Esper, Mark T

Subterms

    Latest story

    163 Shares169 Views

    Trump quería lanzar misiles a México. El Partido Republicano habla de enviar tropas

    by

    La idea republicana de usar la fuerza militar en México contra los cárteles de la droga comenzó como una fantasía de Donald Trump en el Despacho Oval. El expresidente busca hacerla realidad en 2025.La primera vez que Donald Trump habló en privado sobre lanzar misiles a México para destruir laboratorios de droga, por lo que recuerdan sus exasesores, fue en 2020.Y la primera vez que esos comentarios salieron a la luz pública fue cuando su segundo secretario de Defensa, Mark Esper, escribió en sus memorias que Trump se lo había planteado y le había preguntado si era posible que Estados Unidos hiciera parecer que el responsable era otro país. Esper describió la idea como algo absurdo.Sin embargo, en lugar de condenar la idea, algunos republicanos celebraron de manera pública la noticia de que Trump había querido emplear la fuerza militar contra los cárteles de la droga en territorio mexicano, y sin el consentimiento del gobierno de México. Muy pronto, la idea de Trump de una intervención militar al sur de la frontera estadounidense ha pasado de ser una fantasía del Despacho Oval a algo parecido a la doctrina del Partido Republicano.Durante la campaña presidencial y en el escenario del debate republicano en California la semana pasada, casi todos los aspirantes republicanos han defendido versiones distintas de un plan para enviar soldados de las Operaciones Especiales de EE. UU. a territorio mexicano para ejecutar o detener a miembros de los cárteles de la droga y destruir sus laboratorios y centros de distribución.En el Capitolio, un grupo de legisladores republicanos escribió una autorización robusta para el uso de la fuerza militar contra los cárteles, similares a los poderes de guerra que el Congreso le otorgó al expresidente George W. Bush antes de las invasiones de Afganistán e Irak. También han presionado para designar a los cárteles mexicanos como organizaciones terroristas extranjeras, una idea relacionada con la que coqueteó Trump como presidente, pero se retractó después de que México se opusiera de manera vehemente. Ahora, si Trump vuelve a la Casa Blanca en 2025, se ha comprometido a impulsar la designación y a desplegar soldados de las Operaciones Especiales y a las fuerzas navales para, según sus palabras, declarar la guerra a los cárteles.La proclividad del Partido Republicano de buscar una solución militar al problema de las drogas es un recordatorio de que el partido —a pesar de su viraje populista al antintervencionismo en los años de Trump y a que una facción que se opone a armar a Ucrania contra la invasión de Rusia ha crecido— todavía emplea la fuerza armada para lidiar con algunos temas complejos e inextricables. El propio Trump ha sido una especie de contradicción andante en lo que respecta al uso de la fuerza en el extranjero: por una parte, ha querido retirar la participación de Estados Unidos en el extranjero y, por otra, ha amenazado con lanzar bombas a enemigos como Irán.Los planes han indignado a las autoridades mexicanas. El presidente del país, Andrés Manuel López Obrador, ha denunciado las propuestas como indignantes e inaceptables. Hace más de un siglo que Estados Unidos no envía personal militar a México sin el consentimiento del gobierno mexicano.México tiene una historia amarga con la injerencia estadounidense: un gran trecho del suroeste estadounidense era parte de México antes de que Estados Unidos lo tomara por la fuerza a mediados del siglo XIX. Por lo general, México no permite al día de hoy que agentes estadounidenses armados ejecuten operaciones en su territorio, a diferencia de otros países latinoamericanos que han aceptado realizar operaciones conjuntas con la Administración para el Control de Drogas y que han invitado al gobierno estadounidense a ayudar a instruir, equipar y asistir a sus fuerzas de seguridad.Los analistas también han señalado la posibilidad de que una acción militar provoque daños económicos importantes. Los planes podrían romper la relación de Estados Unidos con México, su mayor socio comercial, y reducir otros tipos de cooperación, como la detención y extradición de delincuentes y los esfuerzos de México para disuadir a los migrantes de intentar cruzar de manera ilegal a Estados Unidos. Algunos republicanos conciben la amenaza de enviar el ejército a México como una herramienta de negociación para forzar a las autoridades mexicanas a tomar posturas más agresivas contra los cárteles.Por lo general, el derecho internacional prohíbe que un país haga uso de la fuerza militar en el territorio soberano de otra nación sin su consentimiento, salvo con el permiso del Consejo de Seguridad de las Naciones Unidas o en casos de legítima defensa. Pero Estados Unidos ha adoptado la postura de que puede utilizar la fuerza unilateral y legalmente en el territorio de otro país si su gobierno no es capaz o no quiere eliminar una amenaza no estatal que surja dentro de sus fronteras, como la amenaza de un grupo terrorista.Los republicanos han descrito las redes criminales mexicanas de narcotráfico como una amenaza para la seguridad nacional estadounidense, y algunos han calificado el fentanilo como un arma de destrucción masiva.Los estadounidenses gastan miles de millones de dólares al año en cocaína, heroína y otras drogas ilegales. En gran medida y durante décadas, el mercado negro generado por esa demanda ha sido abastecido por las operaciones delictivas de contrabando a lo largo de los más de 3000 kilómetros de frontera con México. Pero el auge del fentanilo —un fuerte opioide sintético de acción rápida que puede elaborarse a bajo costo a partir de sustancias químicas— ha creado una crisis. El fentanilo se ha vinculado a más de dos tercios de las casi 110.000 muertes por sobredosis en Estados Unidos el año pasado, y los legisladores de ambos partidos han estado buscando soluciones con urgencia.También ha crecido la frustración con el gobierno mexicano, cuyo presidente ha abogado por una política de “abrazos, no balazos” para lidiar con la delincuencia relacionada con las drogas, luego de que las medidas enérgicas contra los líderes de los cárteles de gobiernos anteriores derivaran en una violencia generalizada. Los cárteles, que se asemejan a organizaciones paramilitares con alta tecnología, han tomado el control de vastas zonas de México y han corrompido a muchos funcionarios gubernamentales y de las fuerzas del orden.El gobierno de Joe Biden, al igual que las gestiones anteriores de presidentes de ambos partidos, ha intentado colaborar con México para frenar el flujo de drogas y ha descartado la acción militar de manera explícita.Chris Landau, quien fue embajador de Trump en México de 2019 a 2021, consideró que la noción de usar la fuerza militar en un país fronterizo era una mala idea que solo empeoraría la situación. Advirtió que podría crear un nuevo “atolladero” y recordó las consecuencias de las intervenciones militares en Irak y Afganistán.