Over the past few weeks, hundreds of thousands of students nationwide walked across football fields, basketball courts, and stages to receive their diplomas. They sat patiently, sporting caps and gowns in their school colors, while professors, politicians, CEOs, and celebrities imparted wisdom, jokes, and life lessons upon them. Here are the commencement speeches from politicians that will be flooding your newsfeeds for the next month.

Donald Trump: Liberty University

In his first commencement speech as president, Donald Trump encouraged graduates to take the “road less traveled” and follow their convictions.

“You must be willing to face criticism from those who lack the same courage to do what is right,” Trump said. “I know that each of you will be a warrior for the truth, will be a warrior for our country and for your family. I know that each of you will do what is right, not what is the easy way, and that you will be true to yourself and your country and your beliefs.”

He took the opportunity to subtly criticize his opponents in “broken” Washington, saying that the system is overrun with “a small group of failed voices who think they know everything and understand everyone.”

Like in many of his public speeches since the beginning of his presidency, Trump also mentioned crowd sizes and voter turnout.

“This is a beautiful stadium and it is packed. I’m so happy about that,” he said. “And I want to thank you because, boy, did you come out and vote, those of you that are old enough, in other words, your parents. Boy, oh, boy, you voted, you voted.”

Trump’s speech focused primarily on the importance of embracing the label “outsider” and standing up for one’s beliefs, even when critics get in the way or say something is unattainable. This theme rings especially true coming from Trump, whose election success can be partially credited to his status as a political outsider.

“Nothing is easier or more pathetic than being a critic, because they’re people that can’t get the job done,” he said. “But the future belongs to the dreamers, not to the critics. The future belongs to the people who follow their heart no matter what the critics say, because they truly believe in their vision.”

The president also spoke at the Coast Guard Academy. Read his full remarks from Liberty here.

Avery Anapol

Avery Anapol is a blogger and freelancer for Law Street Media. She holds a BA in journalism and mass communication from the George Washington University. When she’s not writing, Avery enjoys traveling, reading fiction, cooking, and waking up early. Contact Avery at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Commencement: What Politicians Want the Class of 2017 to Know appeared first on Law Street.

It’s Monday! If you’re on the East Coast, you’re probably totally frozen! You should stay inside and keep warm with our rants of the day. Meryl Streep’s Golden Globe speech is definitely worth a listen! Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Palestinian Man Drives a Truck Into Crowd of People in Jerusalem

Yesterday, a Palestinian man drove a truck into a crowd of people in Jerusalem, killing four young soldiers; three were women. Seventeen more people were injured. After hitting the crowd, the driver started reversing, but was then shot to death by soldiers at the scene. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said after the attack that ISIS was behind it and that it was connected to the recent terrorist attacks in Europe, but didn’t provide any proof or further details. There have been other truck attacks carried out by Palestinians in Israel in the past without any links to Islamic State.

Jerusalem attack suspect ID’d as Fadi Qunbar; 9 people, including 5 of Qunbar’s family members, have been arrested. https://t.co/YiUepD1BLx pic.twitter.com/EG0CaDatrk

— CNN Breaking News (@cnnbrk) January 8, 2017

The attacker has been identified as 28-year-old Fadi Qunbar. Nine suspects have been arrested for their involvement in the plot, including five of Qunbar’s family members. The atmosphere in Israel has been particularly tense lately following the high-profile conviction of an Israeli soldier who shot a Palestinian man who attacked him. The soldier was convicted of manslaughter because by the time he shot the man, he was already wounded and subdued.

ISIS has not commented on the most recent attack, but extremist organization Hamas praised it on Twitter.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: January 9, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Happy New Year, and welcome to the first ICYMI of 2017. Check out our top three articles this week, and enjoy the start to your year.

Arizona Medical Marijuana Patients Granted DUI Defense Options

Arizona medical marijuana cardholders now have a better ability to defend themselves if they are charged with a marijuana DUI. The Arizona State Court of Appeals ruled that prosecutors must present sufficient evidence that an individual was actually impaired at the time of the arrest. Read the full article here.

U.S. Returns 10,000 Acres of Land to Okinawa

The U.S. military handed back nearly 10,000 acres of land to Okinawa on Thursday, the largest land transfer since the U.S. occupation of the Pacific island ended in 1972. Belonging to the 19,300-acre Jungle Warfare Training Center in the northern part of Okinawa, the land equaled 17 percent of the American-owned land on the island, according to the military. Read the full article here.

John Kerry Outlines Middle East Peace Plan in Controversial Speech

In a lengthy and detailed speech on Wednesday, Secretary of State John Kerry defended the U.S.’s decision to abstain from a vote condemning Israeli settlements in the West Bank and advocated for a two-state solution as the path to peace in the Arab-Israeli conflict. Read the full article here.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post ICYMI: Best of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

In a lengthy and detailed speech on Wednesday, Secretary of State John Kerry defended the U.S.’s decision to abstain from a vote condemning Israeli settlements in the West Bank and advocated for a two-state solution as the path to peace in the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Kerry affirmed the Obama administration’s commitment to Israel, describing the relationship as a friendship but declaring that friends “need to tell each other the hard truths.” He then went on to assert that the U.S. did indeed vote in accordance with its values, declaring that a vote against the settlements would jeopardize a two-state solution, which he described as the “only way to ensure Israel’s future as a Jewish and democratic state.”

