SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
A Yemeni inspects the scene of aerial attacks said to be carried out by aircraft of the coalition led by Saudi Arabia on January 18, 2022 in Sana'a, Yemen. (Photo: Mohammed Hamoud/Getty Images)
During a televised interview late Sunday, journalist Mehdi Hasan pressed a State Department official on U.S. President Joe Biden's willingness to call Russian President Vladimir Putin a "war criminal" while sending weapons to Saudi Arabia as the kingdom wages war on Yemen.
"How come Joe Biden can call Vladimir Putin a war criminal but not others, for example, the crown prince?"
"Ambassador, it is good to see the U.S. government calling out war crimes in Ukraine and assisting in the documenting of those war crimes, but I do wonder, and I'm sure many others wonder too, where is that same kind of commitment when it comes to other conflicts?" Hasan asked.
"For example, the war in Yemen, where multiple atrocities have been documented by both sides, but one of those sides is our ally, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia," he added. "Wouldn't we have more credibility if we condemned war crimes by our friends and not just by our enemies?"
Beth Van Schaack, the U.S. ambassador-at-large for global criminal justice, responded that "the United States has worked tirelessly to promote accountability and documentation of abuses all across the world."
"There's a number of situations" at the International Criminal Court (ICC)--which probes and prosecutes genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and aggression--that the Biden administration has been "very supportive of," Van Schaack said. "The standards apply to all parties and we are looking at all conflicts around the world with an eye toward bringing the parties better into compliance with international law."
\u201cOn the @MehdiHasanShow on @MSNBC last night, I asked the new U.S. Ambassador at Large for Global Criminal Justice why the U.S. government is willing to call out war crimes by Russia in Ukraine but not by, say, Saudi Arabia in Yemen.\n\nWatch the exchange:\nhttps://t.co/70mbFqo9er\u201d— Mehdi Hasan (@Mehdi Hasan) 1649684999
The exchange on Hasan's show--which airs on MSNBC and the streaming service Peacock--continued with the host pointing out that Van Schaack "didn't address the Yemen war example."
Citing 2016 reporting that the Obama administration--for which Biden served as vice president--allowed a massive arms sale to Yemen despite concerns that the United States could be implicated in war crimes for supporting the Saudi-led air assault on Yemen, Hasan again raised the issue of credibility.
"Wouldn't we have more credibility if we called out war crimes by our own allies instead of selling them weapons?" he asked.
Describing the president's failure to criticize Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, or MBS, as "the most obvious example in the world" of the unequal treatment of leaders accused of atrocities, he added, "How come Joe Biden can call Vladimir Putin a war criminal but not others, for example, the crown prince?"
In response, Van Schaack noted that the Biden administration has diminished the amount of support it is providing to the Saudi-led campaign in Yemen and is working to ensure that those involved in that conflict comply with international humanitarian law, reiterating that "the standards apply to all parties."
Related Content
The exchange on Hasan's show came as Biden's recent declarations of Putin as a war criminal and his call for a war crimes trial focused on Russian forces' actions in Bucha and other Ukrainian cities since late February have fueled speculation about how his administration may reconsider U.S. policy with regard to the ICC, which is already investigating recent allegations in Ukraine.
The New York Times reported Monday that the administration "is vigorously debating" how much it can or should aid the probe of alleged Russian war crimes given federal law and longtime U.S. government objection to the ICC exercising jurisdiction over nations that aren't part of the treaty that created the court--including the United States.
After denouncing a Russian rocket attack on a train station in eastern Ukraine as yet another "war crime" on Friday, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy claimed Monday that tens of thousands have been killed in the port city of Mariupol and "the Russians are not stopping their offensive."
Meanwhile, world leaders and campaigners continue to sound the alarm over how Putin's war is affecting not only Ukrainians who have been killed, wounded, and trapped by the war, or fled to neighboring countries, but also the global food supply--particularly in some Middle Eastern and North African nations including war-torn Yemen.
