Latest news with #Panter
West Australian
01-05-2025
- Business
- West Australian
Shore Leave organisers say festival keeps getting better, estimating 5000 a day enjoyed this year's event
Organisers of the 2025 Shore Leave festival estimate 5000 people came through and soaked up the festivities each day, making it an 'unforgettable celebration of the Mid West'. The festival, which opened on Wednesday last week and ran until Sunday, was held for the fifth straight year, but 2025 marked the first time the event was run by a locally-based committee. One of the organisers, Joanne Panter from Checked Events, said the event, which the committee only had several months to turn around, 'exceeded all our expectations'. 'From sold-out events, to the Helm (pop-up HQ on the foreshore) that was packed every night and the markets. There were smiling faces everywhere and we received nothing but positive feedback,' she said. 'The energy across the whole weekend was incredible. We saw locals and visitors alike embracing the best of what this region has to offer — the food, the people, the coastline. It's been truly special. 'Our community turned out in force, and the support from local businesses, artists, chefs, and volunteers made all the difference. This festival keeps growing because of them.' Ms Panter said new events this year, such as the Adventurethon Treasurequest which had more than 70 teams, were popular and a huge success, adding to the event's appeal. Organisers also noted that accommodation across town was booked out and restaurants reported a booming trade during the festival.
Telegraph
24-04-2025
- Politics
- Telegraph
Are we about to see Trump pull the US Navy out of the western Pacific?
It didn't take Donald Trump and his cronies, including unelected billionaire Elon Musk, very long to begin dismantling US strategy and foreign policy that had endured for decades. Within weeks of taking the oath of office, Trump ended lifesaving food and medical assistance in poor countries, cancelled asylum for Afghans who'd assisted US forces and proposed a 'peace plan' for Ukraine that amounts to unilateral surrender to Russian demands. Equally absurdly, he threatened to invade and annex Canada and Panama. In that chaotic, increasingly despotic context, it's tempting to read any proposal for US withdrawal from longstanding security arrangements as part of Trump's institutional destruction. But one controversial take from Jonathan Panter, a Stanton nuclear security fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York City and a 'conservatism and governing fellow' at the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, actually makes cold hard sense. In an essay for War on the Rocks, Panter has forcefully argued for the US Navy to pull back from the western Pacific and reposition warships – currently forward-deployed to Japan and other friendly countries – closer to American shores. 'Naval forward presence – the practice of maintaining combat-credible naval forces worldwide to deter adversaries, reassure allies, respond to crises and perform constabulary functions for the global commons – has dominated US foreign policy since the 1990s,' Panter wrote. But the decades of forward presence has taken a toll on the cash-strapped US fleet as fewer and fewer warships and their crews work harder and harder in more distant locales. 'If the United States wishes to deter China, Beijing must believe Washington can fight a sustained, brutal war – one in which the US Navy can take major losses and still fight on,' Panter wrote. 'Today, that is not the case, and the concept of 'naval forward presence' bears much of the blame.' There are two basic approaches to naval deterrence. One: to keep ships on patrol in the likeliest conflict zones as a constant show of force. Two: to keep the same ships at home – and surge them into action only when it's time to fight. For decades, it was the consensus in US navalist circles that forward patrols were more effective as deterrence. The sight of an American warship, looming on the horizon, would surely make some aggressor think twice before doing something rash, right? Maybe, but forward presence comes at a cost. And while Panter's argument hinges on the material cost – the strain on hardworking ships and their crews at a time when the US Navy is struggling to grow its fleet – there's an equally compelling corollary. In short, forward-deployed ships are vulnerable to sneak attacks by China's growing missile arsenal and fast-improving submarine fleet. The Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington DC proved this vulnerability in its seminal 2023 war game simulating a Chinese invasion of Taiwan – and a US and allied intervention on Taiwan's behalf. 'Military doctrine calls for forward deployments to enhance deterrence during a crisis, but these forces make tempting targets,' CSIS warned. In most iterations of the war game, even the ones in which the Chinese invasion failed and Taiwan remained free, Chinese missiles – streaking down without warning in the first hours of the war – ultimately sank all of the roughly 50 major warships the US Navy sails from Japan. It would be safer for the Americans' Japan-based aircraft carrier and amphibious ships and their cruiser and destroyer escorts to return home to the US West Coast, wait out in the initial waves of Chinese attacks and then steam toward Taiwan to relieve the island nation's beleaguered defenders, CSIS concluded. American losses in ships and sailors were lightest when the US Navy 'did not push its fleet forward as a deterrent signal prior to the start of conflict.' The calculus favouring a US-based fleet that responds to crises over a forward fleet that attempts to deter them assumes the United States is actually interested in fighting for its allies. There's a dark third alternative: a withdrawn US fleet that escapes the attention of Chinese missiles during the opening barrages of an attack on Taiwan and then does … nothing. Last year, Trump famously threatened to let Russians do 'whatever the Hell they want in Europe.' And with his current push to end the Russia-Ukraine war on Russia's terms, he's actually making good on that threat. Given what we now know, do we believe Trump would mobilise the US military to fight for Taiwan? If not, the end of forward presence wouldn't represent some smart strategy for winning a war in the western Pacific. It would represent surrender in advance to whatever China aims to do in the region.
