People rarely announce irrelevance unless the relevance has occurred to them. The Business Plot’s pretext was that FDR’s health was failing and he should be reduced to a figurehead while someone else ran things. Setting aside whether any current concerns are warranted, the parallel to recent 25th Amendment and cognitive decline arguments against sitting presidents is obvious enough that ‘no relevance for today’ seems to be a bit of a misread.
Since it's commodities it would be the CFTC, but it would be trivial since brokers are required by law to collect KYC information on all futures trades and anyone holding positions above the Large Trader Reporting threshold (a few hundred contracts for crude) is already disclosed to the CFTC by name. 7,990 lots of Brent in a one minute window is enormously above that threshold.
Open source or not, there’s a strong argument that using someone’s API key to make unauthorized requests is a violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. Using their GitHub credentials to submit PRs without consent is also unauthorized use of access credentials.
The “thoughtless design vs. malice” framing by Anthropic is generous. Shipping formulas that target steveyegge/gastown issues is intentional. Someone wrote those formulas, pointed them at the maintainer’s repo, and included them in the default install. Someone thought it was acceptable I guess because it’s open source?
The First Amendment applies to everyone on US soil, not just citizens. That’s settled law. The government can revoke visas for legitimate immigration violations, but it’s not allowed to use immigration machinery as a pretext to punish political expression. That’s exactly what they are doing. It looks like the courts will eventually put an end to this [0] but it won’t reverse the damage that’s already been done.
I’m generally receptive to point the finger at Google’s intentions but in their defense, administrative subpoenas frequently include non disclosure orders. Google’s own transparency policies have always carved out (industry standard) exceptions for cases where they’re legally prohibited from notifying.
Technically incorrect, Supreme Court precedent has held that aliens are entitled to lesser First Amendment protections while seeking to enter the United States. You could be on US Soil (i.e. entering customs at an airport) and those protections don't apply.
The person in question said he was in Geneva when he received the email from Google. Therefore is a non-US citizen residing outside the country entitled to 1A protections for something they said or did while in the US? I'm not expressing an opinion but I wouldn't take that statement as legal advice.
To condone what happens to him, you must first condone that your government lists and identifies people attending opponent meetings.
Whether the government waits for him to leave the country to violate his rights feels like a small detail in this issue.
Also, if you intend to claim that us foreigners are free targets for any abhorent behaviour of your government, maybe you should rename your bill of rights a bill of privileges.
It has nothing to do with condoning. It has everything to do with stating what the law is And what is or is what is not required to comply. And what is and what is not permitted under the Constitution. Whether you like it or not has nothing to do with anything.
Whoa! I’d slow down with the hypotheses, considering we have one side of the story.
What we do know is that the US, like all other countries, has wide legal latitude on not allowing foreigners into the country. You can be denied entry for no more than a Facebook like of the wrong post.
The policy of applying US immigration enforcement actions against legal visa holders who have attended specific legal (US based) protests has been publicly reported and confirmed by many government officials and is unrelated to anyone trying to enter the country.
Senior ICE officials have testified under oath in federal court that analysts were moved from counterterrorism, global trade, and cybercrime work to this group focused specifically on writing reports about people involved in student protests.
Yes? Why would a government allow people who aren't citizens to come in and protest on its soil about its actions? I think that's the definition of forgein interference.
The United States has no motive in the constitution or otherwise to let anyone in who behaves in a hostile manner to the country, it's people, or its government.
It's basic rationality. To argue otherwise is to argue that the US has no right to defend itself against external hostile attackers. Utter absurdity. What's the point of a country if it must allow anyone and everyone to enter?
Criticizing the government is not hostility. Its wanting to move towards a better country. This is EXACTLY what the 1st amendment is intended to protect. Whether the legal system decides it applies here is one question, but there are heaps of documents and communications between founding fathers and other figures making this clear. Many of those folks were immigrants themselves. So the idea that it wouldn't apply to legal immigrants is wildly out of line with the founding ethos of the country.
I think on average, outside perspectives are less well-informed than inside ones. It's a decent first-pass filter for quality, despite its inaccuracy.
I see this frequently as an engineer: my pet peeve is the "can't we just..." from someone who has no idea how the system works. Occasionally they're correct that we could make a trivial change to make something work... But most times, that "just" is hand-waving away days/weeks of effort. On the other hand, when "can't we just ..." is uttered by someone else on the same team, they're usually correct that the change is indeed trivial.