The speech comes in the wake of a wave of criticism from President-elect Donald Trump and the dismay of pro-Israel advocates who called upon the U.S. to veto the U.N. resolution. The U.N. resolution declared the settlements a violation of international law, and were not vetoed by any of the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council.

Simply the announcement of Kerry’s planned speech was enough to draw ire from many public figures, who believed the U.N. vote showed a disloyalty to the U.S.-Israeli relationship.

After allowing this anti-Israel resolution to pass the UN, Secretary Kerry has no credibility to speak on Israeli-Palestinian peace.

— Paul Ryan (@SpeakerRyan) December 28, 2016

We cannot continue to let Israel be treated with such total disdain and disrespect. They used to have a great friend in the U.S., but…….

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 28, 2016

not anymore. The beginning of the end was the horrible Iran deal, and now this (U.N.)! Stay strong Israel, January 20th is fast approaching!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 28, 2016

Kerry said he felt “compelled” to respond in the wake of the backlash, stressing the U.S.’s continued support for Israel but taking a hard stance against the West Bank settlements. He also said that if Israel went down the one-state path, “it will never have true peace with the rest of the Arab world.” He outlined principles for negotiations between the two parties, declaring that both sides must be actively involved in the peace process in order for it to be effective.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called the speech a “deep disappointment” during a news conference on Wednesday, saying that it “was almost as unbalanced as the anti-Israel resolution” passed by the U.N. last week. He also allegedly vowed to work with the Trump administration to repeal the U.N. resolution.

While it is unlikely that the speech could substantially change Israeli policies in the region, it sent a powerful statement that the Obama administration was standing by its vote at the U.N. despite opposition from Israel.

While the Trump administration has vowed to strengthen the alliance between the two countries further, Secretary Kerry’s speech has essentially cemented the Obama administration’s legacy as one with a tenuous relationship to Israel and Netanyahu: keeping amicable terms, but refusing to bend to its every demand.

Mariam Jaffery

Mariam was an Executive Assistant at Law Street Media and a native of Northern Virginia. She has a B.A. in International Affairs with a minor in Business Administration from George Washington University. Contact Mariam at mjaffery@lawstreetmedia.com.

The post John Kerry Outlines Middle East Peace Plan in Controversial Speech appeared first on Law Street.

Events in Yemen over the past week have drawn America deeper into the country’s two-year conflict than it has ever been in the past. And now, in an attempt to lessen the potential for greater involvement, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry will work to negotiate a 72-hour ceasefire between the warring parties, in order to “create some kind of climate where a political dialogue or a dialogue can begin again,” State Department Deputy Spokesperson Mark Toner said on Friday.

“We need to de-escalate obviously given the events of the past week and that is where the priority is right now,” Toner said.

Since last Saturday, the conflict has been a ping-pong match of missile strikes and diplomatic posturing. A coalition led by Saudi Arabia, the foremost backer of the Yemen government, bombed a funeral service, killing over 140 people. The U.S., which supports the Saudis in the conflict, responded by announcing a review in its commitment to Saudi Arabia’s goals regarding Yemen. Then, Houthi rebels, one of the main groups opposing the Yemen government, fired missiles at U.S. ships, failing to hit any targets. In retaliation, the U.S. launched strikes toward Houthi-held territory in the western tip of the country, destroying three radar installations that helped the rebels coordinate strikes of their own. 

Yemen, like the reality in nearby Syria, is a tangled web of alliances, proxy fighting forces, and lone wolf jihadist groups, all threatening to tear the Gulf nation apart. Two years ago, groups loyal to a former president backed the Houthi tribe and sacked the capital city of Saana, forcing the government to flee. Iran, a sworn enemy to Saudi Arabia, backs those groups, while Saudi Arabia, bolstered by the U.S., backs the exiled government forces. Amid these actors are Islamic State cells and al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula.

Kerry has spoken with a host of Saudi, Emirate, and other Gulf nations’ diplomats and top government officials to coordinate and discuss a possible cessation of hostilities. He also spoke with Boris Johnson, the U.K. Foreign Minister. Kerry is no stranger to ceasefires. He helped broker one with Russia over Syria a few weeks ago, which barely lasted a week before the country devolved into some of the worst violence in its nearly six-year civil war. We’ll have to see if any progress can be made in Yemen.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post With Yemen Hurtling Toward Chaos, John Kerry Seeks Ceasefire appeared first on Law Street.

Comments from diplomats on Thursday, as well as developments on the ground in Aleppo, Syria signal an increasing divide between the U.S. and Russia, just one week after a ceasefire brokered by the two powers fell through. Responding to remarks made by State Department spokesman John Kirby on Wednesday, a Russian diplomat and military general echoed suspicions that the U.S. is supporting an “international terrorist alliance.” Meanwhile, Secretary of State John Kerry said the U.S. is “on the verge of suspending the discussion” of cooperation with Russia in Syria.

