Gorsuch at SCOTUS Give up the State of Oklahoma?

So many news reports on the recent decisions of the Supreme Court as the session came to a close and those that did reach the news were covered as they were political in scope. But one very consequential majority opinion authored by Neil Gorsuch did not have any coverage at all it is will ripple through law offices and lobbyists as well as other states for years to come. It may also come down to Congress to resolve the land claims and treaties.

Supreme Court sneaks in another Indian Country case to the ...

The case comes from an Indian-American convicted for rape. He was sentenced to over 1000 years plus life. After so many motions and appeals, one such filing reached the Supreme Court. This will be argued in many state legislatures, by owners of property, by tax revenue experts and by corporations especially those in the oil industry. Jimcy McGirt vs. Oklahoma lawsuit

<span class="caption">The eastern part of Oklahoma, about half of the state's total land, was granted by Congress to Native American tribes in the 19th century, and is still under tribal sovereignty, the Supreme Court has ruled.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="link rapid-noclick-resp" href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Okterritory.png" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank" data-ylk="slk:Kmusser, based on 1890s data/Wikimedia Commons">Kmusser, based on 1890s data/Wikimedia Commons</a>, <a class="link rapid-noclick-resp" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank" data-ylk="slk:CC BY-SA">CC BY-SA</a></span>The eastern part of Oklahoma, about half of the state’s total land, was granted by Congress to Native American tribes in the 19th century, and is still under tribal sovereignty, the Supreme Court has ruled. Kmusser, based on 1890s data/Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA

Land in eastern Oklahoma that the United States promised to the Creek Nation in an 1833 treaty is still a reservation under tribal sovereignty, at least when it comes to criminal law, the Supreme Court ruled on July 9. Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote for the majority, “Because Congress has not said otherwise, we hold the government to its word.”

To most Americans, it may seem obvious that a government should live up to its word. But the United States has regularly reneged on the promises that it made to American Indian nations in the nearly 400 treaties that it negotiated with them between 1778 and 1871. Many people feared that the Supreme Court would turn a blind eye to another treaty breach in this case, McGirt v. Oklahoma.

For decades, the state of Oklahoma has prosecuted tribal citizens for committing crimes on lands in eastern Oklahoma that the United States granted to tribes in treaties. In 1997, Jimcy McGirt, a citizen of the Seminole Nation, was convicted in an Oklahoma state court of three sex crimes, including rape, that happened within the historic territory of the Creek Nation. He was sentenced to 500 years in state prison.

McGirt argued that the judgment was invalid because under an 1885 federal law, only federal courts – not state courts – have the authority to try American Indians accused of committing serious crimes on Indian reservations.

Who has jurisdiction?

In response to McGirt, Oklahoma had argued that even if the treaty granting land to the Creek Nation created a reservation, that treaty was no longer relevant. Oklahoma claimed that the lands, which included the places where McGirt’s alleged crimes happened, were no longer under tribal jurisdiction.

As the case made its way through state courts and then to the Supreme Court, Oklahoma claimed that even if the land was within the Creek reservation and therefore under Creek Nation jurisdiction, the state should be allowed to continue to prosecute tribal citizens on the land because it had done so for decades.

But the Supreme Court ruled that the terms of an 1833 treaty still apply, acknowledging that the Creek Nation had received the lands in eastern Oklahoma as partial compensation for surrendering and leaving their lands in what are now parts of Alabama, Georgia, Florida and South Carolina. The court affirmed that the Creek lands in Oklahoma land remain the tribe’s reservation.

Gorsuch wrote, in a 5-4 decision supported by justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, that the state’s prosecutions of American Indians for crimes on the tribe’s reservation violated federal law and the Creek Nation’s treaty rights.

“Unlawful acts, performed long enough and with sufficient vigor, are never enough to amend the law,” he wrote. “To hold otherwise would be to elevate the most brazen and longstanding injustices over the law, both rewarding wrong and failing those in the right.”

