Funding for New Mexico in Focus is provided by: Viewers Like You >> Nash: This week on New Mexico in Focus, Trump's budget cuts again threaten the Institute of American Indian Arts in Santa Fe.

The school's new president catches us up.

>> Dr.

Lowe: They can come here, and they can focus on creating native art and ensuring that native cultures and native knowledge are carried forward.

>> Nash: Plus, a war powers expert at the UNM Law School dives into the constitutional and human rights concerns surrounding the president's ongoing military offensive in Iran.

New Mexico in Focus starts now.

Thanks for joining us this week, I'm Nash Jones.

Every news cycle seems to bring a fresh mix of horror and confusion from Iran, where President Donald Trump's war nears the two month mark now There have been aborted peace talks, a tenuous ceasefire, spikes and crashes in the world oil market, and a straight up threat to commit war crimes from Trump himself on social media.

Plus, thousands of people have been killed, many of them civilians.

But how was the president able to launch this war without congressional authorization in the first place?

And what's in place to ensure the president doesn't follow through with his promise to wipe out a quote, “whole civilization”?

Well, to help us understand how this is all supposed to work and how it's working instead, we sit down with an expert from the University of New Mexico School of Law.

Speaking of the news cycle, you may have seen a district court judge earlier this month ordered Republican State Representative Rebecca Dow, a key figure in GOP leadership at the Roundhouse, be removed from the ballot after allegations that she filed flawed paperwork in her reelection bid.

Well, on Tuesday, the New Mexico Supreme Court reinstated Dow's candidacy.

And tonight, we'll show you some of her defiant yet celebratory news conference from just after the justices ruled.

Later, Senior Producer Lou DiVizio will chat with Albuquerque Journal sports writer, Jeff Grammer.

On the menu, UNM athletics and their new Athletics Director, Ryan Berryman, who's been connected to Lobo Sports since he was a teenager.

Last month, outgoing university president Garnett Stokes pulled off the interim tag, which Berryman held since January, and made him one of the youngest AD█s in all of Division 1 sports.

Grammar and Lou look ahead to what Barryman's tenure could mean for the loboes on the football field, the basketball court and beyond.

But we begin in Santa Fe, at the Institute of American Indian Arts.

For more than 60 years, IAIA, as it's known, has fostered indigenous artists and made countless contributions to the cultural world.

And yet, for the second time in as many years, the Institute's future is uncertain as President Trump threatens to cut billions in funding for higher education, including more than $350 million from minority serving programs.

That puts IAIA squarely in the crosshairs.

Dr.

Shelly Lowe, the institute's newish president, has been here before.

She spent her first few months on the job, weathering that first threat of funding cuts that ultimately didn't materialize.

I headed to the Santa Fe campus this week for a chat with Lowe about her first year as president, whether she expects Congress to reject Trump's cuts again, and how this financial uncertainty has affected her students.

>> Nash: President Lowe.

Thanks so much for having us here in in the gallery.

>> Lowe: Yeah, Thank you.

Thank you for being here.

>> Nash: So, you took over for, President Robert Martin, who held this position for 20 years.

Just last summer.

Can you tell us just a little bit about yourself and how you came to this role?

>> Lowe: Sure.

So, I'm Navajo.

I grew up on the Navajo reservation, and I went to the University of Arizona.

I started my career working in higher education, primarily supporting native students, faculty, staff, and programs on campuses.

I spent my career working for about 15 years in Ivy League institutions at Yale and Harvard, and then I was recruited and brought down as a Biden appointee to chair the National Endowment for the Humanities for three years prior to coming here to IAIA.

So majority of my professional life has been in higher education, specifically supporting native students >> Nash: and what should those who aren't familiar with the institute know about its legacy, its history, its impact on indigenous arts more broadly?

>> Lowe: Well, I think the first I want individuals to know, is that we are extremely unique.

We are the only institution in the world who focuses solely on native arts and cultures, and native arts and cultures includes American Indian, Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian.

But we have students, indigenous students who come from all over the world.

They can come here, and they can focus on creating native art and ensuring that native cultures and native knowledge are carried forward through the work that they do.

The work that we do here, along with our Museum of Contemporary Native American Art, is very much focused on contemporary native art.

We have students who are kind of breaking the boundaries and creating new avenues and new ways to create this art and bring it to the world.

And a lot of people, they think about native art as a static kind of in the past, kind of a, entity that they look at.

But it's not in our students are constantly creating new forms of the art, but they're creating new ways of doing the art as well.

And a lot of people, I think, don't know that >> Nash: Totally well, as you took over as president of the institute.

There was a funding dispute in Washington.

The Trump administration had proposed zeroing you out.

Congress maintain your funding.

Just in January.

But yet again, Trump's proposed budget Zero's out.

I is federal funding.

How does it feel to grapple with this issue yet again?

Twice in two years and as the new president?

>> Lowe: So, you know, I came in fully understanding that the administration and the Trump administration had identified IAIA for a zeroing out of the budget.

So no federal funding coming, which is, you know, it made people very nervous.

About 75% of our operational funding comes from the federal government.

So that would be a big major hit and a blow to IAIA But what I also understand, having been in the federal government for three years prior, is that administrative priorities don't always match congressional priorities.

So that's when the institution, the the leadership, the board of trustees, many of our alum really hit the ground running and contacted their congressional members and told them about how important IAIA is.

And our congressional members are very aware of that, which is a nice thing.

You know, we've got so much support here in the state of New Mexico, so they understand the importance of funding.

I, as an institution, the history of the institution, as a congressional, a chartered institution, we were not surprised or I was not surprised that we were zeroed out again for the second year.

I think it was.

>> Nash: Why were you not surprised?

Well, because we knew that the administration was going to continue to try to decrease federal spending in the same way that they had attempted in the prior year.

So as far as I know, none of the programs that was, identified for zeroing out last year or given funding in this year's presidential budget, everything was zeroed out again.

So I don't think the administration priorities have changed at all.

I think that Congress, is very aware and continues to be aware of the importance of the institution and understands that, you know, where Congress wants to fund money from.