Recent developments in Aleppo, which is in a bloody tug-of-war between rebels and the government, are bleak as well: in its intensifying campaign to retake rebel-held areas in the city’s eastern sphere, government airstrikes have killed hundreds over the past week, and took out two major hospitals on Wednesday. Access to medical supplies–and food–is all but blocked, and the city has only 30 doctors left.

The relationship between Moscow and Washington is as bad as it has been since Russia joined the fight, in support of President Bashar al-Assad’s Syria, nearly one year ago. On Wednesday, Kirby said if U.S. and Russia stop cooperating in Syria, extremist groups will carry out “attacks against Russian interests, perhaps even Russian cities, and Russia will continue to send troops home in body bags.”

This, two Kremlin representatives said, proved the U.S. supports “terrorists.”

“We can’t assess those statements as anything else but a call, a directive for action,” Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said. A spokesman of Russia’s Defense Ministry said Kirby’s comments were “the most frank confession by the U.S. side so far that the whole ‘opposition’ ostensibly fighting a ‘civil war’ in Syria is a U.S.-controlled international terrorist alliance.”

Because of the dwindling possibility of a cooperative strategy with Russia in combating the Islamic State in Syria, an enemy to all sides, U.S. officials are considering alternative responses to Assad’s barrage in Aleppo. Military options are on the table, a U.S. official privy to the discussions told Reuters.

But even with the frayed relationship between the U.S. and Russia, a spokesman of Russia’s President Vladimir Putin said the Kremlin is still open to co-operate with the U.S. He also blamed the U.S. for the moderate rebel groups who failed to comply with the ceasefire by distancing themselves from jihadist groups.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post As the Battle for Aleppo Rages, Trust Between U.S. and Russia Reaches New Low appeared first on Law Street.

It started as an agricultural commune, keen on equality, in the northwest jungles of Colombia. Government forces broke up the commune, and an armed struggle between Marxist guerrillas and government forces began. Fifty-two years later, the bloody, contentious, and disruptive conflict between the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) and the Colombian government will effectively come to an end on Monday, when leaders from both sides sign a peace agreement.

On Monday evening, Juan Manuel Santos, Colombia’s 65-year-old president, and Rodrigo Londoño, the top commander of the FARC, will sign off on the deal that emerged after four years of negotiations. A pen fashioned out of a recycled shell casing will be used to sign the 297-page deal, “to illustrate the transition of bullets into education and future,” according to Santos.

Two thousand five hundred guests will be present at the signing ceremony in the seaside city of Cartagena. Witnesses to the signing include presidents from 15 Latin American nations, U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, and U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry. Ban called the peace accord a “new destiny for the nation.”

For decades, Colombia’s destiny was impenetrably bleak. Before the FARC went from a communist peasant revolt to a gun-toting armed guerrilla force, Colombia was a place with rampant inequality fueled by a landowning elite and a power struggle for its prized cocaine fields. In 1964, that inequality sparked a resistance of poor farmers and land workers, who, inspired by the Cuban revolution in the 1950s, set up a farming commune that became known as the Marquetalia Republic. After run-ins with government forces, who felt threatened by the communist fervor bubbling within the Republic, the peaceful struggle turned violent, and the FARC was born.

Since the conflict began in 1964, 220,000 people have been killed, with eight million more displaced from their homes. Human rights groups accuse the FARC of extreme abuses: forcibly recruiting poor farmers and children, extortion, and kidnapping for ransom. Men and women of all ages, including children, comprise the FARC’s ranks, which at its peak in 2002 included 20,000 fighters. A decade-long, U.S.-backed government assault relinquished many of the top rebel commanders and pushed the group to the peripheries of the jungles where they base their operations. The FARC fighting force has dwindled to about 7,000.

Beginning with Monday’s signing ceremony, the country of 49 million people, with Latin America’s fourth largest economy, will likely choose a path toward peace. On October 2, Colombian citizens will vote in a referendum on whether to embrace or reject the accord. Early projections indicate it will easily pass.

The terms of the deal include:

• FARC fighters who submit their weapons and confess to their crimes will avoid jail-time. They will instead be sent to hard hit areas for development work.
• The rebels will be sent to 28 designated zones to turn in their weapons over a six-month period, overseen by U.N. observers.
• The FARC will transition from armed rebel force to a political party.

When the accord was formally reached in late August, both sides expressed hope for a brighter future for their country. “With this accord we will stop being viewed as a dangerous country, and more investment, more tourism, and more employment will come,” said President Santos at the formal announcement of the peace accord.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post After a 52 Year Struggle, Colombia May Finally Find Peace appeared first on Law Street.

A new detail has been drudged up regarding the January prisoner swap between the United States and Iran: as the U.S. hostages boarded their planes, $400 million dollars–divvied into euros, Swiss francs and other foreign currencies–was passed to the Iranians. The cash drop, reported on Wednesday by The Wall Street Journal, drew ire from Republicans opposed to the Iran deal–in which the U.S. lifted sanctions on Iran in exchange for reduced nuclear capacity and increased tolerance for outside inspectors–and used it as evidence of why President Obama’s diplomatic handshake with Iran is ill-advised.