For Oklahoma, the ruling means the state cannot continue to prosecute tribal citizens on tribal lands – which includes about half of Oklahoma’s territory because the Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw and Seminole nations have similar treaties with the United States granting them land in Oklahoma, too.

The state had argued in court that the ruling would cause all sorts of problems with law enforcement and the economy in Oklahoma. But within hours of the ruling, state officials and leaders of the five American Indian nations had released a joint statement assuring the public that they are negotiating agreements that will fix any problems that might arise.

The statement declared that all the authorities “are committed to ensuring that Jimcy McGirt … and all other offenders face justice for the crimes for which they are accused.” Under the Supreme Court decision, McGirt faces retrial by a federal court.

Beyond Oklahoma, the decision’s effects will vary by tribe and state. States from Florida to Michigan have sought to curtail tribal sovereignty, and this decision clearly affirmed tribal sovereignty and treaty rights. It also emphasized the limited powers that states have over American Indian tribes under the U.S. Constitution. States may now think twice before ignoring treaty promises or challenging tribal jurisdiction.

They may decide it’s better to negotiate than to fight in court.

This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit news site dedicated to sharing ideas from academic experts.

 

Law Enforcement Surveillance of BLM/Protests Goes Tech AI

Meet Dataminr, the leading artificial intelligence platform for real-time event and risk detection. In a world characterized by unexpected and rapidly moving events that can impact operations in innumerable and unforeseen ways, relevant information can surface anywhere at any time. Dataminr discovers, distills and delivers alerts from the increasingly diverse and complex landscape of publicly available information—including social media, blogs, information sensors, and the dark web—ensuring that businesses have the knowledge they need to act with confidence.

Build the Movement to Defeat Racism!/¡Construir un ... source

Back in January, The New York Post had a short article on how the NYPD on Monday was ordered to respond to a request for records related to its surveillance of Black Lives Matters protestors’ cell phones and social media.

The secret police documents were among a Freedom of Information Law request by the New York Civil Liberties Union on behalf of Millions March NYC, an activist group affiliated with the Black Lives Matter movement.

But, the Glomar response kicked in. What is that? It is used often actually. It is where an agency refuses to confirm or deny the existence of responsive records. The term “Glomar” originates from a case related to the CIA’s classified Glomar Explorer project, in which the agency sought to recover materials for military and intelligence purposes from a sunken Soviet submarine in the Pacific Ocean.

George Floyd protests: Trump blames 'antifa' for violence ... source

It is not just about Black Lives Matter, add in ANTIFA, The Youth Liberation Front and Boogaloo among others, perhaps even MS-13.

Okay, circling back to Dataminr.

Leveraging close ties to Twitter, controversial artificial intelligence startup Dataminr helped law enforcement digitally monitor the protests that swept the country following the killing of George Floyd, tipping off police to social media posts with the latest whereabouts and actions of demonstrators, according to documents reviewed by The Intercept and a source with direct knowledge of the matter.

Dataminr helps newsrooms, corporations, and governments around the world track crises with superhuman speed as they unfold across social media and the wider web. Through a combination of people and software, the company alerts organizations to chatter around global crises — wars, shootings, riots, disasters, and so forth — so that they’ll have a competitive edge as news is breaking. But the meaning of that competitive edge, the supercharged ability to filter out important events from the noise of hundreds of millions of tweets and posts across social media, will vary drastically based on the customer; the agenda of a newspaper using Dataminr to inform its breaking news coverage won’t be the same as the agendas of a bank or the FBI. It’s this latter category of Dataminr’s business, lucrative government work, that’s had the firm on the defensive in recent years.

In 2016, Twitter was forced to reckon with multiple reports that its platform was being used to enable domestic surveillance, including a Wall Street Journal report on Dataminr’s collaboration with American spy agencies in May; an American Civil Liberties Union report on Geofeedia, a Dataminr competitor, in October; and another ACLU investigation into Dataminr’s federal police surveillance work in December. The company sought to assure the public that attempts to monitor its users for purposes of surveillance were strictly forbidden under its rules, and that any violators would be kicked off the platform. For example, then-VP Chris Moody wrote in a company blog post that “using Twitter’s Public APIs or data products to track or profile protesters and activists is absolutely unacceptable and prohibited.” In a letter to the ACLU, Twitter public policy chief Colin Crowell similarly wrote that “the use of Twitter data for surveillance is strictly prohibited” and that “Datatminr’s product does not provide any government customers with … any form of surveillance.”