The federal government is going to be different from the administration.

>> Nash: How does going through all of this affect the way that you see the federal government valuing IAIA.

>> Lowe: So I don't think that it's the federal government in general that, doesn't see the value of IAIA it's very much specific to the administration at this, the executive branch, the executive branch, and it's not I don't think it has anything to do with the value of IAIA It's about finding those programs and those entities that can be cut to reduce federal spending.

>> Nash: And now, in a statement your administration called the proposed cut inconsistent with the federal government's treaty obligations and trust responsibility.

How so?

>> Lowe: But also their congressional responsibilities, right.

We're congressionally chartered, and we're chartered as an institution because native arts and cultures in this country are the original American arts and cultures.

And that's what it says in our legislation.

So, you know, ensuring that you continue to fund not just education for native people through treaties, but through your congressional appropriations and your congressional, laws that you have passed is extremely important.

And for me, it's a reminder, right?

It's having to remind those people who come into the administration, what is the history of this country?

Why are these things in place, and why is it important to keep moving it forward?

>> Nash: And now you've, mentioned the disconnect that you see between the executive branch and Congress.

Do you expect Congress to reject the cuts proposed by the Trump administration again?

>> Lowe: I expect Congress to prioritize where they think federal funding needs to go, and I do.

I am very hopeful and optimistic that IAIA is on that list for funding.

>> Nash: Now, if the cut did go through, what would that mean for the Institute?

>> Lowe: It would mean we'd have to really rally around and try to find some funding to make sure that we can do the support that we need to do for our students.

>> Nash: Is the school closing, possibility in that instance or there?

There are options available.

>> Lowe: I would my assumption is we are going to do everything that we can.

We will work to ensure that the institution remains open and that we can offer what we need to offer to our students.

>> Nash: through fundraising or what other means of funding is available.

>> Lowe: Always fundraising.

So we do have a foundation and we have a foundation board.

So we are constantly fundraising.

A lot of our fundraising right now is focused on student scholarship.

I mean, we really want to support students and ensure that they can get through IAIA with as little cost as possible, a lot of that would have to shift, and we'd have to start thinking about program funding.

>> Nash: So speaking of your students, I imagine that they're hearing about what's going on.

What what are you hearing from them?

>> Lowe: So we are actually this afternoon going to be doing a what's called the president's campus connect.

To have a conversation, just to present to them what's happening with our federal budget, what we think that we will see moving forward and to ensure them.

But, you know, we're always thinking about the institution and the institutional needs in terms of educating the students and giving them the programs that they need.

And we'll always keep that forefront in our minds.

And we're trying to ensure that we know where to find funding and to pull in support that we need.

>> Nash: Are you hearing any anxieties about needing a backup plan?

>> Lowe: Always.

But, you know, it's because the press comes and asks about the dire of the dire state of the institution, and then they hear that, >> Nash: well, we're we're curious about, you know, how the institute will weather these cuts if they're if they're happening and how you're preparing for them.

If they do, I definitely don't, ever mean to to create fear that doesn't exist.

>> Lowe: No we work very closely with our foundation and our board of trustees.

So, you know, this was, I think, a little bit of a surprise last year when the zeroing out of the budget was proposed.

But it's not a surprise this year.

And so we've been working very diligently to ensure that we're getting the support that we need.

>> Nash: President Lowe, thanks for your time.

>> Lowe: Thank you.

>> Dow: I'm very, very happy with the outcome.

This is the beginning -- it's still a -- contentious seat.

It's a it's a 50/50 seat, one of a few left, after dramatic gerrymandering by the people in power.

And so I'm going to go back and continue to earn the support of the voters who sent me here.

>> Nash: Thanks to Shelly Lowe for making some time to highlight what IAIA is facing.

We're going to keep you updated as we learn more.

The Cease-Fire in Iran.

President Trump extended this week hangs by a thread as I sit here today, Thursday morning.

More than 3000 Iranians have died since Trump unilaterally started the war on February 28th, including more than a thousand civilians, according to Iranian officials.

The military action has put the world economy on a tilt a whirl, and many argue it's further destabilize an already tenuous region.

Meanwhile, congressional Democrats have sought to wrest some of the nation's war making powers away from Trump, using a 1973 resolution that's borne little fruit since it was passed.

It's not working this time, either.

We wanted a primer on how all of this is meant to work according to the US Constitution, anyway.

So, Executive Producer Jeff Proctor brought in UNM law professor Joshua Katzenberg to explain.

Katzenberg is an expert on war powers, executive authority and the nation's founding document.

Here's Jeff.

>> Jeff: Professor Kastenberg, thank you so much for being here, and welcome to New Mexico in Focus.

>> Kastenberg: Thank you for having me on.

It's a real honor.

>> Jeff: I would prefer not to waste your time or my viewers time debating whether we are at war with Iran.

We are.

I█d like to -- >> Kastenberg: Can I interject?

>> Jeff: Sure, please.

>> Kastenberg: I agree with you.

So, there's no reason to debate that.

>> Jeff: Agreed >> Kastenberg: Okay.

>> Jeff: I would like to begin then by asking how that happened?

I don't mean historically.

I don't mean geopolitically.

I mean by what mechanism did we end up at war with Iran?

>> Kastenberg: Well, by the act of the president, with no congressional constraints whatsoever, to me, we ended up in this war, in full disregard of constitutional norms.

And what I mean by that, is the framers of the Constitution have a very explicit role for Congress, And that is to declare war.

And since World War II, that hasn't happened.

But in almost every prior conflict, that had some longevity to it, there was a congressional approval of that warfare.

>>Jeff: You skipped right past my next question, which is, what does the Constitution say about war?

But I'd like to ask this and dive just a little bit deeper there.

As we all know, the president very much set the chessboard in this particular instance, before the first rocket was launched.

He populated the Gulf with warships.

How does the Constitution or how did the framers define war?

Is the president given the latitude to do what he did in advance of beginning military operations?

>> Kastenberg: That's a great question.

So part of the constitutional construct, the philosophy underlying it, was based on the fear of standing armies.

