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.

New York State's practice of sentencing
inmates to months, even years, in disciplinary segregation for drug use
and possession and denying them effective drug dependence treatment
constitutes cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment, Human Rights Watch
said in a report released today.
In the 53-page report, "Barred from Treatment: Punishment of Drug Users in New York State Prisons,"
Human Rights Watch found that New York prison officials sentenced
inmates to a collective total of 2,516 years in disciplinary
segregation from 2005 to 2007 for drug-related charges. At the same
time, inmates seeking drug treatment face major delays because
treatment programs are filled to capacity. When sentenced to
segregation, known as "the box," inmates are not allowed to get or
continue to receive treatment. Conditions in the box are harsh, with
prisoners locked down 23 hours a day and contact with the outside
through visitors, packages, and telephone calls severely restricted.
"New York inmates with substance use problems - 85 percent by prison
officials' own count - find themselves in a Catch 22," said Megan
McLemore, health and human rights researcher at Human Rights Watch.
"Many can't get timely treatment, making them vulnerable to being
punished with segregation. And once there, they are barred as a matter
of policy from the treatment they need."
The report is based on more than 50 interviews with current and
recently released inmates, as well as prison treatment program staff
and correctional health, drug treatment, and harm reduction experts in
New York and other states.
One case profiled in the report is that of David A., who is
currently serving three years in isolation for prison drug violations.
Despite pleading for treatment, David was recently sentenced to an
additional two years in the box for a marijuana violation. In 2008, New
York State spent $20 million on alcohol and drug treatment in the
prisons.
"These programs are being paid for by New York taxpayers, so should
be effective and rigorously evaluated," McLemore said. "The current
policies make no sense from either a security or public health
perspective."
Sentencing inmates to years in isolation for drug infractions while
denying them access to treatment can amount to cruel, inhuman, and
degrading treatment in violation of the United States' international
human rights obligations.
"Discipline should be proportionate to the offense, and should never
prevent prisoners from getting the treatment they need," McLemore said.
"This only makes the problem worse, for both the inmates and the prison
system as a whole."
At a Capitol news conference with New York State legislators Jeff
Aubry, Felix Ortiz, and Ruth Hassell-Thompson, McLemore called on state
lawmakers to provide greater oversight of prison drug treatment,
stating that the New York State Office of Alcohol and Substance Abuse
Services (OASAS) should be more involved in designing and evaluating
prison drug programs. The Department of Correctional Services has
conducted few evaluations of its own treatment programs.
Despite overwhelming evidence that medication-assisted therapy is
the most effective treatment for opiate addiction, the majority of New
York State prisoners dependent on heroin or other opiates have no
access to methadone or buprenorphine, Human Rights Watch said. The
report also documents New York's failure to implement effective HIV and
hepatitis C prevention programs.
"Prisons in California, New Mexico, Puerto Rico, and many other
places are making condoms available and providing methadone or
buprenorphine without compromising security," said McLemore. "There is
no legitimate reason why New York State cannot do the same."
As New York State lawmakers push for reform to "Rockefeller"
mandatory-minimum drug laws, Human Rights Watch called for changes to
current substance abuse programs and disciplinary practices as well.
"Reforming the Rockefeller drug laws to prevent drug users from
being sentenced to long prison sentences is critically important," said
McLemore. "But timely and effective programs must be available to serve
the inmates still in prison."
Quotes from New York State lawmakers:
"Most inmates will eventually return to our communities and we must
ensure strong and effective treatment programs during incarceration in
order to increase the likelihood of their success upon release. Denying
treatment to inmates who suffer from a drug dependency is illogical and
counterproductive to the goal of rehabilitation. Further, I feel
strongly that in-prison substance abuse programs should be subject to
oversight by the Office of Alcoholism and Substance Abuse Services in
order to ensure effective treatment and promote a continuum of care
upon release."
- NY State Assemblyman Jeff Aubry, chair of the Committee on Corrections
"We must ensure accountability within prisons; we need to make sure
that treatment services are going where they are needed. At the same
time, we need to ensure that we are funding education and prevention
programs to stop the cycle of drug crime."
- NY State Assemblyman Felix Ortiz, chair of the Committee on Alcohol and Substance Abuse Treatment
Quotes from prisoners interviewed in the report:
"I was in the ASAT program at Attica until a few weeks ago. They
discontinued the program because staff was transferred, and now the
waiting list is over 1,000. Even though I get priority, here is a
notice telling me that 'it could be a long time' until I get into
treatment again. There's plenty of room for me in the box, but not in a
program."
- James W., prisoner at Attica Correctional Facility
"I've had six or seven dirty urines. Never any violence, just drugs.
I got a year in [the box], then 18 months, then a year. [...] I've been
in the box 14 months on the last ticket and just got another 20 months
in here for possession."
- Nathan T., prisoner at Upstate Correctional Facility
"I've had 15, 16 drug tickets. No assaults or anything like that.
