Latest news with #TammyBruce
Time of India
15 hours ago
- Politics
- Time of India
Kim Jong Un Calls Israel 'Cancer-Like Entity' Over Attacks On Iran, Calls Out U.S & Western Nations
Pakistani Reporter Schooled on Kashmir as US Says Trump Respects India's Right to Decide Its Future A Pakistani journalist tried to corner US State Department spokesperson Tammy Bruce by questioning whether President Trump needs Prime Minister Narendra Modi's 'permission' to bring peace to South Asia by resolving the Kashmir issue. The response was swift and sharp. Bruce reiterated the United States' long-standing position of respecting a sovereign nation's right to decide its own future, clearly stating that President Trump supports countries like India making their own decisions—without third-party interference. The journalist's attempt to revive the old mediation narrative fell flat, echoing India's firm stance on no third-party mediation. Watch this clip as the U.S. once again backs India's sovereignty and the journalist is left red-faced.#pmmodi #donaldtrump #kashmirmediation #usindiapak #tammybruce #moditrump #indiausrelations #pakistanjournalist #kashmirissue #indiasovereignty #trumpmodi #southasiapolitics #toi #toibharat #bharat #breakingnews #indianews 1.8K views | 1 day ago
Time of India
16 hours ago
- Politics
- Time of India
After Iran Rejects Surrender Call, Trump To Decide On Military Action In Two Weeks, Says White House
Pakistani Reporter Schooled on Kashmir as US Says Trump Respects India's Right to Decide Its Future A Pakistani journalist tried to corner US State Department spokesperson Tammy Bruce by questioning whether President Trump needs Prime Minister Narendra Modi's 'permission' to bring peace to South Asia by resolving the Kashmir issue. The response was swift and sharp. Bruce reiterated the United States' long-standing position of respecting a sovereign nation's right to decide its own future, clearly stating that President Trump supports countries like India making their own decisions—without third-party interference. The journalist's attempt to revive the old mediation narrative fell flat, echoing India's firm stance on no third-party mediation. Watch this clip as the U.S. once again backs India's sovereignty and the journalist is left red-faced.#pmmodi #donaldtrump #kashmirmediation #usindiapak #tammybruce #moditrump #indiausrelations #pakistanjournalist #kashmirissue #indiasovereignty #trumpmodi #southasiapolitics #toi #toibharat #bharat #breakingnews #indianews 1.8K views | 1 day ago
Al Jazeera
20 hours ago
- Politics
- Al Jazeera
What is the War Powers Act, and can it stop Trump from attacking Iran?
Speaking with reporters on the White House lawn, President Donald Trump played coy when asked if he would bring the United States into Israel's war on Iran. 'I may do it. I may not,' he said on Wednesday. US officials and the president's allies have stressed that the decision to get involved in the war – or not – lies with Trump, stressing that they trust his instincts. 'He is the singular guiding hand about what will be occurring from this point forward,' Department of State spokeswoman Tammy Bruce told reporters on Tuesday. But antiwar advocates have been arguing that it should not all be up to Trump and Congress must be the ultimate decider over war and peace, according to the US Constitution. As Trump increasingly appears to hint at the possibility of US engagement in the conflict, some lawmakers are seeking to reassert that congressional role under the War Powers Act. But what are the laws guiding a declaration of war, and could Trump get the US involved in the war without the consent of Congress? Here's what you need to know about the laws that govern decisions about war in the US. Section 1 of the US Constitution, which established the legislative branch of the government and outlines its duties, says Congress has the power to 'declare war'. Some advocates take that provision to mean that lawmakers, not the president, have the authority over US military interventions. In 1942, during World War II. Since then, the US has gone to war in Korea, Vietnam, the Gulf, Afghanistan and Iraq while carrying out strikes and interventions in numerous countries – Serbia, Libya, Somalia and Yemen to name a few. According to Article II of the constitution, the president is designated 'commander in chief' of the armed forces. Presidents have the power to order the military to respond to attacks and imminent threats. Beyond that, their war-making powers are constrained by Congress. Article II empowers them to direct military operations once Congress has authorised a war. They are responsible for mobilising the military under the guidelines of lawmakers. That said, successive presidents have used the ability to direct the military on an emergency basis to carry out attacks that they frame as defensive or in response to threats. Short of a declaration of war, Congress may grant the president powers to use the military for specific goals through legislation known as the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF). For example, in the wake of the 9/11 attacks in 2001, Congress passed an AUMF that gave then-President George W Bush broad powers to conduct what would become the global 'war on terror'. And one year later, it passed another AUMF allowing the use of the military against the government of Saddam Hussein in Iraq, which became the basis of the 2003 invasion. The two authorisations remain in place, and presidents continue to rely on them to carry out strikes without first seeking congressional approval. For example, the assassination of top Iranian General Qassem Soleimani in 2020 in Baghdad was authorised by Trump under the 2003 AUMF. During Trump's first term, there were