Dataminr continues to enable what is essentially surveillance by U.S. law enforcement entities, contradicting its earlier assurances to the contrary, even if it remains within some of the narrow technical boundaries it outlined four years ago, like not providing direct firehose access, tweet geolocations, or certain access to fusion centers.

Dataminr relayed tweets and other social media content about the George Floyd and Black Lives Matter protests directly to police, apparently across the country. In so doing, it used to great effect its privileged access to Twitter data — despite current terms of service that explicitly bar software developers “from tracking, alerting, or monitoring sensitive events (such as protests, rallies, or community organizing meetings)” via Twitter.

And despite Dataminr’s claims that its law enforcement service merely “delivers breaking news alerts on emergency events, such as natural disasters, fires, explosions and shootings,” as a company spokesperson told The Intercept for a previous report, the company has facilitated the surveillance of recent protests, including nonviolent activity, siphoning vast amounts of social media data from across the web and converting it into tidy police intelligence packages.

Dataminr’s Black Lives Matter protest surveillance included persistent monitoring of social media to tip off police to the locations and activities of protests, developments within specific rallies, as well as instances of alleged “looting” and other property damage. According to the source with direct knowledge of Dataminr’s protest monitoring, the company and Twitter’s past claims that they don’t condone or enable surveillance are “bullshit,” relying on a deliberately narrowed definition. “It’s true Dataminr doesn’t specifically track protesters and activists individually, but at the request of the police they are tracking protests, and therefore protesters,” this source explained. There is much more detail here from The Intercept.

So, if law enforcement in various locations has a partnership with Dataminr, it puts to question why destructive protests of an ongoing basis continues to happen costing lives, injuries and ruining business and livelihoods. Ah that is a question for governors, mayors, prosecutors and judges but you can be assured that in many cases arrests have been made and investigators have additional tools for build cases against alleged criminals.

So, if there is to be law and order and any kind of restoration to community peace or civil society, tools such as Dataminr are valuable that is if the unlawful acts are prosecuted in the first place.

 

 

Deputy Assistant AG Tashina Gauhar Notes on Gen. Flynn

Primer: Tashina Gauhar has her fingerprints on all kinds of cases too, check here.

Michael Flynn bombshell: FBI believed he was ‘forthcoming’ and ‘telling truth,’ notes show

Michael Flynn seeking to withdraw guilty plea - POLITICO source

Long withheld notes of senior DOJ, FBI officials suggest former Trump adviser did not commit crime as Robert Mueller claimed.

Months before Michael Flynn was charged with the lying to agents, the FBI told the Justice Department the Trump national security adviser was “very open and forthcoming” in his interview and believed he was telling the truth about his contacts with Russia, according to long withheld government notes that sharply contrast with the criminal case Robert Mueller eventually filed.

FBI agents told senior DOJ officials at a Jan. 25, 2017 meeting that Flynn was “telling truth as he believed it” and that he “believe[d] that what he said was true,” according to handwritten notes taken by then-Deputy Assistant Attorney General Tashina Gauhar that were belatedly turned over to Flynn’s defense this month.

The agents also believed Flynn was “being forthright” during his interview and simply didn’t remember some facts from his calls with the Russian ambassador during the post-2016 election transition, Gauhar wrote in the notes. A separate DOJ memo described Flynn as “very open and forthcoming” during the interview.

You can read the notes here:

Copies of the notes from Gauhar, former FBI agent Peter Strzok, who led the Russia collusion case, and former DOJ and FBI official Dana Boente were made public in a court filing over the weekend, adding to a large body of belatedly released evidence that suggested the FBI did not believe it had grounds to charge Flynn with a crime as news media were reporting at the time.

