there was a “new sheriff in town,” Haley has emphasized several issues as Trump’s voice at the UN: reforming the UN itself by slicing its peacekeeping and general budget, changing the UN’s “anti-Israel bias,” calling out human rights violators and international aggression, and giving U.S. taxpayers “value” for their money, a return on investment so to speak.

The United States, as the world’s largest economy, is responsible for $611 million, or 22 percent, of the UN’s general budget and about $2.2 billion, or more than 28 percent, of its peacekeeping budget.

Trump’s relationship with the UN thus far is hard for analysts to assess.

But they hope for more clarity when he speaks at the General Assembly.

Patrick called Trump’s assessment a “transactional” approach to the organization, the financial lens through which he sees much of his job. Indeed, the bulk of Trump’s website description of the America First Foreign Policy focuses on trade deals that benefit Americans so they have greater consumer power — not on engaging the international community toward a common goal of a safer and kinder world through collective action.

That vision also may be at the heart of a move away from the internationalism of his predecessors.

“Trump many years ago was a friend to the UN, and had to build goodwill to build his condo tower that dwarfs the iconic UN buildings,” said Katie Laatikainen, professor of political science at Adelphi University in Garden City. “His approach toward the globally oriented multilateral environs appears to have shifted with his presidential ambitions.”

The UN offers an opportunity for Trump to engage the world.

“His audience at the UN is not the American people, but foreign governments and their populations,” Ku said. “It is an important platform for reaching those groups and shaping his image.”

Jose On The Way: How To Track The Storm

Posted on by Erin Geismar

A hurricane – and its forecast – are moving targets. As Jose makes its way north, forecasters are closely monitoring the storm’s conditions and movements in order to update their outlook accordingly.

If you want to keep up with the latest on Jose, here are some links and resources you can check regularly, as the forecast continues to be fine-tuned.

A rundown of local watches, warnings and advisories

Click here to see conditions for your town

Where Jose’s center is expected to go and when

National Hurricane Center forecasters plot the storm’s track, using a cone-shaped image. The cone shows the range of potential paths for the center of the storm and is not indicating the size of the storm overall and where major impacts may be. There can be plenty of impacts outside that cone.

The image also shows color-coded areas where watches and warnings have been issued

Click here for latest version

Here, find an interactive map showing potential wind speeds.

Click here for latest version

The cone of uncertainty: It’s not called that for nothing. The cone’s track record? “Statistically, two-thirds of all cyclones stay within this cone, while one-third strays outside the cone,” according to a briefing from the weather service’s Upton office.

More on the cone of uncertainty

What storms look like from space

GOES-16 is the most advanced weather satellite NOAA has ever developed. It detects conditions from far above Earth. Click here to see Jose

How strong the winds will be

You can see here the probabilities for sustained wind speeds of 39 mph or more.

Click here for latest version

When the winds will come

There are two options for viewing this map for residents with varying risk tolerance when it comes to making outdoor preparations.

Those with low risk tolerance, who want to get things done well in advance, can see the “earliest reasonable” times to expect tropical force winds to start. (Pictured below, as of Monday afternoon)

Others can click the “most likely” time option. (It’s a new tool, updated with new forecasts, from the National Hurricane Center.) Click here for latest version

Rain – how much?

Rain, and other impacts, are dependent on the storm’s ultimate strength and track. A track farther to the west means more rain for the Island – to the east, less.

Click here for latest version

News updates on Twitter

Your forecasters are on social media, too. Keep track of their tweets for the latest information.

  @NWSNewYorkNY:

National Weather Service New York’s latest tweets

  @NWSEastern:

National Weather Service Eastern Region’s latest tweets

  @NHC_Atlantic:

National Hurricane Center’s latest tweets for the Atlantic region

Cassini the Saturn Spacecraft’s Fond Farewell

Posted on by jholbreich

A billion-dollar spacecraft named Cassini burned up as it plunged into the atmosphere of Saturn today.

That’s the plan, exquisitely crafted. Cassini, the only spacecraft ever to orbit Saturn, spent the past five months exploring the uncharted territory between the gaseous planet and its dazzling rings. But now, it’s useful life is up.