concerns that he could use the 2001 AUMF to strike Iran under the unfounded claim that Tehran supports al-Qaeda. Despite the articles outlined in the constitution, presidents have found ways to sidestep Congress in war matters. So in 1973, after decades of US intervention in Vietnam and elsewhere in Asia, lawmakers passed the War Powers Resolution to reassert their authority over military action. The law restricts the president's war-making powers – or that was its intention at least. It was passed after President Richard Nixon's secret bombing of Cambodia, which killed tens or even hundreds of thousands of civilians and led to widespread protests in the US. The federal law was designed to limit the US president's power to commit the US to armed conflict. Enacted over Nixon's veto, the resolution requires 'in the absence of a declaration of war' that the president notify Congress within 48 hours of military action and limits deployments to 60 or 90 days unless authorisations to extend them are passed. Before US troops are committed abroad, Congress must be consulted 'in every possible instance', it says. Why is the War Powers Act relevant now? With the possibility of a US intervention in Iran mounting, lawmakers have been eyeing the five-decade law and pushing for their own version. On Monday, Democratic Senator Tim Kaine introduced a bill requiring that Trump, a Republican, seek authorisation from Congress before ordering military strikes against Iran. That was followed by a similar bill put forward in the House of Representatives on Tuesday by US Representatives Thomas Massie of Kentucky, a Republican, and Democrat Ro Khanna of California. A No War Against Iran Act, introduced by Democratic Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, seeks to 'prohibit the use of funds for military force against Iran, and for other purposes'. But even as some polls find Trump supporters are against war with Iran, passage of such bills in the Republican-controlled legislature remains unlikely. Why is new legislation needed if it's in the constitution? Despite the constitutional separation of war powers, the executive and legislative branches have jockeyed over those roles throughout US history. The most prominent of these incidents – and the last time such a case made it to the Supreme Court in fact – took place in 1861 at the start of the US Civil War when President Abraham Lincoln blockaded southern ports months before Congress legally declared war on the Confederacy. The highest court eventually ruled the president's acts were constitutional because the executive 'may repel sudden attacks'. Throughout history, formal congressional declarations of war have remained scarce. There have been just 11. Instead, Congress has traditionally authorised a wide range of military resolutions. Almost since its passage, the 1973 law has been viewed by some critics as deeply ineffective – more of a political tool for lawmakers to voice dissent than as a real check on power. (In the 1980s, then-Senator Joe Biden led a subcommittee that concluded the law fell short of its intent.) Congressional resolutions seeking to end military involvements unauthorised by Congress are subject to a presidential veto, which can be overridden only by two-thirds majority votes in the House and the Senate. Others have argued the law served an important role in asserting Congress's rights and creating a framework for speedy, presidential reporting to Congress. The more than 100 reports that have been sent to Congress since 1973 offer a semblance of transparency. While Nixon was the most vociferous in his opposition to the War Powers Act, he's hardly the only president to appear critical. Modern presidents have routinely sidestepped the act, using creative legal arguments to work around its requirements. The executive branch has since steadily expanded its war-making powers, particularly after the September 11, 2001, attacks. The 2001 AUMF and the 2002 Iraq AUMF have been used to justify attacks on 'terrorist groups' in at least 19 countries, according to the Friends Committee on National Legislation. 'The executive branch has stretched this authorization to cover groups that had no connection to the 9/11 attacks, including those such as ISIS [ISIL], which did not even exist at the time,' Heather Brandon-Smith, the nonprofit's legislative director of foreign policy, wrote in a briefing. And while organisations like the International Crisis Group have urged a rehaul or repeal of the AUMF, successive administrations have shown little interest in doing so. In recent years, congressional efforts to repeal the 2001 and 2002 AUMFs have only begun chipping away at the acts. The Senate in 2023 voted to repeal the 2001 AUMF although the move was largely viewed as symbolic. The House similarly voted to repeal the 2002 AUMF in 2021. But both laws still remain in effect. That remains to be seen, but it does not seem likely. During Trump's first term in office, Congress sought to limit presidential war authority for the first time since the Vietnam War. In 2019, Congress approved a bill to end US support for the Saudi-United Arab Emirates war in Yemen, which Trump quickly vetoed. A year later, a similar situation played out after Trump ordered the drone strike that killed Soleimani. In response, both houses of Congress passed legislation seeking to limit a president's ability to wage war against Iran. That legislation was vetoed by Trump, and once again, there were not enough Republicans to meet the two-thirds majority necessary in both houses to override the veto. With the balance of power in Congress since then fully shifting to the Republicans in Trump's second term, the newest war powers resolutions face an even stiffer battle.