In fact, Boente stated in handwritten notes dated in March 2017 that the FBI had concluded Flynn wasn’t an agent of Russia. “Do not view as source of collusion,” Boente wrote.

Likewise, the notes show DOJ did not believe it could prosecute Flynn under the Logan Act, lone of the laws that was leaked as a possible Flynn liability in the media. “No reasonable pros to Logan Act,” one of the entry in the notes declared.

The notes also confirm previously released evidence showing the FBI planned on Jan. 4, 2017 to close down its investigation of Flynn but then reversed course.

Remarkably, the FBI claimed to DOJ the reason it kept the Flynn probe open and interview him was because a news media leak of a classified transcript of his call with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak.

The “media leaks” about the calls being intercepted brought the “investigation in the open” and “changed the dynamic,” the notes quote FBI officials as saying.

Months after the conversations recorded in the notes, Mueller’s team struck a plea deal that required Flynn to plead guilty to lying in the interview.

Both Flynn’s lawyers and the DOJ have asked the judge to negate his guilty plea and drop the charges based on the new evidence of innocence that was recently made public.

In a filing making the new notes public, Flynn attorney Sidney Powell said the new evidence provide “even more reasons requiring dismissal of the case.”

Have you Heard about the Youth Liberation Front?

PORTLAND — Shortly before 1 a.m. on July 5, as protesters braced for more long hours on the streets in Oregon’s largest city, the Pacific Northwest Youth Liberation Front took to Twitter with a stern declaration.

Be like water, keep moving.

If you see someone smashing windows, shut the (expletive) up.

Walk, don’t run. Hold the front and back lines.

In this July 1 photo, protesters feed plywood and pallets into fires around Portland’s historic Elk Fountain, donated to the city in 1900. The damage that evening to the foundation resulted in the statue’s removal until repairs can be done. (Hal Bernton / The Seattle Times)

Well after protests against police have faded in many American cities, the Pacific Northwest Youth Liberation Front has emerged in Portland as a persistent militant voice, using social media to promote rallies, and offering tactical advice and commentary on gatherings that often have ended in confrontations with the police and arrests.

The conduct they champion has ignited a bitter debate about the direction these protests have taken in an ongoing drama that plays out nightly in front of the Multnomah County Justice Center and later in largely empty streets defined by block after block of boarded-up buildings. The core of downtown — in the aftermath of the coronavirus pandemic and the demonstrations — appears drained of much of the vitality that has long helped to define this Northwest city.

This June 15 sidewalk fire near businesses was one of more than 140 set during the protests that began in Portland in late May.  It was put out by firefighters soon after this photo was taken. Later that evening, a second fire was set on a narrow street between two apartment buildings, causing concern from residents before it, too,  was put out by firefighters.  (Hal Bernton / The Seattle Times)

For the Youth Liberation Front’s anonymous leaders, these protests are part of the revolution. They are resolutely anti-capitalist and anti-fascist, and express disdain for those who work for reform within what they view as a failing political system.

In a podcast interview last October, three of their leaders, one of whom identified himself as still in high school, said they were spurred to activism over a range of issues that included climate change, law enforcement misconduct and the rise of right-wing hate groups.

They have affiliates in Seattle and other U.S. cities, and have gained thousands of new social media followers as they launched into promoting protests over the May 25 police killing of George Floyd. Recently on social media, they have displayed a battle-hardened bravado, scornful not just of baby boomers but white millennials who they view as too often unwilling to put their bodies on the line in protests.

A June 18 tweet from the group: “We are a bunch of teenagers armed with ADHD (attention deficit hyperactivity disorder) and yerba mate — we can take a 5 a.m. raid and be back on our feet a few hours later … we’ll be back again and again until every prison is reduced to ashes and every wall to rubble.”

They are by no means the only group that has organized protests in Portland: Big gatherings that attracted tens of thousands of people, and ended peacefully, were largely put together by others.