In this case, "outside" vs "inside" is actually a good proxy for how informed or accurate the opinion actually is.
Another good example is the stereotypical "expert in a field who thinks their expertise trivially transfers to unrelated fields".
To put it more simply: the distinction exists because outsiders are very frequently blind to the internal complexity of something (a system, an idea, etc), but are still willing to confidently assert their ideas anyway, leading to a frequent association of "outsider" with "poorly-formed opinions".
>
The United States has no motive in the constitution or otherwise to let anyone in who behaves in a hostile manner to the country, it's people, or its government.
Here we are back at the same argument that I just brought:
The definition of what "hostile" is is very arbitrary and can be defined to suit your political agenda.
In the US, the bill of rights and specifically the first amendment unambiguously applies to anyone who is lawfully present in the country, citizen or not.
Yes, and this person had left the US, needed permission to reenter, and thus the Secretary of State had the power to deny entry because it "wasn't in the interest of the country".
> The policy of applying US immigration enforcement actions against legal visa holders who have attended specific legal (US based) protests has been publicly reported and confirmed by many government officials and is unrelated to anyone trying to enter the country.
So in this context, the GP asked “Why would a government allow people who aren't citizens to come in and protest on its soil about its actions?” and that was the question I’m answering. The answer is: because preventing someone who is already in the country lawfully from protesting violates the constitution.
The EFF letter tends to line up with this guy’s story, though.
Also, since google complied without giving him the ability to challenge the request, we will never have another version. In that context, it feels fair to accept the only version we have.
The events he was likely targeted for happened on a campus in the US.
Yes, someone in customs at an airport can be treated as functionally “at the border” with reduced protections.
But you are conflating seeking entry with being present inside the country. That’s the legal line, and the Supreme Court has stated it clearly. “once an alien enters the country, the legal circumstance changes, for the Due Process Clause applies to all ‘persons’ within the United States, including aliens, whether their presence here is lawful, unlawful, temporary, or permanent.” [0]
As for the First Amendment specifically the Supreme court has reversed the deportation order of an Australian labor activist due to alleged Communist Party affiliation, concluding that “freedom of speech and of the press is accorded aliens residing in this country” [1]
The Geneva detail doesn’t apply. He was on US soil as a lawful visa holder when he attended the protest. It’s a question of where he was when the government action targeted his protected expression not where he was when Google emailed him.
His departure doesn’t retroactively strip the constitutional protections that applied when the conduct occurred.
> Yes, someone in customs at an airport can be treated as functionally “at the border” with reduced protections. But you are conflating seeking entry with being present inside the country. That’s the legal line, and the Supreme Court has stated it clearly.
At least in terms of being "at the border", United States v. Martinez-Fuerte would appear to disagree.
That legal line you mention is both figuratively and literally not at the border; protections are weakened up to 100 miles away.
> ... it’s not allowed to use immigration machinery as a pretext to punish political expression. That’s exactly what they are doing.
I agree: this is exactly what the administration is doing.
> I’m generally receptive to point the finger at Google’s intentions but in their defense, administrative subpoenas frequently include non disclosure orders.
Except immigration aren't allowed to put gag orders on administrative subpoenas [1]:
> First, any gag order in these subpoenas has no legal effect; you are free to publicize them and inform the target of the subpoena.
and
> The agency’s administrative subpoena power is limited, but ICE often uses the subpoenas to obtain more assistance than is legally required
This is the key problem. Companies like Google aren't making government agencies go to court to get a subpoena, they're not resisting that subpoena, they're not informing targets when they're legally allowed to and they're giving agencies more assistance than is legally required.
I don't think it's asking a lot to expect any platform to only provide the minimum legally required cooperation.
I sincerely don't understand why deportation is called a punishment in this discussion.
As in any country in the world, US immigration law operates on the principle that a foreigner is granted a PRIVILEGE to be in the US. Or this privilege is denied with no reason whatsoever. Just because it is a PRIVILEGE.
When someone is deported for participating in protests, they are still literally in a better position than the BILLIONS of people who want to be in the US but who are denied this privilege without any justification.
