Thursday, April 09, 2026
The deadliest 10 minutes in decades: Lebanese reel from Israeli strikes that killed hundreds | Lebanon | The Guardian
The deadliest 10 minutes in decades: Lebanese reel from Israeli strikes that killed hundreds
"It took Israel only 10 minutes to carry out one of the worst mass-killings in Lebanonsince the end of the country’s civil war in 1990.
Omar Rakha heard the war planes but did not feel the explosions; it was only when he woke up face down on the street, bleeding, that he understood what had happened: the building next to his in the Barbour neighbourhood of central Beirut had been destroyed by two Israeli bombs. He then ran through the flaming wreckage to find his sister, screaming.
Shaden Fakih, a 24-year-old calisthenics trainer, also ran towards the impact site; his friend Mahmoud was inside the struck building. He could only get so close; the multistorey building was a pile of burning rubble. Fakih began to pull people out of the apartments in front of the site, carrying in his arms an old woman who could not walk. There was no sign of Mahmoud and the neighbourhood – once thought to be safe from Israeli bombs – felt like a war zone.
Dr Ghassan Abu-Sittah was in the emergency room when the casualties began to arrive. Among the wounded were children pulled from under the rubble; many arrived alone, without parents, their identities unknown. “The youngest was an 11-month-old. I had to operate on him just to relieve some pressure in the head,” said Abu-Sittah, who works as a surgeon at the American University of Beirut Medical College (AUBMC).
The flood of wounded came after Israel bombed more than 100 targets across Lebanon in those 10 minutes on Wednesday, killing at least 254 people and wounding 1,165, according to an initial count by Lebanon’s civil defence. The death toll, which was expected to rise as more bodies were found, was higher than Beirut’s 2020 port explosion – one of the largest non-nuclear explosions in human history.
The Israeli military said it had hit Hezbollah “command and control centres” in the bombing campaign, which it dubbed “Operation Eternal Darkness”.
But residents and Lebanese officials said the strikes, which used 1,000lb bombs in densely packed residential areas of Beirut, mainly killed civilians. Lebanon’s prime minister, Nawaf Salam, accused Israel in a statement of targeting “densely populated residential neighbourhoods” and killing unarmed civilians in breach of international law.
Abu-Sittah said most of the people were wounded in a very short period of time, which was “intentional to flood the health system”, and he compared the aftermath to the mass casualty events he saw while working in Gaza.
The AUBMC received about 70 wounded people all at once; many critically injured, according to Dr Firass Abiad, a surgeon and Lebanon’s former health minister. Crush injuries, lots of elderly people, a woman who had to have both her legs amputated – Abiad rattled off the toll of the day in a tired voice.
“There was a 90-year-old who I just left a bit ago. He passed away from his wounds … There was nothing we could do,” Abiad said. “These are civilians who, without any warning, their whole apartment building was flattened. So you can imagine the severity of injuries that we’re getting.”
First responders in Barbour worked to find people trapped under the rubble. Firefighters sprayed water on the smouldering remains of the building while forklifts lifted crumpled cars to clear the road for ambulances. An emergency worker on the scene said they had not yet found any survivors, only pieces of people.
A man FaceTimed his son, showing him a crumpled car. “You said it was a Volkswagen?” he said, haplessly looking at the crowd around him as he inspected the car. Its badge had been blown off the bumper and the twisted metal left the car unrecognisable.
Rakha watched as the civil defence worked. “I really didn’t think something like this would happen here. Nothing like this happened in the last war [and] because of that all of the refugees came here for safety,” the 38-year-old supermarket owner said, his head wrapped in a blood-stained bandage.
Barbour, like many of the areas in Beirut that Israel struck on Wednesday, is a mixed neighbourhood where Hezbollah enjoys little support. As more than 1.1 million people were displaced by Israeli bombing over the last month, schools in Barbour opened their doors to shelter the fleeing families.
The neighbourhood had not previously been considered within the scope of Israel’s war in Lebanon. But Israel’s military suggested on Wednesday that such areas had now become targets, claiming they had been infiltrated by Hezbollah fighters.
Israel’s Arabic language spokesperson Avichay Adraee said on Wednesday: “Recently, the IDF [Israel Defense Forces] observed the terrorist group Hezbollah began leaving the Shiite strongholds in the suburbs and repositioning itself towards northern Beirut and the mixed areas of the city.” He vowed that Israel would “continue to pursue” Hezbollah fighters wherever they might be located.