Dreamed up when Ronald Reagan was president, and launched during the tenure of Bill Clinton, Cassini arrived at Saturn in the first term of George W. Bush. So it’s old, as space hardware goes.

It has fulfilled its mission goals and then some. It has sent back stunning images and troves of scientific data. It has discovered moons, and geysers spewing from the weird Saturn satellite Enceladus. It landed a probe on the moon Titan. It would have kept transmitting data to Earth to the very end, squeezing out the last drips of science as a valediction for one of NASA’s greatest missions.

It was also running out of gas, basically, though precisely how much fuel was left is unknown. Program manager Earl Maize says, “One of our lessons learned, and it’s a lesson learned by many missions, is to attach a gas gauge.”

Cassini’s final orbits have taken it, amazingly, inside the rings of Saturn, where the spacecraft practically skims the tops of the planet’s clouds. These orbits can plausibly be compared to Luke Skywalker flying into that narrow trench on the Death Star.

“We’re kind of going through the mourning cycle,” said Julie Webster, head of spacecraft operations.

Here’s a look at Cassini — a NASA mainstay for two decades that’s about to meet its demise.

History

Cassini closes out an era in NASA space science. This is hardly the end of solar system exploration, but it’s essentially the end of the first, heroic phase – the initial reconnaissance of the planets.

The colossal scale of Cassini is a legacy of the go-big mentality of the early days of space exploration. The United States put men on the moon with a jumbo rocket, and NASA for a long time skewed toward muscle-bound spacecraft even when humans weren’t along for the ride.

No single event changed everything, but what happened to a spacecraft called Mars Observer in 1993 certainly had an impact. It was large and fully adorned with instruments. And then, one day shortly before it was to go into Mars orbit, it simply went silent and was never heard from again. It probably blew up, Webster said.

Space is hard. Space will break your heart. “It’s like a loss of a family member,” Webster said.

By that point, Cassini had already been conceived, the instruments already coming online, and so it was essentially grandfathered in to the old-fashioned go-big protocol. NASA Administrator Dan Goldin wasn’t a fan. He had a name for Cassini: “Battlestar Galactica.”

Actually, it wasn’t simply the “Cassini” mission. It was the “Cassini-Huygens” mission. The Europeans designed the Huygens probe, a separate vehicle that detached from Cassini when it passed close to Titan.

Arrival and discovery

After Cassini, launched in 1997, arrived at Saturn in 2004, Huygens disengaged from the main spacecraft and dropped through Titan’s thick clouds. It sent back details of an alien world that possesses a stew of complex organic molecules, including liquid methane. Hydrocarbons rain from the sky. There are lakes and rivers.

It’s the only place in the solar system other than Earth known to have rain and open bodies of liquid on the surface.

Cassini also discovered something amazing about Saturn’s moon Enceladus: It has geysers spewing from its south pole. Almost certainly it has an interior ocean, sealed beneath ice, that contains great volumes of water and possibly hydrothermal vents.

Someday NASA or some other space agency is likely to send a probe to Enceladus to sample those geysers and test them for indications of life.

“The legacy for which Cassini will be remembered will be Enceladus,” said project scientist Linda J. Spilker.

The day the Earth smiled

For a moment four years ago, the Cassini watched Earth from 900 million miles away. The probe had ducked behind Saturn. There, shielded from the sun’s rays, the robot turned its delicate lenses toward home. On July 19, 2013, Earthlings in the know waved and smiled for the paparazzo in the sky. Everyone else went about their day. Cassini, a gracious photographer, caught the entire Earth on camera anyway.

Perhaps no other Cassini photograph carries the emotional heft of “The Day the Earth Smiled.”

Astronomer Carolyn Porco, the leader of the Cassini imaging team, and her colleagues organized a campaign to smile into the void at 21:27 Coordinated Universal Time (accounting, of course, for light’s 15-minute dash from Earth to Saturn). It would be only the third time that Earth had been photographed from such a distance, after an earlier Cassini image and the Voyager portrait. It also marked the first time that Earth inhabitants knew they were being photographed from the outer solar system, beyond the asteroid belt.

“This could be a day, I thought, when all the inhabitants of Earth, in unison, could issue a full-throated, cosmic shout-out and smile a big one for the cameras from far, far away,” Porco wrote in June 2013.