“This report makes plain what the administration can no longer deny: this was a ransom payment to Iran for U.S. hostages,” said Senator Tom Cotton (R-Ark.). House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) cautioned those who were gnashing their teeth at the report–which he said was still unconfirmed–but said if true, amounted to “another chapter in the ongoing saga of misleading the American people to sell this dangerous nuclear deal.”

Obama administration sent plan load of cash to #Iran as ransom as part of deal on hostages. Just unreal. https://t.co/UHfdK4BEyN

— Marco Rubio (@marcorubio) August 3, 2016

The $400 million cash delivery also reportedly included $1.3 billion in accrued interest. The money dates back to the 1970s, according to U.S. officials involved in the transfer. They said it was a belated return of funds Iran paid for U.S. weapons before the 1979 revolution. At some point during the seventies, Iran paid $400 million for a cache of weapons, but the Iranian government was overthrown by revolutionaries in 1979, and American hostages were taken at the U.S. Embassy in Tehran. The weapons deal never went through. But the U.S.–until January 2016–had yet to return the $400 million to Iran. Secretary of State John Kerry on Thursday defended the cash drop, saying it “saved the American taxpayers potentially billions of dollars.” He added: “There was no benefit to the United States of America to drag this out.”

January’s exchange was primarily a prisoner swap. Iran held five hostages–including a Washington Post journalist, a marine veteran and a Christian pastor–and the U.S. held seven Iranians, six of whom have dual U.S. citizenship. All of those men were held, some already convicted, others awaiting trial, on charges of exporting activities that violated sanctions in place on Iran. All were released in exchange for the U.S. prisoners.

But the timing of the cash drop, which happened at the same time as the prisoner exchange, and as the Iran nuclear deal was being finalized, was enough to prompt outrage from congressional Republicans and a fresh round of tweets from Donald Trump, the Republican presidential nominee, who implicated Hillary Clinton, his Democratic opponent:

Our incompetent Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, was the one who started talks to give 400 million dollars, in cash, to Iran. Scandal!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 3, 2016

The White House refuted the ransom claims, and portrayed the Republican backlash as no more than an attempt to justify their position against the Iran nuclear deal. John Earnest, White House press secretary, said the Republican response was “an indication of just how badly opponents of the Iran deal are struggling to justify their opposition to a successful deal.” He also reiterated the U.S. policy to not engage in ransom exchanges, adding: “Let me be clear, the United States does not pay ransom for hostages.”

But, what is the official policy regarding securing U.S. hostages?

In June 2015, President Obama announced an executive order that clarified the language on assisting families in negotiating with terrorists who might harbor their loved one. Obama’s order created a new team based at FBI headquarters called the Hostage Response Team, but said the U.S. “will not make concessions, such as paying ransom, to terrorist groups holding American hostages.” Instead, the new team would be “responsible for ensuring that our hostage policies are consistent and coordinated and implemented rapidly and effectively.”

The executive order was designed to shape the rules regarding negotiating with terrorist groups. And while Iran is known to fund terrorist groups, it is a functioning government state. It’s unclear whether the Obama administration’s stance extends to governments, but on Thursday Kerry seemed to insinuate the policy applies to every hostage-taking body: “The United States does not pay ransom and does not negotiate ransoms,” he said.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post U.S. Pays Iran $400 Million: Ransom or Routine? appeared first on Law Street.

As U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry heads to Laos on Monday for an annual meeting with Southeast Asian nations, China doubled down on its territorial claims in the South China Sea. A July 12 Hague tribunal declared that claim invalid, though China has since reiterated its claim, refusing to recognize the non-binding ruling. “Territorial integrity and maritime rights and interests will be defended,” Chang Wanquan, China’s defense minister said on Sunday, on the eve of the Laos meeting, which China will be a part of.

Kerry’s focus at Monday’s meeting–with the Association of South East Asian Nations, or ASEAN–will be “to find diplomatic ways to peacefully interact in the South China Sea,” said a senior U.S. official with direct knowledge of the talks. China claims a vast portion of the sea, an important trade route with nearly $5 trillion worth of goods traveling through it each year.

But China’s territorial claims–which include waters with untapped oil reserves lurking beneath, as well as small parcels of land too small to inhabit–are moot, according to the tribunal, the highest authority on matters of international law. Its rulings are non-binding, however, and China has remained steadfast in its claim to its “territorial integrity.” China’s claims are based on old maps that show a “nine dash line,” which includes large tracts of the South China Sea, areas which the Philippines–which brought the case against China to the tribunal in 2013–now claims.

Monday is of particular significance to China, as it marks the 89th anniversary of the People’s Liberation Army. The PLA has been in charge of the aggressive steps China has made in the South China Sea to bolster its territorial legitimacy, including engaging in island-building and increased its naval presence, which has at times resulted in stand-offs with American boats. Most of ASEAN’s members–which include North Korea, Vietnam, and Russia–have supported the Hague tribunal’s decision, with one major exception: Russia. The Kremlin has backed China’s refusal to accept the tribunal’s finding that its claims are illegitimate, and the two recently announced they will be conducting joint military exercises in the disputed waters in September.