The Israeli military’s statements and bombing erased any hope that the ceasefire with Iran might also halt the war in Lebanon. The war, which started after Hezbollah launched rockets at Israel on 2 March prompting an Israeli bombing campaign and invasion of Lebanon, has left around 1,800 people dead and 5,873 wounded in Lebanon.
Barbour’s residents rejected Israel’s explanation of its attacks, saying the strikes were driving even Hezbollah’s critics towards the group.
Fakih said: “It’s getting ridiculous. There’s no Hezbollah here, the Israelis are just getting happy when they bomb people, it’s not about Hezbollah.
“Just stop bombing us. If you want to kill Hezbollah, go for it, but don’t kill civilians, because you’re creating anger in us against Israel and we will have to act like Hezbollah just to defend our country. But I don’t want to do that, I just want to live in peace.”
As night fell, people began to take stock of the dizzying, bloody day. Pictures of dust-covered babies pulled out from under rubble circulated on WhatsApp groups as people searched for their relatives.
People shared a selfie of a smiling elderly couple, Mohammed and Khatoun Karshat, desperately asking if anyone had seen them after they went missing in one of the strikes. Their bodies were found under the rubble late in the night, and people kept sharing their selfie, now in memoriam.
Fakih lingered by the impact site in Barbour as rescuers worked. It had been hours and he had not heard from his friend Mahmoud; his calls went to voicemail.
“It’s been the worst day since the war started,” Fakih said. “And what I’m most sad about is that my pretty Lebanon, our beautiful Lebanon, soon it will all be brought down to the ground.”
How Trump Purged Immigration Judges to Speed Up Deportations - The New York Times
How Trump Purged Immigration Judges to Speed Up Deportations
"Judges are ordering an unprecedented number of people deported after coming under significant pressure from the administration to do so or risk losing their jobs.
60% asylum grant rate
Immigration judges can still grant bond hearings to people who entered the country legally, such as those who overstayed visas.
Teresa Riley, the chief immigration judge, has received daily reports about bond rulings, according to a Justice Department official. Her office has sometimes emailed judges asking for an explanation about their decisions to grant bond, three people said. Ms. Riley declined to comment.
One current judge said the “pressure to deny bond is overt.” The judge said that there was a requirement to inform a supervisor every time bond was granted, underscoring how closely the administration was monitoring decisions.
Shahrokh Rahimi, 53, has spent the last nine months in immigration detention in Texas under Mr. Trump’s new mandatory detention policy. Mr. Rahimi entered the country illegally in 2003. In 2010, an immigration judge ordered him deported, but also prohibited the government from sending him back to his native Iran, saying he would be tortured or persecuted there.
He was allowed to live in the United States under supervised release, if he checked in regularly with Immigration and Customs Enforcement and stayed out of trouble. He is married to a U.S. citizen, has a 12-year-old American-born daughter and does not have a criminal record beyond a speeding ticket, court filings show.
But during Mr. Trump’s enforcement crackdown last summer, ICE revoked Mr. Rahimi’s release and arrested him. An immigration judge denied him bond.
If he wants to continue his fight for legal status in the United States, he could spend months or even years in immigration detention — a prospect that has convinced many others in his position to give up.
Mr. Rahimi is not ready to make that choice, and not just because he fears imprisonment or worse in Iran.
“My wife is from here,” Mr. Rahimi said. “My daughter has a future in this country.”
About the Data
Reporters analyzed immigration court data published by the Department of Justice’s Executive Office for Immigration Review (E.O.I.R.). The reporters used records from 2009, which The Times determined was the first full year with reliable records, through February 2026, the most recent month of data available.
The analyses focus on removal proceedings, which make up 97 percent of all cases initiated since 2009. Asylum grant rates in the analysis refer to the proportion of asylum applications, among completed removal proceedings, that were granted. Because E.O.I.R. data do not include the dates of asylum application decisions, the analyses use a removal proceeding’s completion date as a proxy.
The Times also examined changes in case characteristics over time, such as the immigrants’ date of entry into the United States, their nationality and their detention status. The Times found that broad declines in asylum grant rates persisted even after adjusting for these factors.