“Entiendo la frustración”, añadió Landau. “Solo creo que un modelo de ‘tiroteo entre forajidos y autoridades’ no va a resolverlo y causará muchos más problemas”.Los orígenes en el Despacho OvalEl expresidente Donald Trump en el muro fronterizo durante una conmemoración en San Luis, Arizona, en junio de 2020. Trump tuvo varias conversaciones con asesores y otros miembros de su gestión sobre el combate a los cárteles mexicanos.Doug Mills/The New York TimesLa historia del modo en el que la idea de enviar fuerzas militares a México pasó del Despacho Oval de Trump al centro de la conversación política republicana es complicada y mucho más que una simple historia de legisladores que imitan a Trump.La propuesta de Trump de lanzar misiles contra laboratorios de drogas mexicanos no fue algo que inventara de cero. Surgió durante una reunión y un hombre en uniforme confirmó que era posible.Sin embargo, ese hombre en uniforme no pertenecía a la cadena de mando militar: era un oficial médico, una persona inusual para asesorar al presidente de Estados Unidos sobre operaciones militares en cualquier lugar.A finales de 2019 y principios de 2020, cuando la crisis del fentanilo se intensificaba, se hicieron reuniones a gran escala en el Despacho Oval en las que se abordó cómo lidiar con el problema. Algunas personas que participaron consideraron que las reuniones no servían de mucho porque los funcionarios tendían a actuar como Trump esperaba, y él actuaba para ellos.Cuando la idea de una intervención militar se planteó en una de esas reuniones, Trump se dirigió a Brett Giroir, quien estaba allí en calidad de subsecretario de Salud de EE. UU. Giroir era también almirante de cuatro estrellas en el Cuerpo Comisionado del Servicio de Salud Pública, y llevaba su uniforme de gala. Su principal argumento fue que Estados Unidos no era capaz de combatir la crisis solo con tratamiento, según una persona informada de sus comentarios.Por la forma en que Trump se enfocó en Giroir, quedaba claro que, debido a su uniforme de gala, había asumido erróneamente que pertenecía al ejército, según dos participantes en la reunión. Giroir, en su respuesta, sugirió poner “plomo al blanco”, recordaron los dos participantes. Trump no reveló lo que pensaba sobre la idea, y los funcionarios de la Casa Blanca, preocupados por ese momento, consideraron la posibilidad de pedirle a Giroir que no volviera a llevar su uniforme de gala al Despacho Oval.Giroir, en una declaración, no comentó sobre la discusión sustancial de la reunión, pero aseguró que nadie había insinuado que la acción militar por sí misma resolvería la crisis del fentanilo. También insistió en que Trump no lo había confundido con un oficial militar.“Sabía exactamente quién era yo, que estaba en el Servicio de Salud Pública y que era el responsable de opioides bajo las órdenes del secretario”, dijo Giroir. “Tuvimos diversas reuniones antes de eso”.Jason Miller, asesor principal de la campaña de 2024 de Trump, se negó a hablar de la reunión de la Oficina Oval o la discusión sobre el lanzamiento de misiles a México.Como presidente, Trump tuvo conversaciones sobre el uso de la fuerza militar en México con Brett Giroir, al centro, el subsecretario de Salud de Estados Unidos; el fiscal general, William Barr, a la izquierda; y el secretario de Defensa, Mark EsperFotografías del New York Times por Anna Moneymaker, T.J. Kirkpatrick y Erin SchaffDurante ese mismo periodo de tiempo, a finales de 2019, el fiscal general, William P. Barr, le había propuesto a Trump la idea de utilizar la fuerza dentro de México, pero lo había vislumbrado como una política que podrían implementar en un segundo mandato, si Trump ganaba las elecciones de 2020. Pensó que la amenaza de una acción unilateral por parte de Estados Unidos daría al gobierno ventaja para presionar a los mexicanos a hacer más por su parte para reprimir a los cárteles.Barr y Trump mantuvieron varias conversaciones sobre el tema. Barr mencionó una serie de opciones de medidas enérgicas, según una persona familiarizada con las conversaciones. Pero Barr no era partidario de los misiles, según la persona, ya que le preocupaba que se pudieran alcanzar objetivos equivocados usando tales órdenes.Al menos dos veces en 2020, Trump preguntó en privado a su secretario de Defensa, Esper, sobre la posibilidad de enviar “misiles Patriot” a México para destruir los laboratorios de drogas, y si podrían culpar a otro país por ello. Los misiles Patriot no son del tipo que se emplearían en tal caso —son armas tierra-aire—, pero Trump tenía la costumbre de llamar “misiles Patriot” a todos los misiles, según dos ex altos funcionarios del gobierno. Durante una de las discusiones de 2020, Trump hizo el comentario en voz baja a Esper mientras estaban cerca del escritorio presidencial, desde donde pudo escucharlo otro funcionario del gabinete. Esper, sorprendido, rechazó la idea.De la boca de Trump a la campaña de 2024En una señal de lo políticamente poderoso que se ha vuelto para los republicanos la idea de enviar tropas a México, Nikki Haley, el gobernador Ron DeSantis, Vivek Ramaswamy y Tim Scott se han apresurado a ofrecer soluciones militares a la epidemia de opioides.Todd Heisler/The New York TimesTras abandonar el cargo, Trump no dejó de hablar de atacar a los cárteles de la droga. Por el contario, convirtió la idea en una propuesta política oficial para su campaña presidencial de 2024.En enero, Trump publicó un video de propaganda titulado “El presidente Donald Trump declara la guerra a los cárteles”, en el que apoyaba explícitamente la idea de designar a los cárteles mexicanos de la droga como al Estado Islámico en Irak y Siria, en lugar de tratarlos como organizaciones criminales transnacionales a las que hay que hacer frente con herramientas para el cumplimiento de la ley.Trump prometió “desplegar todos los activos militares necesarios, incluida la Marina de Guerra de Estados Unidos”, para imponer un embargo total a los cárteles y “designar a los principales cárteles como Organizaciones Terroristas Extranjeras”.Y se comprometió a ordenar al Pentágono “hacer un uso apropiado de las fuerzas especiales, la guerra cibernética y otras acciones abiertas y encubiertas para infligir el máximo daño a los líderes, la infraestructura y las operaciones de los cárteles”.En materia de derecho internacional, surge una pregunta crucial sobre si Estados Unidos usaría la fuerza militar dentro de México solo con el consentimiento de su gobierno o si lo haría unilateralmente sin consentimiento. Trump restó importancia a la posibilidad de una guerra con México en una entrevista reciente con Megyn Kelly, presentadora de un pódcast y antigua estrella de Fox News.Pero en una señal de lo políticamente potente que se ha vuelto para los republicanos la