"The number of malnourished children is likely to drastically increase," the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) regional director said last week, echoing warnings from other U.N. leaders in mid-March that "we need to act now" to feed Yemeni youth because "lives are at stake."
Trump and Musk are on an unconstitutional rampage, aiming for virtually every corner of the federal government. These two right-wing billionaires are targeting nurses, scientists, teachers, daycare providers, judges, veterans, air traffic controllers, and nuclear safety inspectors. No one is safe. The food stamps program, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are next. It’s an unprecedented disaster and a five-alarm fire, but there will be a reckoning. The people did not vote for this. The American people do not want this dystopian hellscape that hides behind claims of “efficiency.” Still, in reality, it is all a giveaway to corporate interests and the libertarian dreams of far-right oligarchs like Musk. Common Dreams is playing a vital role by reporting day and night on this orgy of corruption and greed, as well as what everyday people can do to organize and fight back. As a people-powered nonprofit news outlet, we cover issues the corporate media never will, but we can only continue with our readers’ support. |
During a televised interview late Sunday, journalist Mehdi Hasan pressed a State Department official on U.S. President Joe Biden's willingness to call Russian President Vladimir Putin a "war criminal" while sending weapons to Saudi Arabia as the kingdom wages war on Yemen.
"How come Joe Biden can call Vladimir Putin a war criminal but not others, for example, the crown prince?"
"Ambassador, it is good to see the U.S. government calling out war crimes in Ukraine and assisting in the documenting of those war crimes, but I do wonder, and I'm sure many others wonder too, where is that same kind of commitment when it comes to other conflicts?" Hasan asked.
"For example, the war in Yemen, where multiple atrocities have been documented by both sides, but one of those sides is our ally, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia," he added. "Wouldn't we have more credibility if we condemned war crimes by our friends and not just by our enemies?"
Beth Van Schaack, the U.S. ambassador-at-large for global criminal justice, responded that "the United States has worked tirelessly to promote accountability and documentation of abuses all across the world."
"There's a number of situations" at the International Criminal Court (ICC)--which probes and prosecutes genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and aggression--that the Biden administration has been "very supportive of," Van Schaack said. "The standards apply to all parties and we are looking at all conflicts around the world with an eye toward bringing the parties better into compliance with international law."
\u201cOn the @MehdiHasanShow on @MSNBC last night, I asked the new U.S. Ambassador at Large for Global Criminal Justice why the U.S. government is willing to call out war crimes by Russia in Ukraine but not by, say, Saudi Arabia in Yemen.\n\nWatch the exchange:\nhttps://t.co/70mbFqo9er\u201d— Mehdi Hasan (@Mehdi Hasan) 1649684999
The exchange on Hasan's show--which airs on MSNBC and the streaming service Peacock--continued with the host pointing out that Van Schaack "didn't address the Yemen war example."
Citing 2016 reporting that the Obama administration--for which Biden served as vice president--allowed a massive arms sale to Yemen despite concerns that the United States could be implicated in war crimes for supporting the Saudi-led air assault on Yemen, Hasan again raised the issue of credibility.
"Wouldn't we have more credibility if we called out war crimes by our own allies instead of selling them weapons?" he asked.
Describing the president's failure to criticize Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, or MBS, as "the most obvious example in the world" of the unequal treatment of leaders accused of atrocities, he added, "How come Joe Biden can call Vladimir Putin a war criminal but not others, for example, the crown prince?"
In response, Van Schaack noted that the Biden administration has diminished the amount of support it is providing to the Saudi-led campaign in Yemen and is working to ensure that those involved in that conflict comply with international humanitarian law, reiterating that "the standards apply to all parties."
Related Content
The exchange on Hasan's show came as Biden's recent declarations of Putin as a war criminal and his call for a war crimes trial focused on Russian forces' actions in Bucha and other Ukrainian cities since late February have fueled speculation about how his administration may reconsider U.S. policy with regard to the ICC, which is already investigating recent allegations in Ukraine.