Reporters identified fired, newly hired and temporary judges through interviews, public rosters of judges and Department of Justice press releases.
Christopher Flavelle and Zolan Kanno-Youngs contributed reporting. Research was contributed by Kirsten Noyes, Emily Powell, Kitty Bennett and Georgia Gee."
Wednesday, April 08, 2026
Stetson Law alumni ask school to strip Pam Bondi of alumni awards, partially due to Epstein Files conduct
Stetson Law alumni ask school to strip Pam Bondi of alumni awards, partially due to Epstein Files conduct
Stetson University 2026 Law & Specialties Rankings
Stetson University is ranked No. 91 (tie) out of 194 in Best Law Schools
“Stetson University College of Law alumni are calling on their school to revoke multiple honors awarded to former U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi, citing what they describe as her evasive and unprofessional conduct during a congressional hearing on the Jeffrey Epstein files.
The alumni coalition, which gathered 384 signatures for a letter to the dean in less than a week, has given Stetson a deadline of 9 a.m. Tuesday to respond. At time of publishing, the school has declined to comment.
The effort is being led by Johnny Bardine, a family law attorney and 2006 Stetson graduate who has practiced in the St. Petersburg area for approximately 20 years. Bardine said he was moved to act after watching Bondi testify before the House Judiciary Committee on Feb. 11, when Rep. Ted Lieu, D-Calif., pressed her on whether underage girls had attended parties where President Donald Trump and Epstein were both present.
"Were there any underage girls at that party, or at any party that Trump attended with Jeffrey Epstein?" Lieu asked.
Bondi replied: "This is so ridiculous and that they are trying to deflect from all the great things Donald Trump has done. There is no evidence that Donald Trump has committed a crime."
Bardine called the response a failure of professional standards. "The files had been sloppily redacted to expose potential victims and protect potential predators," he said. "I found her intentionally deflective. Her temperament in terms of professionalism was bad."
In a letter to Stetson's dean, Bardine wrote: "If our alma mater is to remain true to its values, it cannot remain silent when the conduct of one of its most visible graduates, particularly in the nation's highest law enforcement office, appears to run counter to those principles."
The alumni are asking the school to take three specific actions: revoke Bondi's Ben Willard Award, which recognizes public service; remove her Distinguished Alumna Award; and rescind an honorary Doctorate of Laws degree conferred in 2013 — the same year Bondi delivered Stetson's spring commencement address.
Stetson University published that some of her comments included: "As Florida's first female attorney general, I'm here to tell you that you can do anything you want to do, and don't let anyone stand in your way."
Bondi, who earned her J.D. from Stetson in 1990, was the first Stetson Law graduate to serve as U.S. Attorney General. She was sworn in to that post in February 2025, capping a legal career that began at the Hillsborough County State Attorney's Office, where she worked as a prosecutor for 18 years, specializing in child abuse cases.
In 2010, she became Florida's first female attorney general, serving until 2019.
A fourth-generation Floridian, Bondi grew up in Temple Terrace, where her father was reportedly the mayor in the 1970s. She also holds a bachelor's degree in criminal justice from the University of Florida, earned in 1987.
Trump announced Bondi's departure from the Justice Department on Thursday, applauding her loyalty. Yet, CBS News reports she was dismissed due to her handling of the Epstein Files and failure to prosecute certain political rivals.
Bardine said the stakes extend beyond Bondi herself. "The former attorney general doesn't represent us. Doesn't represent the Stetson community. Doesn't represent any Florida lawyer I know," he said. "We have to be brimming with pride when that happens. When they don't — when they fail so miserably to meet even the minimum of standards of an ethical attorney — I think it's incumbent upon the institutions to lead."
Stetson has not responded to requests for comment.“
Donald Trump Commited A War Crime Tuesday Morning April 7th 2026
With Threat to Wipe Out Iran’s Civilization, Trump’s Rhetoric Goes Beyond Bluster
"The president’s violent rhetoric risks damaging his credibility as a negotiator and the country’s standing in the world.
By Katie Rogers
Katie Rogers is a White House correspondent. She reported from Washington.
It was a stunning threat that promised to eliminate Iranian civilization, delivered with all the casual callousness that has become President Trump’s preferred style of communication.
“A whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again.”