The picture of Earth wasn’t the only image taken that day. The Cassini team ultimately stitched together 141 photos into a sweeping view of Saturn, a mosaic 404,880 miles across. Shot from the back, Saturn is a black ball suspended in ink, enclosed in the coffee-colored circles of its rings.

“On the one hand, it is a beautiful image that will serve as a reminder of all the great data Cassini obtained,” said Matthew Hedman, a physicist at the University of Idaho who was involved with the project. “And on the other, it contains a lot of information about the properties of the rings that we will be trying to understand for many years to come.”

Winding down

Cassini slowed down slightly in its final few orbits as it passed through the outermost layers of Saturn’s atmosphere. The drag on the spacecraft hastened the final plunge slightly.

At about 4:37 a.m. Eastern Standard Time today, the spacecraft was expected to roll into position to enable one of its instruments to sample Saturn’s atmosphere as it gets closer and closer to the planet. It would stream data back to the Deep Space Network.

In the final minute of its life, Cassini will have fired its thrusters in an attempt to keep its high-gain antenna pointing to Earth. But that is a battle Cassini was destined to lose.

Around 8 a.m. Friday, the final images taken by Cassini were streaming back to scientists at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory.

But Cassini is already gone. It will have been destroyed 83 minutes earlier. That’s how long it takes at the speed of light for news to travel from Saturn to Pasadena.

Cassini did’t exactly “crash” into Saturn, because it’s a gaseous planet and there’s no surface to hit. In the last moments, the spacecraft will have gone into a tumble and lost contact with Earth. Then it burned up as it plunged through Saturn’s atmosphere and disintegrated.

And then nothing was left.

American Troops in Afghanistan: How 16 Years of War Unfolded

Posted on by Erin Geismar

Sixteen years of U.S. warfare in Afghanistan have left the insurgents as strong as ever and the nation’s future precarious. Facing a quagmire, President Donald Trump on Monday outlined his strategy for “victory” in a country that has historically snared great powers and defied easy solutions.

America’s longest-running war began well as U.S.-led forces quickly toppled the Taliban government and disrupted al-Qaida leaders who plotted the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks from Afghan soil. But the fighting never ended.

Trump is the third U.S. president to grapple with the Afghan challenge. A look at the phases of the U.S. involvement to date:

Regime Change

Less than a month after the 9/11 attacks, a massive U.S. air campaign targets al-Qaida fighters and Taliban troops, training camps and air defenses. Anti-Taliban forces of the Northern Alliance enter Kabul as the Taliban flee.

By December 2001, Afghan groups agree on a deal in Bonn, Germany, for an interim government.

With Afghanistan liberated from Taliban control, the U.S. military force grows to 2,500 as troops scour the mountainous Tora Bora region looking for al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden. He eludes capture. Although President George W. Bush remains leery of supporting nation-building efforts in Afghanistan, the U.S. expands its counterterrorism operations. By the end of 2002, there are 9,700 U.S. troops in the country.

Democracy and distraction

In November 2004, Hamid Karzai, who had served two years as interim leader, is the clear winner in Afghanistan’s first direct election for president. The Bush administration hails the vote as a key step in the nation’s transformation. Millions of girls return to school after being barred under the Taliban. As the country opens up, Western aid helps the economy grow, at least in urban areas.

But the Taliban, enjoying sanctuary in Pakistan, show signs of re-emergence, launching sporadic attacks on government forces in eastern Afghanistan. Although Karzai is an ethnic Pashtun, which comprise the bulk of Taliban recruits, his government alienates what is Afghanistan’s main ethnic group. Karzai’s administration is dominated by former commanders of the Northern Alliance.

U.S. troop numbers swell to 20,000, but Washington’s attention increasingly turns to Iraq. The U.S. invades in March 2003, toppling Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. It struggles with the aftermath. Soon Iraq is gripped by an explosion of sectarian violence that preoccupies Bush until he leaves office.

More Western troops, more violence

In 2006, NATO assumes responsibility for security across the whole of Afghanistan, pumping troops into Taliban heartlands in the south of the country.

I’m not sure we’re winning.
– Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Adm. Mike Mullen, 2008

The U.S. ups its forces in the country to 30,000. Britain, Canada and others boost their contributions. But the violence and lawlessness worsens.