And so the framers of the Constitution were well aware of what Oliver Cromwell had accomplished, what British monarchs after Cromwell had accomplished suppressing the liberties of the people.

And they understood that -- a president that sought military adventure from afar, you know, overseas was more likely than not to use the military domestically.

They understood the relationship between that.

So what they wanted was a very small standing army on the periphery of the country to either subjugate Native American populations or prevent them from returning to their homes, and also have just enough there to convince the British and Canada or the Spanish and Florida or the French in -- you know, the Louisiana Territory to leave us alone.

And if there was an invasion, the president could go to Congress, seek a declaration of war, and then call up the militia.

And the militia was supposed to be the backbone of the country's defense.

But the framers were very clear that they were against adventurism overseas.

And you see this with George Washington's, you know, farewell address on entangling and alliances and not going to war.

The Navy's a different story.

There's no fear of a standing navy.

The Navy is supposed to protect American commerce wherever it goes.

If the president seeks to expand American territory, he must have.

Or she must have.

Congress to do so.

That has to come through legislation.

So questions like, can you go and seize an island in the Strait of Hormuz?

Can you seize Greenland?

The answer is pretty clear from Mitchell versus Harmony, which is, you know, 1850 Eric Case, you cannot do that.

>> Jeff: The answer is no.

>> Kastenberg: The answer is no.

Exactly.

>> Jeff: I want to, wind the clock a bit you mentioned since World War two.

>> Kastenberg: Yeah.

>> Jeff: Let's talk a little bit about the War Powers Resolution, which of course came up right after the Paris Peace Accords as the Vietnam War was officially ending.

What is the War Powers Resolution and what was it meant to do?

>> Kastenberg: It was supposed to answer the question of who can stop a war Right.

That's what it was supposed to do.

It was supposed to be a reassertion of Congress's constitutional authority, but set in the modern- the realities of the modern world.

So a president, absent an invasion of the United States or a treaty provision like article five of NATO, had to consult with Congress within six days of a military action.

And if troops were to be kept in a foreign country beyond those normally appropriated for, like our basing in Europe and Japan, within 60 days there had to be a congressional vote or the troops had to come home.

And yet, every president, every single president since Nixon's veto has said that's unconstitutional, that law.

It's never been tested in the courts.

>> Jeff: Got it, That was going to be my next question.

So this is what the War Powers Resolution was supposed to do.

I was going to ask, how has that worked out for us so far, professor?

>> Kastenberg: Well, not particularly well.

And every president in theory, including, you know, one of the great humanitarians, Jimmy Carter, has been accused of violating it with Carter, it was using the Army Special Forces and Airlift Command to evacuate European nationals from Central Africa.

And yet members in his own party, you know, insisted that was a war powers violation.

If it was, it was the least egregious one.

But the war powers violation, you know, you think of, you know, Reagan and Lebanon as an example.

And that's a classic case that studied Obama and Libya.

That's a classic case, that study.

But in each of those, each of those events, there have been some wiggle room for congressional appropriations that have been passed to say, no, it's not quite a war powers violation.

We're not happy with it, but it's not quite there yet.

>> Kastenberg: That said, we're going to talk about the money, right?

>> Kastenberg: That's right.

That's right.

And the appropriations for the use of military force in Iraq and Afghanistan, when students or my parents would say to me, those are unconstitutional conflicts, they're not there may be horrible policy, but they're not unconstitutional because Congress is funding them and authorizing them.

>> Jeff: So folks who are following the news these days are hearing an awful lot about the War Powers Resolution.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has promised weekly votes on the War Powers Resolution since the Iran conflict began.

Are those votes essentially perfunctory or performative at this time, or is there a deeper reason to continue pushing back that's more difficult to see?

>> Kastenberg: I think there's a deeper reason for pushing those votes.

There's a large constituency in the United States that knows no political party that is increasingly anti-war.

They may not be pacifistic, and they may not.

They may approach this from different angles.

War is bad for business.

You've got business.

Pacifism, wars, immoral wars.

Imperialistic.

There are different reasons for that.

But that constituency is is a large constituency.

And I think there's an appeal to that particular diverse constituency to push these votes forward.

Plus, and I think this is the biggest issue of all.

What does Congress exist for when the framers of the Constitution set up Congress?

They set up Congress to be the voice of the people and a check against presidential tyranny.

And if Congress sits on the sidelines and doesn't bother to take a vote, they're doing the very thing.

The very thing that Cromwell was emboldened to do with Parliament relegate it to a nullity.

>> Jeff: There's also the historical piece to getting folks on the record in a roll call vote seems to matter to >> Kastenberg: Oh, yeah.

>> Jeff: One more question before we take a break and pivot I'm interested in what war powers mean for a president domestically while the nation is at war, which we are right now.

What does that mean constitutionally and otherwise, for what a president can do at home that's different from what we can do during peacetime.

>> Kastenberg: Absent a civil war and absent a massive insurrection against the government?

The war powers should mean nothing domestically.

Absolutely nothing.

The Civil- >> Jeff: We█re hearing about >> Kastenberg: Yeah >> Jeff: elections and nationalizing and that sort of thing.

But at least according to the Constitution, >> Kastenberg: You cannot, as a president, use the military or your commander in chief authority to usurp the rights of the states under the 10th amendment to govern elections in time, place and manner.

You cannot use war powers to corral the citizenry of the United States.

In theory, you can't use your war powers to even use the military to patrol the streets of Los Angeles or Chicago.

And I know we could do the Posse Comitatus Act analogy, but all of it, all of it flies in the face of what Jefferson and Adams and and Madison and those who voted to ratify the document believed in.

And, you know, if the Constitution stands for two things, one is some sense of unity before the states, and usually that's commercial or economic unity.

But the other thing is a protection of the people of the country through the diffusion of power and significant checks on the president from exercising their military power over the people of the country.

>> Jeff: I really appreciate you helping us to kind of wade through all of this.

I'm going to ask you to stick around for just a moment and wade into perhaps the more troubling aspects of what we're seeing in the Middle East.