And that is what passed as a normal Tuesday-morning update from the Trump White House: a warning of mass destruction and what international law would define as war crimes, blithely delivered on Truth Social, posted alongside ads for bullet-shaped pens, patriotic hats and a gala dinner at Mar-a-Lago.
“However, now that we have Complete and Total Regime Change, where different, smarter, and less radicalized minds prevail, maybe something revolutionarily wonderful can happen, WHO KNOWS?” Mr. Trump wrote in his message. “We will find out tonight, one of the most important moments in the long and complex history of the World.”
The message arrived two days after Mr. Trump marked Easter Sunday by calling on the Iranians to end its blockade of the Strait of Hormuz: “Open the Fuckin’ Strait, you crazy bastards, or you’ll be living in Hell — JUST WATCH! Praise be to Allah,” he wrote.
In the minds of the president and his supporters, the post is all part of Mr. Trump’s chaotic negotiation style, intended to prompt an end to his self-inflicted conflict and persuade Tehran to open the strait. Some of the president’s advisers saw Mr. Trump’s escalating rhetoric as a negotiating tactic that suggested he was more interested in finding a way out of the war than following through with a devastating attack.
On Tuesday evening, Mr. Trump had toggled back to diplomat mode, announcing that he had agreed to a proposal by Pakistan that calls for a two-week cease-fire and the immediate opening of the Strait of Hormuz.
The president said that the United States would work on finalizing an agreement with Iran. “It is an Honor to have this Longterm problem close to resolution,” he wrote.
Even for Mr. Trump, who has a long history of comments that fly far beyond the pale, his latest comments bear the mark of an impulsive leader who is used to getting his way through coercion and unpredictability, but who is not getting his way now.
Alex Wellerstein, a historian who studies nuclear conflicts, said that even if Mr. Trump does not carry out the extent of his threat, the president’s violent rhetoric damages his credibility as a negotiator and his country’s standing in the world.
“You’re talking about a world that largely increasingly sees the United States as unhinged and dangerous, and not a reliable partner,” he said, “where all of the countries that typically align with democracy and freedom are on the other side of the United States.”
Some of Mr. Trump’s most fervent supporters have joined the usual chorus of critics in recent days. Tucker Carlson, the right-wing podcaster, said that the president’s Easter message had “shattered” the holiest day on the Christian calendar.
“It is vile on every level,” Mr. Carlson said on his podcast. “It begins with a promise to use the U.S. military, our military, to destroy civilian infrastructure in another country, which is to say to commit a war crime, a moral crime against the people of the country, whose welfare, by the way, was one of the reasons we supposedly went into this war in the first place.”
The president responded by calling Mr. Carlson a “low I.Q. person,” and continuing on with his war. Ever a reality television producer, Mr. Trump is trying to program this war like he does everything else — through cliffhangers and wait-and-see diplomacy. As such, Mr. Trump created an 8 p.m. Eastern deadline Tuesday for Tehran to comply. Mr. Trump announced “a double sided CEASEFIRE” about 90 minutes before his self-imposed deadline.
Americans have seen versions of this playbook before: Mr. Trump makes increasingly escalatory threats, secures some semblance of a deal and walks away declaring victory. In January, Mr. Trump threatened to send in U.S. forces to capture the Danish territory of Greenland. He settled for an agreement to increase the number of American troops there.
With Iran, though, there is still little evidence that Mr. Trump is going to ultimately get what he wants. Ebrahim Zolfaghari, a spokesman for the Iranian military, has said that Iran would retaliate “crushingly and extensively” if its civilian infrastructure were attacked.
Even with a cease-fire, Mr. Trump is far from achieving his larger strategic objectives.
The president’s increasingly violent messaging betrays a degree of frustration that he has not gotten what he wanted after pushing back an earlier deadline to barrage the country’s infrastructure. His threats to level power plants and oil installations and bridges have seemed to have the opposite effect on some Iranians, who have formed human chainsaround points of infrastructure that support civilian life.
Even some people who have supported Mr. Trump in the past see his strategy on Iran, to the extent that there is one, as damaging and dangerous.
“Trump believes he is threatening Iran with destruction, but it is America that now stands in danger,” Joe Kent, the former director of the National Counterterrorism Center who resigned in March, wrote on X. “If he attempts to eradicate Iranian civilization, the United States will no longer be viewed as a stabilizing force in the world, but as an agent of chaos — effectively ending our status as the world’s greatest superpower.”
