Latest news with #SealTeamSix
News18
17-05-2025
- Entertainment
- News18
American Manhunt Osama Bin Laden X Review: Fans Call It The ‘Most Badass Documentary'
Last Updated: The three-episode series, directed by Mor Loushy and Daniel Sivan, follows the decade-long search for Osama bin Laden after attacks on New York City on September 11, 2001. Amid much anticipation, the third edition of the true crime anthology series American Manhunt: Osama bin Laden was finally released on Netflix on May 14. The three-episode series, directed by Mor Loushy and Daniel Sivan, follows the decade-long search for Osama bin Laden, the founder of the extremist organisation al-Qaeda, after he carried out the horrific attacks on New York City on September 11, 2001. Ever since the series' premiere on OTT giant, social media users have been sharing their reviews for the same on X, with some calling it the 'most badass documentary." One of the users, in his review for the anthology series, wrote, 'American Manhunt: Osama Bin Laden is the most badass documentary I've ever seen. Literally rewatched the entire thing immediately after finishing it. Phenomenal." "American Manhunt: Osama Bin Laden" is the most badass documentary I've ever seen. Literally rewatched the entire thing immediately after finishing it. Phenomenal 👏🏼— Sarah Jones (@sarahelizjones8) May 17, 2025 Another comment on the series read, 'Just watched Netflix American Manhunt for Osama Bin Laden, it was very much detailed, very surreal, it was point by point, event by event, it was overall a very good job. After more than a decade, justice was delayed but justice served. Bravo ex-president Obama." Just watched Netflix American Manhunt for Osama Bin Laden, it was very much detailed, very surreal, it was point by point, event by event, it was overall a very good job. After more than a decades, justice was delayed but justice served. Bravo ex-president Obama.— bunnyqueen (@ako_swerte) May 17, 2025 Seemingly impressed, an individual added that she lives for such documentaries. Her comment read, 'I live for documentaries like these. American Manhunt: Osama Bin Laden on Netflix is SO good. Also, that's why I love Zero Dark Thirty so much." Just finished American Manhunt Osama Bin Laden on Netflix. Extraordinary documentary— jacob (@frostedjakes22) May 17, 2025 Watching American Manhunt: Osama Bin Laden. Gotta give a big shot out to all the intelligence officers involved. Especially Seal Team Six. You all are true American Hero's. God Bless.— CodeOfTruth (@CodeOfTruth323) May 17, 2025 About September 11, 2001 On the tragic day, out of four planes hijacked by terrorists, two crashed into the World Trade Center in New York City, another into the Pentagon in Washington and the remaining fourth into a field near Pennsylvania. The coordinated attacks, carried out by al-Qaeda militants based in Afghanistan, resulted in the death of over 3000 people, including passengers, crew members of hijacked planes, people in the targeted buildings, police officers, firefighters and others. Right after the horrific attacks, a global manhunt was launched to look for Al-Qaeda head Osama, based in Afghanistan. The series explores the ten-year search for bin Laden through interviews with key US government officials who were involved in the operation. The series delves into the extensive efforts made by various agencies to track the terrorists down. First Published:
Yahoo
04-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Opinion - Are Trump and Musk killing all the lawyers?
'The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers' is one of William Shakespeare's most famous lines. President Trump hasn't called up Seal Team Six to kill any yet, but he has fired a lot of them and gone after still more. Justice John Paul Stevens, in a 1985 opinion, noted that the line is uttered by 'a rebel, not a friend of liberty,' and that 'Shakespeare insightfully realized that disposing of lawyers is a step in the direction of a totalitarian form of government.' Trump doesn't like lawyers, at least ones he isn't retaining to defend him in court. In Trump's first term, government lawyers repeatedly advised him that he could not do the things he sought to do. In Trump 2.0, the lawyers who might say, 'You can't do this, Mr. President' have been given their walking papers. Trump has sacked the upper echelon of career lawyers in the Justice Department in an orgy of termination, even as he filled the leading posts with his own former defense attorneys. He sidelined the department's venerated Office of Legal Counsel, bypassing its traditional role of vetting draft executive orders and appointing no acting chief. Last month, Attorney General Pam Bondi added to the purge, sacking the top lawyer at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, a 23-year veteran of the agency. This metastatic purging of lawyers has also spread to the Pentagon. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth fired the top judge advocates general. As three-star lawyers in uniform, JAGs give independent and nonpolitical advice about the laws of war and domestic legal constraints that Congress has imposed on the armed forces. Trump doesn't like judges either; the ones who decide against him are just 'woke' lawyers in robes. His attacks on the judiciary dangerously undermine the rule of law. Trump's allies don't like judicial decisions adverse to the administration either. After a New York judge issued a temporary restraining order barring Elon Musk's access to Treasury Department systems, Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) declared, 'This has the feel of a coup — not a military coup, but a judicial one.' Temporary restraining orders and injunctions are hardly revolutionary. We teach about them in every law school in the country. Such orders freeze the status quo for a short time, so that the judge can get the information he or she needs to make a more