>> Kastenberg: Absolutely >> Grammer: Every University President in the country right now, understands the importance of the visibility of athletics and the fund-raisin mechanism that athletics brings.

I would be shocked if the next UNM President doesn't have a pretty -- maybe not -- I wouldn't say anti-athletics or pro-athletics, but a pretty open mind to the importance of athletics at this university.

>> Nash: We appreciate the professor helping us parse through the past and present of war powers in the U.S.

In the next part of their conversation, Proctor and Kastenberg, wade into the issue of potential war crimes.

Jeff begins with one of Kastenberg's past military assignments that gives him unique view on today's war in Iran -- and elsewhere in the Middle East >> Jeff: Professor Kastenberg, you were twice deployed to Iraq.

If my research is correct as part of the Judge Advocate General or Judge Service.

Part of your job, interestingly enough, was to ensure compliance with international law.

>> Kastenberg: Yes.

>> Jeff: Tell me a bit about that work, please.

>> Kastenberg: So on my first deployment, as Iraq is rebuilding, we're helping them rebuild their criminal justice system.

And we were assisting in the prosecution of individuals accused of local area terrorists, al-Qaida, Iraq or the Shiite, equivalent of that, or others who had been murdering judges, doctors blowing up, you know, nursing school things like that.

And then, of course, there was the trial of Saddam Hussein.

And so we had a little bit of a role in, assisting in motion writing and the like to ensure that, that particular trial was not a kangaroo court, you know, the Nuremberg tribunals.

Some isolationists, like Joe McCarthy in the 1940s, late 40s and 50s, accused Nuremberg of being a kangaroo court.

>> Jeff: He accused a lot of people of a lot of things.

>> Kastenberg: He certainly did.

He certainly did.

My second deployment, though, when I had been promoted, as a lieutenant colonel, and I headed up a legal team.

We did the ordinary things of, court-martialing our troops who had been involved in crimes, looked at some contract malfeasance allegations, investigating those.

Did training for the Iraqis on rule of law.

Some more of that, but also investigated.

Contractor Amalfi ins, where American civilians had, engaged in acts that violated, you know, the rule of law, international law, we call it the law of armed conflict or LOAC, which is really based on both custom and the Geneva Conventions and the older conventions.

So we ran a number of investigations, throughout, Iraq, and some of them handed over the state, some handed to the FBI, especially the contract malfeasance.

That's not really our specialty, but the rule of law was.

And so that's what we did.

>> Jeff: Okay.

You mentioned international law.

I want to talk for a moment about war crimes.

Folks are hearing that phrase get batted around an awful lot in the press and around the dinner table these days as well.

How and by whom are war crimes defined?

>> Kastenberg: Well, war crimes come about based off of the Nuremberg principles that the Nazi leadership was charged with.

Also, crimes that were prosecuted in lower courts, such as the United States military trial of General Yamashita that was brought before the Supreme Court, the failure to stop their troops from, committing tens of thousands of murders throughout the Philippines.

And then, of course, there's our Uniform Code of Military Justice, which only applies to service members, but not the civilian leadership.

So the president, in theory, is supposed to comply with the UCMJ, but is not required to by any constitutional construct.

So what a war crime, basically is.

And there are many things one, the use of weapons that have been banned.

So there are several weapons that have been banned.

In theory, nuclear warfare would be a war crime violation, particularly a first use.

Maybe a response wouldn't be because there's this theory of proportionality that applies.

Targeting.

Targeting has to be as precise as possible, with know it with an intent to minimize the harms committed to noncombatants, civilian populations.

That's another one.

Proportionality, You don't drop a nuclear bomb to take out a sniper or send in a B-52.

You have to be able to protect the population.

And then those people who are caught, prisoners of war who fought are civilian populations who are within the control of the United States and their allies.

They have to be treated in a dignified manner.

So there's a host of that.

Even the protection of cultural properties.

So, you know, you'll hear that there were thousands of war crimes committed in Vietnam.

And that may be true.

We're familiar with My Lie There's also an obligation to prosecute those war crimes, which is also true.

There were hundreds of port martials which were not held in war crimes tribunals, but were levied against soldiers, Marines, airmen and sailors for committing them in Vietnam.

>> Jeff: You mentioned the uniform code.

Who else determines war crimes?

Are there other authorities?

>> Kastenberg: Oh, sure.

So there are some statutes in the U.S.

Criminal Code, like the Torture Prevention Act, which could be a war crime if it were committed by a civilian in the war crime context.

Then there's the Geneva Conventions, there's the International Criminal Tribunal, and some countries, like Belgium, assert this idea of universal jurisdiction.

So they'll threaten Henry.

They threatened Henry Kissinger as an example, or Bibi Netanyahu you know, as an example of war crimes.

That one isn't tested particularly well because Americans seem to never fall into the trap of that.

And then or any... >> Jeff: Are there treaties we don't sign?

>> Kastenberg: Well, there are yeah, absolutely.

There are criminal.

International criminal tribunal we set up like Yugoslavia, Sierra Leone, Liberia and Rwanda.

But we are not a party to the ICC.

Which is problematic in my opinion, yeah.

>> Jeff: I share that opinion, professor.

There is a perspective that all wars are crimes.

How does that strike you?

>> Kastenberg: I think that's an overstatement.

I think there's a right to defense.

I think there's a right to collective self-defense.

And I believe that, look wars can be quite diabolical.

You can't name a war without human suffering or human rights violations.

But I'll give an example of a military conflict I think was done for an ethical purpose.

It's the, it's India's invasion into East Pakistan.

The Pakistanis were massacring parts of their population, huge numbers.

And today, the country we know as Bangladesh comes out of that, because India has a refugee problem on its border and India sends in military forces to stop it.

Stopping the Igbo rebellion in Nigeria would have been a wonderful thing to do.

The use of the military in Yugoslavia, to me, was eminently supportable, against the, you know, put an end to the ethnic cleansing and invasion of a NATO country and invasion of South Korea, the Republic of Korea by the North, or China.

I think that we would be on solid footing to do that.