The New York Times reported Monday that the administration "is vigorously debating" how much it can or should aid the probe of alleged Russian war crimes given federal law and longtime U.S. government objection to the ICC exercising jurisdiction over nations that aren't part of the treaty that created the court--including the United States.
After denouncing a Russian rocket attack on a train station in eastern Ukraine as yet another "war crime" on Friday, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy claimed Monday that tens of thousands have been killed in the port city of Mariupol and "the Russians are not stopping their offensive."
Meanwhile, world leaders and campaigners continue to sound the alarm over how Putin's war is affecting not only Ukrainians who have been killed, wounded, and trapped by the war, or fled to neighboring countries, but also the global food supply--particularly in some Middle Eastern and North African nations including war-torn Yemen.
"The number of malnourished children is likely to drastically increase," the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) regional director said last week, echoing warnings from other U.N. leaders in mid-March that "we need to act now" to feed Yemeni youth because "lives are at stake."
During a televised interview late Sunday, journalist Mehdi Hasan pressed a State Department official on U.S. President Joe Biden's willingness to call Russian President Vladimir Putin a "war criminal" while sending weapons to Saudi Arabia as the kingdom wages war on Yemen.
"How come Joe Biden can call Vladimir Putin a war criminal but not others, for example, the crown prince?"
"Ambassador, it is good to see the U.S. government calling out war crimes in Ukraine and assisting in the documenting of those war crimes, but I do wonder, and I'm sure many others wonder too, where is that same kind of commitment when it comes to other conflicts?" Hasan asked.
"For example, the war in Yemen, where multiple atrocities have been documented by both sides, but one of those sides is our ally, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia," he added. "Wouldn't we have more credibility if we condemned war crimes by our friends and not just by our enemies?"
Beth Van Schaack, the U.S. ambassador-at-large for global criminal justice, responded that "the United States has worked tirelessly to promote accountability and documentation of abuses all across the world."
"There's a number of situations" at the International Criminal Court (ICC)--which probes and prosecutes genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and aggression--that the Biden administration has been "very supportive of," Van Schaack said. "The standards apply to all parties and we are looking at all conflicts around the world with an eye toward bringing the parties better into compliance with international law."
\u201cOn the @MehdiHasanShow on @MSNBC last night, I asked the new U.S. Ambassador at Large for Global Criminal Justice why the U.S. government is willing to call out war crimes by Russia in Ukraine but not by, say, Saudi Arabia in Yemen.\n\nWatch the exchange:\nhttps://t.co/70mbFqo9er\u201d— Mehdi Hasan (@Mehdi Hasan) 1649684999
The exchange on Hasan's show--which airs on MSNBC and the streaming service Peacock--continued with the host pointing out that Van Schaack "didn't address the Yemen war example."
Citing 2016 reporting that the Obama administration--for which Biden served as vice president--allowed a massive arms sale to Yemen despite concerns that the United States could be implicated in war crimes for supporting the Saudi-led air assault on Yemen, Hasan again raised the issue of credibility.
"Wouldn't we have more credibility if we called out war crimes by our own allies instead of selling them weapons?" he asked.
Describing the president's failure to criticize Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, or MBS, as "the most obvious example in the world" of the unequal treatment of leaders accused of atrocities, he added, "How come Joe Biden can call Vladimir Putin a war criminal but not others, for example, the crown prince?"
In response, Van Schaack noted that the Biden administration has diminished the amount of support it is providing to the Saudi-led campaign in Yemen and is working to ensure that those involved in that conflict comply with international humanitarian law, reiterating that "the standards apply to all parties."
Related Content
The exchange on Hasan's show came as Biden's recent declarations of Putin as a war criminal and his call for a war crimes trial focused on Russian forces' actions in Bucha and other Ukrainian cities since late February have fueled speculation about how his administration may reconsider U.S. policy with regard to the ICC, which is already investigating recent allegations in Ukraine.
The New York Times reported Monday that the administration "is vigorously debating" how much it can or should aid the probe of alleged Russian war crimes given federal law and longtime U.S. government objection to the ICC exercising jurisdiction over nations that aren't part of the treaty that created the court--including the United States.