Several Republicans in Congress, who are absent from Washington during a two-week recess, criticized the president’s rhetoric, although many of them have stayed mum.
Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, a close ally of Mr. Trump’s, left room for the possibility that Mr. Trump was posturing: “I hope and pray that President Trump is just using this as bluster.”
Mr. Trump’s message also alarmed top Democrats, who quickly promised to force another vote on a resolution to rein in the use of the military in Iran.
“This is an extremely sick person,” Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the minority leader, wrote on X after Mr. Trump sent his threat. “Each Republican who refuses to join us in voting against this wanton war of choice owns every consequence of whatever the hell this is.”
Other Democrats have called to remove Mr. Trump from office over his threats, with some calling for impeachment and others pointing to the 25th Amendment, which provides a process for a president to be stripped of power if he is “unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office.”
They were joined by Marjorie Taylor Greene, the former Republican representative who has shifted from being one of Trump’s staunchest allies to being one of his most vocal detractors.
“25TH AMENDMENT!!!” she wrote on X. “Not a single bomb has dropped on America. We cannot kill an entire civilization. This is evil and madness.”
Tyler Pager, Michael Gold and Robert Jimison contributed reporting.
Katie Rogers is a White House correspondent for The Times, reporting on President Trump."
Tuesday, April 07, 2026
Iran War Live Updates: Trump Announces Two-Week Cease-Fire, Backing Down From Threats of Imminent Devastation - The New York Times
Iran War Live Updates: Trump Announces Two-Week Cease-Fire, Backing Down From Threats of Imminent Devastation
"President Trump announced a deal with Iran shortly before his deadline for Iran to agree to reopen the Strait of Hormuz or face the death of a “whole civilization.”
The United States and Iran reached an 11th-hour cease-fire deal on Tuesday evening, hours after President Trump threatened to start wiping out a “whole civilization” if the Iranians did not allow commercial shipping to pass safely through the Strait of Hormuz.
The agreement was announced by Mr. Trump in a post on social media hours after Pakistan, a mediator in the dispute, urged Mr. Trump to stand down from the 8 p.m. Eastern time deadline he had set for Iran to accede to his demands. Pakistan proposed that each side observe a two-week cease-fire, and that during that time Iran allow oil, gas and other vessels to proceed unmolested through the economically vital waterway."
Analysis: Is that legal? Trump threatens bridges, power plants and a ‘whole civilization’ | CNN Politics
Is that legal? Trump threatens bridges, power plants and a ‘whole civilization’
A version of this story appeared in CNN’s What Matters newsletter. To get it in your inbox, sign up for free here.
"There’s nothing in the military’s 1,200-page Law of War Manual about whether it’s legal to end a civilization, perhaps because nobody could have imagined an American president would make such an apocalyptic threat.
“A whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again,” President Donald Trump said in a Truth Social post Tuesday morning, referencing his 8 p.m. deadline for Iran to cry “Uncle” to the US and open the Strait of Hormuz.
Ever the reality TV showman, Trump timed his deadline for Iran to prime-time TV hours in the US. Never one to let international law get in the way, he is flirting with ordering the US military to commit war crimes by undertaking civilizational erasure.
Maybe those words are bombast or a “madman theory” negotiating tactic – nobody knows exactly what he’ll do. Maybe they are the obvious result of a president being told by the Supreme Court he has immunity from all law for his official acts as president.
Trump is largely immune from US laws. What about the military?
The same immunity may not exist for everyone under his command. Rep. Jason Crow, a Colorado Democrat, told CNN’s Kasie Hunt that members of the military have an obligation not to follow illegal orders.
“If you’re asked to target civilians, if you’re asked to kill women and children, you’re asked to kill noncombatants, you’re asked to bomb a school, you’re asked to bomb a civilian power plant, that would be a war crime,” Crow said. Service members, he said, have independent obligations to follow the law of armed conflict.
There is bipartisan concern. Right-wing podcaster Tucker Carlson, for instance, said officials in the administration should say no if Trump orders the killing of civilians.
Wasn’t this war launched to guard against mass destruction?