perspectiva de enviar tropas a México, la campaña de su principal rival, el gobernador Ron DeSantis de Florida, destacó los comentarios de Trump a Kelly y enfatizó que DeSantis ha prometido tomar medidas militares agresivas contra los cárteles.Vivek Ramaswamy ha prometido “usar nuestro ejército para aniquilar a los cárteles mexicanos de la droga”. Tim Scott, senador por Carolina del Sur, ha publicado un anuncio de campaña en el que jura “desatar” al ejército estadounidense contra los cárteles. Y la exgobernadora de Carolina del Sur Nikki Haley ha dicho que cuando se trata de los cárteles de la droga, “le dices al presidente mexicano, o lo haces tú o lo hacemos nosotros”.Miller, el asesor de Trump, dijo que Trump había anunciado un “plan detallado para erradicar los cárteles de la droga y detener el flujo de drogas a nuestro país en la primera semana de enero, y es bueno ver que tantos otros ahora siguen su ejemplo”.Poner en práctica la ideaEl representante Dan Crenshaw ha propuesto una ley para autorizar ampliamente el uso de la fuerza militar contra nueve cárteles, un proyecto que más de 30 de sus compañeros republicanos han apoyado como copatrocinadores.Kenny Holston/The New York TimesLa idea ha cobrado vida propia en el Capitolio.Más de 20 republicanos de la Cámara de Representantes han firmado para copatrocinar la legislación propuesta por Dan Crenshaw, representante por Texas, para promulgar una amplia autorización para el empleo de fuerza militar contra nueve cárteles. También autorizaría la utilización de la fuerza contra cualquier organización extranjera que el presidente determine que cumple ciertos criterios, incluidas las organizaciones relacionadas con el tráfico de fentanilo.La autorización propuesta para la guerra terminaría al cabo de cinco años, a menos que el Congreso promulgara un nuevo proyecto de ley para prorrogala. Pero, por lo demás, su carácter laxo se asemeja a las amplias autorizaciones de guerra que el Congreso promulgó tras los atentados terroristas de 2001 y antes de la guerra de Irak de 2003, que se convirtieron en problemas más allá de los que los legisladores habían previsto en un principio.El senador Lindsey Graham, un republicano por Carolina del Sur que es un aliado cercano de Trump, dijo que pensaba que un presidente podría bombardear laboratorios de fentanilo y centros de distribución en su propia autoridad constitucional como comandante en jefe, sin autorización del Congreso. Pero también argumentó que si Trump volviera a ser presidente, la mera amenaza de que podría hacer algo así podría inducir al gobierno mexicano a tomar medidas más agresivas.El senador Lindsey Graham, un republicano por Carolina del Sur, dio una rueda de prensa en marzo sobre su propuesta de ley para designar a los cárteles mexicanos de la droga como organizaciones terroristas extranjeras.Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images“A medida que estos problemas no se gestionan y se hacen más grandes en alcance, las soluciones se vuelven más draconianas”, dijo. “Y una cosa sobre Trump, creo que si consigue un segundo mandato, creo que verán más cooperación por parte de México. No creo que tengamos que llegar a bombardear laboratorios, México ajustará sus políticas en función de Trump”.‘Una ofensa al pueblo de México’ El presidente de México, Andrés Manuel López Obrador, ha acusado a los republicanos de “utilizar a México por sus propósitos propagandísticos, electoreros, politiqueros”.Alejandro Cegarra para The New York TimesEl discurso republicano sobre atacar a los cárteles de la droga en México está rebotando por los pasillos de su gobierno. El presidente del país, el izquierdista Andrés Manuel López Obrador, ha respondido con molestia y ha hecho algo inusual para un líder mundial: atacar al Partido Republicano.“Esta iniciativa de los republicanos, además de irresponsable, es una ofensa al pueblo de México, una falta de respeto a nuestra independencia, a nuestra soberanía”, dijo López Obrador a los periodistas en marzo. “Si no cambian su actitud y piensan que van a utilizar a México por sus propósitos propagandísticos, electoreros, politiqueros, nosotros vamos a llamar a que no se vote por ese partido, por intervencionista, inhumano, hipócrita y corrupto”.Desde la perspectiva de México, Estados Unidos es el que alimenta la violencia de los cárteles, no solo porque la demanda del país crea el mercado para el narcotráfico, sino también porque Estados Unidos facilita la compra de las armas que terminan en México. Esas armas avivan la violencia armada en el país, a pesar de sus estrictas leyes de control de armas.Roberto Velasco Álvarez, máximo responsable para América del Norte de la Secretaría de Relaciones Exteriores de México, invocó concretamente la comparación con las armas de fuego y señaló a Ramaswamy por prometer una acción militar estadounidense dentro de México.“Si está tan preocupado el señor Ramaswamy por lo que está pasando en México, pues la mejor forma en que podría ayudarnos es quitando las escopetas que le están vendiendo literalmente a cárteles mexicanos”, dijo en una entrevista.Mientras México se encamina a unas históricas elecciones presidenciales el próximo año, en las que se espera que los electores elijan entre dos candidatas, con toda probabilidad, gane quien gane tendrá que manejar las tensiones creadas por el Partido Republicano.“Deberíamos, más que amenazas, trabajar de una manera inteligente”, dijo Xóchitl Gálvez, senadora mexicana que ha sido elegida la abanderada de la oposición y ha rechazado de manera abierta la estrategia de seguridad de López Obrador, y añadió que “los abrazos han sido para los delincuentes y los balazos para los ciudadanos mexicanos”.Pero Gálvez también criticó las propuestas republicanas de invadir México y pidió una cooperación compartida y responsable. “No podemos seguir echando la culpa”, dijo.Nicholas Nehamas colaboró en este reportaje. Kitty Bennett colaboró con investigación.Jonathan Swan es periodista de política especializado en campañas y el Congreso estadounidense. Como reportero de Axios, ganó un Emmy por su entrevista de 2020 al entonces presidente Donald Trump, así como el Premio Aldo Beckman de la Asociación de Corresponsales de la Casa Blanca por “excelencia en general en la cobertura de la Casa Blanca” en 2022. Más de Jonathan SwanMaggie Haberman es corresponsal sénior de política y autora de Confidence Man: The Making of Donald Trump and the Breaking of America. Formó parte de un equipo que ganó un Premio Pulitzer en 2018 por informar sobre los asesores del presidente Trump y sus conexiones con Rusia. Más información de Maggie HabermanCharlie Savage escribe sobre seguridad nacional y política legal. Es periodista desde hace más de dos décadas. Más de Charlie SavageEmiliano Rodríguez Mega es investigador-reportero del Times radicado en Ciudad de México. Cubre México, Centroamérica y el Caribe. Más de Emiliano Rodríguez Mega More