After denouncing a Russian rocket attack on a train station in eastern Ukraine as yet another "war crime" on Friday, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy claimed Monday that tens of thousands have been killed in the port city of Mariupol and "the Russians are not stopping their offensive."
Meanwhile, world leaders and campaigners continue to sound the alarm over how Putin's war is affecting not only Ukrainians who have been killed, wounded, and trapped by the war, or fled to neighboring countries, but also the global food supply--particularly in some Middle Eastern and North African nations including war-torn Yemen.
"The number of malnourished children is likely to drastically increase," the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) regional director said last week, echoing warnings from other U.N. leaders in mid-March that "we need to act now" to feed Yemeni youth because "lives are at stake."
"What AOC is doing is leadership—and people see that," said one observer.
A poll released Friday from the progressive think tank Data for Progress has Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez besting Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, also a Democrat, by 19 points in a hypothetical matchup in the 2028 New York primary for a U.S. Senate seat.
According to the poll, which was was first shared exclusively with Politico, 55% of voters said they would cast a ballot for Ocasio-Cortez or leaned toward supporting her, and 36% said they would support Schumer or leaned toward supporting him, with 9% undecided.
The only subgroup that supported Schumer over Ocasio-Cortez were moderates, who favored Schumer 50%-35%, with 15% undecided. Ocasio-Cortez carried all other subgroups with an outright majority, except for voters over the age of 45, 49% of whom said they would support her or leaned toward supporting her.
The poll—while several years out from the actual race—comes in the wake of Schumer's decision to throw his support behind a Republican-backed spending bill in early March, a move that roiled his own party and prompted calls for him to step aside from his leadership position in the Senate.
The episode also sparked murmurs among some Democrats that Ocasio-Cortez should consider a primary bid against Schumer in 2028.
The poll was conducted March 26-31 and surveyed 767 likely Democratic primary voters in New York state. According to Data for Progress, the polling indicated that the hypothetical matchup between Ocasio-Cortez and Schumer is "relatively static" and does not shift when voters are offered more information about the respective candidates.
Ocasio-Cortez recently declined to speak about a potential run for Senate in 2028, according to Politico.
"Replacing Chuck Schumer with AOC would be an incredible upgrade. I guess we'll have to wait four more years…," wrote Bhaskar Sunkara, president of The Nation.
Zephyr Teachout, a professor at the Fordham University School of Law, shared Politico's reporting on the poll and wrote: "Good morning to leadership and fighting oligarchy!"
"What I mean is that what AOC is doing is leadership—and people see that," added Teachout, who also highlighted that the poll found that an overwhelming majority of respondents, 84%, want their leaders to do more to resist the actions of U.S. President Donald Trump.
Another observer, market researcher Adam Carlson, highlighted that despite Schumer's loss in the hypothetical race, most respondent subgroups still view him favorably, according to the poll. Besides "very liberal" voters and those between ages 18-44, Schumer stands at over 50% "favorable" among all other subgroups surveyed.
"People just want a changing of the guard," said Carlson.
"Trade and tariff wars have no winners," said China's foreign ministry. "We urge the U.S. to stop doing the wrong thing."
The Chinese government on Friday responded to U.S. President Donald Trump's sweeping new tariffs with 34% import duties on all American goods beginning next week, intensifying global blowback against the White House and accelerating a worldwide financial market tailspin.
China's tariffs on U.S. imports, which match the tariffs the Trump administration moved this week to impose on Chinese goods, are set to take effect on April 10. Trump's 34% tariffs on Chinese imports come on top of the 20% tariffs the U.S. president imposed earlier this year.
"The U.S. approach does not conform to international trade rules, seriously damages China's legitimate rights and interests, and is a typical unilateral bullying practice," China's Ministry of Finance said in a Friday statement.
Additionally, China's Commerce Ministry announced immediate export restrictions on rare earth materials and "added 16 entities from the U.S., including High Point Aerotechnologies and Universal Logistics Holdings Inc., to its export control list," according to the state-run China Daily.
