Latest news with #ForeignTerroristOrganization
Yahoo
02-06-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
US government taking ‘dramatically different approach' using terrorism charges against drug cartels: FBI alum
A former FBI assistant director says the federal government is taking a "dramatically different approach" to how it approaches drug trafficking after several Sinaloa cartel leaders were slapped with terror-related charges. Both Pedro Inzunza Noriega and his son, Pedro Inzunza Coronel, were charged with narco-terrorism, material support of terrorism, drug trafficking and money laundering on May 13 as members of the Beltran Leyva Organization (BLO), a faction of the Sinaloa cartel. Five additional BLO leaders were charged with drug trafficking and money laundering. It's the first time that cartel members have been hit with terrorism-related charges, which Chris Swecker, former assistant director of the FBI's Criminal Investigative Division, told Fox News Digital is intended to send a message. "This administration is taking a dramatically different approach to fighting drug cartels, who are the most powerful criminal organizations on the planet right now," Swecker said. "It is perfect for narco-traffickers because if you can go after anyone who supports these trafficking cartels and leaders and members in any way, if they give them a paperclip, if they provide financial support, if they work for them, they're a hit man." Sinaloa Cartel Leaders Charged With Narco-terrorism After Authorities Seize 1.65 Tons Of Fentanyl "It also gives us some extra territorial punch, if you will. It gives us the ability, if we want to, to dip into foreign countries," he said. Read On The Fox News App Swecker, who has run numerous investigations involving drug cartels, said the Trump administration's decision to use terrorism charges expands the number of people who can be charged, and increases the potential penalties. "This is a serious approach by treating them as terrorists. It increases the penalties that they're exposed to. It ups the ante when it comes to extradition," Swecker said. "It ups the ante when it comes to the seriousness of the charges. They can use RICO, they can use continuing criminal enterprise, they can use now material support to terrorist organizations, so now, all you have to do is be affiliated in any way with a drug cartel, and we can lower a 20-year sentence on you." On Feb. 20, the Trump administration designated the Sinaloa cartel as a Foreign Terrorist Organization. Violent Mexican Drug Gang's High Ranking Members Sanctioned By Trump Noriega allegedly worked closely with his son to "aggressively traffic" fentanyl into the United States, prosecutors said, adding that the two have led "one of the largest and most sophisticated fentanyl production networks in the world." The father and son trafficked "tens of thousands of kilograms of fentanyl" into the United States, according to federal prosecutors. Mexican law enforcement officials raided several locations in Sinaloa that are managed and controlled by the pair, seizing over 1.65 tons of fentanyl. Indictments are also pending against members of the BLO and Sinaloa cartel, which include Fausto Isidro Meza Flores, Oscar Manuel Gastelum Iribe, Pedro Inzunza Noriega, Ivan Archivaldo Guzman Salazar, Ismael Zambada Sicairos and Jose Gil Caro Quintero. All individuals, including Noriega and Coronel, remain at-large. Adam Gordon, U.S. attorney for the Southern District of California, sent a message to the cartel leaders during a press conference announcing the charges. "Let me be direct: To the leaders of the Sinaloa cartel, you are no longer the hunters. You are the hunted. You will be betrayed by your friends. You will be hounded by your enemies, and you will ultimately find yourself and your face here in a courtroom in the Southern District of California," Gordon article source: US government taking 'dramatically different approach' using terrorism charges against drug cartels: FBI alum
American Military News
14-05-2025
- Politics
- American Military News
Judge rules Trump admin can deport illegal immigrant gang members under Alien Enemies Act