considered decision about whether a further stay during the pendency of the case is merited. Musk, cruder than Lee, takes things a step further. He calls on judges to be impeached just because he doesn't like their decisions. Then, in a transparent effort to destabilize the judiciary, he calls for judges to be fired, ignoring the fact that the Constitution gives them life tenure. Federal judges do not serve at the pleasure of Musk. Musk is now obsessed with the idea of impeaching judges, posting about it constantly on his social media site: 'The only way to restore rule of the people in America is to impeach judges. No one is above the law, including judges.' This is utter nonsense, but it is dangerous nonsense. What set Musk off is that a federal judge in Maryland issued a temporary restraining order blocking the Department of Education and the Office of Personnel Management from sharing sensitive records with his DOGE outfit. Later, another judge gave the government until March 10 to provide information about DOGE's problematic activities at the Treasury Department. There are about 100 active lawsuits currently challenging Trump's torrent of executive orders. Many of these have resulted in temporary injunctions or restraining orders, and there are certainly more to come. Trump wants to investigate everyone in sight, and an inquisition requires a Torquemada. Enter Ed Martin, a 2020 election denier, now acting and soon to be Trump's nominee for U.S. Attorney in Washington. Martin took to his job with a political relish that could not escape attention. He sacked some 30 attorneys who had worked January 6 Capitol riot cases, then ordered some of his remaining prosecutors to investigate their own colleagues for potentially committing an unspecified crime by prosecuting those defendants in the first place. What crime did these lawyers conceivably commit, except to uphold their duty to the Constitution and the rule of law? And the icing on the cake was yet to come. Martin vomited a post on Musk's X about how former Special Counsel Jack Smith had received $140,000 in free legal services from the august D.C. law firm of Covington and Burling, growling, 'Save your receipts, Smith and Covington. We'll be in touch soon.' Shocking! But what is the crime? Trump readily gave his blessing, stating that he'd be seeking vengeance on Covington, nullifying its security clearances and government contracts. No good deed goes unpunished. Justice Robert Jackson, while FDR's attorney general, delivered an oft-quoted speech on Dec. 1, 1940, called the 'Federal Prosecutor.' His words have become an article of faith. Jackson totally rejected the weaponization of the justice system, saying, 'If the prosecutor is obliged to choose his cases, it follows that he can choose his defendants. Therein is the most dangerous power of the prosecutor: that he will pick people that he thinks he should get, rather than pick cases that need to be prosecuted. … It is here that law enforcement becomes personal, and the real crime becomes that of being unpopular with the predominant or governing group, being attached to the wrong political views, or being personally obnoxious to or in the way of the prosecutor himself.' And it's not just the judges and the lawyers. Already the Trump administration has come for non-lawyer federal employees, transgender people, immigrants, the press, epidemiologists, scientists and more. Maybe one day soon they will come for you. James D. Zirin, author and legal analyst, is a former federal prosecutor in New York's Southern District. He is also the host of the public television talk show and podcast 'Conversations with Jim Zirin.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
04-03-2025
- Politics
- The Hill
Are Trump and Musk killing all the lawyers?
'The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers' is one of William Shakespeare's most famous lines. President Trump hasn't called up Seal Team Six to kill any yet, but he has fired a lot of them and gone after still more. Justice John Paul Stevens, in a 1985 opinion, noted that the line is uttered by 'a rebel, not a friend of liberty,' and that 'Shakespeare insightfully realized that disposing of lawyers is a step in the direction of a totalitarian form of government.' Trump doesn't like lawyers, at least ones he isn't retaining to defend him in court. In Trump's first term, government lawyers repeatedly advised him that he could not do the things he sought to do. In Trump 2.0, the lawyers who might say, 'You can't do this, Mr. President' have been given their walking papers. Trump has sacked the upper echelon of career lawyers in the Justice Department in an orgy of termination, even as he filled the leading posts with his own former defense attorneys. He sidelined the department's venerated Office of Legal Counsel, bypassing its traditional role of vetting draft executive orders and appointing no acting chief. Last month, Attorney General Pam Bondi added to the purge, sacking the top lawyer at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, a 23-year veteran of the agency. This metastatic purging of lawyers has also spread to the Pentagon. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth fired the top judge advocates general. As three-star lawyers in uniform, JAGs give independent and nonpolitical advice about the laws of war and domestic legal constraints that Congress has imposed on the armed forces. Trump doesn't like judges either; the ones who decide against him are just 'woke' lawyers in robes. His attacks on the judiciary dangerously undermine the rule of law. Trump's allies don't like judicial decisions adverse to the administration either. After a New York judge issued a temporary restraining order barring Elon Musk's access to Treasury Department systems, Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) declared, 'This has the feel of a coup — not a military coup, but a judicial one.' Temporary restraining orders and injunctions are hardly revolutionary. We teach about them in every law school in the country. Such orders freeze the status quo for a short time, so that the judge can get the information he or she needs to make a more considered decision about whether a further stay during the pendency of the case is merited. Musk, cruder than Lee, takes things a step further. He calls on judges to be impeached just because he doesn't like their decisions. Then, in a transparent effort to destabilize the judiciary, he calls for judges to be fired, ignoring the fact that the Constitution gives them life tenure. Federal judges do not serve at the pleasure of Musk. Musk is now obsessed with the idea of impeaching judges, posting about it constantly on his social media site: 'The only way to restore rule of the people in America is to impeach judges. No one is above the law, including judges.' This is utter nonsense, but it is dangerous nonsense. What set Musk off is that a federal judge in Maryland issued a temporary restraining order blocking the Department of Education and the Office of Personnel Management from sharing sensitive records with his DOGE outfit. Later, another judge gave the government until March 10 to provide information about DOGE's problematic activities at the Treasury Department. There are about 100 active lawsuits currently challenging Trump's torrent of executive orders. Many of these have resulted in temporary injunctions or restraining orders, and there are certainly more to come. Trump wants to investigate everyone in sight, and an inquisition requires a Torquemada. Enter Ed Martin, a 2020 election denier, now acting and soon to be Trump's nominee for U.S. Attorney in Washington. Martin took to his job with a political relish that could not escape attention. He sacked some 30 attorneys who had worked January 6 Capitol riot cases, then ordered some of his remaining prosecutors to investigate their own colleagues for potentially committing an unspecified crime by prosecuting those defendants in the first place. What crime did these lawyers conceivably commit, except to uphold their duty to the Constitution and the rule of law? And the icing on the cake was yet to come. Martin vomited a post on Musk's X about how former Special Counsel Jack Smith had received $140,000 in free legal services from the august D.C. law firm of Covington and Burling, growling, 'Save your receipts, Smith and Covington. We'll be in touch soon.' Shocking! But what is the crime? Trump readily gave his blessing, stating that he'd be seeking vengeance on Covington, nullifying its security clearances and government contracts. No good deed goes unpunished. Justice Robert Jackson, while FDR's attorney general, delivered an oft-quoted speech on Dec. 1, 1940, called the 'Federal Prosecutor.' His words have become an article of faith. Jackson totally rejected the weaponization of the justice system, saying, 'If the prosecutor is obliged to choose his cases, it follows that he can choose his defendants. Therein is the most dangerous power of the prosecutor: that he will pick people that he thinks he should get, rather than pick cases that need to be prosecuted. … It is here that law enforcement becomes personal, and the real crime becomes that of being unpopular with the predominant or governing group, being attached to the wrong political views, or being personally obnoxious to or in the way of the prosecutor himself.' And it's not just the judges and the lawyers. Already the Trump administration has come for non-lawyer federal employees, transgender people, immigrants, the press, epidemiologists, scientists and more. Maybe one day soon they will come for you. James D. Zirin, author and legal analyst, is a former federal prosecutor in New York's Southern District. He is also the host of the public television talk show and podcast ' Conversations with Jim Zirin.'
CNN
27-02-2025
- Politics
- CNN
At Senate hearing, Trump Justice Department nominees are cagey on whether they'd follow court orders
Two of President Donald Trump's nominees for senior Justice Department positions – including his former personal attorney – deflected questions Wednesday from senators on whether they would adhere to all court orders against the administration. An overriding question of the Trump administration, already facing a raft of litigation against the president's executive orders, is whether it would abide by court decisions. Trump and some of his top advisers have suggested they might not be constrained by adverse court rulings. 'There is no hard and fast rule about whether in every instance a public official is bound by a court decision,' Aaron Reitz, who has been tapped to serve as the head of DOJ's Office of Legal Policy, said in response to repeated questioning from the Senate Judiciary Committee. 'There are some instances in which he or she may lawfully be bound and other instances in which he or she may not lawfully be bound,' Reitz added. Reitz appeared alongside D. John Sauer, Trump's former personal lawyer, nominated to be the solicitor general, the government's top lawyer before the Supreme Court. Some of the tensest exchanges between Sauer and Judiciary Committee Democrats were over Sauer's defense of Trump's claim of immunity that went to the high court last year. 'There's a great fear among many people — academics and people in the legal profession – as to whether or not this president would defy a court order, which basically would put him above the law, at least in his own eyes,' said the panel's top Democrat, Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin. Sauer rejoined, 'I've represented President Trump for the better part of two years, and I just think that that's not a plausible scenario.' Sauer, 50, is a Harvard law graduate and Rhodes scholar who served as a law clerk to the late Justice Antonin Scalia. Before his began representing Trump in late 2023, Sauer was the state solicitor general of Missouri. He supported efforts to overturn Trump's election defeat in 2020 and was at the lead of much of the red-state litigation against the Biden administration. His earlier representation of Trump concerned some of his Democratic critics. 