    More stories

    • 163 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      How Trump’s Idea to Use Military Force in Mexico Became Embraced by GOP

      by

      The Republican push to use military force in Mexico against drug cartels started in the Trump White House. He has plans to make the idea a reality in 2025.The first time Donald Trump talked privately about shooting missiles into Mexico to take out drug labs, as far as his former aides can recall, was in early 2020.And the first time those comments became public was when his second defense secretary, Mark T. Esper, wrote in his memoir that Mr. Trump had raised it with him and asked if the United States could make it look as if some other country was responsible. Mr. Esper portrayed the idea as ludicrous.Yet instead of condemning the idea, some Republicans publicly welcomed word that Mr. Trump had wanted to use military force against the drug cartels on Mexican soil — and without the consent of Mexico’s government. Mr. Trump’s notion of a military intervention south of the border has swiftly evolved from an Oval Office fantasy to something approaching Republican Party doctrine.On the presidential campaign trail and on the G.O.P. debate stage in California last week, nearly every Republican candidate has been advocating versions of a plan to send U.S. Special Operations troops into Mexican territory to kill or capture drug cartel members and destroy their labs and distribution centers.On Capitol Hill, Republican lawmakers have drafted a broad authorization for the use of military force against cartels — echoing the war powers Congress gave former President George W. Bush before the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. They have also pushed for designating Mexican cartels as foreign terrorist organizations — a related idea Mr. Trump flirted with as president but backed off after Mexico hotly objected. Now, if Mr. Trump returns to the White House in 2025, he has vowed to push for the designations and to deploy Special Operations troops and naval forces to, as he put it, declare war on the cartels.The Republican Party’s attraction to seeking a military solution to the drug problem is a reminder that the G.O.P. — despite its populist shift toward anti-interventionism in the Trump years and the growth of a faction that opposes arming Ukraine against Russia’s invasion — still reaches for armed force to address some complex and intractable problems. Mr. Trump himself has been something of a walking contradiction when it comes to the use of force abroad, alternately wanting to pull back U.S. involvement overseas and threatening to drop bombs on enemies such as Iran.The plans have angered officials in Mexico. Its president, Andrés Manuel López Obrador, has denounced the proposals as outrageous and unacceptable. It has been more than a century since the United States sent military personnel into Mexico without the Mexican government’s assent.Mexico has a bitter history with American interference: Much of the southwestern United States was part of Mexico before the United States took it by force in the middle of the 19th century. To this day, Mexico generally does not allow U.S. agents with guns to carry out operations on its soil, in contrast to other Latin American countries that have agreed to joint operations with the Drug Enforcement Administration and invited the American government to help train, equip and assist their own security forces.Analysts have also warned about the potential for military action to cause significant economic damage. The plans could rupture the United States’ relationship with Mexico, its largest trading partner, and curtail other types of cooperation, including the arrest and extradition of criminals and Mexico’s efforts to deter migrants from trying to cross illegally into the United States. Some Republicans view the threat of sending the military into Mexico as a negotiating tool to force Mexican officials to get aggressive with the cartels.Generally, international law forbids a country from using military force on the sovereign soil of another nation without its consent, except with the permission of the United Nations Security Council or in cases of self-defense. But the United States has taken the position that it can lawfully use force unilaterally on another nation’s territory if its government is unable or unwilling to suppress a nonstate threat emanating from it, such as a threat from a terrorist group.Republicans have described the Mexican criminal drug-trafficking networks as a national security threat, with some calling fentanyl a weapon of mass destruction.Americans spend many billions of dollars a year on cocaine, heroin and other illegal drugs. For decades, the black market created by that demand has been heavily supplied by criminal smuggling operations across the 2,000-mile border with Mexico. But the rise of fentanyl — a powerful and fast-acting synthetic opioid that can be made cheaply from chemicals — has created a crisis. Fentanyl has been linked to more than two-thirds of the nearly 110,000 American overdose deaths last year, and lawmakers from both parties have been desperately searching for solutions.Frustration has also mounted with the Mexican government, whose president has advocated a “hugs not bullets” policy to deal with drug crime, after crackdowns on cartel leaders by previous administrations led to widespread violence. The cartels, which resemble high-tech paramilitary organizations, have seized control of large areas in Mexico and have corrupted many officials in Mexico’s government and law enforcement ranks.The Biden administration — like previous administrations of both parties — has sought to partner with Mexico to stem the flow of drugs and has explicitly ruled out military action.Chris Landau, who was Mr. Trump’s ambassador to Mexico from 2019 to 2021, said the idea of using military force in a bordering country was a bad idea that would only make things worse. He warned it could create a new “quagmire,” invoking the aftermath of military interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan.“I understand the frustration,” Mr. Landau added. “I just think that a ‘shootout at the O.K. Corral’ model is not going to solve it and will cause a lot more problems.”Origins in the Oval OfficeFormer President Donald Trump at the border wall during a commemoration in San Luiz, Ariz., in June 2020. Mr. Trump has had a number of conversations with aides and other members of his administration about targeting Mexican cartels.Doug Mills/The New York TimesThe story of how the idea of sending military force into Mexico went from Mr. Trump’s Oval Office to the center of the Republican policy conversation is complex and much more than a simple tale of lawmakers copying Mr. Trump.Mr. Trump’s proposal to shoot missiles at Mexican drug labs was not something he concocted out of thin air. It came up during a meeting and was affirmed by a man in uniform.That man in uniform was not in the military chain of command, however: He was a medical officer and an unlikely person to be advising the president of the United States on military operations anywhere.By late 2019 and early 2020, as the fentanyl crisis was intensifying, large-scale meetings in the Oval Office addressed how to handle the problem. Some participants felt the meetings were of little use because officials tended to perform for Mr. Trump, and he would perform for them.When the idea of military intervention was brought up at one such meeting, Mr. Trump turned to Brett Giroir, who was there in his role as the U.S. assistant secretary for health. Mr. Giroir was also a four-star admiral in the Commissioned Corps of the U.S. Public Health Service, and he was wearing his dress uniform. His main point was that the United States was unable to combat the crisis with treatment alone, according to a person briefed on his comments.It was clear from the way Mr. Trump singled out Mr. Giroir that he had mistakenly thought he was in the military because of his dress uniform, according to two participants in the meeting. Mr. Giroir, in his response, suggested putting “lead to target,” the two participants recalled. Mr. Trump did not betray what he thought about the idea, and White House officials, troubled by the moment, considered asking Mr. Giroir not to wear his dress uniform to the Oval Office again.Mr. Giroir, in a statement, did not discuss the substance of the meeting, but said that no one had suggested that military action alone would solve the fentanyl crisis. He also insisted that Mr. Trump had not mistaken him for a military officer.