The US launched the war, along with Israel, for the stated reason of making sure Iran never obtained nuclear weapons of mass destruction. Now Trump sounds prepared to unleash mass destruction, although he has not talked publicly about using nuclear weapons.
What he has talked about is plunging Iran’s 90 million citizens into darkness by destroying their power plants and restricting their movement by destroying their bridges.
“I don’t want that to happen, but it probably will,” he said in the social media post, which offers Iran a binary choice of negotiating with the US or facing some kind of extinction.
As of this writing, Iran has answered by reportedly encouraging civilians to shield power plants and bridges with their bodies.
Trump, somewhat ironically given his stated disdain for international law, told NBC News that civilian shields would violate the laws of war.
“Totally illegal,” Trump told NBC Tuesday. “They’re not allowed to do that.”
International outrage and ‘war crimes’ warnings
Trump’s threats to go after power plants have already drawn international condemnation and warnings.
“I urgently call on parties to spare civilians and civilian objects in all military operations,” said International Committee of the Red Cross President Mirjana Spoljaric in a published statement. “It is their obligation under international humanitarian law.”
“Canada expects all parties in this conflict, in any conflict, to respect international laws,” Prime Minister Mark Carney told reporters Tuesday.
More than 100 US legal experts signed onto a statement saying that the entire war, launched preemptively, violated the UN’s charter, and that targeting energy infrastructure “could entail war crimes.”
Another international law expert, Ryan Goodman of New York University’s School of Law, was much more pointed.
“This isn’t legal analysis. It’s idiocy,” Goodman wrote on X, sharing a Wall Street Journal report with the headline: “Top Aides Advise Trump Blasting Iran’s Infrastructure Is Fair Game.”
Goodman, who is also a top editor at the website Just Security, took issue with the idea cited in the story that power plants are legitimate targets because they could foment unrest that could topple Iran’s regime.
Power plants have been targeted before
Others argue there is plenty of room for the targeting of power plants and bridges and that the US has done so before.
Eugene Kontorovich, a professor at the Antonin Scalia School of Law at George Mason University, pointed out on X that the US has targeted power plants before.
“The notion that international law prohibits attacking bridges or power stations in war is ludicrous, and the U.S. and its allies did so extensively in WWII, Korea, Vietnam, the Gulf War and even the 1999 air campaign against Yugoslavia, which left most of Serbia without electricity,” Kontorovich wrote.
That Yugoslavia example was actually a NATO operation, according to CNN’s report at the time. The air campaign included the US military, which struck a Serbian coal plant as it sought to drive the Serbian army out of Kosovo. The United Nations did not authorize the air campaign, but it did authorize a subsequent ground peacekeeping force. Trump and Israel launched their war without input from either NATO or the UN.
The Trump administration disdains international law
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who goes by his Trump-bestowed secondary title secretary of war, has said the war with Iran would be conducted without “stupid rules of engagement.”
The military’s manual on the law of war does talk about targeting bridges and power plants, and it makes clear that both can be targeted at certain times.
When is it OK to target power plants and bridges?
There is a two-part test for determining whether a country’s infrastructure is a legitimate military target.
First, according to the US war manual, the target must make an effective contribution to the enemy’s military; second, destroying it must offer a distinct military advantage.
But there is another issue, as the international law experts worried about the US committing war crimes point out — that of “proportionality.”
“The proportionality principle prohibits attacks expected to cause incidental civilian harm that would be excessive in relation to the military advantage,” they wrote.
This is Trump’s message to the world
Certainly, destroying a large portion of the power plants in a country twice the size of Texas would cause civilian harm. Control of power, on the other hand, has become a tool of the US government; an embargo on Cuba has largely turned off the power on that island after the US decapitated Venezuela’s government and put new restrictions on its oil exports to Cuba earlier this year. The administration hopes the harm will force Cuba into submission.
“The kind of mass force that the president is threatening (on Iran) … every bridge, every railway station, don’t seem to qualify as legitimate military targets,” Steven Cook, a senior fellow at the Middle East Institute, said on CNN News Central on Tuesday.
But the threats convey something else important, he said.
“What it says to the world is something that the world has already understood, which is the United States has strayed from many of the norms and principles by which we like to believe that we live,” Cook said.
For Americans who heretofore viewed the US as the country that upheld international law, their conception of American civilization is also up for review."
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)