Miami Herald
21 hours ago
- Politics
- Miami Herald
Satellite Imagery Shows Evacuation at Largest U.S. Air Base in Middle East
Satellite imagery showed U.S. aircraft have vacated a key air base in Qatar, in another sign that a confrontation with Iran could be imminent. Newsweek has reached out to U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) for comment. The disappearance of the aircraft could indicate that strikes on Iran are seeing as a growing possibility and that therefore Iranian attacks on U.S. bases are seen as a bigger threat. It also comes as a significant movement of tankers and vessels has been taking place in the Middle East since Iran launched retaliatory missile attacks on Israel in response to the targeting of its nuclear, missile and military sites. The U.S. has also deployed additional military equipment to the region. Satellite images shared by open-intelligence analysts on X, formerly Twitter, revealed that Al-Udeid Air Base in Qatar, a key hub for U.S. and British aerial tankers, surveillance, and transport aircraft, appeared empty. The key base holds the U.S. CENTCOM Forward Headquarters. The U.S. Embassy in Qatar has also issued two security warnings against going to the base. The U.S. began evacuating nonessential diplomats and their families from the American embassy in Israel earlier this week. There are around 700,000 Americans or dual citizens currently in Israel and thousands more in Iran and neighboring Middle East countries. The Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) said launched a wave of strikes on Thursday, targeting the inactive nuclear reactor in Arak, a nuclear weapons development site near Natanz, ballistic missile & air defense production facilities, radar systems & missile storage sites. U.S. State Department Spokesperson Tammy Bruce in press briefing Tuesday: "When it comes to how quickly people can expect a dynamic – the American government, the State Department, our military – you've seen all of these assets, all of these departments involved in this dynamic in one fashion or another – are working exclusively for the safety of this nation and the safety of the American people, wherever they may be." Karen Sudkamp, Associate Director of the Infrastructure, Immigration, and Security Operations Program at RAND said in published Q&A: "The United States evacuated nonessential personnel prior to Israel's strike from Bahrain, Iraq, Kuwait, and the United Arab Emirates-countries that could receive initial attacks against U.S. personnel should Tehran choose to include American targets in its response. U.S. naval assets are also moving towards the Middle East as defensive forces." A decision from the president regarding the next course of action on Iran could decide whether or not there is an attack by U.S. forces or whether curbs on Iran's nuclear program can be agreed through diplomacy. Related Articles U.S. Issues Security Warning for Biggest Middle East BaseIran Starts Firing Heavier Missiles in Israel AttacksUS Ally Reveals Chinese Military Activity Near American BaseIsrael Says Iran's Supreme Leader 'Cannot Continue to Exist': Live Updates 2025 NEWSWEEK DIGITAL LLC.
Time of India
a day ago
- Politics
- Time of India
US resumes student visa processing. But there is a big catch
The US State Department has resumed visa interviews for international student applicants , after a pause in processing, but now requires social media transparency from every applicant. Under the new policy, all F, M, and J visa candidates must set personal social media profiles to 'public.' Consular officers will review posts for any signs of hostility toward the US. Closed or private accounts may be interpreted as an attempt to hide information, which could lead to additional scrutiny or rejection. US consular officers have been instructed to carry out detailed screening of all student and exchange visa applicants to identify anyone showing hostility toward American citizens, culture, government, institutions, or core principles, according to a cable dated June 18 and sent to US missions. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who signed the new directive, said revised procedures would follow after an internal review. The cable also instructs officers to be alert to applicants with a record of political activism, particularly if linked to violence or any of the flagged views, and to assess the risk of such behaviour continuing in the US. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like 혈압, 혈당, 고지혈로 고민이 많으신 분들만 읽어주세요. 메디셜 더 읽기 Undo This measure forms part of a wider effort to tighten immigration security under the Trump administration. Priority scheduling will be given to applicants for J-1 visas and students heading to colleges where foreign enrolment is 15% or less. Critics of President Trump have argued that the administration's recent actions infringe on free speech protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution. (Join our ETNRI WhatsApp channel for all the latest updates) Earlier, addressing a press briefing, US State Department Spokesperson Tammy Bruce said that the country will continue to vet whether a student or a tourist needs a visa. Live Events MORE STORIES FOR YOU ✕ US resumes visas for foreign students but demands access to social media accounts US visa is a privilege, not a right, its screening doesn't stop after it is issued: Embassy « Back to recommendation stories I don't want to see these stories because They are not relevant to me They disrupt the reading flow Others SUBMIT "We do know, though, that we take very seriously the process of vetting who it is that comes into the country, and we're going to continue to do that. We're going to continue to vet. Whether you're a student or a tourist who needs a visa, or whoever you are, we're going to be looking at you. Why would it seem to be such a controversial thing that's going on? But it shouldn't be," Tammy Bruce said. On May 27, the Trump administration had paused new visa appointments for international students and exchange visitors while preparing to roll out expanded social media checks. However, interviews that were already scheduled before this directive continued as planned, according to a State Department cable signed by Secretary of State Marco Rubio.