Before he left for Laos, Kerry said that he is not taking sides in the South China Sea dispute. But the “rule of law must be upheld.” Another intriguing element to the talks is the presence of North Korean diplomats. North Korea recently called the U.S.’s direct sanctioning of Supreme Leader Kim Jong Un–mostly due to human rights abuses–a “declaration of war.” According to the U.S. official with knowledge of Kerry’s goals in Laos, he, along with other Western representatives, will tell the North’s foreign minister that “the world is not prepared to accept North Korea as a nuclear state.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post China Doubles Down on South China Sea Claim on Eve of Diplomatic Talks appeared first on Law Street.

In 2010, 80 miles off the Israeli coast, in the Mediterranean Sea, Israeli soldiers raided a Turkish ship that was on a humanitarian mission to the Gaza Strip. The soldiers killed ten workers onboard. The bloody episode aboard the Mavi Marmara–which was attempting to breach Israel’s naval blockade of the Gaza Strip–resulted in  severed ties between Israel and Turkey. On Monday, in a deal that has garnered praised from Gaza to America, Israel and Turkey announced intentions to thaw their diplomatic relationship, ushering in a new era of cooperation. The deal will be officially signed on Tuesday.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced the deal in Rome, where he was meeting with U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry. In a speech broadcast from Rome to Jerusalem, Netanyahu touched on the primary tenets of the partnership moving forward: Turkey will be allowed to move aid to the Gaza Strip–a tiny parcel of Palestinian territory that is controlled by Hamas, a Palestinian group which the U.S. deems a terrorist organization–via the Israeli port of Ashdod. That means the naval blockade of Gaza–the point of contention in the 2010 IDF raid–will remain in place. Netanyahu called the blockade “a supreme security interest,” and said he was “not prepared to compromise on it.”

Turkey can deliver humanitarian aid to Gaza, but shipments must stop through Ashdod for Israel’s approval first. Turkish Prime Minister Binali Yildirim, in his announcement of the deal in Ankara on Monday, said Turkey intends to send an aid ship of 10,000 tons of materials on Friday. He also said Turkey aims to build a 200-bed hospital, new residential buildings, a power station, and desalination plant in Gaza. The new deal also stipulates that Israel will pay $20 million to the families of the Mavi Marmara victims, and for their part, Turkey will not pursue legal action against the IDF soldiers who participated in the killings.

Netanyahu said an Israeli ambassador will be sent to Turkey, and a Turkish counterpart to Israel, “as soon as possible.” Because of normalized relations, Turkey will likely become a customer of Israeli natural gas, and Netanyahu said the deal would have “immense implications for the Israeli economy.” The partnership is especially important considering the calamity in the Middle East, particularly in Syria, which shares a border with both countries. Some analysts peg the deal as a tool against Iran, a rival for both countries in  regional prominence.

In Rome, Kerry congratulated Netanyahu on the deal. He said: “I think it’s a positive step, one of, I hope, the beginning of others.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Israel and Turkey Re-establish Diplomatic Ties appeared first on Law Street.

Imagine peace talks where the two parties vying for compromise are absent at the negotiating table. This is the reality in the long, fraught history of Israeli-Palestinian peace talks. On Friday, France hosted diplomats from all over the world–including U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon–to discuss a two state solution for Israel and Palestine, an elusive bargain that all sides say cannot materialize unless talks directly involve those two parties.

For decades, the U.S. has been the lead mediator for peace, and though France’s decision to host talks doesn’t mean it will take over that mantle, it is seen by the Palestinians as a step toward having a more neutral government at the forefront of the talks. The PLO–Palestinian’s governing body–views America’s close ties with Israel as a potentially problematic factor in hosting neutral peace discussions.

“We must act, urgently,” said French Foreign Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault, “to preserve the two-state solution, revive it before it is too late.”

The French effort comes at a time of deepening mistrust between Israelis and Palestinians, as months of stabbings and violence have cast a pall over an already darkening mood. Israeli settlements in the West Bank–which, along with the Gaza Strip and east Jerusalem would likely make up a future Palestinian state–are an unmovable obstacle for peace.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu rejected Friday’s discussions, saying peace can only happen with direct talks between Israeli and Palestinian leaders. Mahmoud Abbas, the President of the PLO, while not present in Paris, embraced the French initiative, if only because it represented a step in shifting the mediating role from the Americans to a more neutral partner in France.

The most recent brush with peace came in 2012, when a majority of the U.N. General Assembly recognized Palestine as a state. Israel did not, so a two-state reality remained out of reach. U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry tirelessly worked at achieving peace in 2014 but no deal was reached. On the latest stab at peace by the French, Kerry said: “We’re just starting, let’s get into the conversations.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Baby Steps: France Initiates New Round of Israel-Palestine Peace Talks appeared first on Law Street.

While this doesn’t necessarily imply that there’s any sort of legal obligation of involvement when the word “genocide” is used, it makes a more compelling argument for the U.S. to take stronger action against ISIS. And even though the international law can be very ambiguous, Secretary Kerry said in today’s statement that “we must hold the perpetrators accountable. And we must find the resources to help those harmed by these atrocities be able to survive on their ancestral land.” To add to that even further, it’s also pretty rare for the U.S. to make such a declaration: the last time the U.S. officially declared genocide was over a decade ago, in 2004, when then-Secretary of State Colin Powell used it to refer to the atrocities in Darfur.