A Pennsylvania judge upheld the Trump administration's use of the Alien Enemies Act to deport illegal immigrants identified as part of the Venezuelan Tren de Aragua gang in a ruling on Tuesday. In Tuesday's ruling, U.S. District Court Judge Stephanie Haines noted that while President Donald Trump's administration can use the Alien Enemies Act to deport illegal immigrants who are part of the Tren de Aragua gang, which has been designated a Foreign Terrorist Organization, the administration has not given enough notice to the individuals it has deported under the act. 'As the Court stressed at the beginning of this Opinion, this case implicates significant issues. In resolving those issues, this Court's unflagging obligation is to apply the law as written,' Haines wrote. 'When the Court does so, it finds that the Proclamation now at issue complies with the [Alien Enemies Act], and the Court further finds that Respondents must provide greater notice to those subject to removal under the AEA than they are currently providing.' Haines explained that the federal government needs to provide illegal immigrants subject to deportation under the Alien Enemies Act with 21 days' notice and an opportunity for legal challenges, according to NBC News. The outlet noted that the judge's ruling only provides guidance for her district in Pennsylvania. In Tuesday's ruling, Haines added, 'Having done its job, the Court now leaves it to the Political Branches of the government, and ultimately to the people who elect those individuals, to decide whether the laws and those executing them continue to reflect their will.' READ MORE: Video: Supreme Court sides with Trump on Alien Enemies Act; deportations continue In Tuesday's ruling, Haines explained that both Trump's proclamation invoking the Alien Enemies Act in March and the 'declarations' submitted to the court indicated that there was 'factual basis for President Trump's conclusions in the Proclamation.' The judge, who was appointed to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania by Trump, noted that the president's proclamation referenced Secretary of State Marco Rubio's designation of Tren de Aragua as a Foreign Terrorist Organization. Haines said Tren de Aragua's designation as a Foreign Terrorist Organization 'heavily supports the conclusions within the Proclamation that TdA is a cohesive group united by a common goal of causing significant disruption to the public safety of the United States.' 'Therefore, for all of the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that the Proclamation meets the definition of 'predatory incursion' under the AEA, and the Court finds that ASR has not shown a likelihood of success on the merits on the issue,' Haines added. According to Fox News, Tuesday's district court ruling is limited to Venezuelan illegal immigrants who are 14 years or older and who have been designated as members of a Foreign Terrorist Organization, such as Tren de Aragua.
Fox News
13-05-2025
- Politics
- Fox News
Judge upholds Trump's authority to deport criminal migrants under Alien Enemies Act
A federal judge on Tuesday said the Trump administration can invoke the Alien Enemies Act (AEA) to deport criminal illegal immigrant members of the Venezuelan Tren De Aragua gang, but that it has not given adequate prior notice to those subject to removal, before those deportations can take place, which would allow possible due process and habeas legal challenges. The 43-page ruling by U.S. District Judge Stephanie Haines, a Trump appointee, conflicts with other rulings challenging the administration's deportation efforts. "Having done its job, the Court now leaves it to the Political Branches of the government, and ultimately to the people who elect those individuals, to decide whether the laws and those executing them continue to reflect their will," Haines wrote. Fox News Digital has reached out to the White House. Trump issued an executive order on March 14, "Invocation of the Alien Enemies Act Regarding the Invasion of the United States by Tren De Aragua." Tuesday's ruling was confined to Venezuelan aliens who are not naturalized or lawful permanent residents, 14 years or older, and have been specifically designated as part of a Foreign Terrorist Organization, specifically Tren de Aragua. Earlier this month, another judge stated that he would not prevent the administration from deporting individuals in the U.S. illegally but that the Alien Enemies Act could not be used as a basis to expel alleged gang members from the country. "The question that this lawsuit presents is whether the President can utilize a specific statute, the AEA, to detain and remove Venezuelan aliens who are members of [Tren de Aragua]" U.S. District Court Judge Fernando Rodriguez Jr., another Trump appointee, wrote in his order. "As to that question, the historical record renders clear that the president's invocation of the AEA through the Proclamation exceeds the scope of the statute and is contrary to the plain, ordinary meaning of the statute's terms," the order states.