Why do we think this man was punished by the United States, at the same time thing that the BILLIONS of people the US arbitrarily bans from being in its territory were not punished? Compared to those billions, he rather have been granted the privilege of being on US territory (for a while).
Even assuming your incorrect framing of immigration as a privilege (You may as well say parents give their kids the privilege of going to play with their friends so grounding is not a punishment) consider the following.
It would be a privilege for me to give you a parachute for free. If you jump out of a plane with that privileged parachute, then it turns out to be a backpack with a sheet in it, what are your thoughts? Now you may not necessarily feel the word punishment fits in me giving you a backpack instead of a parachute, but you do see that I'd be the one in the wrong in that situation and that you are considerably worse off than before? I could wax lyrical about how thousands of people are in the air above the ground every day while jumping about, it doesn't change the fact that your position 3000ft in the air is a lot worse than those 2ft of the ground if you don't have the privilege of a free parachute you thought you had.
> I don't think it's asking a lot to expect any platform to only provide the minimum legally required cooperation.
It is asking a lot. They can do minimum legally required things for environment, users, communities, charities and so on. This would be considered very hostile behavior. And companies don't do that.
So why would they be doing minimum required cooperation with government just because some people do not like government or its actions.
When you're a huge company trying to do business in the US (or any country, for that matter) you have to think very, very carefully before you make an enemy of the government. Google could refuse to go along with this stuff and find itself the subject of a big, expensive anti-trust probe.
Or more simply, a target of a temper tantrum that suddenly declares them a national risk and orders everyone in the government to stop doing business with them.
Not just temper tantrums. This has been happening since the patriot act. Even during Obama’s term where there were obviously no temper tantrums - telco’s were strong armed into sharing call data with the government.
So while the current presidents language is more colorful and entertaining the policy is at least a couple of decades old.
I think it could easily be argued that the reverse is true. Even Donald Trump would think twice about taking on Google. He might bluster about them on Truth Social, sure, but America is a corporatocracy and I'd put my money on Google.
Yes, I know there are examples where he is trying to screw with big corps like Anthropic. But Anthropic is not Google.
But the odds of getting the majority vote in the Republican-controlled House and 2/3 majority vote in the Republican-controlled Senate required to remove Trump from office are unlikely to be any better.
At least not until Republican primary voters start voting out pro-Trump Republicans in favor of candidates who don't pledge unwavering loyalty to a President who openly opposes institutions they (the voters) hold dear, like the free market, say, or the Pope.
Or just bite the bullet and vote for a Democrat they may agree with less, but trust more.
I wouldn’t say “would likely abide”, I would say “will abide” based on their actions. They are nothing but an extension of the Trump administration at this point.
> Does this administration care to much about the law?
As a European my opinion of Trump could not be any lower, but it is my understanding that they have complied with all court orders to date (with some being contested all the way to the Supreme Court). They are certainly testing the authority limits of various courts and congressional processes, but they have complied with all legal processes to date.
I don't think this is accurate. According to the New York Times¹ (among numerous other sources), the government has defied court orders at least a small double-digit number of times.
"At least 35 times since August, federal judges have ordered the administration to explain why it should not be punished for violating their orders in immigration cases."
“All” might be a stretch but the idea that they just do what they want regardless of what the courts say is just incorrect propaganda. And continuing to find creative ways to defy court orders is something every administration does. And my opinion of the administration is low also, I just don’t like the propaganda and have never understood why we need to make up things about them when there’s so much to dislike that isn’t fictional.
Wasn't the tarrifs thing one of the things he did illegaly and thats why they are now getting paid back?
Whats with the documents he put in his toilet?
Destroying the east wing. Its too late now right but shouldn't he followed some procedure?
I probably have plenty other examples but thats probablyh enough to get more insight. For me these cases feel like a mix of certain other parts should have steped in but have been ignored by trump and instead of doing their job, they don't because they all are either afraid or just behind trump. If this is the case, it might not be illegal but whats the right word then?
For the tarrifs, it feels like it should be clear that the way they did it was illegal but the law is just slow and because again the other parts aren't complaining, its not as illegal as it should be?
Nope, the original tariffs were under IEEPA, then Supreme Court ruled they didn't have authority to use IEEPA, so they had to drop those tariffs and start working on refunds. It'd only have been illegal if they kept the tariffs after the ruling.