So while it’s still not completely clear to what extent this affects our current foreign policy toward ISIS, it could mean a significant international effort to take action against the group, and shows that we definitely aren’t walking away from this conflict any time soon.

Mariam Jaffery

Mariam was an Executive Assistant at Law Street Media and a native of Northern Virginia. She has a B.A. in International Affairs with a minor in Business Administration from George Washington University. Contact Mariam at mjaffery@lawstreetmedia.com.

The post Kerry Says ISIS “Responsible for Genocide”: What Does That Mean? appeared first on Law Street.

The relationship between the United States and Cuba has been slowly warming since December, when it was announced that leaders from the two formerly acrimonious nations were moving toward normalizing relations. One of the biggest steps toward that goal reached fruition on Friday, as the U.S. flag was just raised above the American embassy in Havana.

The scene at the American embassy Friday was a heavy one, rife in symbolism, as the same marines who took down the flag over 50 years ago were the ones who put it up.

Secretary of State John Kerry watched as Marines raised the flag at the US embassy in Havana http://t.co/KJrLRFOLuMpic.twitter.com/VkEZN6KbbD

— NYT Photo (@nytimesphoto) August 14, 2015

Secretary of State John Kerry, who has been an instrumental player in this new era of relations with Cuba, presided over the ceremony, calling it a “historic moment.” Kerry is the highest ranking U.S. official to visit Cuba since relations turned sour after former President Fidel Castro took power.

While the ceremonial re-opening of the embassy is certainly a big step, the fact that is just one step is important to recognize. Cuban-American relations been improving steadily, but slowly, since that fateful December announcement. For example, in April, the Obama administration removed Cuba from the list of state sponsors of terrorism. The two governments conducted a series of talks that wrapped up in May. Most recently, on July 20, diplomatic relations were officially restored between the U.S. and Cuba. The Cuban embassy in Washington D.C. opened on July 20 as did the U.S. embassy in Havana, but the flag ceremony was only hosted at the Cuban Embassy on that day.

Cuban Flag Raised Outside Embassy in Washington #Cubahttp://t.co/YpcGMGNVolpic.twitter.com/MSRTpwdSaD — Cuba Pan Am 2015 (@CubaPanAm2015) July 21, 2015

The fact that the American-Cuban relationship has progressed in such steps really is representative of the fact that there is still a lot of work to do. One of the most contentious sticking points is the continued American trade embargo. Despite no longer serving as President, Fidel Castro has particularly criticized the United States over the continued embargo. Yesterday, he stated that the United States owes Cuba “many million of dollars” because of the loss in trade that resulted from the embargo. However, lifting it requires Congressional action, not executive, and the Republican Congress hasn’t particularly warmed to the idea.  There were also concerns over the fact that Cuban dissidents weren’t invited to the flag-raising ceremony; Kerry instead met with them separately. 

While there’s a lot to be done to reach fully normalized relations between the United States and Cuba, these steps in the right direction do bode well. It’s certainly a marked difference from even just a year ago–the coming years are almost guaranteed to bring more changes. 

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Cuban-American Relations Continue to Crawl Forward appeared first on Law Street.

With the advent of 3-D printers, we will someday soon possibly be able to print almost anything from the convenience of our homes. With that technology in place, it was only a matter of time before some enterprising individuals figured out how to print guns. But now the government is going after the developers of these printable guns, in the form of legal action. It’s not just about the printed guns though, the implications of this legal battle could have a big affect on the interpretation of the First Amendment.

Back when the news of printable guns first came out, the leading force appeared to be a company called  Defense Distributed, led by a man named Cody Wilson. The company was the first to publish printable gun instructions online, in the form of a 3D-printed pistol. At the time, I wrote about how various different areas were outlawing the use of 3D-printed guns.

After Defense Distributed first put the directions up on its website, the State Department sent a letter to the company asking it to take down the website. The State Department claimed that Defense Distributed was violating US Arms Export control laws, particularly the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) The latter threatened that if the directions weren’t taken down, the state would prosecute Wilson  would be prosecuted. It’s now that letter that has sparked the court battle between the State Department and Wilson.

Wilson has filed a lawsuit against the State Department, as well as individuals high up in the department, such as Secretary of State John Kerry. The lawsuit specifically names the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC) as the section of the State Department, who sent the letter. Defense Distributed is working in conjunction with the Second Amendment Foundation on the lawsuit.

The argument that Defense Distributed is making is truly fascinating–the company is arguing that by trying to restrict it from posting the instructions online, the State Department is restricting its First Amendment right to free speech. Alan Gura, the lawyer for Defense Distributed stated about the lawsuit:

The internet is available worldwide, so posting something on the internet is deemed an export, and to [the State Department] this justifies imposing a prior restraint on internet speech. That’s a vast, unchecked seizure of power over speech that’s…not authorized by our constitution.

It makes some sense, but whether or not this argument will actually be successful seems to be more doubtful. It appears to come down to whether or not gun blueprints are viewed as speech, or, “technical data,” which the U.S. government can certainly make a strong argument for being able to control.