Yahoo
04-04-2025
- Yahoo
Acworth man sentenced to 20 years in prison for repeatedly, violently assaulting woman
An Acworth man was sentenced to 20 years in prison after being convicted of aggravated battery and family violence. According to the Cherokee County District Attorney's Office, Jonathon Bailey Panter, 26, was charged in February 2024 after he violently assaulted a woman multiple times. The DA's office said Panter and his victim lived at the same residence and after she sought medical treatment at a hospital, the Cherokee County Sheriff's Office became aware of the multiple assaults. [DOWNLOAD: Free WSB-TV News app for alerts as news breaks] 'She had bruises and abrasions on her legs, midsection, arms, neck and face,' the DA's office said in a statement. 'She also had petechial hemorrhaging in her eye, which is a sign of strangulation. She told CSO deputies that Panter beat her 'half to death.'' In mid-March, Panter was found guilty of the assault and family violence charges after prosecutors showed a jury nearly 90 pieces of evidence detailing the victim's injuries. TRENDING STORIES: Felon convicted again after bringing guns to Reinhardt University campus Sausage, pepperoni Pizza company partners with Google for upgraded ordering experience Man accused of killing teen carrying his child granted bond again On Wednesday, Panter was sentenced. Prosecutors recommended a 60-year sentence, with the first 35 years to be served in prison, but the judge sentenced him to 20 years. He was also banned from returning to Cherokee County and ordered to not contact the victim. 'The evidence we presented at the sentencing hearing showed that this defendant has demonstrated no remorse for his actions and continues to shift the blame onto others for the crimes he committed. His refusal to take responsibility underscores the necessity of a substantial prison sentence,' Assistant District Attorney Macelyne A. Williams, of the Domestic Violence Unit, who prosecuted this case on behalf of the State, said in a statement. Due to being a repeat offender, the DA's office said Panter would not be eligible for parole. 'This defendant violently attacked an especially vulnerable woman who felt she had no one to turn to, and nowhere else to go,' District Attorney Susan K. Treadaway said. 'This case is a powerful reminder of the devastating impact domestic violence has on victims and communities. We will continue to pursue justice for victims and work to make sure offenders are removed from our streets.' [SIGN UP: WSB-TV Daily Headlines Newsletter]
Arab Times
19-03-2025
- Politics
- Arab Times
US court filings keep Prince Harry's immigration forms secret
WASHINGTON, March 19, (AP): Heavily redacted court filings released Tuesday shed no fresh light on the circumstances under which Prince Harry entered the United States, the latest development in a legal fight by a conservative group that is pushing to find out whether Harry lied about past drug use on his immigration forms. U.S. Department of Homeland Security officials responded to a request from U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols by saying the records were being "withheld in full" and that all records are deemed "categorically exempt from disclosure.' The case has centered on the circumstances under which Harry - the Duke of Sussex and the son of King Charles III - entered the U.S. when he and his wife Meghan Markle moved to Southern California in 2020. The Heritage Foundation sued after DHS largely rejected its Freedom of Information Act request to release Harry's records. Harry is not a party in the lawsuit. Heritage has argued there is "intense public interest' in knowing whether Harry received special treatment during the application process, particularly after his 2023 memoir "Spare' revealed past drug use. Harry has not consented to having his records made public, said Shari Suzuki, an official handling Freedom of Information Act requests for DHS and Customs and Border Protection. "To release (Prince Harry's) exact status could subject him to reasonably foreseeable harm in the form of harassment as well as unwanted contact by the media and others," another official, DHS chief FOIA officer Jarrod Panter, wrote. Panter wrote that the Heritage Foundation bears "the burden of establishing that the