"Under the new rule," the outlet reported, "Chinese companies are prohibited from exporting dual-use items to these 16 U.S. entities. Any ongoing related export activities should be immediately halted, said the Ministry of Commerce."
Retaliatory tariffs from the world's second-largest economy mark the latest step in a global trade war launched by the Trump White House, which—despite warnings of disastrous impacts for working-class U.S. households and the broader economy—plowed ahead this week with a 10% universal tariff on imports and larger tariffs on a number of trading partners, including China.
Following Trump's official tariff announcement, Beijing condemned the duties as "unacceptable" and vowed to "take measures as necessary to firmly defend [China's] legitimate interests."
"Trade and tariff wars have no winners. Protectionism leads nowhere," said the spokesperson for China's foreign ministry on Thursday. "We urge the U.S. to stop doing the wrong thing, and resolve trade differences with China and other countries through consultation with equality, respect, and mutual benefit."
Other nations hit by Trump's tariffs are expected to respond in the coming days.
European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen told reporters Thursday that the E.U. was "already finalizing the first package of countermeasures in response to tariffs on steel, and we are now preparing for further countermeasures to protect our interests and our businesses if negotiations fail."
Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney vowed that "we are going to fight these tariffs with countermeasures."
"In a crisis, it's important to come together and it's essential to act with purpose and with force," Carney added. "And that's what we will do."
"What Republicans are trying to jam through Congress right now is a level of economic recklessness we’ve never seen before," said a group of Democratic lawmakers.
A new analysis indicates Republicans' plan to extend soon-to-expire provisions of their party's 2017 tax law, as well as their push to tack on additional tax breaks largely benefiting the rich and big corporations, would cost $7 trillion over the next decade, a figure that a group of congressional Democrats called "staggering."
The analysis from the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT), published on Thursday, updates previous estimates that suggested the GOP effort to extend expiring provisions of the 2017 law would cost $4.6 trillion over a 10-year period. The new assessment shows that extending the law's temporary provisions—which disproportionately favored the wealthy—would cost $5.5 trillion over the next decade.
The projected cost of the GOP agenda balloons to $7 trillion after adding Senate Republicans' call for $1.5 trillion in additional tax cuts in the budget resolution they advanced in a party-line vote on Thursday. The GOP has come under fire for using an accounting trick to claim their proposed tax cuts would have no budgetary impact.
"The Republican handouts to billionaires and corporations will come at a staggering cost, and it's unconscionable that their plan to pay for those handouts includes kicking millions of Americans off their health insurance, hiking the cost of living with tariffs, and driving up child hunger," Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Rep. Richard Neal (D-Mass.), and Rep. Brendan Boyle (D-Pa.) said in a joint statement issued in response to the JCT figures.
"Even after making painful cuts that will inflict hardship on typical American families, Republicans will still risk sending us into a catastrophic debt spiral that does permanent harm to our economy," the Democrats added. "What Republicans are trying to jam through Congress right now is a level of economic recklessness we've never seen before."
The JCT's updated cost analysis came as President Donald Trump plowed ahead with what's been characterized as the biggest tax hike in U.S. history, one that will hit working-class Americans in the form of price increases on household staples and other goods.
Trump administration officials, not known for providing reliable numbers, have claimed the president's sweeping new tariffs could produce roughly $6 trillion in federal revenue over the next decade. The Trump tariffs have sent financial markets into a tailspin, heightened recession fears, and prompted swift retaliation from targeted nations, including China.
In an appearance on MSNBC on Thursday, Boyle—the top Democrat on the House Budget Committee—said Trump's tariffs represent "the single largest tax increase in American history."
"It's a tax that everyone will pay in this country, based on the goods that they buy," said Boyle. "However, it's also a tax that is highly regressive—the poorest amongst us will end up paying a higher percentage of their income."
A previous version of this story incorrectly stated the analysis was conducted by the Congressional Budget Office. It was conducted by the Joint Committee on Taxation.