L.A. protesters express anger, demand justice
National
L.A. protesters express anger, demand justice
June 10, 2025 | 1:15 PM GMT
Protesters gathered outside the Federal Building in downtown Los Angeles on June 9, sharing their anger towards the ICE raids and demanded justice.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Times
12 minutes ago
- New York Times
Live Updates: Fears Run High as Iran Weighs Response to U.S. Strikes
Demonstrators hold signs against the U.S. strikes against Iran in Washington outside the White House on Sunday. Before he ordered strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities, President Trump did not seek permission from Congress, to which the U.S. Constitution grants the sole power to declare war. Many Democrats and even some Republicans say that the attack was tantamount to a declaration of war and that Mr. Trump acted illegally. Several Trump aides say they disagree, calling the strike a limited action aimed solely at Iran's nuclear capabilities that does not meet the definition of war. 'This is not a war against Iran,' Secretary of State Marco Rubio told Fox News on Sunday. Vice President JD Vance argued that Mr. Trump had 'clear authority to act to prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.' However, later on Sunday, Mr. Trump wrote online that his military aims could be much more expansive: 'If the current Iranian Regime is unable to MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN, why wouldn't there be a Regime change??? MIGA!!!' Criticisms of the attack, which came less than two weeks after Israel began its bombing campaign against Iran, include Mr. Trump not giving American policymakers, lawmakers and the public enough time to debate a role in a conflict that experts warn could grow quickly if Iran retaliates. The furor over the sudden strikes follows years of bipartisan efforts in Congress to try to place greater limits on a president's ability to order military action, efforts that arose because of disastrous American wars in the Middle East and Central Asia. So is the United States at war with Iran? And did Mr. Trump have the authority to order his attack without consulting Congress? What does the U.S. Constitution say about war? Image A demonstrator holds a shredded copy of the Constitution of the United States on Sunday. Credit... Eric Lee for The New York Times Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution assigns Congress dozens of powers like collecting taxes and creating post offices, as well as the power to 'declare war' and to 'raise and support armies.' The Constitution's framers considered that clause a crucial check on presidential power, according to an essay by the law professors Michael D. Ramsey and Stephen I. Vladeck for the National Constitution Center. Early in American history, Congress approved even limited conflicts, including frontier clashes with Native American tribes. But the question is complicated by Article II of the Constitution, which delineates the powers of the president, and which designates the U.S. leader as the 'commander in chief' of the U.S. military. Presidents of both parties, relying heavily on legal opinions written by executive-branch lawyers, have cited that language to justify military action without congressional involvement. Congress tried asserting itself with the War Powers Resolution of 1973, which says the American president must 'consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situation where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances.' But presidents have repeatedly disregarded that language or argued for a narrow definition of the 'introduction' of forces. Congress has done little to enforce the resolution. What are members of Congress saying about the U.S. strikes? Image President Trump walking across the South Lawn as he returned to the White House on Sunday. Credit... Anna Rose Layden for The New York Times Democrats have almost uniformly criticized Mr. Trump for acting without legislative consent, and a few Republicans have as well. 'His actions are a clear violation of our Constitution — ignoring the requirement that only the Congress has the authority to declare war,' Senator Chris Van Hollen, Democrat of Maryland, said in a statement echoed by many of his colleagues. Representative Thomas Massie, Republican of Kentucky, told CBS News that there was no 'imminent threat to the United States' from Iran. Senator Tim Kaine, Democrat of Virginia, said on the same CBS program that Congress must act this week to assert a role in any further U.S. military action. 'Would we think it was war if Iran bombed a U.S. nuclear facility? Of course we would,' Mr. Kaine said. 'This is the U.S. jumping into a war of choice at Donald Trump's urging, without any compelling national security interests for the United States to act in this way, particularly without a debate and vote in Congress.' Some Democrats say Mr. Trump has already gone unforgivably far. Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York called on Saturday night for Mr. Trump's impeachment. Hawkish Republicans rejected such talk. 'He had all the authority he needs under the Constitution,' Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina told NBC News on Sunday. Mr. Graham cited Mr. Trump's power as commander in chief under Article II of the Constitution. 'Congress can declare war, or cut off funding. We can't be the commander in chief. You can't have 535 commander-in-chiefs,' Mr. Graham said, referring to the combined number of U.S. representatives and senators. 'If you don't like what the president does in terms of war, you can cut off the funding.' Mr. Graham noted that Congress has made formal war declarations in only five conflicts, and none since World War II. However, there has been a legal equivalent from Congress that President George W. Bush was the last American leader to successfully seek: an authorization for the use of military force, often called an A.U.M.F. What are legal scholars saying? Image Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi of Iran called the U.S. attack an 'outrageous, grave and unprecedented violation' of international law and of the United Nations charter. Credit... Khalil Hamra/Associated Press Several lawyers and scholars who have studied the international law of armed conflict say the United States is without a doubt at war with Iran for purposes of application of that law, and that Mr. Trump acted in violation of international conventions. 