public interest in disclosure outweighs an individual's personal privacy interests in their information and that a significant public benefit would result from the disclosure of the individual's records.' Panter's statement to the court includes multiple pages that are entirely blacked out. Harry wrote in "Spare' that he took cocaine several times starting around age 17. He also acknowledged using cannabis and psychedelic mushrooms. "It wasn't very fun, and it didn't make me feel especially happy as seemed to happen to others, but it did make me feel different, and that was my main objective. To feel. To be different,' he wrote. The U.S. routinely asks about drug use on its visa applications, a query that has been linked to travel headaches for celebrities, including chef Nigella Lawson, singer Amy Winehouse and model Kate Moss. Acknowledgment of past drug use doesn't necessarily bar people from entering or staying in the country, but answering untruthfully can have serious consequences. In a February hearing on the issue, Judge Nichols said he was seeking to strike a balance between revealing too much information in the DHS statements and redacting them to the point of meaninglessness. "There's a point where redactions would leave just a name or a date,' he said.
Chicago Tribune
19-03-2025
- Politics
- Chicago Tribune
US government court filings keep Prince Harry's immigration forms secret
WASHINGTON — Heavily redacted court filings released Tuesday shed no fresh light on the circumstances under which Prince Harry entered the United States, the latest development in a legal fight by a conservative group that is pushing to find out whether Harry lied about past drug use on his immigration forms. U.S. Department of Homeland Security officials responded to a request from U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols by saying the records were being 'withheld in full' and that all records are deemed 'categorically exempt from disclosure.' The case has centered on the circumstances under which Harry — the Duke of Sussex and the son of King Charles III — entered the U.S. when he and his wife Meghan Markle moved to Southern California in 2020. The Heritage Foundation sued after DHS largely rejected its Freedom of Information Act request to release Harry's records. Harry is not a party in the lawsuit. Heritage has argued there is 'intense public interest' in knowing whether Harry received special treatment during the application process, particularly after his 2023 memoir 'Spare' revealed past drug use. Harry has not consented to having his records made public, said Shari Suzuki, an official handling Freedom of Information Act requests for DHS and Customs and Border Protection. 'To release (Prince Harry's) exact status could subject him to reasonably foreseeable harm in the form of harassment as well as unwanted contact by the media and others,' another official, DHS chief FOIA officer Jarrod Panter, wrote. Panter wrote that the Heritage Foundation bears 'the burden of establishing that the public interest in disclosure outweighs an individual's personal privacy interests in their information and that a significant public benefit would result from the disclosure of the individual's records.' Panter's statement to the court includes multiple pages that are entirely blacked out. Harry wrote in 'Spare' that he took cocaine several times starting around age 17. He also acknowledged using cannabis and psychedelic mushrooms. 'It wasn't very fun, and it didn't make me feel especially happy as seemed to happen to others, but it did make me feel different, and that was my main objective. To feel. To be different,' he wrote. The U.S. routinely asks about drug use on its visa applications, a query that has been linked to travel headaches for celebrities, including chef Nigella Lawson, singer Amy Winehouse and model Kate Moss. Acknowledgment of past drug use doesn't necessarily bar people from entering or staying in the country, but answering untruthfully can have serious consequences. In a February hearing on the issue, Judge Nichols said he was seeking to strike a balance between revealing too much information in the DHS statements and redacting them to the point of meaninglessness. 'There's a point where redactions would leave just a name or a date,' he said.