I take the Augustinian view of just war theory, and I'll put it in the modern context.

And I think some of the use of the military is justified, but much of it is not.

>> Jeff: Let's move back to Iran for just a moment.

I'm certain that you follow this at least as closely as I do.

Have you seen evidence, in Iran to date, of the United States committing what you would describe as war crimes?

>> Kastenberg: Well, the threat to annihilate an entire civilization.

>> Jeff: You're talking about the truth.

Social posts from the President.

>> Kastenberg: Oh, yeah.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

To me, there are some of my colleagues who I respect a great deal say that as a war crime.

Period.

My view of it is it opens the door to war crimes.

It should have been immediately retracted and not made with the excuse of the president speaks in this type of bluster.

To me, it enabled war crimes to occur.

The attack on Iran itself, which was made with which was done in a a constitutional or unconstitutional fashion.

Every every killing of a civilian that comes out of that has to have a suspicion of being a war crime, because it failed to follow the rule of law.

You can inadvertently or accidentally kill noncombatants, including kids in war, without it being a war crime.

That's possible.

The international law construct allows for that kind of mistake.

It also allows for the idea that if a foreign country puts a missile factory over an elementary school or a hospital or proximity, they're the ones that forfeited the protection.

But if you threaten to annihilate an entire civilization, you can't follow your own domestic law.

Then you're on the hook.

For the burden of proof to be on you, to prove it's not a war crime.

>> Jeff: It's predicated on intentionality or and someone else being at fault.

For the deaths of civilians.

>> Kastenberg: But at the end of the day, and at the end of the day, I use the Yamashita or Yamashita precedent.

The president is supposed to hold his forces accountable.

We created that precedent under a court convened by no less than General Douglas MacArthur, in which the Supreme Court refused to intervene.

That precedent, as the leadership of the military, has a duty to create an environment where war crimes do not occur, and to hold those accountable.

And when it does, and I think of the president's prior pardons, and I think of the will annihilate a civilization, I think of the ROA or the highway.

Attitude that was taken in this.

And I think that there have been war crimes.

>> Jeff: Professor, I would be remiss to have a conversation with you about war crimes without talking about what's happening in Gaza.

The word genocide is pretty liberally thrown around at this point.

There are a number of international bodies that have proclaimed what's happening in Gaza to be a genocide.

I wonder what you make of that designation for what's happening in that part of the world.

>> Kastenberg: To me, the term genocide is the intentional effort to wipe out an entire culture, an entire population of peoples based on their race, their ethnicity, their religion.

What I can say, what I am absolutely confident of about the Gaza invasion.

It is a massive war crime.

It was not -- it was not required by the situation that was involved, the Hamas attack on Israel.

Clearly, Israel had some right to respond.

They could have done what happened after the Munich Games.

They could have gotten international agreement to have an international force go in to Gaza.

But the toll and human suffering in Gaza, the numbers of civilians that have been killed, that is a massive war crime.

It goes to intent.

I have some colleagues who throw the term Gaza around.

You know, the term genocide around quite liberally, not only in Gaza, but in Iran or in other conflicts.

And I, I think that that is an important debate to have in the future when the emotion is taken out of the mix and objectivity is put in.

But in no way am I excusing, the Israeli military conduct in Gaza.

>> Jeff: Do you believe the United States is complicit in war crimes in Gaza?

>> Kastenberg: Well, you know, you have an ally and you're obligated, I think under international law, to restrain your ally where you can.

And I don't believe that the United States has exercised its ability to restrain, the Israelis.

And, in fact, we're allying with them.

But I do want to put on a caveat.

And what I'm saying.

It's a difficult question because you only have as much intelligence as you have when you're not part of the inner circle, you're not getting briefings every day.

No, I'm not getting briefings.

And I do believe I believe in the right of a Palestinian state to exist.

I do, and I believe in the right of an Israeli state to exist.

I'm not making an argument that any side has forfeited any of those rights, but I think the Trump administration has, leaned heavily on the side of supporting Israel so that I'm not convinced that the United States is restraining Israel in the manner that it could be doing or should be doing.

I think in terms of Israel, if Netanyahu loses the election, we should, see what recriminations occur in terms of the courts of Israel for his government and to happen.

So we'll see what they do.

>> Jeff: Professor Kastenberg, unfortunately, I don't think this is the last time we'll be discussing these issues on my show.

I hope you'll come back sometime soon.

>> Kastenberg: Any time you'd like, I'll be happy to come back.

>> Jeff: Thank you so much.

>> Kastenberg: Thank you.

>> Nash: Thanks to Professor Joshua Katzenberg for walking us through the increasingly heated debate around war powers and the specter of war crimes in Iran.

It's official.

Republican State Representative Rebecca Dow will appear on the ballot for the June 2nd primary election for south central New Mexico's District 38.

That's after the state supreme Court this week reversed a lower court ruling that it disqualified her.

Nixing the House caucus chair's chances at reelection.

Dow took to the steps of the Roundhouse following the ruling, backed by her supporters.

>> Dow: First, I just want to commend the New Mexico Supreme Court and thank them for their unanimous vote in support of voters.

The people who signed the petition and having the right to choose a candidate of their choice.

This is never about me.

It's not been about one candidate.

It's been about whether the establishment can use the system, their own broken system, as a weapon against democracy and open elections.

>> Nash: The case stemmed from a challenge former Democratic Representative Tara Jaramillo, who once held Dow█s seat, filed over the paperwork.

The Dow turned in to become a candidate.

All of the voters who signed Dow█s nominating petition did so online, and the representative filed screenshots of those forms rather than printing and filing a PDF version of the petition signatures that has some additional information, like the voters addresses.

Core to Jaramillo█s argument was that it would be burdensome for someone to challenge Dow's petition in the allotted ten days without the full information that that other form provides.

A district court earlier this month agreed.

But Dow quickly appealed to the high Court.

Attorneys for Democratic Secretary of State Maggie Toulouse Oliver asked the Supreme Court to uphold the ruling, keeping Dow off the ballot.