But they have been among the most outspoken, combining organizing skills and street savvy in what has evolved into a grueling more-than-40-day marathon for protesters and law enforcement officials who often stay on duty until deep into the early morning hours.

In court filings in U.S. District Court, county officials estimate that damage costs to the Justice Center building, as well as a nearby courthouse that on July 3 had 15 more windows shattered, will exceed $284,000. There have been 140 arson fires, most in trash bins, on the streets or sidewalks. But they also included a May 29 fire inside a first-floor office of the Justice Center, a high-rise that includes a county jail.

In July, protesters have focused more attention on the federal courthouse next to the Justice Center. The U.S. Attorney, in a July 6 filing, charged seven protesters with defacing the building and assaulting federal officers.

In Portland’s downtown area on May 29, some protesters joined in looting stores. In the days that followed, they have broken windows in banks, restaurants and other businesses and the glass in four doors of the side entrance to the historic Arlene Schnitzer Concert Hall. Overall, this damage exceeds $4.5 million, according to documents filed by county and city officials in U.S. court.

Statues also have been defaced with graffiti and damaged.

On July 1 protesters lit fires fueled by plywood and pallets around a downtown Portland landmark — the Elk Fountain — located within sight of the Justice Center where police are based. The damage forced the statue’s removal.

In social media posts, Youth Liberation Front leaders portray acts of vandalism as part of the broader struggle to make big changes in America. They reject any effort — by police or other groups — to divide the protest movement into those who are peaceful and those who turn to violence.

“The Pigs are in a PR battle so they say there’s a difference from ‘peaceful’ and nonviolent protesters. When in fact what we are fighting is the ultimate form of violence, making any and all resistance self and community defense,” the Youth Liberation Front tweeted.

In interviews during protests, some youthful participants embraced those views.

“With real change comes a lot of collateral damage,” said one young man who attended a late-night protest and declined to give his name.

Both police and protesters face scrutiny

As the protests wear on, both police and protesters have, on occasion, come under harsh criticism.

On June 26, protesters set a Dumpster on fire and pushed it up to the side of a northeast Portland building that housed minority-owned businesses and a police precinct station, where people were inside and had to contend with an exit door barricaded shut from the outside. Two suspects, an 18-year-old white man and a 22-year-old Black man, have since been arrested.

Video filed by police in court show that this was a controversial action even among protesters on the scene.

“Put that goddamn fire out, that is a Black building, Black business,” said one voice in a video filed by Portland city officials in U.S. District Court and posted online by The Oregonian.

The next day, Black community leaders lined up outside the building to denounce the arson.

“I know whoever was behind this thinks they were doing it — or perhaps are trying to have us think they were doing it — in the names of Black Lives Matter,” said Tony Hopson, president of Self Enhancement Inc., an organization that assists youth in poverty. “We know that it was just the opposite. Not only was it not about Black Lives Matter. It was against Black Lives Matter.”

Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler joined them, calling the arson “blatant criminal violence — violence that is totally unacceptable.”

Less than a week later, police were taking heat from a prominent state politician.

Oregon House Speaker Tina Kotek, a Democrat who represents North Portland, lashed out at them for “the utter inability to exercise restraint” in a response to a July 1 protest in her district. In front of a police union building, officers used tear gas that spread to motorists despite a U.S. District Court restraining order restricting its use to times when life and safety are at risk. The police also arrested three journalists, and Kotek said the police conduct represented an unnecessary escalation against people exercising their freedom of assembly.

In response, Daryl Turner, union president of the Portland Police Association and who is Black, accused “a small number of individuals” of having “hijacked the racial equity platform of peaceful protests.” In a follow-up statement, Turner declared their “destructive and chaotic behavior defines the meaning of white privilege.”

Chris Davis, a deputy chief of the Portland Police Bureau, at a July 8 briefing with reporters, said that officers have been pushed longer and harder than he has ever seen during what he termed an “unprecedented” stretch of protests that have injured more than 100 people, including police.