'The short answer is that this is, in my view, illegal under both international law and U.S. domestic law,' said Oona Hathaway, a professor of international law at Yale Law School who has worked at the Defense Department. Brian Finucane, a former lawyer at the State Department, agreed that Mr. Trump needed to ask Congress for authorization beforehand. He also said 'there is certainly a U.S. armed conflict with Iran, so the law of war applies.' On Sunday, Iran's foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, called the U.S. attack an 'outrageous, grave and unprecedented violation' of international law and of the United Nations charter, which forbids U.N. members from violating the sovereignty of other members. Mr. Araghchi did not specifically say that his country is now at war with America. Mr. Finucane also said the United States had violated the U.N. charter. Ryan Goodman, a law professor at New York University who has also worked at the Defense Department, said 'one important matter for both domestic law and especially international law is the issue of 'imminence.'' The Trump administration is justifying the U.S. attack by saying Iran's development of a nuclear weapon was imminent, Mr. Goodman noted. But 'the law would require that the attack would be imminent,' he said, and 'it is very hard to see how the administration can meet that test under even the most charitable legal assessment.' Even if one were to focus on the question of a nuclear bomb, U.S. intelligence agencies have assessed that Iran had not yet decided to make such a weapon, even though it had developed a large stockpile of the enriched uranium necessary for doing so. How often have presidents sought congressional approval for war? Image The furor over the sudden strikes also follows years of bipartisan efforts in Congress to try to place greater limits on a president's ability to order military action, efforts that arose because of disastrous American wars in the Middle East and Central Asia. Credit... Eric Lee/The New York Times In the decades since Congress declared war on Japan and Germany in 1941, U.S. presidents have repeatedly joined or started major conflicts without congressional consent. President Harry S. Truman sent U.S. forces into Korea. President Ronald Reagan ordered military action in Libya, Grenada and Lebanon; President George H.W. Bush invaded Panama; President Bill Clinton ordered the bombing of mostly Serbian targets in Yugoslavia during the Kosovo War; President Barack Obama joined a 2011 NATO bombing campaign against the government of Muammar Qaddafi in Libya and led a military campaign against the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq. Mr. Obama broke with this trend in September 2013 when he decided against launching a planned strike against Syria without first seeking congressional authorization. The strike was unpopular in Congress, which never held a vote, and Mr. Obama did not act. President George W. Bush won separate congressional authorizations for the use of military force against Afghanistan and Iraq before ordering invasions of those countries in 2001 and 2003. In the years since the Al Qaeda attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, several presidents have also ordered countless airstrikes and special operations raids on foreign soil to kill accused terrorists. Those have largely relied on broad interpretations of the two authorizations for the use of military force that Congress granted the executive branch for the so-called war on terror. Emma Ashford, a scholar of U.S. foreign policy at the Stimson Center, said that in the post-9/11 wars, 'some presidents have largely stopped asking permission at all.' In January 2020, Mr. Trump chose not to consult Congress before ordering an airstrike that killed a senior Iranian military commander, Qassim Suleimani, while he was visiting Iraq. Many members of Congress called that a clear act of war that was likely to begin wider hostilities. Iran responded by firing 27 missiles at U.S. forces in Iraq, inflicting traumatic brain injuries on about 100 U.S. troops. But the conflict did not expand further. Last year, President Joseph R. Biden Jr. ordered U.S. airstrikes against the Houthi militia in Yemen without getting congressional permission, and Mr. Trump did the same this year. Advances in military technology, including drones and precision-guided munitions, have allowed presidents to take action with minimal initial risk to U.S. forces. Military officials say that Saturday's strike in Iran, carried out by B-2 stealth bombers, encountered no resistance. But critics say the action invites Iranian retaliation that could escalate into full-scale war. What happens next Image Advances in military technology, including drones and precision-guided munitions, have allowed presidents to take action with minimal initial risk to U.S. forces. Credit... Eric Lee for The New York Times G.O.P. leaders in the House and Senate have signaled support for the strike, but Democrats and a few Republicans are demanding that Congress approve any further military action. Mr. Kaine, who serves on the committees on armed services and foreign relations, introduced a Senate resolution last week requiring that Mr. Trump get explicit congressional approval before taking military action against Iran. Mr. Kaine on Sunday said the measure was still relevant and that he hoped it would come to a vote this week. Mr. Massie, the Kentucky Republican, introduced a similar war powers resolution last week in the House with Ro Khanna, Democrat of California. 'When two countries are bombing each other daily in a hot war, and a third country joins the bombing, that's an act of war,' Mr. Massie wrote on social media on Sunday. Mr. Massie said he was 'amazed at the mental gymnastics' Mr. Trump's defenders have employed to argue the United States was not entering a war by attacking Iranian nuclear facilities. Megan Mineiro contributed reporting.