As technology continues to improve on multiple fronts, these are questions that will continue to come before the courts. Whether or not Defense Distributed is successful could affect the use of printable guns moving forward.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Are These Weapons Protected by Free Speech? appeared first on Law Street.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addressed the United States Congress today. The speech was much anticipated after weeks of political back and forth regarding the invitation extended to Netanyahu by Speaker of the House John Boehner; however, Netanyahu did end up giving his speech as planned, and it focused heavily on Iran and the ongoing American-Iranian talks over nuclear power. That being said, in some ways the speech is less interesting from an international politics standpoint as it is from a domestic policy window.

The controversy leading up to the speech was, to put it bluntly, a total mess. It all started with House Speaker John Boehner extending an invitation to Netanyahu to speak in front of Congress. However, the White House was not consulted in this matter. Democrats called that a slap in the face to President Obama, given that it’s highly unusual for the legislative branch of one nation to interact with the head of state of another. Democrats argue that it undermines the President’s autonomy when it comes for foreign policy decisions.

The Obama Administration–including Vice President Joe Biden, Secretary of State John Kerry, and President Obama himself–refused to meet with Netanyahu. The official reason given centered on a concern that Obama didn’t want to interfere with Israeli politics in the period of time leading up to the imminent Israeli elections.

For a very long time, Israel has been one of the few bipartisan issues in the United States. Almost ever politician, regardless of party, has at some point declared his or her commitment to Israel. Americans in general have a consistent history of supporting the country. We as a nation have given Israel more than $121 billion in foreign aid since 1948. A Gallup poll found a plurality–42 percent of Americans–thought Israeli actions against Hamas were justified this summer. Moreover, 62 percent of Americans sympathized with the Israelis. The United States and Israel have long had a close relationship, regardless of which American political party is holding office.

That being said, in today’s toxic political environment, no issue can every really truly be bipartisan. The scuffle over Netanyahu’s appearance today shows that. Obama refusing to meet with Netanyahu was just the beginning–many other prominent Democrats who are actually members of Congress refused to attend the speech as well. Seven senators, all Democrats (with the exception of Senator Bernie Sanders, an Independent), sat out the speech. A pretty long list of House members, again all Democrats, didn’t attend either.

In addition, Obama spoke about what Netanyahu said. While he didn’t necessarily criticize it, he basically lamented “same old, same old” about Netanyahu’s concerns over the U.S.-Iran nuclear talks. According to NPR:

Obama, speaking at the White House, said, ‘as far as I can tell, there was nothing new’ in Netanyahu’s speech, adding, ‘the prime minister didn’t offer any viable alternatives.’ He said he didn’t watch the speech because it coincided with a video conference with European leaders.

Other Democrats had more overt reactions. Representative Nancy Pelosi stated:

I was near tears throughout the Prime Minister’s speech—saddened by the insult to the intelligence of the United States as part of the P5 +1 nations, and saddened by the condescension toward our knowledge of the threat posed by Iran and our broader commitment to preventing nuclear proliferation.

I think what we saw today can be best described as a low-key game of political chicken. Republicans took one of the few sort of bipartisan issues and made Obama pick a political side. Had he gone along with the Republican Congress’ power play he would have kowtowed to his political rivals. Yet openly slamming them or Netanyahu could anger an American populace that has consistently supported a friendly relationship with Israel. In a lot of ways, it was a lose-lose situation. While Obama has said that he’s more than willing to keep working with Netanyahu if he wins the upcoming Israeli elections, the relationship may be more frayed moving forward.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Netanyahu’s Speech Shows Israel Isn’t Always a Bipartisan Issue appeared first on Law Street.

Tens of thousands of Russians marched in Moscow today mourning the death of Boris Nemtsov. The human rights activist and critic of President Vladimir Putin’s government was shot to death on the night of Friday, February 27 while walking in the capital city. It is widely believed by Putin’s opposition that the Kremlin is responsible for the act.

Boris #Nemtsov killing spurs thousands to march in Moscow, as motives debated – http://t.co/Lc7cAFUl7S pic.twitter.com/ab9t03LBib

— CBS News (@CBSNews) March 1, 2015

Reports from the ground spoke to the solemn and quiet mood of the march. Participants broke into anti-Putin chants from time to time, but for the most part the “only sound was the steady thwack of police helicopters overhead or the hum of police boats patrolling the shores of the Moscow River.” Widescale marches for a variety of causes from climate change to social justice are a hallmark of American culture; many of us have likely experienced at least one in our lifetimes and can easily recall the vibrations of the crowd, the yelling and clapping, and general energy. The near-silence reported today in Moscow is difficult to imagine. Nemtsov was an outspoken critic of the Putin government, calling out its actions in Ukraine in a radio interview only hours before his death. Fellow opposition leader Ilya Yashin weighed in on Nemtsov’s killing and lent weight to the belief that it was ordered by the government:

Essentially it is an act of terror. It is a political murder aimed at frightening the population, or the part of the population that supported Nemtsov or did not agree with the government. I hope we won’t get scared, that we will continue what Boris was doing.