Yahoo
12-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Transnational Gangs Are Just a Prop in Trump's ‘Deportation Theater'
Designating a group as a Foreign Terrorist Organization, or FTO, was once an important and significant measure for the United States government. After more than 3,000 lives were lost in the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, Washington's most visible response was to send troops into Afghanistan and Iraq, while using drones to hunt terrorists throughout the Middle East and Africa, and providing military training, equipment and intelligence to other countries globally to target terrorists. More quietly, and perhaps more effectively, the Justice Department went after anyone who financed or assisted groups on a rapidly growing FTO list. To some extent, and with plenty of disagreements along the way, that list was replicated by the European Union, the United Nations and others, and then used as a legal justification to target terrorists around the world. There are plenty of arguments that some or all of the strategies the U.S. employed in its so-called Global War on Terrorism were not ideal and even counterproductive. But nobody can deny that the U.S. spent significant time and resources as it focused on the terrorism threat. In contrast, after his inauguration for a second nonconsecutive term in January, U.S. President Donald Trump's counterterrorism strategy has consisted more of rhetoric than of action. Even as the administration has expanded the definition of terrorism to include transnational violent gangs, few resources have been expended to actually challenge those groups and treat them as a national security threat. Instead, the designations have been used as domestic political fodder to justify Trump's mass deportation campaign, even as the U.S. has cut foreign aid and its overseas presence. Since Trump took office, his administration has designated 11 new groups as FTOs, 10 of them in the Western Hemisphere. Implementing an executive order that Trump issued in the first week of his new presidency, Secretary of State Marco Rubio designated six Mexican cartels as well as the Salvadoran gang MS-13 and the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua, or TdA, as FTOs on Feb. 20. Last week, the administration added two Haitian gangs, Gran Grif and Viv Ansanm, to the list. To get more in-depth news and expert analysis on global affairs from WPR, sign up for our free Daily Review newsletter. So far, Washington has not accompanied the designations with much international follow-up. Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth have hinted at the possibility of U.S. military operations against the Mexican cartels within Mexico, but they have yet to act. While unilateral drone strikes may take out some high-value targets or several fentanyl labs, that would represent at best a symbolic victory rather than a real strategy. In the long-term, however, it would be counterproductive, as it would anger the Mexican government, which has rejected any possibility of U.S. forces operating in its territory, in a way that would likely reduce ongoing cooperation, while potentially provoking the cartels to retaliate and doing little to help improve security within Mexico. Nor has Trump acted against MS-13. In fact, his administration has eagerly cooperated with Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele, whose negotiations with MS-13 and other Salvadoran gangs have been part of his political strategy since the time he was mayor of San Salvador. Last week, for instance, the Salvadoran daily El Faro published interviews with gang members about Bukele's negotiations with the leaders of Barrio 18—MS-13's rival—from that time. Upon subsequently becoming president, Bukele, like his predecessors, continued to negotiate backchannel deals with MS-13. That resulted in the release of various gang leaders several years ago in return for pledges to reduce violence, even as Bukele began to launch his high-profile 'war on gangs.' Trump did Bukele the favor of deporting those leaders back to El Salvador before they could testify in U.S. criminal proceedings against them about their relationship with the Salvadoran president. Similarly, Trump hasn't acted against Tren de Aragua. His administration has used the purported threat posed by TdA as a justification for invoking the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, which allows the government to expel citizens of a foreign power during times of war. Despite an assessment by the U.S. intelligence community to the contrary, Trump maintains that the TdA is launching an 'invasion' of the U.S. under the direction of the Venezuelan government, and he is using that unsubstantiated accusation to claim increased authority to detain and deport Venezuelan migrants. But this 'deportation theater' has not been accompanied by action against TdA's actual leadership structures and finances around the hemisphere. With regard to Haiti, the Trump administration has cut aid funding to the Haitian government and is looking to scale back its financial support for a multilateral security support mission currently deployed there. That is hardly an approach commensurate with the concern that Haitian gangs are terrorists representing serious security threats. As with MS-13, the Miami Herald reports that the designation of these Haitian gangs as terrorists is likely about supporting Trump's deportation agenda, rather than a security-focused policy. The only exception to the Trump administration's record of inaction against FTO-listed groups has been with regard to Yemen's Houthi rebels, who have been attacking commercial shipping in the Red Sea and launching missiles at Israel since the beginning of the war in Gaza. For the past few months, the Trump administration has been engaged in a bombing campaign against the group in an effort to secure the busy maritime artery. However, just weeks after re-designating the Houthis as a terrorist organization, Trump announced a truce, bringing the airstrikes to an abrupt end. This raises important strategic questions about whether the Trump administration is open to negotiating with terrorists now, and if so, whether the Mexican cartels and TdA might cut a