Yahoo
21 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Oil's Spike Unwinds as Traders Await Iran Response to US Attack
(Bloomberg) -- Oil jumped after US strikes on key Iranian nuclear sites in a significant escalation, but later pared gains as fears of an immediate disruption to supplies from the Middle East began to fade. Bezos Wedding Draws Protests, Soul-Searching Over Tourism in Venice One Architect's Quest to Save Mumbai's Heritage From Disappearing NYC Congestion Toll Cuts Manhattan Gridlock by 25%, RPA Reports Global benchmark Brent initially surged as much as 5.7% to $81.40 a barrel in heavy trading, before changing hands near $78. US President Donald Trump said that weekend air attacks had 'obliterated' a trio of targets, and threatened more military action if Iran didn't make peace. In reply, Tehran warned that the strikes would trigger 'everlasting consequences.' The oil market has been gripped by the crisis since Israel attacked Iran more than a week ago, with futures pushing higher, options volumes spiking, and the futures curve shifting to reflect tensions about tighter near-term supplies. While the Middle East accounts for about a third of global crude production, there haven't yet been any signs of actual disruption to physical oil flows, including for cargoes going through the Strait of Hormuz chokepoint. 'Traders are starting to think there is nothing here: we are up $10 a barrel since the war started, now a little more, and so I think there is an appropriate amount of risk in the market,' said Bob McNally, founder of Rapidan Energy Advisers LLC and a former White House energy official. 'Traders are holding their breath, waiting to see if Israel or Iran expand this conflict beyond military and political targets into traded energy,' he told Bloomberg Television. 'So far, no one has pulled that trigger — and if they don't, I can see the price reversing.' The unprecedented US strikes were meant to hobble Iran's nuclear program, and targeted sites at Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan. At the United Nations on Sunday, Ambassador Amir Saeid Iravani said the 'timing, nature and scale' of Tehran's response 'will be decided by its armed forces.' There are multiple, overlapping risks for crude flows. The biggest centers on the Strait of Hormuz, should Tehran seek to retaliate by attempting to close the narrow conduit. About a fifth of the world's crude output passes through the waterway at the entrance to the Persian Gulf. Iran's parliament has called for the closure of the strait, according to state-run TV. Such a move, however, could not proceed without the approval of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Authorities may yet restrict flows in other ways. 'The market will closely watch Iran's response,' said Muyu Xu, a senior crude analyst at Kpler Ltd. 'If Iran blocks the Strait of Hormuz, even for one day, oil can temporarily hit $120 or even $150.' Rival Suppliers In addition, Tehran could opt to target crude infrastructure in rival suppliers in the Middle East, such as fellow OPEC+ producers Saudi Arabia, Iraq or the United Arab Emirates. Both Riyadh and Baghdad expressed concern following the US attack. Elsewhere, Iran could orchestrate attacks on ships on the other side of the Arabian peninsula in the Red Sea, encouraging Yemen-based Houthi rebels to harass vessels. After the US attacks, the group threatened retaliation. If the hostilities escalate, Tehran's own oil-producing capabilities could be targeted, including the key export hub at Kharg Island. Such a move, however, could send crude prices soaring, an outcome that Washington might want to avoid. So far, Kharg Island has been spared, with satellite imagery pointing to a drive by Iran to expedite its exports of oil. The crisis will also throw a spotlight onto the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries, and its allies including Russia. In recent months, OPEC+ eased supply curbs at a rapid clip to regain market share, and yet members still have substantial idled capacity that could be reactivated. Brent's prompt spread — the difference between its two nearest contracts, and a closely followed metric — first widened to as much as $1.99 a barrel in backwardation, from $1.53 on Friday. It then retraced almost all of that move. 'It may take a few days or even weeks to discern the Iranian response to this unprecedented attack,' RBC Capital Markets LLC analysts including Helima Croft said in a note. 'Above all, we would caution against the knee jerk 'the worst is behind us' hot take at this stage.' --With assistance from Stephen Stapczynski and Yongchang Chin. Luxury Counterfeiters Keep Outsmarting the Makers of $10,000 Handbags Is Mark Cuban the Loudmouth Billionaire that Democrats Need for 2028? Ken Griffin on Trump, Harvard and Why Novice Investors Won't Beat the Pros The US Has More Copper Than China But No Way to Refine All of It Can 'MAMUWT' Be to Musk What 'TACO' Is to Trump? ©2025 Bloomberg L.P. Sign in to access your portfolio
Washington Post
26 minutes ago
- Washington Post
Small protests across U.S. after strike on Iran
National Small protests across U.S. after strike on Iran June 23, 2025 | 7:06 AM GMT Protests popped up across the U.S. on June 22, denouncing the Trump administration's bombing of Iranian nuclear sites and drawing up to hundred of people.
