

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.

Today, the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) and the International Human Rights Law Clinic at the Washington College of Law filed the final brief in a civil action naming Donald Rumsfeld and 23 other military and medical officials for their role in the illegal detention, torture, inhumane conditions, and ultimate deaths of Yasser Al-Zahrani and Salah Ali Abdullah Ahmed Al-Salami while in the custody of the United States at Guantanamo Bay. The case was filed by the families of the two men, who also seek to hold U.S. officials responsible for the government's callous response following the deaths.
"I am a father who lost his son. The families were never contacted, the U.S. government never made any effort to explain what happened to us. The manner in which they handled this case shows a level of arrogance and total disregard for the feelings of others - like this was a traffic accident," said Talal Al-Zahrani, father of Yasser Al-Zahrani and one of the plaintiffs. "It doesn't really matter if this was an intentional death or an accidental death or suicide. The point is that the U.S. government bears responsibility. The death of a child brings sadness in normal circumstances. Add to this that our son experienced harm, systematic torture, and then wrongful death. Add to this that the U.S. government tried to cover up what happened. Add to that that we thought he was coming home."
Continued Al-Zahrani, "Even if the U.S. government gave me the world's money, it would not bring my son back, and no amount of money can compare to or replace even a minute of time I could have spent with my son if he were alive. The American government has already admitted its use of torture at Guantanamo. Those who were involved in my son's death should be brought to justice."
Al-Zahrani of Saudi Arabia and Al-Salami of Yemen, as well as a third detainee, Mani Al-Utaybi of Saudi Arabia, were reportedly found dead in their cells at Guantanamo on June 10, 2006. At the time of their deaths, Al-Zahrani and Al-Salami had been detained incommunicado for more than four years without charge. In letters found following their deaths, the men described their conditions and abuse, including being beaten by teams of military police known as the "Extreme Reaction Force," deprived of sleep for up to 30 days, subjected to desecration of the Qur'an and forced shaving, and denied necessary medical care. Al-Zahrani, who was 17 at the time of his arrest, wrote of the "continuous oppression" of being isolated in a small cell each day and prohibited human contact.
Both men were also long-time hunger strikers and force-fed with restraint chairs introduced at Guantanamo in late 2005, which continue to be used. The process involved strapping the men into chairs and restraining them at their legs, arms, shoulders, and head. A tube was then forcibly inserted up their noses and down their throats, and as much as 1.5 liters of formula was pumped into their stomachs at a time. The men were kept restrained for an hour following their "feeding" to ensure that they wouldn't purge the formula.
"The conditions these men lived and died under haven't changed significantly since their deaths - they need to change, and Guantanamo needs to be closed, before another detainee dies on Obama's watch," said Pardiss Kebriaei, staff attorney at the Center for Constitutional Rights.
The U.S. government never directly notified the men's families that their sons had died. Al-Zahrani's family heard from relatives that the name "Al-Zahrani" was mentioned on television in connection with the deaths and then contacted the Saudi Ministry of Interior, which confirmed that Al-Zahrani was one of the deceased. While Islamic law calls for burials within 24 hours of death, the remains of the men were not returned to their home countries until almost a week after they died, and with organs removed and signs of physical injury and trauma. Autopsies were performed on the men without notifying their families or obtaining the families' consent. The U.S. government has also refused to answer repeated questions from the families and physicians who conducted independent autopsies about the condition in which the bodies were returned.
Government spokespersons and military officials also made a number of derisive comments about the men following their deaths. One official referred to the deaths as "a good PR move." The government also continued to vilify the men as "terrorists," despite the fact that it has never presented any evidence to support its claims.
"We must not - and cannot as a society - forget the stories of who these men were and what they endured at the hands of U.S. officials. Nor can we ask their families to sacrifice their quest for justice and accountability," said Meetali Jain, faculty in the International Human Rights Law Clinic at Washington College of Law.
Two other men have died in U.S. custody at Guantanamo - Saudi Abd ar-Rahman Maadha al-Amry in May 2007, and Afghan Abdul Razzak Hekmati in December 2007, reportedly of a treatable disease. Neither of these men was charged with a crime by the government. The results of any investigation into their deaths have yet to be released.
CCR has led the legal battle over Guantanamo for over six years and has been responsible for organizing and coordinating more than 500 pro bono lawyers across the country in order to represent the men detained there. CCR also works with men who were formerly detained and their families to seek justice and accountability for the abuses suffered during their imprisonment.