In this week's hearing, the office's general counsel, Peter O. Argued that the filing is well understood.

That, quote, “everyone does it and it's not that difficult.” However, Dow says others did struggle on filing day.

>> Dow: The amount of complications that were happening the day of we are in a group chat with our caucus and folks were having problems with their Cifas report with their campaign financing for finance disclosure.

They were having problems filing.

Some clerks assisted in printing those petitions.

>> Nash: This is far from Dow's first time running for office in New Mexico.

So why, as the plaintiff's attorney argued, were 126 other candidates able to file the right petition forms.

Well, Dow spoke to that after the ruling, saying.

Sierra County Clerk Amy White had affirmed her filing after she sought advice from the Secretary of State's office itself.

>> Dow: My very first question to the Secretary of State's hotline is the internet is down.

I live below Elephant Butte Lake and in the Rio Grande by the river and the internet was down.

Should I go print this somewhere?

Or does it work with a mobile app?

And I was assured that it worked with a mobile app.

Hindsight's 2020.

He could have said go print it out.

Your clerk's office.

My clerk, instead of looking and reviewing the files, could have printed it in her office.

But clearly, what needs to happen is that voters get a choice.

And that's what happened today.

And I'm looking forward to reading on what the Supreme Court rules, because we do need clarity and consistency.

And clearly that's not there.

>> Nash: Well, the court has issued an order requiring the Secretary of State put Dow█s name back on the Republican primary ballot.

A longer and broader opinion is still to come.

This isn't the first time Dow█s faced an administrative hurdle to get on a ballot in New Mexico.

In 2021, the Democratic led legislature redrew her district so she no longer lived in it.

After a failed run for governor in 2022, she had to move to run again for her old seat, which was held at the time by Democrat Tara Jaramillo.

The very person who challenged her paperwork this time around.

Dow argues she's the target of politically motivated efforts to flip her seat.

>> Dow: The party in power when they cannot win a seat that they feel entitled to.

I'm holding a seat that they assume should be Democrat.

Are looking at technicalities to remove a voter.

>> Nash: The plaintiffs in the case did not argue that any of the signatures Dow collected were invalid, and because of that.

Justice David Cay Thompson said during this week's hearing that the challenge over simply the format of forms seemed like a gotcha.

With Dow back on the ballot for the primary, where she's running unopposed.

She returns to the campaign trail with her eye on the general election, where she'll face Democratic write in candidate David Mooney.

>> Dow: I'm very, very happy with the outcome.

This is the beginning of it's still a it's still a contentious seat.

It's a it's a 5050 seat.

One a few left after dramatic gerrymandering by the people in power.

And so I'm going to go back and continue to earn the support of the voters who sent me here.

Those are today I saw in the court and in the overflow.

I saw Democrats, I saw Republicans, and I saw Independents from my district standing and I'm happy that they have a chance to move forward with a choice in November.

>> Nash: Early voting in the primary election begins at county clerks offices on May 5th, with more polling sites opening on May 16th.

And thanks to reporter Cailley Chella for heading to Santa Fe so we could hear from Dow.

Nearly 15 years ago Ryan Berryman█s list of priorities as the student manager for the Lobo men's basketball team included washing dirty practice jerseys and keeping Gatorade bottles full well.

Fast forward to today, and Berryman has traded the laundry room for overseeing a $60 million budget as the new director of athletics for the University of New Mexico at only 32 years old he's one of the youngest to hold this position in the country.

He's also the university's third athletic director in a decade, after Fernando Lovo's 13 month stint ended earlier this year when he left for the University of Colorado.

This week, senior producer Lou DiVizio sat down with Jeff Grammar of the Albuquerque Journal as the paper's lead basketball reporter Grammar spoke with Lou about women's history with the university.

Why UNM chose the young alum to lead the athletics department, and what Lobo fans should expect from his leadership.

>> Lou: Albuquerque Journal sportswriter Geoff Grammer.

Great to see you again.

Thanks for being here.

>> Grammer: Yeah, thanks for having me on, man.

>> Lou: Yeah.

So last few years, we've had you come in and talk Lobo basketball.

We definitely want to get a progress report in a minute, but there have been some other things going on in the athletics department that I want to get to.

Specifically the new AD, Ryan Berryman.

He obviously took over for Fernando Lovo with the more experienced, athletic director who left for greener pastures a little bit more green in his paychecks.

How's it been with this transition to Berryman?

>> Grammer: It█s been really interesting.

I would tell you the he was a part of Fernando Lovo's success.

He was a part of Eddie Nuñez, the athletic director, before Fernando, he was Ryan was a part of his success as well.

He was a pretty high ranking, you know, cabinet level kind of position guy within the department there that, was a big part of their success and really popular within the administration, both on main campus and on South Campus, where half of the athletics is and a former Student Regent He knows everybody and everybody loved Ryan Berryman.

The biggest flaw on his resume, I would say, that that led people to sort of maybe think, okay, maybe he's not quite ready is both age -- he's 32 years old when when this all started.

And he also, hasn't really been the guy.

He might have been in the room when deals got done, but he was never the guy that really got the fundraising done that close the deal.

And those are things I asked about when he was hired, at the same token, Fernando Lovo was hired 13 months prior and had never been a primary role in his job, had never been fundraising either.

So he had been in the room.

So it can be done.

But at a place like New Mexico, you are so reliant on fundraising that we still need to see from Ryan Berryman, a very popular pick for the job.

We still need to see that the fundraising can be maintained.

>> Lou: An indication that that's going happen.

>> Grammer: Well, I would tell you that the guy who I -- I thought went to one of two internal candidates will get the job, either Ryan or Jalen Dominguez.

Jalen Dominguez has been the longtime Chief Revenue Officer and Lobo Club Executive Director.

He is the guy behind the fundraising.

He is the guy that has relationships with every top donor at UNM.

He is the guy that had a lot of support from the donors to get the job.

Those two guys get along great.

They also both wanted the same positions, so they ended up going with Ryan.

We will see if Jalen, first of all, Jalen remains in that position, which he is in that position right now.