“He knew exactly who I was, that I was in the Public Health Service, and I was the opioids lead under the Secretary,” Mr. Giroir said. “We had multiple meetings before that.”Jason Miller, a senior adviser on Mr. Trump’s 2024 campaign, declined to address the Oval Office meeting or the discussion of sending missiles into Mexico.As president, Mr. Trump had discussions about using military force in Mexico with Brett Giroir, center, the U.S. assistant secretary for health; Attorney General William Barr, left; and the defense secretary, Mark Esper.New York Times photographs by Anna Moneymaker, T.J. Kirkpatrick and Erin SchaffDuring that same time period in late 2019, Attorney General William P. Barr had proposed to Mr. Trump the idea of using force inside Mexico, but he envisioned it as a policy they would pursue in a second term if Mr. Trump won the 2020 election. He thought the threat of unilateral action on the part of the United States would give the administration leverage to press the Mexicans to do more on their end to suppress the cartels.Mr. Barr and Mr. Trump had a number of conversations about the issue. Mr. Barr mentioned a range of options for aggressive action, according to a person familiar with the discussions. But Mr. Barr was not advocating missiles, concerned that the wrong target might get taken out using such ordinance, the person said.At least twice during 2020, Mr. Trump privately asked his defense secretary, Mr. Esper, about the possibility of sending “Patriot missiles” into Mexico to destroy the drug labs, and whether they could blame another country for it. Patriot missiles are not the kind that would be used — they are surface-to-air weapons — but Mr. Trump had a habit of calling all missiles “Patriot missiles,” according to two former senior administration officials. During one of the 2020 discussions, Mr. Trump made the comment quietly to Mr. Esper as they stood near the Resolute Desk, within ear shot of another cabinet official. Mr. Esper, stunned, pushed back on the idea.From Trump’s Mouth to the 2024 TrailIn a sign of how politically potent the idea of sending troops into Mexico has become for Republicans, Nikki Haley, Gov. Ron DeSantis, Vivek Ramaswamy and Tim Scott have all rushed to offer military solutions to the opioid epidemic.Todd Heisler/The New York TimesAfter leaving office, Mr. Trump didn’t stop talking about attacking the drug cartels. Instead, he turned the idea into an official policy proposal for his 2024 campaign for president.In January, Mr. Trump released a policy video titled “President Donald J. Trump Declares War on Cartels,” in which he explicitly endorsed the idea of treating Mexican drug cartels like the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria — rather than treating them as transnational criminal organizations to be addressed using law enforcement tools.Mr. Trump promised to “deploy all necessary military assets, including the U.S. Navy” to impose a full naval embargo on the cartels and to “designate the major cartels as Foreign Terrorist Organizations.”And he pledged to order the Pentagon “to make appropriate use of special forces, cyber warfare and other overt and covert actions to inflict maximum damage on cartel leadership, infrastructure and operations.”As a matter of international law, a crucial question is whether the United States would use military force inside Mexico only with the consent of its government or whether it would do so unilaterally without consent. Mr. Trump downplayed the prospect of war with Mexico in a recent interview with Megyn Kelly, the podcast host and former Fox News star.But in a sign of how politically potent the prospect of sending troops into Mexico has become for Republicans, the campaign of his chief rival, Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida, highlighted Mr. Trump’s comments to Ms. Kelly and emphasized that Mr. DeSantis has promised to take aggressive military action against the cartels.Vivek Ramaswamy has promised to “use our military to annihilate the Mexican drug cartels.” Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina has released a campaign ad vowing to “unleash” the U.S. military against the cartels. And former Gov. Nikki Haley of South Carolina has said that when it comes to drug cartels, “you tell the Mexican president, either you do it or we do it.”Mr. Miller, the Trump adviser, said that Mr. Trump had announced a “detailed plan to eradicate the drug cartels and stop the flow of drugs into our country in the first week of January, and it’s good to see so many others now following his lead.”Operationalizing the IdeaRepresentative Dan Crenshaw has proposed legislation to enact a broad authorization for the use of military force against nine named cartels, a bill more than 20 of his fellow House Republicans have backed as co-sponsors.Kenny Holston/The New York TimesThe idea has taken on a life of its own on Capitol Hill.More than 20 House Republicans have signed on to co-sponsor legislation proposed by Representative Dan Crenshaw of Texas to enact a broad authorization for the use of military force against nine named cartels. It would also authorize force against any other foreign organization that the president determines meets certain criteria, including organizations related to fentanyl trafficking.The proposed authorization for a war would end after five years unless Congress enacted a new bill to extend it. But its otherwise loose nature resembles the broad war authorizations Congress enacted after the 2001 terrorist attacks and ahead of the 2003 Iraq War, both of which escalated into entanglements beyond what lawmakers originally envisioned.Senator Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican who is a close ally of Mr. Trump, said he thought a president could bomb fentanyl labs and distribution centers on his own constitutional authority as commander in chief, without congressional authorization. But he also argued that if Mr. Trump became president again, the mere threat that he might do something like that could induce the Mexican government to take more aggressive actions.Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, held a news conference in March about his proposed legislation to designate Mexican drug cartels as foreign terrorist organizations.Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images“As these problems go unmanaged and get bigger in scope, the solutions become more draconian,” he said. “And the one thing about Trump, I think if he does get a second term, I think you’ll see more cooperation by Mexico. I don’t think we’ll ever have to get to bombing labs — Mexico will adjust their policies based on Trump.”‘An Offense to the People of Mexico’President Andrés Manuel López Obrador of Mexico has accused Republicans of using “Mexico for their propaganda” and their “electoral and political purposes.”Alejandro Cegarra for The New York TimesThe Republican rhetoric about attacking drug cartels inside Mexico is ricocheting around the halls of its government. The country’s leftist president, Andrés Manuel López Obrador, has responded furiously and taken the extraordinary step for a world leader of attacking the Republican Party.“This initiative of the Republicans, besides being irresponsible, is an offense to the people of Mexico, a lack of respect to our independence, to our sovereignty,” Mr. López Obrador told reporters in March. “If they do not change their attitude and think that they are going to use Mexico for their propaganda, their electoral and political purposes, we are going to call for not voting for this party, because it is interventionist, inhuman, hypocritical and corrupt.”From a Mexican perspective, it is the United States that is fueling the cartel violence — not only because American demand creates the market for the drug trade, but also because the United States makes it so easy to buy the firearms that end up in Mexico. Those firearms fuel gun violence in Mexico despite its tough gun-control laws.Roberto Velasco Álvarez, the top North American official in Mexico’s Foreign Affairs Ministry, specifically invoked the gun comparison as he called out Mr. Ramaswamy for promising U.S. military action inside Mexico.“If Mr. Ramaswamy is so concerned about what’s going on in Mexico, well, the best way he could help us is to take away the guns that are literally being sold to Mexican cartels,” he said in an interview.As Mexico heads to a historic presidential election next year, when voters are expected to choose between two leading candidates who are women, whoever gets elected will most likely need to handle the tensions created by the Republican Party.“Rather than threats, we should work in a smart way,” said Xóchitl Gálvez, a Mexican senator who has been chosen as the opposition’s candidate and has openly rejected Mr. López Obrador’s security strategy, adding that “the hugs have been for the criminals and the bullets for the Mexican citizens.”But Ms. Gálvez also criticized the Republican proposals to invade Mexico and called for shared and responsible cooperation. “We can’t keep blaming each other,” she said. Nicholas Nehamas More