Lot of propaganda & emotions around this straightforward chain of events.
Under this reasoning, it's not illegal to just take things from stores (stores hate this one simple trick). If you're caught and your specific actions are then adjudicated to be illegal, at that point you can just start making a plan to bring the items back (even if some are used/damaged/etc) and everything is fine.
In reality of course, the actions were illegal the whole time. The big festering problem is that there is no actual punishment for government agents who break the law.
Wikipedia on IEEPA: "An Act with respect to the powers of the President in time of war or national emergency. "?
I mean thats very wishi washi. So are we both aligned that it looks like missuse? Because if its only about a word definition of no its not illegal what he did but a clear missconduct than it feels like word play.
None of those are examples of violating a court order, in fact the first is an example of following one. The second happened when he was out of office. The third is ongoing.
I definitely did not say he doesn’t get ruled against by the courts.
There’s discussions in a (thankfully banned) sub thread pulling this into question so I just wanted to add sources:
> The short-form video-hosting service TikTok was under a de jure nationwide ban in the United States from January 19, 2025, until January 22, 2026, due to the US government's concerns over potential user data collection and influence operations by the government of the People's Republic of China. However, the ban was not enforced. The ban took effect after ByteDance, the China-based parent company of TikTok, refused to sell the service before the deadline of the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act (PAFACA). Prior to the ban, individual states, cities, universities, and government-affiliated devices had restricted TikTok.
The executive branch explicitly defied an act of Congress which was upheld by the Supreme Court. First Biden for one day, then Trump II as he took office and continued not to enforce the ban.
>Now if you search for the USS Liberty, you get no results and instead a hardcoded link to a 'holocaust museum' website as the only result.
That's a lie. A search[0] shows these as the first three results:
USS Liberty incident - Wikipedia [1]
USS Liberty incident | Facts, Deaths, & Investigation | Britannica [2]
'We're Fed Up With It': Survivors of the USS Liberty Look for Answers [3]
In fact, the entire first page (and much of the second) of search results are specifically about the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty. There are no links to the Holocaust Museum anywhere to be found. Did you make up that lie yourself, or are you just blindly parroting what others tell you to believe?
Edit: Apparently (or at least that was claimed here[4]), GP was referring to searches on TikTok, not general web searches. I can neither confirm nor deny as I don't use that cesspit (or any other of those odious sewers). If it is true, it's just another good reason not to use that dumpster fire.
Since I'm old and don't use TikTok, I have no way to confirm or deny the results of searches on TikTok.
If what GP claims (I doubt it) is true, that's certainly a problem and another reason why folks shouldn't use an entertainment platform to get their news.
This is far from reality. In truth the Trump administration has been ignoring court orders time and time again. Don't repeat lies.
> That does not end the Court’s concerns, however. Attached to this order is an appendix that identifies 96 court orders that ICE has violated in 74 cases. The extent of ICE’s noncompliance is almost certainly substantially understated. This list is confined to orders issued since January 1, 2026, and the list was hurriedly compiled by extraordinarily busy judges. Undoubtedly, mistakes were made, and orders that should have appeared on this list were omitted. This list should give pause to anyone—no matter his or her political beliefs—who cares about the rule of law. ICE has likely violated more court orders in January 2026 than some federal agencies have violated in their entire existence.
I am not a lawyer, but I think the Trump administration is not complying with:
0. "DOJ acknowledges violating dozens of recent court orders in New Jersey" [0]
1. In Minnesota, judges reported 94 court-order violations in January and, separately, one judge identified 210 orders in 143 cases where ICE had not complied. [1]
Does the government need a reason to revoke a persons visa? First amendment or not, that is the real question. If no reason is needed then whether the first amendment applies or not is moot.
There seems to be broad discretion that the government has in revoking visas.
This makes sense but then the outcome of this is all theatrical. What will happen in future is that people have their visas revoked without any comments or reason given. There is no legal requirement to list a reason. It will end up the same as employment law, where people can discriminate and break the law as long as they don't tell the applicant they are doing so.
No the government can't just revoke a visa because Trump doesn't like your face, the reasons must be based in law and there is the pesky thing called due process that needs to be followed. I am honestly flabbergasted that people think the government can just do willy billy.
While this may be good practical advice, it's the principle that matters.
The Administration is testing how far it can go and today it's non-citizens, tomorrow it's citizens.