I'm not breaking any news that Jalen is leaving, but he also has to now kind of reconsider some things that you know I was going for this job.

I didn't get it.

A young guy who I really like got the job.

Do I maybe explore other options.

I do think that that's openly on the table.

I think people understand that he has to explore some other things.

I would tell you that Ryan Berryman's priorities right now, maybe the top priority is, is to build the leadership team around him because he has to not only fill his position.

He got bumped up.

He was the, one of the deputy athletic directors, so he has to fill that hole.

He also has to make sure to either try as best he can to keep Jalen on board or explore that position.

He also has to fill, Kasey Byers left two weeks ago to follow Fernando Lovo over to Colorado Kasey Byers was a guy who was behind a lot of the social media and video presentation storytelling that U-N-M did this past year, primarily for football, which a lot of people loved seeing Jason Eck and the story.

Yeah, Jason Eck loving this community and being such a good part of this community.

I think a lot of that had to do with the storytelling that UNM did.

They did a really good job for that.

And it was Kasey Byers who now left.

So Ryan's primary function right now is keep things going good, because they are going pretty well overall.

But, he also has to start filling some positions around him pretty quick.

>> Lou: Sure.

Position above him that's going to be filled soon as the new, president.

Will that have any impact on his position?

>> Grammer: It could, I mean it absolutely could.

The president can come in and make decisions.

He's a vice president for athletics.

It was about five years ago, I want to say six years ago, maybe that that used to be a non vice president position within UNM.

And then they created, they bumped Eddie Nuñez up from a just the athletic director to vice president for athletics.

So it is now a vice president does work with the president obviously.

So yeah that could be an interesting hire.

There is a lot of, concern among Lobo fans.

I think that candidates that are out there right now, we're looking at their names.

This person never had an athletics background.

This person has Georgia on their resume.

This person has Purdue.

Those are at least big conference schools.

It doesn't mean they ever did anything with athletics.

It doesn't mean that people from smaller schools didn't have anything or did or did not have anything to do with athletics.

I would tell you that, every athletics director or every university president in the country right now understands the importance of the visibility of athletics and the fundraising mechanism that athletics brings.

I would be shocked if the next UNM president doesn't have a pretty, maybe not.

I wouldn't say anti athletics or pro athletics, but a pretty, open mind to the importance of athletics at this university because I do think at this level, look we understand we're talking, you know, billions with a B when you're talking about health sciences and the budget that goes into a university that has a medical school and, and, a hospital and all that kind of stuff.

Athletics is just a small fraction of that.

But the visibility at this level of UNM athletics is so important that the university, the next president, is certainly going to have to know that and be probably be aware and probably be friendly with athletics.

>> Lou: Okay, we'll watch for that.

You know, you bring up health sciences, very and of course has history with the university.

He was the basketball team manager in 2012.

A little bit of controversy when he was appointed by Suzana Martinez, ended up casting the deciding vote to restructure the governance of the Health Sciences Center.

How has he been received on campus?

Does any of that old stuff come up?

>> Grammer: Internally, Possibly nothing that's gotten back to me.

I would tell you that he's overall, I think, received very positively because I think he has had an ability to sort of, I guess, cross the aisle, if you will.

Right.

He is a he is a guy that, works with while he was a, he was very much a basketball guy and still is a basketball guy.

He is he has worked with football.

So he's cross, you know, sport aisles.

I do think that obviously from a politics standpoint, he came from he was appointed as a Student Regent from a Republican governor.

I don't think that there has been any hesitation from both sides, to help him and to work with him during the legislative session recently when he was the interim athletic director, before he got the full time job.

And and he was able to help UNM secure probably a good I think it's going to end up being about $36 million towards phase one of this football stadium, renovation that they're doing.

It's not going to be a rebuild or a new stadium.

It's going to be a renovation.

And it's a five step program, a five phase program, phase one, they want to get to about 50 million.

I think they got 36 secured.

And I think they had another 8 million saved from last year.

I think they're going to be at about exactly what they wanted to get to.

And 36 million of that is from this past legislative session that he was spearheading the campaign for.

He was up there working with, with lawmakers in Santa Fe and I would tell you that there are some high ranking heads of committees that are certainly, left leaning Democrats that that work just as openly with him and their love of athletics, frankly, overrode any sort of politics or political decisions made in the past by Ryan.

>> Lou: Okay.

Sounds like.

Yeah.

As far as state government goes, it's perception is going pretty well.

How does his age impact a learning curve a little bit for.

>> Grammer: Yeah.

>> Lou: Whether through reality or perception nationally.

Yeah.

Perception wise I would say it's I think accepted now that that a lot of the new athletic directors in college athletics right now are kind of in this maybe 32 still on the low end, but but there's a lot of 30s in there.

There's a lot of late 30s.

There's a lot of guys, a few women probably still need to get a few more women in those positions, if you ask me, but there are still a lot of, athletic directors coming into these positions, multimillion dollar athletic departments that don't have athletic backgrounds at all.

There's a lot of openness to, backgrounds and resumes not looking traditional or what we would consider traditional, where you've put in your 30 years in athletics, administration.

So I don't think age is as big a concern within the industry anymore.

I don't think making sure you've done your 30 years at an athletic department, is it, there are some networking executives that are now taking over athletic departments because it's all about both fundraising and definitely getting the right media rights deal.

And your TV deals have to be right, because that's what funds these athletic departments.

Sure.

>> Lou: Sure.

Okay.

We can move on to basketball now.

Thank you.

NIT semifinal loss to Tulsa.

Third place finish in the regular season in the Mountain West.

How would you grade the Lobo basketball season this year with a new coach, big roster turnover.

>> Grammer: I think grading a team has to be done from a starting point to a finish point.

And it's hard to argue that with this Lobo team, all the circumstances that surrounded the team a year ago, new coach, entirely new coaching staff, entirely new roster.

They had two student managers return.

That's it.

They didn't have a team trainer, a team doctor.

The strength coach.

Nobody returned from the previous staff except two, absolutely great student managers, by the way.