    • 125 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Trump’s Former Aides and Advisers on the Peril He Poses

      by

      Former Secretary of Defense Mark Esper agreed with an interviewer that President Trump posed “a threat to democracy.” Other former administration officials have expressed similar concerns.In his new book “A Sacred Oath,” released earlier this week, Mark T. Esper, the former defense secretary, revealed that President Donald J. Trump in 2020 had floated the idea of launching missiles into Mexico to “destroy the drug labs” and asked why the military could not “just shoot” racial justice protesters in Washington in the legs.Mr. Esper also described his concerns that Mr. Trump might misuse the military during the 2020 election, for example by asking soldiers to seize ballot boxes.On Monday, when a Fox News host asked if he thought President Trump “was a threat to democracy,” Mr. Esper was blunt.“I think that given the events of Jan. 6, given how he has undermined the election results, he incited people to come to D.C., stirred them up that morning and failed to call them off, to me that threatens our democracy,” he said.“So, yes?” asked the host, Bret Baier.Mr. Esper replied: “What else can you conclude, Bret?”That comment, from a man who has also served as secretary of the Army and chief of staff of the conservative Heritage Foundation, was seen by some as a startlingly direct condemnation. But Mr. Esper was not the first former Trump administration official to go beyond criticisms of President Trump’s temperament or specific policies to say he posed a threat to American democracy itself.Here is a compilation of comments by Mr. Esper and other former officials, made during and after President Trump’s term in office.In a new book, Mr. Esper said that President Trump in June 2020 asked him why the military could not “just shoot” racial justice protestors in Washington in the legs.Erin Schaff/The New York TimesMARK T. ESPER, secretary of defense (July 2019-November 2020)“It was a very troubling event. The moment, it was an insurrection, an attempt to overturn a free and fair election and to prevent the peaceful transfer of power. And it [sic] was right to be impeached.”— Interview with Judy Woodruff, “PBS NewsHour,” May 6, commenting on the Jan. 6 insurrectionSTEPHANIE GRISHAM, White House press secretary and communications director (July 2019-April 2020)“Everybody’s showing their fealty to them, he’s on his revenge tour to people who dared to vote for impeachment. I want to just warn people, once he takes office, if he were to win, he doesn’t have to worry about re-election anymore, he will be about revenge, he will probably have some pretty draconian policies.”— Interview on “Good Morning America,” Oct. 4, 2021, in which she also said she would urge Mr. Trump “not to run” in 2024MILES TAYLOR, chief of staff, Department of Homeland Security (February 2019-September 2019) and author of the anonymously published book “A Warning”“I’m still astounded by the countless Trump officials who privately agreed with me that he was a threat to democracy yet *still* remain silent. Why?”— Twitter, June 11, 2021JOHN F. KELLY, secretary of homeland security (January 2017-July 2017) and White House chief of staff (July 2017-January 2019)“What happened on Capitol Hill yesterday is a direct result of his poisoning the minds of people with the lies and the frauds.”— Interview with Jake Tapper, CNN, Jan. 7, 2021Other former administration officials who have publicly expressed concern over dangers President Trump might pose to democracy include the former defense secretary James N. Mattis.Stefani Reynolds for The New York TimesH.R. MCMASTER, former national security adviser (February 2017-April 2018)“It’s a gift to our adversaries, who want to shake our confidence in who we are, shake our confidence in our democratic principles and institutions and processes.”— Interview with Chuck Todd on “Meet the Press,” Sept. 27, 2020, commenting on President Trump’s refusal to commit to a peaceful transfer of power if he lost the electionJOHN R. BOLTON, former national security adviser (April 2018-Sept. 2019)“The concern I have, speaking as a conservative Republican, is that once the election is over, if the president wins, the political constraint is gone. And because he has no philosophical grounding, there’s no telling what will happen in a second term.”— Interview with Martha Raddatz, ABC News, June 21, 2020, in which he also said President Trump posed a “danger for the republic”JAMES N. MATTIS, secretary of defense (January 2017-January 2019)“When I joined the military, some 50 years ago, I swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution. Never did I dream that troops taking that same oath would be ordered under any circumstance to violate the constitutional rights of their fellow citizens — much less to provide a bizarre photo op for the elected commander in chief, with military leadership standing alongside.”“We know that we are better than the abuse of executive authority that we witnessed in Lafayette Square. We must reject and hold accountable those in office who would make a mockery of our Constitution.”— Statement published by The Atlantic, June 3, 2020, following the clearing of protesters from Lafayette Square in Washington, D.C.REX W. TILLERSON, former secretary of state (February 2017-March 2018)“If our leaders seek to conceal the truth, or we as people become accepting of alternative realities that are no longer grounded in facts, then we as American citizens are on a pathway to relinquishing our freedom.”“If we do not as Americans confront the crisis of ethics and integrity in our society and among our leaders in both the public and private sector — and regrettably at times even the nonprofit sector — then American democracy as we know it is entering its twilight years.”— Commencement speech at Virginia Military Institute, May 16, 2018 More