Production of opium, the raw material of heroin, soars to a record high, funding the insurgency and fueling official corruption. Tensions grow between Afghanistan and Pakistan over cross-border Taliban attacks.

In the fall of 2008, Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Adm. Mike Mullen concedes, “I’m not sure we’re winning.”

Surge

President Barack Obama, vowing to refocus U.S. efforts in Afghanistan, enters office in 2009 endorsing shifts to a counterinsurgency strategy designed to protect Afghan civilians rather than hunt down Taliban.

He quickly sends in 21,000 more forces. After a prolonged policy review, Obama orders an additional surge, bringing troop levels to a high of 100,000 by August 2010. He says the U.S. will begin withdrawing forces by 2011.

Critics say the drawdown date diminishes the incentive for the Taliban to negotiate for peace.

Bin Laden is killed in a U.S. special operations raid in Pakistan in March 2011.

Obama then presses ahead with plans to hand over security responsibilities to Afghanistan by 2014. By the end of that year, NATO ends its combat mission in the country. U.S. relations with Karzai, however, deteriorate. A contested election to replace Karzai introduces a more pro-U.S. leader in Ashraf Ghani, but his government is bitterly divided.

No withdrawal

With violence reaching post-2001 highs and Afghan security forces taking heavy casualties, Obama backtracks on plans to virtually withdraw all U.S. forces by the end of 2016.

He leaves office with 8,400 troops still in the country.

The U.S. kills new Taliban leader Mullah Mansour in a drone attack in Pakistan in May 2016, derailing peace talks. But on the battlefield, the Taliban are in the ascendant and threaten provincial capitals in both the north and south. The Islamic State group gains a foothold in eastern Afghanistan.

Enter Trump

Trump says little about Afghanistan during his first seven months in office, while the military grows antsy.

The Pentagon proposes sending in nearly 4,000 more U.S. troops to increase training of Afghan forces and counterterrorism operations, but the administration is divided on strategy. Nearly everyone considers the fight a stalemate, and some in Trump’s administration even propose withdrawing or handing over the entire American effort to private security contractors.

We are not nation-building again. We are killing terrorists.
– Trump, in his announcement Monday night

Among Afghans, anti-Western sentiment grows over deteriorating security, even in the capital, Kabul. The economy also suffers, partly as a result of a drawdown in foreign forces. As Trump is poised to announce his plan, Afghanistan’s government controls only about half of the country.

After months of debate, Trump finally unveils his strategy in a prime-time television address.

He says the U.S. will win “in the end,” defeating al-Qaida and IS fighters, and ensuring the government doesn’t fall to the Taliban. He refuses to provide troop increase numbers or timelines, saying military assistance would be determined by results and the cooperation of Afghanistan’s beleaguered government.

Click here to learn more about the Long Island troops who died while serving in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Trump and Sessions: How the relationship played out on Twitter

Posted on by Erin Geismar

He was one of President Donald Trump’s earliest supporters but now Attorney General Jeff Sessions is taking heat from the president on Twitter. Earlier in the week, Trump expressed regret over choosing Sessions for the Cabinet position and then he took to social media for a days-long public criticism of what he called Sessions’ “weak” handling of allegations against Hillary Clinton.

But the relationship was not always so contentious. Trump has often used Twitter to tout Sessions and his work, before his tone took a sharp turn this week. Here’s a look back at every Sessions-related tweet from Trump’s personal and POTUS handles since the election.

  Feb. 28, 2016 Thank you, Senator Sessions

Sessions was the first senator to endorse Trump. In his Facebook post on the endorsement, Trump acknowledged Sessions as “the Senate’s indispensable man and the gold standard.”

  March 4, 2016 A vote of confidence

Trump chooses Sessions as chairman of a high-profile advisory committee.

 June 8, 2016  Foreshadowing retweeted

Back before Trump was even the Republican nominee for president, a supporter tweeted at him with a bright idea: Jeff Sessions for Vice President. Sessions’ name had circulated in the media, as well, as a possible running mate or Cabinet nominee. Trump retweeted the user.

 Nov 22, 2016  “A fitting selection”

The National Review applauded Trump’s pick for Attorney General. Trump shared the link.