The Center for Constitutional Rights is dedicated to advancing and protecting the rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. CCR is committed to the creative use of law as a positive force for social change.
(212) 614-6464"Yet, they never have the funds for healthcare coverage for all," said Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib.
Reality once again clashed uncomfortably with Argentinian President Javier Milei's so-called "libertarian revolution" Wednesday as the Trump administration said it is working to double a $20 billion private sector bailout to prop up the South American nation's moribund currency amid enduring high poverty and inflation and broader economic fragility.
US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent told reporters in Washington, DC Wednesday that the $20 billion currency swap—essentially a loan—for Argentina announced last month "would be a total of $40 billion," with funding coming from banks and sovereign wealth funds to enable the country to pay off its more than $300 billion in external debt.
The bailout is aimed at boosting Argentina's flagging peso, which has fallen by nearly one-quarter against the US dollar this year. A decade ago, $1 was equal to 18 pesos. Today, a single dollar will buy 1,361 pesos. That's a loss of more than 99% in value over the past 10 years.
 
Although poverty in Argentina has fallen significantly from over 50% shortly after Milei's election, around 30% of Argentinians remain poor and prices and inflation are again rising significantly. While Milei has drastically slashed inflation, the reduction has come via the devaluation of the peso and massive cuts in government spending, including the evisceration of social programs resulting in more expensive housing, healthcare, and education.
Bessent's announcement comes ahead of Argentina's October 26 midterm elections that will test the mandate for Milei—an admirer and close ally of President Donald Trump—to continue with his slash-and-burn approach to streamlining government.
While meeting with Milei at the White House Tuesday, Trump said the bailout is contingent upon the Argentine president remaining in power.
“If he loses, we are not going to be generous with Argentina,” Trump told reporters. “I think he’s going to win, and if he wins, we’re staying with him, and if he doesn’t win, we’re gone.”
The combination of fiscal austerity, gutting of government agencies, dangerous deregulation, inflation, and currency devaluation have caused Milei's unfavorability rating to soar to over 60% in some polls, it's highest level ever.
Milei—a self-described anarcho-capitalist who was elected in November 2023 on a wave of populist revulsion at the status quo—campaigned on a platform of repairing the moribund economy, tackling inflation, reducing poverty, and dismantling the state. He made wild promises including dollarizing Argentina’s economy and abolishing the central bank.
However, the realities of leading South America’s second-largest economy have forced Milei’s administration to abandon or significantly curtail key agenda items, leading to accusations of neoliberalism and betrayal from the right, and hypocrisy and rank incompetence from the left.
“Let’s not get confused: Milei went to beg for money and a photo of Trump because his economic plan failed," Argentine lawmaker Emilio Monzó said Tuesday.
Another lawmaker, Margarita Stolbizer, said on social media Tuesday that "freedom is crawling."
"Trump tells us Argentines that if we don't vote for Milei, we'll be punished," she added. "The interference is absolute, the libertarian surrender is total. Let's have confidence in the pride of our people: We are millions who don't want to be told what we have to do."
US singer and political commentator Blakeley Bartley skewered Milei, "the based anarcho-capitalist conservative," in a social media post on Wednesday."
"He was gonna get in power, cut government spending," Bartley continued. "Remember, all your favorite right-wingers and American media said, 'You gotta support him, man, he's a based conservative that's gonna save Argentina."
"What's that?" Bartley added. "Oh, that's right, he drove the economy into the fucking ground and now he needs a welfare check from Daddy America."
Others—ranging from progressives angry over tens of billions of dollars being spent on foreign bailouts while so many people are struggling and suffering in the US to hardcore MAGA supporters—are asking, how is bailing out Argentina "America First?"
"Trump wants to DOUBLE Argentina's bailout to $40 billion to save his political ally," Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) said on social media. "Yet he is doing nothing to prevent 15 million Americans from losing their healthcare and 20 million from seeing a doubling in their premiums. Is this what Trump means by America first?"
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) said: "Apparently $20 billion of our taxpayer money wasn't enough to bail out Argentina. Now Trump wants US banks to divert ANOTHER $20 billion away from lending to American businesses, farmers, and families to prop up Milei's corrupt presidency and failing economy."
Former US Labor Secretary Robert Reich said, "So much for 'America First.'"
John Bartam, a soybean farmer from Illinois, slammed the bailout in a Tuesday interview with the Daily Beast, noting that Trump’s $20 billion lifeline enabled Milei to lower his country's export tax, leading to China buying seven million tons of Argentinian soybeans at the expense of the US. This, as American soybean farmers reel from Trump's tariff war with China, which until recently was the world's leading buyer of the top US export crop.