In fact citizens' rights have already been violated, for example, with numerous reports of Native Americans getting picked up by ICE. DHS goons drunk on power don't care about racial profiling. They have quotas to fill!
So, next you'll say:
"Should have known better than to look Mexican in front of that Home Depot.."
"Should have known better to look Mexican out on the street.."
I have the feeling that this is simplifying something.
I do agree that if someone would come to my country on a visa for studing, I don't think its okay for them to protest stuff. It feels disrespectful even if i'm aligned with that persons politics.
On the other hand, i expect us all to have a acertain amount of personal freedom on our planet and protesting itself is part of this, same as free speech.
In this context of the USA: USA is a country grifted by us europeans. It has land, resources etc. Just because USA now fully formed, somehow I do have the feeling that I should be allowed to also become a USA citizien (not for the social system, USA is fucked) but for the reason of also benefiting from that land (great nature, lots of space, etc.).
When getting a visa you're basically asked to agree to America's terms of service. Violations can be found pretty easily in the fine print if someone is really looking.
From there it's the same administrative work to revoke and deport as it is to say ban someone from Twitch for saying the wrong thing.
Because adding an organization to that list is (effectively) entirely at the whim of the current administration. They could add your Scrabble club if they wanted to.
I think settled law may be that it applies to everyone in the US, but the settled reality is that none of the amendments apply to anyone, and more generally, there are no human rights in the US.
I’m a First Amendment absolutist and AFAIK foreign students can protest, but this video shows to me it probably crosses the line into something else. Exactly what, I have no opinion.
Okay, but is being present at a protest where others push through a barrier enough for the first amendment to no longer apply or do we know he was one of the people doing the barrier breaking? The original post implies he bailed out after only 5 minutes - quite possibly because he wasn't on board with the (relatively mild) escalation. At this point, we don't know. But if he did cross that line, he should be criminally prosecuted like the students with American citizenship (if they even are...) and not presumed guilty being punished via the immigration system without any kind of trial.
Can we charge all Jan 6ers with the murder or manslaughter of the congressional security police officers?
There's the case of the getaway driver in a bank robbery that resulted in murder also getting murder, and that is basically what the two poster up is advocating for.
The police would've been justified in arresting everyone present the second they broke through the door with the explicit intent of disrupting the career fair. This is exactly the kind of mayhem and violence that the police exist in order to deter; if the police were unwilling or unable to arrest the protesters, the event organizers should have done so.
But that is not what is happening, and they have stated that they were at the event for a short period of time, quite possibly at the portion that didn’t occur inside the event.
The willingness to assume one version of events, and then go down that path to award consequences, is premature.
It sounds like you're trying to shift the legal goalposts of "peaceful" into something more like "inoffensive" or "respectful" or "polite".
For example, you have a First Amendment right to "peacefully" hurl the most awful insults you can think of at a police officer.
If that police officer feels "antagonized"--or even if your goal was to hurt their feelings--that does not permit them to abuse the special power of their workplace to attack you. If they try anyway, now that's a real crime.
P.S.: Supposing you went beyond rude, like violating a noise-ordinance with a megaphone, or "littering" with pamphlets, or trespassing to chain yourself to a tree... The First Amendment bars authorities from going: "Ah hah! Now I can sneak in some punches for that shit you said earlier!"
No, that's simply not allowed to be part of it. There is no crime where "saying stuff that pissed the policeman off" is an enhancing factor. It's difficult, but that's why we pay them the big bucks for a job that's safer than landscaping or bartending or delivering food.
In practice this abuse of authority occurs because we live in an imperfect world... But it's still evil, and we shouldn't accept it or endorse it.
While the rest of your comment is sound, the police do not make "big bucks" by any stretch of the imagination and there's a serious citation needed for the job being less dangerous than the ones you listed. I am pretty sure I have never read multiple news articles like "landscaper shot while sitting in vehicle filling paperwork" or "armed man commits suicide by bartender".
I have numerous friends and acquaintances in this career field. Policing is a dangerous job, just not for everyone all the time on the whole. The barrier to entry is low and highly competitive but the selection process is a suboptimal filter. The pay isn't great compared to so many other things, but it's similar to the military in that qualified people show up and get trained to do the job which leads to an entire career, just without all the big downsides of military life. All these things combined is why bad apples can get into positions of authority and commit abuses.