 Jan. 13, 2017  Everyone’s doing great

As confirmation hearings got underway to fill Trump’s Cabinet positions, he tweeted his support.

  Jan. 31, 2017 Eager to get Sessions in

 Feb. 8, 2017 Sessions confirmed

  Feb. 9, 2017 Live in the Oval Office

  March 3, 2017 ‘An honest man’

After Sessions recused himself from the Russia investigation and any future investigations related to Russia, Trump defended the actions that led Sessions to the decision in a series of tweets. He also told reporters he did not think Sessions needed to recuse himself.

  March 4, 2017

Trump mentioned Sessions in a series of tweets defending him and pointing to the Obama administration’s contact with the Russian ambassador. On the same day, Trump also tweeted the President Barack Obama wire tapped his phones.

 March 13, 2017 A proud welcome

Sessions appeared in a series of photos taken in the Oval Office, welcoming the new Cabinet members and meeting with members of a police union.

 April 18, 2017 Getting tough

Trump lauds Sessions’ work thus far.

 July 22, 2017 Decrying leaks against the AG

In the early morning hours of July 22, Trump mentioned Sessions in a tweet decrying what he called illegal leaks that lead to a Washington Post report alleging that Sessions had previously undisclosed conversations with Russia about the election.

 July 22, 2017 Questions for the AG

About an hour later, the tweets started to point more directly at Sessions.

 July 24, 2017 Beleaguered

In addition to the criticism of Sessions on Twitter, Trump told The Wall Street Journal he was looking at the possibility of firing him.

 July 25, 2017 VERY weak

 July 26, 2017 Foreshadowing retweeted

Trump’s attack continued, even as Republicans came to Sessions’ defense and denounced the president’s actions.

In the following days, Trump said in interviews that he wants Sessions to stay on the job. Sessions said he intends to do so.

Senate health care vote: What went wrong

Posted on by Erin Geismar

Republicans suffered a stunning defeat early Friday morning, when the Senate narrowly rejected the GOP’s slimmed-down Obamacare repeal bill after an ailing Sen. John McCain — whose support allowed the debate to begin Tuesday — cast a surprise “no” vote.

The vote dealt a serious blow to President Donald Trump and the GOP agenda, with most Republican candidates having pledged for years to repeal President Barack Obama’s 2010 health care overhaul, the Affordable Care Act.

Here’s what led up to the vote’s failure:

Pence breaks procedural vote tie

The Senate held a procedural vote on Tuesday that allowed formal debate to begin on a potential repeal of major components of the Affordable Care Act. The vote itself did not trigger any changes to the existing legislation. Nonetheless, it was seen as an indication of how some Republican senators on the fence about the actual repeal effort may ultimately vote. The vote passed by a slim margin with Vice President Mike Pence breaking a 50-50 tie.

The two Republicans, Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Maine, to cast “no” votes had already put their opposition on record. That left moderate GOP senators such as Dean Heller of Nevada and John McCain of Arizona, as the critical votes. Heller didn’t indicate his support until minutes before the vote while McCain – making a dramatic return to the Senate after a recent diagnosis of brain cancer – gave no indication of which way he was leaning until he cast a “yes” vote. All Democrats voted no as expected.

Repeal and replace bill fails

The first defeat for Republicans in the week’s 20-hour period of debate and amendments to dismantle Obamacare came late Tuesday, when nine Republican senators defected and sank Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s repeal and replace Obamacare bill.

The bill was a wide-ranging proposal that would repeal much of former President Barack Obama’s health care law and replace it with a more restrictive plan.

The rejected proposal included language by McConnell erasing the Obama law’s tax penalties on people not buying insurance and cutting Medicaid.

Language by Texas Republican Sen. Ted Cruz would let insurers sell cut-rate policies with skimpy coverage. And there was an additional $100 billion to help states ease costs for people losing Medicaid sought by Midwestern moderates.

Full Obamacare repeal vote fails

On Wednesday, July 26, the divided Senate Republican majority failed to muster the votes to pass its longtime goal of a complete repeal of Obamacare, marking the second setback of the week as it debated and attempted to shape legislation to dismantle the 2010 health care law.

The amendment, which resurrected a 2015 bill to repeal Obamacare but delay it for two years to give lawmakers time to replace it, failed in a 45-55 vote, with seven Republicans — including McCain — voting against it, even though six of them voted for it when it passed in 2015.