similar deal. Trump's recent pattern of flip-flopping on tariffs is a chaotic strategy that may improve or worsen the U.S. position in trade negotiations. But flip-flopping on defeating a terrorist group can put national security at risk. So, what is the Trump administration's counterterrorism strategy? Perhaps even engaging in this debate is a form of 'sane-washing,' a term Trump's critics use to describe the process whereby outside analysts seek to rationally evaluate what is likely just a stupid or cruel policy the U.S. president has not really thought through. The administration's counterterrorism approach appears to be a policy designed for domestic consumption rather than international effect. Additionally, it's likely a positive sign that Trump is not pursuing these groups with the level of effort of a full 'global war on terrorism,' given all the negative second-order consequences of that kind of military involvement. However, whether or not the terrorism designation is justified, these groups are a security threat. So the discussion of what should be done to counter them is worth having. In theory, the designation of Mexican cartels and Haitian gangs as terrorist organizations should trigger investigations and actions to stop the massive flow of U.S. weapons overseas. Approximately 70 percent of firearms recovered at Mexican crime scenes originate in the United States, and the Caribbean is also awash in illegally trafficked U.S. weapons. If the cartels and gangs are terrorist organizations, then the U.S. firearms dealers, gun shops and straw purchasers who supply them are providing material support to terrorists. That's a serious federal offense that carries lengthy prison sentences. And yet, for political reasons, the Trump administration is unlikely to do anything to prosecute these or any other groups that are part of its support base. Beyond firearms, there would also be more intelligence-sharing with regional governments, accompanied by increased aid to address the root causes of instability and efforts to target the listed groups' financial networks. While there has been some additional intelligence-sharing with Mexico, the rest of the potential support hasn't increased. In fact, it's been cut. This underscores one of the most important pieces that is missing in the administration's strategy of designating these groups as FTOs: a consistent application of both the law and the broader policy. In the past, one strength of the terrorist designation has been that private sector companies fear investigation and prosecution for working with the groups on the list. Unfortunately, given the politicized nature of the Trump administration's actions, it's less clear whether and how it will follow through on any of these designations. Worse, it is not clear if it will attack the terrorist groups or negotiate with them. And administration officials have given the impression they will remain friendly with leaders like Bukele and even shake hands with Maduro, despite evidence or credible claims of ties to the groups now designated as terrorists. Finally, designating the Haitian gangs as terrorists while abandoning support for the country and its security forces is illogical and exacerbates a growing risk of instability for the hemisphere. Whether dealing with terrorism, drug trafficking, corruption or sanctions, simply putting names on a list is not a national security strategy. And in the fight against terrorists, it's never a good idea to politicize the issue when it hurts political opponents and turn a blind eye when allies break the rules. Whether in counterterrorism or foreign policy more generally, those are the kinds of approaches that come back to haunt governments later. As a result, when the next U.S. administration inherits Trump's terrorism list, it will need to think deeply about what strategies are needed to combat these groups. It is possible that the list itself will need an overhaul after four years in which we will likely see many more flip-flops and domestically focused initiatives that leave real security challenges unaddressed. James Bosworth is the founder of Hxagon, a firm that does political risk analysis and bespoke research in emerging and frontier markets, as well as a global fellow at the Wilson Center's Latin America Program. He has two decades of experience analyzing politics, economics and security in Latin America and the Caribbean. The post Transnational Gangs Are Just a Prop in Trump's 'Deportation Theater' appeared first on World Politics Review.
Fox News
28-04-2025
- Politics
- Fox News
GREGG JARRETT: Rogue, leftist judges caused by an obsession with feelings, not facts
Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor once observed, "We apply law to facts. We don't apply feelings to facts." Judges in America should heed Sotomayor's wise counsel. That some do not gives rise to a form of tyranny from the bench where judges hold the law in contempt in favor of their "feelings." By doing so, they are breaching the public's trust. It is a perilous choice. Recently, two state court jurists allowed their "feelings" to overrule their better judgment. By anointing themselves sanctuary judges and actively shielding illegal migrants, they have placed themselves in legal jeopardy as accessories. Their subsequent arrests tend to prove Sotomayor's point. In Wisconsin, Milwaukee Judge Hannah Dugan was arrested for allegedly aiding and abetting an illegal alien's escape from her courtroom as federal agents arrived to take him into custody on an administrative deportation warrant. The criminal complaint and supporting affidavit state that a "visibly angry" Dugan said, "wait, come with me" and then escorted the defendant from her court to a non-public back door to evade his arrest. Once outside, the defendant, who was also facing domestic abuse charges in Dugan's courtroom, "sprinted down the street." A foot chase ensued, putting citizens and law enforcement at risk of harm. He was apprehended without injury. Days later, Dugan was arrested on the courthouse grounds and charged with federal obstruction and concealment (18 USC 1505 and 1071). A conviction carries a maximum sentence of six years behind bars. In a separate case, New Mexico Judge Jose Luis Cano and his wife were arrested after authorities determined that they knowingly harbored at their home an illegal migrant with suspected ties to the notorious Tren de Aragua transnational criminal gang, which is a U.S.