“MAGA," Bartam said, "now means Make Argentina Great Again."
The reporting came as rights groups sought the legal memo on the president's deadly strikes on alleged drug-running boats in the Caribbean.
As outrage over US President Donald Trump's deadly boat bombings mounts, The New York Times reported Wednesday that his administration secretly authorized the Central Intelligence Agency "to carry out lethal operations in Venezuela and conduct a range of operations in the Caribbean," with the ultimate aim of ousting the country's leader, Nicolás Maduro.
"The agency would be able to take covert action against Mr. Maduro or his government either unilaterally or in conjunction with a larger military operation," according to the Times, which cited unnamed US officials. "It is not known whether the CIA is planning any operations in Venezuela or if the authorities are meant as a contingency."
"But the development comes as the US military is planning its own possible escalation, drawing up options for President Trump to consider, including strikes inside Venezuela," the newspaper noted. The administration's Venezuela strategy was "developed by Secretary of State Marco Rubio, with help from John Ratcliffe, the CIA director."
The White House and CIA declined to comment on record, though some observers speculated it was "an authorized leak." The reporting comes as Democrats in Congress, human rights groups, and legal scholars sound the alarm of Trump's five known strikes on boats he claims were smuggling drugs, which have killed at least 27 people.
Critics highlighted the United States' long history of covert action in Latin America, as well as how the reported CIA authorization contrasts with Trump's so-called "America First" claims.
"This is absolutely insane," said Tommy Vietor, a former Obama administration official who went on to co-found Crooked Media. "America First was not sold as CIA regime change operations in Venezuela."
Critics also noted Trump's mission to secure the Nobel Peace Prize; this year, it went to María Corina Machado, a right-wing Venezuelan who dedicated the award to not only the people in her country, but also the US president.
"Now that Trump has delegated his preposterous politicking for a Nobel Peace Prize to sycophants, he can finally get around to declaring unilateral war on Venezuela, a war crime, as he murders Colombian civilians at sea, another war crime, and endorses collective punishment in Gaza, another war crime," journalist Seth Abramson said Wednesday.
As Senate Democrats last week unsuccessfully fought to stop Trump's boat strikes of the Venezuelan coast, Colombian President Gustavo Petro said on social media that one of the bombed vessels appeared to be carrying citizens of his country.
"A new war zone has opened: the Caribbean," he said at the time. "Evidence shows that the last boat bombed was Colombian, with Colombian citizens inside. I hope their families come forward and file complaints. There isn't a war against smuggling; it's a war for oil, and the world must stop it. The aggression is against all of Latin America and the Caribbean."
The Trump administration recently claimed in a confidential notice to Congress intended to justify the deadly bombings that the president decided drug cartels "are nonstate armed groups, designated them as terrorist organizations, and determined that their actions constitute an armed attack against the United States."
While that notice leaked to the press, the ACLU and Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) on Wednesday filed a Freedom of Information Act request seeking the Office of Legal Counsel's guidance and other related documents regarding the strikes.
"All available evidence suggests that President Trump's lethal strikes in the Caribbean constitute murder, pure and simple," said Jeffrey Stein, staff attorney with the ACLU's National Security Project. "The public deserves to know how our government is justifying these attacks as lawful, and, given the stakes, immediate public scrutiny of its apparently radical theories is imperative."
CCR legal director Baher Azmy stressed that "in a constitutional system, no president can arbitrarily choose to assassinate individuals from the sky based on his whim or say-so."
"The Trump administration is taking its indiscriminate pattern of lawlessness to a lethal level," Azmy added. "The public understanding of any rationale supporting such unprecedented and shocking conduct is essential for transparency and accountability."
"The United States and particularly the Democratic Party, we have to be leaders on this issue," said podcast host Jennifer Welch.
Two podcast interviews with potential Democratic 2028 presidential candidates went viral Tuesday—but observers said they served only to illustrate how disconnected the party establishment is from its base on the subject of Israel and Palestinian rights and how much work Democrats have ahead of them to reach out to the growing number of voters who oppose Israel after two years of its US-backed assault on Gaza.
US Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) appeared on I've Had It, hosted by Jennifer Welch and Angie "Pumps" Sullivan—Oklahoma-based former Bravo reality TV stars who were called "the future of viral left podcasting" by Rolling Stone last month.