Republicans voting no were McCain, Murkowski, Sen. Rob Portman of Ohio, Sen. Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia, Sen. Dean Heller of Nevada, Sen. Susan Collins of Maine and Alexander, and Sen. Lamar Alexander of Tennessee.

‘Skinny repeal’ bill fails

The “skinny repeal” bill would have ended the mandate that all individuals obtain health insurance, terminated a tax on medical devices, and leave untouched a Medicaid expansion created by Obamacare. It would have resulted in the loss of health insurance for 15 million people over the next decade and a 20 percent increase in insurance premiums, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated.

McCain, whose return to the Senate helped begin the formal debate on the three health-care bills, ultimately cast the vote that killed the Republicans’ “skinny repeal” bill and delivered a severe political defeat for Trump and McConnell.

McCain made the call shortly after dramatically walking to the front of the Senate floor around 1:30 a.m. Friday, holding out his arm and turning his thumb down — meaning a 51-49 defeat for the bill Republicans called the Health Care Freedom Act. The Arizona maverick joined with fellow Republicans Collins and Murkowski and all 48 Democrats in the chamber to vote no.

The amendment was a last resort for Senate Republicans to pass something — anything — to trigger negotiations with the House. Some Republicans were concerned that the House would simply pass the pared-down bill and send it to Trump.

The reaction

House leaders had no hesitation about blaming the Senate for the collapse of one of the GOP’s paramount priorities.

In a statement, Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., pointedly said “the House delivered a bill” and said he was “disappointed and frustrated.” Nearly three months earlier, the House approved its health care package after several embarrassing setbacks.

He added, “But we should not give up. I encourage the Senate to continue working toward a real solution that keeps our promise.”

Trump returned to Twitter to express his disappointment with the failure of the GOP effort and threatened to let the health care system collapse:

Read more

Trump travel ban: Key issues on the executive order

Posted on by Erin Geismar

The Supreme Court said Monday the president’s 90-day ban on visitors from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen can be enforced pending arguments scheduled for October — as long as those visitors lack a “credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States.”

But much remains murky: What exactly is a bona fide relationship? Who gets to decide? Will the travel ban even still be an issue by the time the justices hear arguments?

Here’s a look at some key issues surrounding President Donald Trump’s executive order:

WHO’S THE WINNER?

After the lower courts found the travel ban unconstitutionally biased against Muslims and contrary to federal immigration law, Trump hailed the Supreme Court’s decision as a “clear victory for our national security.”

It was a legal win for the administration — to an extent. Three justices — Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Trump appointee Neil Gorsuch — said they would have allowed the travel ban to take effect as written.

But the other six kept blocking it as it applies to those traveling to the U.S. on employment, student or family immigrant visas as well as other cases where the traveler can show a “bona fide” connection to the U.S.

That’s no minor exception, according to immigrant groups, who say relatively few people come to the U.S. from the affected countries without such close ties.

Likewise, the justices said, refugees can travel to the U.S. if they demonstrate those connections — contrary to the part of Trump’s executive order suspending the nation’s refugee program.

“This decision is a true compromise,” said Kari Hong, an immigration law expert at Boston College Law School. “It is true that the travel ban is allowed to go into effect, but the Supreme Court substantially narrowed who could be denied entry.”

BUT WHAT’S ‘BONA FIDE’?

The court’s majority laid out the “bona fide” relationships it had in mind. For individuals, a close family relationship is required: A spouse or a mother-in-law would be permitted. So would a worker who accepted a job from an American company, a student enrolled at a U.S. university or a lecturer invited to address a U.S. audience.

What’s not bona fide? A relationship created for purposes of avoiding the travel ban, the justices said.

“For example, a nonprofit group devoted to immigration issues may not contact foreign nationals from the designated countries, add them to client lists, and then secure their entry by claiming injury from their exclusion,” the court wrote.

AND WHO DECIDES?

Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch found that guidance confusing and unworkable.

“Today’s compromise will burden executive officials with the task of deciding — on peril of contempt — whether individuals from the six affected nations who wish to enter the United States have a sufficient connection to a person or entity in this country,” Thomas wrote.