Davis said police have been hit with frozen water bottles, rocks and other objects, had paintballs spatter their face shields, and been harassed with laser lights that can damage eyesight. He said there are still no excuses for police failing to live up to the organization’s standards, and some conduct concerns have been referred to an independent review and the bureau’s professional standards commission.

Legacy and new prominence

The Youth Liberation Front, from early on, has favored secrecy. The group’s leadership appears to embrace the radical Northwest legacy of the “black bloc” whose acts of vandalism roiled the 1999 Seattle protests during a meeting of the World Trade Organization.

The group launched a Twitter account in May 2018, and gained more prominence in September of 2019 as its members helped organize a walk out of Portland high school students to draw attention to climate change.

The next month, three of the leaders — two young men and a young woman — spoke anonymously in a podcast produced by It’s Going Down, a “digital community center for anarchist, anti-fascist … anti-capitalist and anti-colonial movements.”

In the podcast they talked about how they brought 250 masks to a September climate march, where they helped persuade peers — skittish about identifying with anarchists, black bloc and the anti-fascist movement — to shield their identities and join their fight.

“There are a lot of youth … who have the idea of … anti-capitalism, anti-racism already in their mind,” said an organizer. “But the idea of like Antifa, the idea of masking up is what scares them away … What we did with the climate strike is let them know that we don’t do this to be intimidating or threatening. We do it to protect ourselves and show solidarity.”

By the time Portland joined in the nationwide protests against George Floyd, the Youth Liberation Front was adept at mobilizing its supporters. But as its social media following grew, as did its reputation, it drew new scrutiny from within the activist community.

“Lots of folks have been reaching out concerned that we’re putting our majority white voices over POC (people of color) organizers that have been doing this work longer than us all,” said a June 7 post on the group’s Facebook page. “I apologize for the lack of communication and transparency on our part, and there is really not an excuse … all we can do is learn from mistakes and the criticisms from the community, and grow as people.”

The group did not respond to an email request from The Seattle Times for an interview.

A ‘Night of Rage’

In Portland, the evening of July 7 was billed in a Pacific Northwest Liberation Front Facebook post and tweet as a “Night of Rage for Summer Taylor,” a solidarity vigil in front of the Justice Center .

Taylor, 24, who was drawn to work at a veterinary clinic by a love of animals, was killed during a protest in Seattle earlier this month by a man who maneuvered his car onto a closed stretch of Interstate 5, drove around barriers and barreled into demonstrators. Another person was seriously injured.

The driver, Dawit Kelete, is charged with vehicular homicide, vehicular assault and reckless driving. He told jail officials he was withdrawing from Percocet and struggled with “untreated addictions.”

The protest of July 7 unfolded in an uneasy mix of suspicion and reflection.

Several of the early speakers got a cool reception from some of those gathered near the Justice Center. They hadn’t been to some of the earlier downtown protests, and were thought to be trying to tamp down the militancy of the movement, several protesters told a reporter.

In a nearby park, people gathered around a circle of candles lit in memory of the lost life. There was a moment of silence as a banner was held up that declared “Rest in Power in Summer Taylor.”

Then, some of the protesters picked up a familiar refrain “ACAB” — or All Cops are Bastards — and another that linked Mayor Wheeler’s name to an obscenity.

A woman opted out of the chants. “It’s not about Ted Wheeler. It’s not about the police. That’s not the reality of what happened to Summer Taylor.”

About 15 minutes before midnight, federal law enforcement officials made a brief appearance, firing two flash bangs, then retreating into a building. The crowd reacted like someone had poked a stick into a beehive, hurling insults that would continue deep into the night.

Cold War with China Escalating due to S. China Sea?

South China Sea dispute - INSIGHTSIAS source

WSJ/HONG KONG—The U.S. plans to for­mally op­pose a swath of Chi­nese ter­ri­to­r­ial claims in the South China Sea, ac­cord­ing to peo­ple fa­mil­iar with the mat­ter, as Wash­ing­ton takes a harder line against Bei­jing’s ef­forts to as­sert con­trol over the strate­gic wa­ters.