    • 163 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Trump Proposed Launching Missiles Into Mexico to ‘Destroy the Drug Labs,’ Esper Says

      by

      It is one of the moments in his upcoming memoir that the former defense secretary described as leaving him all but speechless.President Donald J. Trump in 2020 asked Mark T. Esper, his defense secretary, about the possibility of launching missiles into Mexico to “destroy the drug labs” and wipe out the cartels, maintaining that the United States’ involvement in a strike against its southern neighbor could be kept secret, Mr. Esper recounts in his upcoming memoir.Those remarkable discussions were among several moments that Mr. Esper described in the book, “A Sacred Oath,” as leaving him all but speechless when he served the 45th president.Mr. Esper, the last Senate-confirmed defense secretary under Mr. Trump, also had concerns about speculation that the president might misuse the military around Election Day by, for instance, having soldiers seize ballot boxes. He warned subordinates to be on alert for unusual calls from the White House in the lead-up to the election.The book, to be published on Tuesday, offers a stunningly candid perspective from a former defense secretary, and it illuminates key episodes from the Trump presidency, including some that were unknown or underexplored.“I felt like I was writing for history and for the American people,” said Mr. Esper, who underwent the standard Pentagon security clearance process to check for classified information. He also sent his writing to more than two dozen four-star generals, some cabinet members and others to weigh in on accuracy and fairness.Pressed on his view of Mr. Trump, Mr. Esper — who strained throughout the book to be fair to the man who fired him while also calling out his increasingly erratic behavior after his first impeachment trial ended in February 2020 — said carefully but bluntly, “He is an unprincipled person who, given his self-interest, should not be in the position of public service.”A spokesman for Mr. Trump did not immediately respond to a request for comment.Mr. Esper describes an administration completely overtaken by concerns about Mr. Trump’s re-election campaign, with every decision tethered to that objective. He writes that he could have resigned, and weighed the idea several times, but that he believed the president was surrounded by so many yes-men and people whispering dangerous ideas to him that a loyalist would have been put in Mr. Esper’s place. The real act of service, he decided, was staying in his post to ensure that such things did not come to pass.One such idea emerged from Mr. Trump, who was unhappy about the constant flow of drugs across the southern border, during the summer of 2020. Mr. Trump asked Mr. Esper at least twice if the military could “shoot missiles into Mexico to destroy the drug labs.”“They don’t have control of their own country,” Mr. Esper recounts Mr. Trump saying.When Mr. Esper raised various objections, Mr. Trump said that “we could just shoot some Patriot missiles and take out the labs, quietly,” adding that “no one would know it was us.” Mr. Trump said he would just say that the United States had not conducted the strike, Mr. Esper recounts, writing that he would have thought it was a joke had he not been staring Mr. Trump in the face.In Mr. Esper’s telling, Mr. Trump seemed more emboldened, and more erratic, after he was acquitted in his first impeachment trial. Mr. Esper writes that personnel choices reflected that reality, as Mr. Trump tried to tighten his grip on the executive branch with demands of personal loyalty.Among Mr. Trump’s desires was to put 10,000 active-duty troops on the streets of Washington on June 1, 2020, after large protests against police brutality erupted following the police killing of George Floyd. Mr. Trump asked Mr. Esper about the demonstrators, “Can’t you just shoot them?”Mr. Esper describes one episode nearly a month earlier during which Mr. Trump, whose re-election prospects were reshaped by his repeated bungling of the response to the coronavirus pandemic, behaved so erratically at a May 9 meeting about China with the Joint Chiefs of Staff that one officer grew alarmed. The unidentified officer confided to Mr. Esper months later that the meeting led him to research the 25th Amendment, under which the vice president and members of the cabinet can remove a president from office, to see what was required and under what circumstances it might be used.Mr. Esper writes that he never believed Mr. Trump’s conduct rose to the level of needing to invoke the 25th Amendment. He also strains to give Mr. Trump credit where he thinks he deserves it. Nonetheless, Mr. Esper paints a portrait of someone not in control of his emotions or his thought process throughout 2020.Mr. Esper singles out officials whom he considered erratic or dangerous influences on Mr. Trump, with the policy adviser Stephen Miller near the top of the list. He recounts that Mr. Miller proposed sending 250,000 troops to the southern border, claiming that a large caravan of migrants was en route. “The U.S. armed forces don’t have 250,000 troops to send to the border for such nonsense,” Mr. Esper writes that he responded.In October 2019, after members of the national security team assembled in the Situation Room to watch a feed of the raid that killed the Islamic State leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, Mr. Miller proposed securing Mr. al-Baghdadi’s head, dipping it in pig’s blood and parading it around to warn other terrorists, Mr. Esper writes. That would be a “war crime,” Mr. Esper shot back.Mr. Miller flatly denied the episode and called Mr. Esper “a moron.”Mr. Esper also viewed Mark Meadows, Mr. Trump’s final White House chief of staff, as a huge problem for the administration and the national security team in particular. Mr. Meadows often threw the president’s name around when barking orders, but Mr. Esper makes clear that he often was not certain whether Mr. Meadows was communicating what Mr. Trump wanted or what Mr. Meadows wanted.He also writes about repeated clashes with Robert C. O’Brien, Mr. Trump’s national security adviser in the final year, describing Mr. O’Brien as advocating a bellicose approach to Iran without considering the potential fallout.Mr. O’Brien said he was “surprised and disappointed” by Mr. Esper’s comments. More

