Arrest warrants sought for government staffers
Senior government officials who refused to attend an upper house hearing into the Dural caravan hoax are potentially facing arrest.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
ABC News
42 minutes ago
- ABC News
Trump can keep control of National Guard in LA, appeals court rules
A US appeals court has let Donald Trump retain control on Thursday of California's National Guard while the state's Democratic governor proceeds with a lawsuit challenging the Republican president's use of the troops to quell protests in Los Angeles. Mr Trump's decision to send troops into Los Angeles prompted a national debate about the use of the military on US soil and inflamed political tension in the country's second most populous city. On Thursday (local time), a three-judge panel of the San Francisco-based 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals extended its pause on US District Judge Charles Breyer's June 12 ruling that Mr Trump had unlawfully called the National Guard into federal service. Mr Trump probably acted within his authority, the panel said, adding his administration probably complied with the requirement to coordinate with Governor Gavin Newsom, and even if it did not, he had no authority to veto Mr Trump's directive. "And although we hold that the president likely has authority to federalise the National Guard, nothing in our decision addresses the nature of the activities in which the federalised National Guard may engage," it wrote in its opinion. Mr Newsom could still challenge the use of the National Guard and US Marines under other laws, including the bar on using troops in domestic law enforcement, it added. The governor could raise those issues at a court hearing on Friday in front of Judge Breyer, it said. In a post on X after the decision, Mr Newsom vowed to pursue his challenge. "The president is not a king and is not above the law," he said. "We will press forward with our challenge to President Trump's authoritarian use of US military soldiers against our citizens." Mr Trump hailed the decision in a post on Truth Social. "This is a great decision for our country and we will continue to protect and defend law-abiding Americans," he said. "This is much bigger than Gavin, because all over the United States, if our cities, and our people, need protection, we are the ones to give it to them should state and local police be unable, for whatever reason, to get the job done." Judge Breyer's ruling was issued in a lawsuit against Mr Trump's action brought by Mr Newsom, where he ruled that Mr Trump violated a US law governing a president's ability to take control of a state's National Guard by failing to coordinate with the governor. It also found that the conditions set out under the statute to allow this move, such as a rebellion against federal authority, did not exist. Judge Breyer ordered Mr Trump to return control of California's National Guard to Mr Newsom. Hours after Judge Breyer acted, the 9th Circuit panel had put the judge's move on hold temporarily. Amid protests and turmoil in Los Angeles over Mr Trump's immigration raids, the president on June 7 took control of California's National Guard and deployed 4,000 troops against Mr Newsom's wishes. Mr Trump also ordered 700 US Marines to the city after sending in the National Guard. Judge Breyer has not yet ruled on the legality of the Marine Corps mobilisation. At a court hearing on Tuesday on whether to extend the pause on Judge Breyer's decision, members of the 9th Circuit panel questioned lawyers for California and the Trump administration on what role, if any, courts should have in reviewing Mr Trump's authority to deploy the troops. The law sets out three conditions by which a president can federalise state National Guard forces, including an invasion, a "rebellion or danger of a rebellion" against the government or a situation in which the US government is unable with regular forces to execute the country's laws. The appeals court said the final condition had probably been met because protesters hurled items at immigration authorities' vehicles, used a trash dumpster as battering rams, threw Molotov cocktails and vandalised property, frustrating law enforcement. The Justice Department has said once the president determines an emergency exists that warrants the use of the National Guard, no court or state governor can review that decision. The appeals court rejected that argument. The protests in Los Angeles ran for more than a week before they ebbed, leading Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass to lift a curfew she had imposed. In its June 9 lawsuit, California said Mr Trump's deployment of the National Guard and the Marines violated the state's sovereignty and US laws that forbid federal troops from participating in civilian law enforcement. The Trump administration has denied that troops are engaging in law enforcement, saying they are instead protecting federal buildings and personnel, including US Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers. The 9th Circuit panel is comprised of two judges appointed by Mr Trump during his first term and one appointee of Democratic former President Joe Biden. Reuters
9 News
an hour ago
- 9 News
British superyacht Bayesian resurfaces for first time since August sinking ahead of recovery
Your web browser is no longer supported. To improve your experience update it here The British superyacht that sank off Sicily last August killing seven people resurfaced for the first time on Friday as salvage recovery crews readied it to be hauled ashore for further investigation. The coast guard said the actual recovery was scheduled to begin on Saturday morning (Saturday evening AEST). Italian Coast Guard's Luigi Dattilo patrol boat, left, assists the multi-purpose floating work barge Hebo Lift 2 monitoring the stretch of sea off Porticello, near Palermo, Sicily, Italy, Sunday, May 4, 2025, where the British superyacht Bayesian sunk on August 19, 2024 as the operations for its recovery start. (AP Photo/Salvatore Cavalli) A spokesman for TMC Maritime, which is conducting the recovery operation, said the vessel has been slowly raised from the seabed, 50 metres down, over the past three days to allow the steel lifting straps, slings and harnesses to be secured under the keel. What became visible for the first time on Friday on the surface of the water was the top of the passenger area of the Bayesian where passengers would sit, known as the accommodation area, said a spokesman for TMC Maritime, David Wilson. The British-flagged luxury superyacht sank August 19 off Porticello near Palermo during a violent storm, killing UK tech magnate Mike Lynch, his daughter and five others. Fifteen people survived, including the captain and all crew members except the chef. Italian authorities are conducting a full criminal investigation. When it resurfaced, the Bayesian was missing its 72-metre mast, which was cut down and left on the seabed for future removal. The 56-metre (184-foot) British-flagged Bayesian was known for its single 75-metre mast, one of the world's tallest made of aluminium. (Perini Navi) The mast had to be detached to allow the hull to be brought to a nearly upright position that would allow the craft to be surfaced, TMC Maritime said earlier this week. British investigators said in an interim report issued last month that the yacht was knocked over by "extreme wind" and couldn't recover. The report stated that the Bayesian had chosen the site where it sank as shelter from forecast thunderstorms. Wind speeds exceeded 70 knots (130km/h) at the time of the sinking and "violently" knocked the vessel over to a 90-degree angle in under 15 seconds. Lynch had been celebrating his recent acquittal on fraud charges with his family and the people who had defended him at trial. CONTACT US
Canberra Times
an hour ago
- Canberra Times
British MPs vote in favour or legalising assisted dying
The bill now proceeds to Britain's upper chamber, the House of Lords, where it will undergo months of scrutiny. While there could be further amendments, the unelected Lords will be reluctant to block legislation that has been passed by elected members of the House of Commons.