It also could lead to legal challenges amid the “struggle to determine what exactly constitutes a ‘bona fide relationship,’ who precisely has a ‘credible claim’ to that relationship, and whether the claimed relationship was formed ‘simply to avoid'” the travel ban,” he wrote.

LITTLE PRACTICAL IMPACT

Eric M. Freedman, a constitutional law professor at Hofstra University in Hempstead, said he expects the Supreme Court’s decision to review the case will have little practical impact, because the ban that remains in place excludes people with family or institutional ties to the United States.

“There will be no substantial change in the status quo, and it is highly unlikely that anyone will notice any change,” Freedman said Tuesday. “The decision gives some symbolic paper victory to the Trump administration without making any changes on the ground, because it leaves the ban in areas where it has no practical application . . . and the bet is the case will be moot and the whole thing will be dismissed” when the justices return in October.

Under the terms spelled out by the high court, he said, only tourists from the nations in question seem to be directly affected by the 90-day ban.

“The only identifiable class anybody has been able to think of are people traveling for the first time as visitors to America, or people who are very occasional visitors to America who decide they are going to come between now and October,” he said.

REFUGEES RELIEVED

Mark Hetfield, president and CEO of HIAS, a refugee agency founded in New York City that last year helped resettle 4,000 people into the United States, said the court’s decision is not expected to affect refugee programs for the time being, because “by definition, refugees have to have a relationship” with resettlement agencies and the governments of their host countries before they are allowed in.

“They kind of have to be invited and fall into a special category and their applications are assisted” by the host government itself, he said.

“We are relieved,” Hetfield said. “We are quite pleased because, frankly, the ruling will have a very narrow impact, the way we read it, and it definitely made it clear that the president’s powers with regards to discrimination against refugees are at least limited.”

In addition, he said, the administration agreed when it revised its rules to wait 72 hours for implementation of any order and said it wouldn’t stop refugees who already were approved to come to the United States. Because of that, “it shouldn’t have a dramatic impact like what we saw on Jan. 27,” when there was chaos at international airports in various U.S. cities after the first order was signed.

MORE AIRPORT CHAOS TO COME?

Trump’s initial travel ban, issued without warning on a Friday in January, brought chaos and protests to airports nationwide as travelers from seven targeted countries were barred even if they had prior permission to come to the U.S. The State Department canceled up to 60,000 visas but later reversed that decision.

A federal judge in Seattle blocked the order a week later, and Trump eventually revised it, dropping Iraq from the list and including reasons people might be exempted, such as a need for medical treatment.

The limited ban will take effect Thursday morning, the State Department said Monday.

Airports may be less likely to see the same sorts of demonstrations given the advance warning, that those with prior permission to enter are not affected and the months people have had to reach the U.S. since the first ban was blocked.

Matt Adams, legal director of the Seattle-based Northwest Immigrant Rights Project, which filed one of many lawsuits against the policy, said he still expects some confusion at airports, at least initially. Eventually, people likely will be barred from boarding planes to the U.S., he said.

“With many groups, it’s clear-cut from the type of visa: Anyone coming in on family visa or employment visa, by their terms it’s clear they have a bona fide relationship,” he said. “What’s more difficult is if you’re coming in on a tourist visa. I think you’re going to be going through a lengthy inquiry, and we’ll have to see how that plays out.”

NEXT LEGAL STEPS

The Supreme Court would not hear arguments on the legality of the ban until October. But by then, a key provision may have expired, possibly making the review unnecessary.

That’s because Trump’s order only sought to halt travelers from the six countries for 90 days, to give the administration time to review the screening procedures for those visa applicants.

The administration has argued that the ban would not go into effect until court orders blocking each provision were lifted. The Supreme Court has asked for more arguments about whether the challenges to the travel restriction became moot in June.

David Levine, a professor at the University of California’s Hastings College of Law, said the justices likely will not sidestep a ruling on the executive order on those grounds.

“The underlying issue of presidential power is too important and too likely to occur in the future,” he said.

Senate Health Bill: What You Need To Know

Posted on by jholbreich

The Senate Republican health care bill released Thursday faces an uncertain path as Majority Leader Mitch McConnell pushes for a vote next week before Congress leaves for the July Fourth recess. The bill, worked on in secret for the past several weeks, largely mirrors the House measure and has caused four Republican senators to balk at voting for it because it didn’t repeal enough of Obamacare and President Donald Trump called for negotiations.