    • 150 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Fearing a Trump Repeat, Jan. 6 Panel Considers Changes to Insurrection Act

      by

      The 1807 law allows a president to deploy American troops inside the country to put down a rebellion. Lawmakers fear it could be abused by a future president trying to stoke one.WASHINGTON — In the days before the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol, some of President Donald J. Trump’s most extreme allies and members of right-wing militia groups urged him to use his power as commander in chief to unleash the military to help keep him in office.Now, as the House committee investigating last year’s riot uncovers new evidence about the lengths to which Mr. Trump was willing to go to cling to power, some lawmakers on the panel have quietly begun discussions about rewriting the Insurrection Act, the 1807 law that gives presidents wide authority to deploy the military within the United States to respond to a rebellion.The discussions are preliminary, and debate over the act has been fraught in the aftermath of Mr. Trump’s presidency. Proponents envision a doomsday scenario in which a rogue future president might try to use the military to stoke — rather than put down — an insurrection, or to abuse protesters. But skeptics worry about depriving a president of the power to quickly deploy armed troops in the event of an uprising, as presidents did during the Civil War and the civil rights era.While Mr. Trump never invoked the law, he threatened to do so in 2020 to have the military crack down on crowds protesting the police killing of George Floyd. Stephen Miller, one of his top advisers, also proposed putting it into effect to turn back migrants at the southwestern border, an idea that was rejected by the defense secretary at the time, Mark T. Esper.And as Mr. Trump grasped for ways to overturn his defeat in the 2020 presidential election, some hard-right advisers encouraged him to declare martial law and deploy U.S. troops to seize voting machines. In the run-up to the Jan. 6 attack, members of right-wing militia groups also encouraged Mr. Trump to invoke the law, believing that he was on the brink of giving them approval to descend on Washington with weapons to fight on his behalf.“There are many of us who are of the view that the Insurrection Act, which the former president threatened to invoke multiple times throughout 2020, bears a review,” said Representative Zoe Lofgren, Democrat of California and a member of the Jan. 6 committee.While no evidence has emerged that Mr. Trump planned to invoke the act to stay in office, people close to him were pushing for him to do so. Michael T. Flynn, Mr. Trump’s first national security adviser, attended a meeting in the Oval Office on Dec. 18, 2020, in which participants discussed seizing voting machines, declaring a national emergency and invoking certain national security emergency powers. That meeting came after Mr. Flynn gave an interview to the right-wing television network Newsmax in which he talked about a purported precedent for deploying troops and declaring martial law to “rerun” the election.Some hard-right advisers to Mr. Trump encouraged him to declare martial law and deploy U.S. troops to seize voting machines after the 2020 election.Brittany Greeson for The New York TimesThe idea was also floated by Roger J. Stone Jr., the political operative and longtime confidant of Mr. Trump, who told the conspiracy theorist Alex Jones in an interview that Mr. Trump should consider invoking the Insurrection Act.In the weeks before the riot, the notion was prevalent among militia members and other hard-right supporters of Mr. Trump. It has surfaced repeatedly in evidence that federal prosectors and the House committee have obtained during their investigations into the Capitol attack.In December 2020, Stewart Rhodes, the leader of the Oath Keepers militia group, wrote an open letter to Mr. Trump in which he called on the president to “use the Insurrection Act to ‘stop the steal,’” begin seizing voting data and order a new election.“Clearly, an unlawful combination and conspiracy in multiple states (indeed, in every state) has acted to deprive the people of the fundamental right to vote for their representatives in a clear, fair election,” Mr. Rhodes wrote, adding, “You, and you alone, are fully authorized by the Insurrection Act to determine that such a situation exists and to use the U.S. military and militia to rectify that situation.”Stewart Rhodes, the leader of the Oath Keepers militia group, wrote an open letter to Mr. Trump in which he called on the president to “use the Insurrection Act to ‘stop the steal.’”Jim Urquhart/ReutersIn text messages and social media posts ahead of the Capitol riot, other Oath Keepers members also discussed the possibility of Mr. Trump invoking the Insurrection Act. Two of them, Jessica Watkins and Kelly Meggs, the head of the militia’s Florida chapter, have been charged in connection with the attack.And Mr. Rhodes sent armed men to a hotel in Virginia on Jan. 6 to await Mr. Trump’s order, which the militia leader said would nullify Washington gun restrictions and allow the group to take up arms and fight for the president.The House committee, which has interviewed more than 850 witnesses, is charged with writing an authoritative report about the events that led to the violence of Jan. 6 and coming up with legislative recommendations to try to protect American democracy from a repeat. Though their recommendations are likely to garner widespread attention, they are not guaranteed to become law.One such recommendation is almost certainly to be an overhaul of the Electoral Count Act, which Mr. Trump and his allies tried to use to overturn the 2020 election. In recent weeks, the panel has begun discussing whether to call for revisions to the Insurrection Act, which empowers the president to deploy troops to suppress “any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination or conspiracy.”The changes under discussion could add a higher and more detailed threshold for a president to meet before he could deploy troops domestically, including requiring consultation with Congress.“Essentially, the former president threatened by tweet to send in the armed services to take over civilian governments, because he saw things that he didn’t like on TV,” Ms. Lofgren said, referring to Mr. Trump’s threats to invoke the Insurrection Act in response to racial justice protests. “That’s not really the history of the use of the act, and maybe more definition of terms might be in order.”The last time lawmakers turned their attention to a potential overhaul of the Insurrection Act was after Mr. Trump threatened in 2020 to invoke it to crush protests that spread across the country after a white police officer killed Mr. Floyd, an unarmed Black man, in Minnesota.“If a city or state refuses to take the actions necessary to defend the life and property of their residents, then I will deploy the United States military and quickly solve the problem for them,” Mr. Trump said then. White House aides drafted a proclamation to invoke the Insurrection Act in case the president followed through with the threat.Capitol Riot’s Aftermath: Key DevelopmentsCard 1 of 3Debating a criminal referral. More