'You took the position as Donald Trump's lawyer that he could order Seal Team Six to assassinate a political opponent and not be prosecuted for it unless he was impeached first,' said Sen. Adam Schiff of California. 'Will that continue to be your position as the lawyer for the United States? Will you represent to the court that any prosecution should be dismissed if the president is not first impeached?' Sauer noted that the Seal Team Six scenario had been raised by a judge, and emphasized that he indeed said, 'that the president may be prosecuted for an action like that but under the plain language of the Impeachment Judgment Clause he must be first impeached and convicted by the Senate.' Schiff persisted in asking whether if Trump used his office to assassinate a political opponent and was not impeached for it, 'Would you defend against any prosecution as solicitor general?' Responded Sauer, 'The hypothetical you've offered, respectfully, is so outlandish I don't know if I'm in a position to address it.' But Sauer, overall, seemed on a glide path to confirmation in the Republican-controlled Senate. If so, as the new US solicitor general he would soon be positioned to take the lead in defending Trump's second term agenda before the nine justices. Durbin also pressed Sauer on whether a government official should 'be allowed to defy an official court order.' 'I don't want to speak to hypotheticals,' Sauer responded, 'especially hypotheticals that might come before me in an official capacity if I were confirmed by the Senate. Generally, if there's a direct court order that binds a federal or state official they should follow it.'
Yahoo
27-02-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
At Senate hearing, Trump Justice Department nominees are cagey on whether they'd follow court orders
Two of President Donald Trump's nominees for senior Justice Department positions – including his former personal attorney – deflected questions Wednesday from senators on whether they would adhere to all court orders against the administration. An overriding question of the Trump administration, already facing a raft of litigation against the president's executive orders, is whether it would abide by court decisions. Trump and some of his top advisers have suggested they might not be constrained by adverse court rulings. 'There is no hard and fast rule about whether in every instance a public official is bound by a court decision,' Aaron Reitz, who has been tapped to serve as the head of DOJ's Office of Legal Policy, said in response to repeated questioning from the Senate Judiciary Committee. 'There are some instances in which he or she may lawfully be bound and other instances in which he or she may not lawfully be bound,' Reitz added. Reitz appeared alongside D. John Sauer, Trump's former personal lawyer, nominated to be the solicitor general, the government's top lawyer before the Supreme Court. Some of the tensest exchanges between Sauer and Judiciary Committee Democrats were over Sauer's defense of Trump's claim of immunity that went to the high court last year. 'There's a great fear among many people — academics and people in the legal profession – as to whether or not this president would defy a court order, which basically would put him above the law, at least in his own eyes,' said the panel's top Democrat, Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin. Sauer rejoined, 'I've represented President Trump for the better part of two years, and I just think that that's not a plausible scenario.' Sauer, 50, is a Harvard law graduate and Rhodes scholar who served as a law clerk to the late Justice Antonin Scalia. Before his began representing Trump in late 2023, Sauer was the state solicitor general of Missouri. He supported efforts to overturn Trump's election defeat in 2020 and was at the lead of much of the red-state litigation against the Biden administration. His earlier representation of Trump concerned some of his Democratic critics. 'You took the position as Donald Trump's lawyer that he could order Seal Team Six to assassinate a political opponent and not be prosecuted for it unless he was impeached first,' said Sen. Adam Schiff of California. 'Will that continue to be your position as the lawyer for the United States? Will you represent to the court that any prosecution should be dismissed if the president is not first impeached?' Sauer noted that the Seal Team Six scenario had been raised by a judge, and emphasized that he indeed said, 'that the president may be prosecuted for an action like that but under the plain language of the Impeachment Judgment Clause he must be first impeached and convicted by the Senate.' Schiff persisted in asking whether if Trump used his office to assassinate a political opponent and was not impeached for it, 'Would you defend against any prosecution as solicitor general?' Responded Sauer, 'The hypothetical you've offered, respectfully, is so outlandish I don't know if I'm in a position to address it.' But Sauer, overall, seemed on a glide path to confirmation in the Republican-controlled Senate. If so, as the new US solicitor general he would soon be positioned to take the lead in defending Trump's second term agenda before the nine justices. Durbin also pressed Sauer on whether a government official should 'be allowed to defy an official court order.' 'I don't want to speak to hypotheticals,' Sauer responded, 'especially hypotheticals that might come before me in an official capacity if I were confirmed by the Senate. Generally, if there's a direct court order that binds a federal or state official they should follow it.'