With Welch and Sullivan's "thick southern accents made complete by their Ann Taylor-coded outfits, sharp red lipstick, and blonde highlighted hair" as Rolling Stone noted, some progressive commentators have mused that Democratic politicians eager to engage with podcast audiences are likely to underestimate the pair, who are outspoken in their criticism both of the Trump administration and Democratic leaders.
That appeared to be the case with Booker, who claimed he had to leave the interview as Welch hammered him on Democrats' support for Israel and his vote for Charles Kushner, the disbarred attorney and father of President Donald Trump's son-in-law, Jared Kushner, to be US ambassador to France.
When Welch asked Booker what he had to say about "the capitulation that [he] participated in" the senator replied with a criticism of "purity tests" that Democratic lawmakers and organizers force on each other.
"That’s such bullshit,” Welch replied, echoing her response to former Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel when he criticized Democrats for standing up for transgender rights on the podcast earlier this year. "It's not a purity test, it's, 'Are we in this fight and are we being beholden to corporations and corporate interests or are we being really the party of the working class?'"
“That is such bullshit” @MizzWelch isn’t having it when @CoryBooker tries to blame Democratic failures to stand up to Trump (including his own vote for Kushner’s dad) on a “circular firing squad”
Full @ivehaditpodcast ep: https://t.co/Qg8kAl0LuH pic.twitter.com/MjMHFSa836
— The Tennessee Holler (@TheTNHoller) October 14, 2025
The hosts were no less direct when the discussion turned to Israel. Welch and Sullivan have been outspoken in their condemnation of Israel's assault on Gaza over the past two years and the support that both the Biden and Trump administrations have given to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as civilian casualties have mounted, a famine has been declared, and top Israeli officials have publicly said they aim to ethnically cleanse Gaza.
"The United States and particularly the Democratic Party, we have to be leaders on this issue, with Israel and Benjamin Netanyahu. It's something that there is a big loud beat in the base that's permeating all across the country," said Welch. "I think for us to come together as a party in 2026, it's going to take leadership saying things like, 'Benjamin Netanyahu is a war criminal.'"
Booker attempted to turn the conversation to conflicts in Africa and claimed the International Criminal Court, which has a warrant out for Netanyahu's arrest for war crimes, "singles out Israel," before dodging what Welch called a "simple yes or no question."
"Do you think he's a war criminal, Benjamin Netanyahu?" asked Welch.
Booker, who voted several times to provide Israel with military aid since it began bombarding Gaza in 2023, answered that such questions "undermine" his efforts to solve the conflict in the Middle East.
It’s a simple yes or no question pic.twitter.com/D6jY01uflY
— I've Had It Podcast (@ivehaditpodcast) October 14, 2025
"The thing that Democrats get so frustrated with, where we are right now, where you see the Zohran Mamdanis and the Graham Platners rise up, because they can go on podcasts and you can say, 'Do you think Benjamin Netanyahu is a war criminal?' and they just say yes," said Welch. "And that's the end of it, it's not all of the rhetoric."
Some observers said the interview, in which Welch also pressed Booker about the more than $871,000 in donations he's received from the powerful American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), should be taken as a warning to Democratic lawmakers as they look toward the 2026 midterms and the 2028 presidential election in a country where polls show the public is shifting away from decades of support for Israel.
"Democratic politicians are getting a preview of the gauntlet they'll have to run in 2028 if they can't break from Israel," said journalist Branko Marcetic.
Mehdi Hasan of Zeteo added that "not only is Jennifer Welch awesome, but what an indictment of our mainstream media and political press that it takes nontraditional journalist podcasters to ask these simple and direct questions of our electeds."
That preview was also visible in an interview Democratic California Gov. Gavin Newsom did on the podcast Higher Learning with Van Lathan, who told Newsom he would not vote for the candidate who had accepted money from AIPAC.
"It's interesting, I haven't thought about AIPAC—it's interesting, you're the first to have brought up AIPAC in years, which is interesting," said Newsom. "Not relevant to my day-to-day life."
When asked about AIPAC Gavin Newsom freezes and repeats “it’s interesting” 10 times.
He’s a Zionist btw. Never trust him.
pic.twitter.com/76rl6OfY9o
— ADAM (@AdameMedia) October 15, 2025
Any candidate hoping to run for president in 2028, said Matt Duss of the Center for International Policy, "is gonna have to come up with a waaaaay better answer on this than 'it’s interesting.'"
In addition to revealing that top Democrats are unprepared for tough questions on US relations with Israel, said a number of observers, the interviews showed "the utter failure and brokenness of corporate media."