But I would tell you that, based on that alone, the fact that they were playing on the last day of the regular season in the Mountain West for a share, not an outright, but a share of the Mountain West Championship.

They did lose in the semifinals of the Mountain West Tournament to a team, a San Diego State team that was right there all year in the mix.

And then they they make a run in the NIT to be in the final four of the unit.

I would tell you that it's hard to argue that that's not an A. I actually probably would give it a maybe a B-plus, maybe, maybe an A minus.

I might be grading them a little hard because it's hard to argue that what they did with the players they brought in, there was no excitement around these new recruits a year ago, I think openly on, social media, where you get all your, you know, positive feedback.

There were some people pretty critical of of the players coming in a year ago, right.

Like who's this is this kid from San Diego, from Carlsbad, California, that was committed to UC San Diego that nobody else recruited.

Why?

Why do we want a guy named Jake Hall?

Like, what has he ever done?

Well, a year later, it turns out they were cool and kind of knew what he was talking about.

>> Lou: Right.

Okay.

Now, in this NIL world transfer portal, it's hard to predict exactly trajectories of programs, I think because of roster turnover.

But how what's your understanding of where this team is headed under Olen.

>> Grammer: Sure.

It's a it's a year by year thing.

First of all, anymore it's hard to hard to project a coach or a player anymore to be a three year project or four year project.

So I would tell you that going into next year, if we're just doing this year by year anymore, I would tell you that one year ago, when I sat in this chair a year ago, I was telling you about this new coach and the players he was bringing in.

The expectation wasn't extremely high.

I would I would tell you that this year's team that he's already put together and a couple more players that I think we'll be announcing very soon, certainly by the end of by the end of April, I would tell you that, next year's team on paper is going to look better than than this year's team was in a diminished Mountain West.

Remember, the Mountain West and the Pac 12 are now two conferences that the Mountain West split up.

And six teams are now forming the, the new Pac 12, five teams that are left to form the new Pac 12, the Mountain West is not going to be a stronger conference.

I would I would tell you right now, New Mexico is going to be the favorite going in to win the Mountain West next year.

And they should be I think Nevada and you know, we are going to be very good at Grand Canyon and even Wyoming might be pretty good too.

But New Mexico is going to be the favorite.

And I would tell you, too, that this roster is going to be better than last year's roster.

Can they come together and plays?

Well?

We don't we don't know that anymore.

But, Eric Olen is still thought of very highly within the industry.

And, Jake Hall and some of the players on this roster are thought of pretty highly now.

Yeah.

>> Lou: Yeah.

So Jake Hall sticking around, declined the opportunity to fully enter the transfer portal.

What does that say about the status of the program?

Maybe player respect for Olen, but why did he end up staying and turning down big money, big school offers?

>> Grammer: There's a lot of storylines to that.

First of all, he has been recruited by Eric Olen and Tom Tinkle.

He█s an assistant coach on the team since he was 14 years old, and so they were on him pretty early, in the San Diego, Southern California area.

And they said, what you do is exactly what we want in our system.

And just kind of kept telling him that through the years, he was he scored 3000 points in high school and yet wasn't highly recruited except by them.

He did have some other D1 offers, but but lower level.

And so there was that relationship.

He had a great relationship.

His family had a great relationship with the coaching staff.

He also saw in the freshman year getting absolutely maximized.

His skill set was exactly what Olen said What you do is exactly what we want to showcase.

So then he got to do that as a true freshman.

The guy hit more three pointers in college history than anybody but a guy named, Antoine Davis.

Steph Curry and and Trae Young.

Two of those guys are NBA superstars right now.

And Jake Hall is fourth on the list of most three pointers ever made by a freshman.

He was maximized.

So there was that Dax Hall, his younger brother one year younger than him.

Just one CIF San Diego Section Player of the year, is averaged 27 points a game as a point guard.

He's not a shooting guard, but he's coming to UNM and was recruited, as Olen will emphasize.

And a lot of people will tell you that no, Dax Hall's game, he was recruited on his own merits.

This isn't because he's Jake Hall's brother.

He's good enough to be here himself.

But that was a lure to kind of stick around.

Jake Hall had to make a decision.

I'm going to go back to UNM where I think we can win a championship next year.

I get to play a year with my brother.

And let's not totally overlook that.

He's he's getting paid just fine here, too.

>> Lou: Sure.

Yeah.

That's awesome.

Well, anything else that we should be looking ahead towards in the upcoming basketball season or Lobo athletics in general?

>> Grammer: I think Lobo fans were probably a little fatigued by it all last year.

Going into this past season.

Probably weren't as excited early on.

I think going into next season, they're going to have a lot more excitement from day one.

Overall, the sports that we don't talk about normally, still doing great cross country, still winning national championships.

You got a new women's basketball coach, you got a new soccer coach.

A lot of sports are doing good things over there.

They're actually the leader in the field Directors Cup standings, which is basically a standings for athletic departments that rates all sports.

They're the leader outside of the power conference structure.

So they're not they're not beating the Stanfords and the Dukes and the Texas's.

But, they are absolutely the number one team in the entire country.

Outside of that power conference structure for an overall athletic department for the second year in a row.

Things are pretty good overall at UNM Athletics, but it's such a volatile kind of world.

in college athletics where you got to got a new athletic director, you got a new president coming in.

A lot can change in a hurry.

So, kind of a, an interesting next year, I think, for, for Lobo Athletics.

>> Lou: For sure, alright Well, we'll be watching Geoff Grammer, thanks so much for being here.

>> Grammer: Appreciate you, man.

>> Nash: Thanks to Geoff Grammar for dropping by the studio and to everyone else who contributed to the show.

Before I sign off, one quick update we promised you a couple weeks back, the Albuquerque City Council this week unanimously confirmed Cecily Barker as the Chief of the Albuquerque Police Department and Raul Bujanda as the city's new Public Safety Director.

You watched my recent interviews with both of the new leaders on our YouTube page now.

For New Mexico PBS, I█m Nash Jones.

until next week, stay focused.

>> Funding for New Mexico in Focus is provided by: Viewers Like You