-designated Foreign Terrorist Organization. Cano and his family allegedly gave the man access to guns with a suppressor. He was taken into custody. Meanwhile, Cano resigned his office while the state supreme court permanently banned him from ever serving on the bench. But that was the least of his worries. The criminal complaint states that Cano confessed to destroying incriminating evidence. He is charged with federal evidence tampering, and his wife is facing a conspiracy offense (18 USC 1519 and 371). If convicted, the maximum sentence is 20 years in prison. Right on cue, a slew of Democrats voiced their predictable outrage and condemnation by suggesting that judges are above and beyond the law — liberal judges, that is. Minnesota's two leftist U.S. senators both howled in unison that the arrests were a Trump-inspired vendetta that demolishes the rule of law. How exactly, they didn't say. In truth, the charges against Dugan and Cano constitute a responsible effort by federal authorities to uphold the rule of law irrespective of status. Of course, they are presumed innocent and will get their day in court to contest the charges. But judges hold no special immunity. Those who believe otherwise delude themselves into thinking that their lofty positions somehow absolve or insulate them. That is a mistaken belief, teased by hope out of arrogance. Like everyone else, judges must conform their own conduct to the requirements of the law that they are sworn to uphold. When they do not, they can and should be prosecuted. It is not unprecedented. In a strikingly similar case seven years ago, Massachusetts Judge Shelly Joseph was indicted by federal prosecutors for helping an illegal migrant sneak out of her courthouse to avoid arrest and deportation. Joseph later struck a deal with a Biden-installed prosecutor to drop all charges in exchange for judicial disciplinary proceedings. It is not just politicians on the progressive left who are incensed over the recent judicial arrests, regardless of the facts and evidence. At least one other Wisconsin judge has vaulted into the fray as a self-appointed face of resistance. Fellow Wisconsin Judge Monica Isham decided to deploy her own personal and professional protest over Dugan's arrest by announcing that she would refuse to do her job. She informed other jurists in the state that she would undertake a boycott by closing down her courtroom in the absence of further "guidance" and "support." She wrote in an email, "I have no intention of allowing anyone to be taken out of my courtroom by ICE and sent to a concentration camp…" Overlooking the incendiary and absurd use of the term "concentration camp," Isham fails to realize that there is nothing illegal about law enforcement officers making arrests inside courthouses. It happens all the time. Yet, she apparently feels "triggered" by recent events and bemoans that "I no longer feel [emphasis added] protected or respected as a judge." Minnesota's two leftist U.S. senators both howled in unison that the arrests were a Trump-inspired vendetta that demolishes the rule of law. How exactly, they didn't say. There's that pesky word "feel" again, as if a judge's tender feelings have anything whatsoever to do with fidelity to the law. I would suggest that Isham consult with Justice Sotomayor for the very guidance she demands. "Sanctuary jurisdictions that shield criminal aliens endanger American communities," said Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche. "This Justice Department will not stand by as local officials put politics over public safety," he added. Blanche made those suitable remarks as federal prosecutors brought the charges against Judges Dugan and Cano. It was same argument — and warning — issued long ago by one of our most prominent and progressive Supreme Court Justices, Louis Brandeis: "Our government … teaches the whole people by its example. If the government becomes the lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy." If, by their own behavior, judges feel free to disregard the law or violate it with impunity, chaos ensues. Where law ends tyranny begins, noted John Locke. That is precisely what is happening. Lawless sanctuary policies inevitably embolden judges to abandon their legal duties and join the liberal cause. Often, they cite local ordinances or state statutes protecting illegal migrants in order to justify their sanctuary status. Conveniently, they ignore the established principle that federal law takes precedent under Article VI, Paragraph 2 of the U.S. Constitution. Decades ago, Congress passed a law to combat those who aid and abet illegal immigration. Lawmakers made it a crime — punishable by up to five years in prison — to "conceal, harbor, or shield from detection" any person in the U.S. illegally (8 USC 1324). It is also a conspiracy felony to "interrupt, hinder, or impede" federal officers in the discharge of their duties (8 USC 372). Obstruction and concealment are additional crimes, as noted above. The illegal Immigration Reform Act of 1996 requires states and municipalities to cooperate with federal authorities on immigration requests (8 USC 1373). That same law empowers a president to withhold federal financial support from cities and states that thwart the law by ignoring detainer requests. This includes the failure to honor outstanding deportation orders. She wrote in an email, "I have no intention of allowing anyone to be taken out of my courtroom by ICE and sent to a concentration camp…" Democrats spent the last four years insisting that "no one is above the law." None were outraged over the indictments and arrest of then-former President Donald Trump. Indeed, they cheered his prosecution. Yet, they are now apoplectic over the charges brought against two jurists who stand accused of defying the law. Apparently, presidents are not above the law, but judges are. The rank hypocrisy is self-evident. Democrats selectively apply their "feelings" to facts instead of the law to facts. Where is Justice Sotomayor when you need her?