While Wash­ing­ton has pre­vi­ously said it sees Bei­jing’s ex­pan­sive sov­er­eignty claims over most of the South China Sea as un­law­ful, the State De­part­ment is pre­paring to is­sue a po­si­tion pa­per that of­fi­cially re­jects spe­cific Chi­nese claims for the first time, the peo­ple said.

Such a ges­ture de­parts from past U.S. prac­tice of not tak­ing sides on ter­ri­to­r­ial dis­putes in the South China Sea, the peo­ple said.

The pa­per could be is­sued this week, the peo­ple said, just af­ter the fourth an­niver­sary of a 2016 rul­ing by an in­ternational tri­bunal that found no le­gal ba­sis for Bei­jing’s claims to his­toric and eco­nomic rights in most of the South China Sea.

Re­cently, the Trump ad­min­is­tra­tion has crit­i­cized Bei­jing for as­sert­ing “un­law­ful mar­itime claims” in the South China Sea while ramp­ing up naval op­er­a­tions to chal­lenge those claims This month, the U.S. sent two air­craft car­ri­ers to par­tic­i­pate in one of its largest naval ex­er­cises in re­cent years in the South China Sea—at the same time that China was hold­ing drills in the area.

The State De­part­ment didn’t im­me­di­ately re­spond to re­quests for com­ment.

China has re­peat­edly re­jected the rul­ing, is­sued by a tri­bunal at the Per­ma­nent Court of Ar­bi­tra­tion in The Hague fol­low­ing a le­gal chal­lenge brought by the Philip­pines in 2013. Bei­jing didn’t take part in the tri­bunal, which it has in­sisted had no ju­ris­dic­tion on the mat­ter. In­stead, China con­tin­ued ef­forts to build ar­ti­fi­cial is­lands around dis­puted South China Sea fea­tures and for­tify them with weaponry.

At the time of the rul­ing, the Obama ad­min­is­tra­tion called on rel­e­vant par­ties to re­spect it while stat­ing that the U.S. doesn’t take sides on spe­cific ter­ri­to­r­ial dis­putes in the South China Sea. Wash­ing­ton has long in­sisted that it has an in­ter­est in main­tain­ing free­dom of nav­i­ga­tion in the area.

In the pa­per, the U.S. would state that “Chi­na’s mar­itime claims pose the sin­gle great­est threat to the free­dom of the seas in mod­ern his­tory,” ac­cord­ing to a draft seen by The Wall Street Jour­nal. “We can­not af­ford to re-en­ter an era where states like China at­tempt to as­sert sov­er­eignty over the seas,” the draft said.

The U.S. re­jects a num­ber of Chi­nese claims to cer­tain ar­eas and fea­tures in the South China Sea that are also claimed by South­east Asian coun­tries, in­clud­ing Brunei, Ma­laysia, In­done­sia, the Philip­pines and Viet­nam, ac­cord­ing to the draft.

Wash­ing­ton also states its view that Chi­nese ef­forts to “ha­rass South­east Asian fish­ing or hy­dro­car­bon de­vel­op­ment, or to uni­lat­er­ally un­der­take such ac­tiv­i­ties on its own, in these ar­eas, are un­law­ful,” ac­cord­ing to the draft.

***

The U.S. is not a party of the UN Law of the Sea treaty that sets out a mechanism for the resolution of disputes. Despite that, the State Department noted that China and its neighbors, including the Philippines, are parties to the treaty and should respect the decision.

The United States has no claims to the waters but has deployed warships and aircraft for decades to patrol and promote freedom of navigation and overflight in the busy waterway.

China claims almost all of the South China Sea and routinely objects to any action by the U.S. military in the region. Five other governments claim all or part of the sea, through which approximately $5 trillion in goods are shipped every year.

China has sought to shore up its claim to the sea by building military bases on coral atolls, leading the U.S. to sail warships through the region in what it calls freedom of operation missions. More here.