>Policing is a dangerous job, just not for everyone all the time on the whole
Actually, it doesn't even make the top 25[0]. So no, not really all that dangerous. Being around police, especially with a high melanin content is definitely more dangerous than being police.
To channel George Carlin: "It's not that I don't like the police, I just feel better when they're not around."
Policing is not a particularly dangerous job, police are people with fragile egos.
Cops are violent towards their intimate partners at a rate many many many times typical. Something like 25-40% of cops are abusers.
Sources:
Johnson, L.B. (1991). On the front lines: Police stress and family well-being. Hearing before the Select Committee on Children, Youth, and Families House of Representatives: 102 Congress First Session May 20 (p. 32-48).
Washington DC: US Government Printing Office.
Neidig, P.H., Russell, H.E. & Seng, A.F. (1992). Interspousal aggression in law enforcement families: A preliminary investigation. Police Studies, Vol. 15 (1), p. 30-38.
Feltgen, J. (October, 1996). Domestic violence: When the abuser is a police officer. The Police Chief, p. 42-49.
Lott, L.D. (November, 1995). Deadly secrets: Violence in the police family. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, p. 12-16.
Oehme, K., et al. (2011). Protecting Lives, Careers, and Public Confidence: Florida's efforts to prevent officer-involved domestic violence. Family Court Review 84, 85.
They wear masks in case their political opponents take exception to their actions and hunt them down later and hurt their families.
(This seems like an extremely dubious justification to me, but I've been told on HN that this is the reason that ICE wear masks, so why wouldn't it apply here...?)
"Settled law" isn't a matter of opinion and it doesn't mean it can't be reversed or overturned. It means the potential legal ambiguity at question has been adjudicated by the Supreme Court (or lower courts without higher court intervention), and that ruling is the operative interpretation that governs how every court below applies the law.
> The government can revoke visas for legitimate immigration violations, but it’s not allowed to use immigration machinery as a pretext to punish political expression.
What is the punishment though? According to the article (written by the same person whose data was subpoenaed) they are still around, alive, safe and sound in geneva, not even formally accused of anything.
So far there is only evidence of an investigation.
And pro-pal movements arr usually pro-terrorism, so it make sense to investigate.
The court invalidated IRC Sections 5601(a)(6) and 5178(a)(1)(B), finding they go beyond Congress’s taxation powers. The court’s reasoning was that these provisions amount to an “anti revenue provision” that prevents distilled spirits from coming into existence, since under 26 U.S.C. § 5001(b) taxation begins as soon as the spirit exists, so banning production eliminates the taxable event entirely.
I like the analysis of "necessary" and "proper" sections of this opinion. Hopefully, this ruling gets expanded to other circuits and eventually leads to the US Supreme Court ignoring stare decisis with regard to wickard v filburn and let it be thrown in the dust bin of history.
If someone were inclined to attempt producing nefarious agents in this category, is this not also available on the plain web? I would search to answer my own question, but I'll defer that task for obvious reasons.
I had to build a custom harness for this (also with the assistance of slightly less jailbroken AI). But you can just work your way up until you have something that's genuinely useful towards any goal.
A more accurate reading is that Israel violated the day old ceasefire with a surprise attack that produced the highest Lebanese casualty count since the current conflict began. [0]
From the article:
Israel carries out its largest strikes in Beirut
Israel carried out its largest attack in Lebanon since the start of the war last month, after asserting that the U.S.-Iran ceasefire deal did not include its fight against Lebanon's Iran-backed militant group Hezbollah.
A series of Israeli airstrikes hit multiple neighborhoods in the heart of Beirut during morning rush hour, causing panic around the capital.
Lebanon's health minister said 89 people were killed and 722 wounded, as they continued pulling people out of the rubble.
Israeli military spokesperson Lt. Col. Nadav Shoshani explained why Israel made a surprise attack. "Leading up to this operation, we've seen Hezbollah disperse over different areas, taking advantage of the warnings that we provide for civilians to also hide for themselves among the civilians, moving, trying to scatter their operations in different locations and to hide behind civilian locations," he said.
[0] Point 10 of the ceasefire: -
"Cease-fire on all fronts, including Israel’s conflict with Hezbollah in Lebanon."
reply