I've never been in a treatment program. Now I'm in the box 'til 2012.
I'm a drug addict. If you know I'm a drug addict, why are you putting
me in a box?"
- Peter G., prisoner at Southport Correctional Facility
"I've been in the box since 2004 on one drug ticket after another.
I'm going to max out my sentence in here. I'll go home with the same
habit I came in with."
- Lawrence Y., prisoner at Southport Correctional Facility
Human Rights Watch is one of the world's leading independent organizations dedicated to defending and protecting human rights. By focusing international attention where human rights are violated, we give voice to the oppressed and hold oppressors accountable for their crimes. Our rigorous, objective investigations and strategic, targeted advocacy build intense pressure for action and raise the cost of human rights abuse. For 30 years, Human Rights Watch has worked tenaciously to lay the legal and moral groundwork for deep-rooted change and has fought to bring greater justice and security to people around the world.
As the latest poll results were released, the Maine governor launched her second ad against her Senate primary opponent, again attacking him for comments he made online 13 years ago.
Days after Maine Gov. Janet Mills released her first attack ad against her rival in the Democratic Senate primary, Graham Platner, focusing on comments he made about sexual assault victims online 13 years ago, Emerson College Polling conducted the latest survey of likely primary voters regarding their support for the two candidates.
Between March 21-23, the polling group surveyed 1,075 Maine Democrats and found that 55% expressed support for Platner, while just 28% supported Mills—giving the first-time political candidate, oyster farmer, and combat veteran nearly a 2-to-1 advantage.
When asked about a hypothetical general election matchup with Republican Sen. Susan Collins, respondents gave both Democratic candidates an edge over her, but Platner had a more comfortable lead.
Forty-eight percent supported him over Collins, while 41% backed Collins and 12% said they were undecided or supported another candidate. Mills had the backing of 46% of voters compared to Collins' 43%, and 11% were undecided.
The poll was consistent with numerous other surveys that have been taken since Mills entered the race last October, at which point it came to light that Platner had written offensive messages on Reddit in the past and had gotten a tattoo while in the Marines that resembled a skull-and-crossbones that appeared on the uniforms of Nazi guards during World War II.
Platner said his views had evolved since he wrote the posts and said he had not been aware that the symbol was associated with Nazis; he then got the tattoo covered up and continued holding rallies in cities and towns across the state—often addressing overflow crowds—where he has been speaking out against oligarchy, pushing for Medicare for All, demanding a billionaire's minimum tax, and condemning the Trump administration's "authoritarian overreach" with its mass deportations agenda.
Polls taken in the weeks after the controversies broke suggested the negative stories about Platner's past weren't sticking. The University of New Hampshire (UNH) found in late October that 58% of voters backed Platner compared to 24% who supported the governor.
He was 20 points ahead of Mills in a poll by the Progressive Change Campaign Committee weeks later, and in February UNH found Platner had widened his already significant lead, with 64% of Maine Democrats supporting him and 26% backing Mills. He also had an 11-point lead over Collins compared to Mills 1-point lead.
Despite the evidence that the attacks on Platner's Reddit history were doing little to damage his chances of winning, Mills made his comments the focus of her first attack ad earlier this month—a move that was panned at a local Democrats meeting days later in Hancock County, with attendees telling the governor directly that the ad was "odious" and "underhanded" and demanding to know: “Do you believe in a Maine and a country where a person can be redeemed? Where they can change and become a better version of themself?”
At the meeting, several voters also expressed disapproval of Mills' record of vetoing drug pricing and labor rights legislation and her opposition to a red flag gun control law.
On Thursday, as the latest Emerson College poll results were released, Mills released a second ad that, like the first one, focused on Platner's 2013 comments about sexual assault.
"Since her last attack ad, he has only climbed in the polls against both Mills and Collins," said journalist Ryan Grim of Drop Site News. "All these ads do is tell voters that the Democratic establishment is still a closed-off world where you are not welcome if you previously held different views or said something offensive on the internet. Nobody wants that world."
"Every single one of this administration's policies is doing what it can to raise prices," said one critic.
The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development on Thursday released a report projecting that President Donald Trump's unconstitutional war with Iran will sharply increase inflation in the US this year.
According to OECD, the disruption in energy markets caused by the war means that "inflation pressures will persist for longer," with inflation in G20 nations "now expected to be higher in 2026 than previously projected."
OECD projects that inflation in the US, which was previously seen coming in at 2.6% in 2026, will instead rise to 4.2% this year thanks in large part to the war, which has spiked prices for oil, gasoline, diesel fuel, and fertilizer.
The report also warns that these numbers could get even worse if the Iran conflict drags on and the Strait of Hormuz remains shut for a prolonged period.
"Further disruptions to trade in the Persian Gulf could also have negative effects on a broader range of products in global supply chains," OECD writes. "For example, ongoing constraints to fertilizer supply could increase global food prices, with potentially serious impacts on household finances and inflation expectations. Furthermore, reduced supply of sulphur, helium or aluminium could impede production in a range of industries."