Secretary of State John Kerry took to the Sunday morning shows to lend the official American perspective on the killing. He asserted that the U.S. does not have any information what happened or who shot Netsov, but that he is pushing for a “thorough, transparent, real investigation, not just of who fired the shots, but who, if anyone, may have ordered or instructed [the shooting].” Members of Congress expressed their condolences and outrage over Nemtsov’s death, including Senator John McCain (R-A) via Twitter:

I am heartbroken by murder of my friend #BorisNemtsov – a voice for human rights in #Russia. My stmt: http://t.co/f1yHqEtWpj — John McCain (@SenJohnMcCain) February 28, 2015

McCain also released a statement that directly addressed Nemtsov’s fight against the Kremlin and the need for continued pressure to decrease human rights abuses in Russia.

That Boris’ murder occurred in a secure part of the Russian capital raises legitimate questions about the circumstances of his killing and who was responsible. But regardless of who actually pulled the trigger, Boris is dead because of the environment of impunity that Vladimir Putin has created in Russia, where individuals are routinely persecuted and attacked for their beliefs.

Whether or not a fair investigation will be conducted into Boris Nemtsov’s death, the fact remains that tensions in Russia are nearing a boiling point, and the international community can no longer afford to turn a blind eye to what is happening in the region.

Chelsey D. Goff

Chelsey D. Goff was formerly Chief People Officer at Law Street. She is a Granite State Native who holds a Master of Public Policy in Urban Policy from the George Washington University. She’s passionate about social justice issues, politics — especially those in First in the Nation New Hampshire — and all things Bravo. Contact Chelsey at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Russians March in Mourning of Opposition Leader’s Death appeared first on Law Street.

Democrats are usually the ones to promote more government control, but President Nixon was a Republican. Though he achieved many things during his presidency, like most people, he is remembered for his scandal. The Watergate Scandal was named after the Watergate Complex in Washington D.C., the location of the Democratic Party headquarters where Nixon’s men were caught breaking in. This was not the limit of the illicit activities Nixon led. His surveillance was far more meticulous, bugging offices of his opponents and creating transcripts from the tapes. Public outrage fueled the nation, and talks of impeachment spewed from most mouths. After much denial, Nixon accepted the blame, publicly apologized for his mistake, and acquiesced to the public consensus about his misbehavior by resigning. The matter of right and wrong was obvious.

Less obvious but very similar is the situation with the National Security Agency. They are not only analyzing domestically, but also internationally. NSA’s interactions with other nations are mirroring Nixon’s ideology. NSA permits the US to monitor our competitors and alter our diplomacy respectively. Although NSA’s spying had been justified as a security precaution against terrorism, NSA is towing a fine line. Germany, France, Mexico, and Brazil have all officially complained to the US about NSA’s interference. The famous fugitive and ex-NSA member, Edward Snowden claimed that NSA was monitoring the phone calls of 35 world leaders, among many other political officials, sparking the debate about NSA’s morality. Since then, resentment, both foreign and domestic, has prevailed.

Last month, Dilma Rousseff, the Brazilian president, spoke at the UN general assembly, bringing to light her discontentment with NSA activities pertaining to her nation, “tampering in such a manner in the affairs of other countries is a breach of international law and is an affront of the principles that must guide the relations among them, especially among friendly nations. A sovereign nation can never establish itself to the detriment of another sovereign nation. The right to safety of citizens of one country can never be guaranteed by violating fundamental human rights of citizens of another country,” she condemned. The NSA, she announced, collected personal information of Brazilian citizens, along with information about specific industries, primarily oil industries. The German Chancellor, Merkel also confronted the US about NSA recent activities, “we need to have trust in our allies and partners, and this must now be established once again. I repeat that spying among friends is not at all acceptable against anyone, and that goes for every citizen in Germany.”

Similarly, Le Monde, a reputable French newspaper, released information on NSA’s french metadata, “the NSA graph shows an average of 3 million data intercepts per day with peaks at almost 7 million on 24 December 2012 and 7 January 2013.” Le Monde also claimed the NSA planted bugs in the French embassy in Washington, and hacked tens of millions of computers in France this year. Prior to the news leak by Le Monde, French foreign minister, Mr Fabius, told the US president,”I said again to John Kerry what Francois Hollande told Barack Obama, that this kind of spying conducted on a large scale by the Americans on its allies is something that is unacceptable.” With the shocking new information about NSA’s unlawful actions being published, the situation,  on US-French relations are exacerbated.

The difference in our ease to distinguish right and wrong in the Watergate scandal and the NSA security breaches test our morals. Are American morals contingent to our context only? Our action so far indicate that spying domestically on our opponents is a mortal sin, but internationally, it is okay. The freedoms we are allotted and the restrictions we face are variables of time, as is our living constitution, but what about our morals? The Watergate Scandal demonstrated American tenacity for ethics and caused for an eradication of a wrongdoer, will the NSA breach result in a fix too?- Will government policies adjust to current times to keep stable our set of values?

 [Press TV] [BBC] [Le Monde] [Euronews]

—

Featured image courtesy of [Mike Herbst via Flickr]

Vasudha Sadana

The post NSA: A Repeat of Watergate appeared first on Law Street.