Here’s how the bill compares to the the Affordable Care Act and House bill; and what could happen next:

Who is covered

Individual mandate

ACA: Individual mandate requires most Americans to have health coverage or pay a fine.

House bill: Instead of a mandate, insurers could impose 30% surcharge on people who buy a new plan after letting previous coverage lapse, giving healthy people an incentive to remain insured.

Senate bill: Individual mandate would be eliminated. Nothing would replace it as an incentive for healthy people to have insurance.

Employer mandate

ACA: Employer mandate requires larger companies to offer affordable coverage to employees.

House bill: Would eliminate employer mandate.

Senate bill: Would eliminate employer mandate.

Children under 26

ACA: Young adults could stay on parents’ health plan until age 26.

House bill: Unchanged.

Senate bill: Unchanged.

Paying for coverage

Imposed taxes

ACA: Imposed new taxes (including investment income and wages above $200,000) to help people pay for coverage.

House bill: Would eliminate most of those taxes.

Senate bill: Would eliminate most of those taxes.

Subsidies

ACA: Subsidies to insurers help people pay deductibles and copays.

House bill: Subsidies would end in 2020.

Senate bill: Subsidies would end in 2020.

Tax credits

ACA: Tax credits primarily based on income, age and geography to help low- and moderate-income people buy coverage via marketplaces.

House bill: Tax credits would be based primarily on age. Amount would not increase if premiums increase, and people in high-cost areas would get no additional money.

Senate bill: Tax credits primarily based on income, age and geography, but would cover a simpler plan. People would need to be lower-income than ACA to be eligible.

Pre-existing conditions

ACA: Pre-existing conditions could not be used as basis to deny coverage or raise premiums.

House bill: State could allow insurers to raise premiums based on pre-existing conditions if they had a gap in coverage.

Senate bill: Pre-existing conditions could not be used as a basis to deny coverage or raise premiums.

Costs for older people

ACA: Insurers could charge older people up to 3 times more than younger people.

House bill: Insurers could charge older people up to 5 times more. States can adjust ratio.

Senate bill: Insurers could charge older people up to 5 times more.

Pre-tax HSA

ACA: For pre-tax health savings accounts, individuals could contribute up to $3,400 and families up to $6,750.

House bill: Individuals could contribute up to $6,550 and families up to $13,100 to accounts, starting in 2018.

Senate bill: People could contribute more to their accounts than under ACA.

High-risk pools

ACA: Did not create high-risk pools.

House bill: Creates fund for high-risk pools. States would get $130 billion over 10 years to help sick people.

Senate bill: Creates fund for high-risk pools at $112 billion over 10 years. Aimed at reimbursing insurers to help sick people.

Changes to Medicaid

Funding

ACA: Entitlement program with open-ended, matching federal funds for all who qualify.

House bill: Would be funded by giving states a per-capita amount or block grant based on their spending, not adjusting for rising costs. Projected to reduce federal funding.

Senate bill: Would be funded by giving states a per-capita amount or block grant, starting in 2021. Amount projected to grow more slowly than in House bill, potentially reducing spending.

Expansion

ACA: States can expand Medicaid to cover people making up to 138% of poverty line, and federal government would pay a large part of the cost.

House bill: States would not be able to expand Medicaid after this year. In states that do expand by deadline, federal government would pay a smaller part of cost.

Senate bill: For states that expand Medicaid, federal government would pay a smaller part of the cost starting in 2021.

Other elements

Essential benefits

ACA: Insurers required to cover essential health benefits, such as hospital visits and mental health care.

House bill: States allowed to change what qualifies as an essential health benefit.

Senate bill: States allowed to change what qualifies as an essential health benefit.

Planned Parenthood

ACA: Planned Parenthood eligible for Medicaid reimbursements, but federal money cannot fund abortions.

House bill: Planned Parenthood would face 1-year Medicaid funding freeze.

Senate bill: Planned Parenthood would face 1-year Medicaid funding freeze.

What’s next

–WITH TOM BRUNE | GRAPHIC BY THE ASSOCIATED PRESS