More ominously, the report finds that "prolonged disruptions to energy supply and growth, or lower-than-expected returns from net AI investment, or rising losses in private capital markets, could all trigger more widespread risk repricing in financial markets," with the result being a higher risk of default across "multiple credit products" and an evaporation of economic liquidity.
Asa Johansson, director of policy studies at OECD, said in an interview with The Wall Street Journal that the organization's forecast is "highly uncertain" at this point because "we don’t know the breadth and the duration of this energy shock" caused by the war.
Tahra Hoops, director of economic analysis at Chamber of Progress, expressed astonishment at the Trump administration's economic mismanagement in launching the Iran war, which came at a time when polling has consistently shown that affordability is the top concern for US voters.
"Every single one of this administration's policies is doing what it can to raise prices," wrote Hoops, "for a political goal that they have yet to coherently articulate, let alone have any chance at achieving."
Phillips O'Brien, professor of strategic studies at the University of St. Andrews, argued that the OECD's inflation forecast was yet another nail in the Republican Party's chances of retaining control of Congress this year.
"It’s going to be so much fun watching the GOP run on 'affordability' in 2026," O'Brien wrote.
"Looking to the invasion of Iraq in 2003, a similar invasion of Iran, given its population size, would require as many as 1.6 million troops," warned one analyst.
The Trump administration is reportedly considering several options for a massive escalation of its unlawful war on Iran, heightening fears that US troops—possibly as early as Friday or the weekend—could be hurled into a deadly quagmire with no clear objective, legal rationale, or exit strategy.
Axios reported that among the options the Pentagon is considering are "invading or blockading" Kharg Island—Iran's primary oil export hub—and sending American forces "deep inside the interior of Iran" in an effort to seize the country's enriched uranium. The reporting indicates that the administration views the options as a "final blow" against Iran, despite US President Donald Trump's public claim that the war has already been won decisively.
The new reporting marked just the latest signal that the Trump administration could be readying a ground invasion, which—like the ongoing bombing campaign across Iran—has not been approved by the US Congress and would be deeply unpopular with the American public. The US and Iran have both put forth demands for a diplomatic resolution, but Iranian officials have said there are no active negotiations with the Trump administration, contrary to the president's claim earlier this week.
Brandan Buck, a research fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute who has criticized the war from the start, warned in a recent blog post that "any serious American invasion of Iran would likely rival or exceed the scale of Vietnam or the 1991 Gulf War, making it the largest US military undertaking since the Second World War."
"Looking to the invasion of Iraq in 2003, a similar invasion of Iran, given its population size, would require as many as 1.6 million troops," Buck noted. "Trump’s ill-considered decision to launch the war, coupled with his vague-but-ambitious goals, has made this impossible scenario a military possibility. Given the horrific costs such an invasion would entail, however, Trump should choose a different path: declare 'victory' and de-escalate."
Fears of an imminent ground invasion have spread to Republicans who were otherwise supportive of the Trump administration's decision to attack Iran. Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC), who earlier this month voted against a resolution that aimed to stop the war, wrote on social media Wednesday afternoon that she "will not support troops on the ground in Iran."
Mace's post came shortly after she left a closed-door House Armed Services Committee briefing on Iran. The Republican lawmaker said she was "even more" opposed to a ground invasion following Wednesday's briefing.
"The justifications presented to the American public for the war in Iran were not the same military objectives we were briefed on today in the House Armed Services Committee," Mace wrote in a separate post on Wednesday. "This gap is deeply troubling. The longer this war continues, the faster it will lose the support of Congress and the American people."
Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Ala.), who celebrated the US-Israeli bombing of Iran when it kicked off last month, told reporters following Wednesday's briefing—nearly a month into the war—that "we want to know more about what’s going on, what the options are, and why they’re being considered."
"Trump has a well-documented pattern of escalating on Friday night, after the markets close."
House Democratic leaders, meanwhile, faced backlash for reportedly deciding to punt a vote on an Iran war powers resolution until at least mid-April, even amid mounting evidence that the Trump administration is barreling headlong toward an illegal and potentially catastrophic ground assault.
"Congress is in session until Friday, after which they will go on a two-week recess," noted Nathan Thompson, senior policy adviser at Just Foreign Policy. "Trump has a well-documented pattern of escalating on Friday night, after the markets close. If House Democrats and [the House Foreign Affairs Committee] wait until after the recess, the damage could be done."
The Pentagon earlier this week ordered roughly 2,000 soldiers from the Army's 82nd Airborne Division to head to the Middle East. According to the US Central Command, more than 50,000 American troops are currently involved in the war on Iran.
During a briefing on Wednesday, a reporter noted to White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt that the 82nd Airborne Division is "typically deployed at the beginning of conflicts."
"Does the White House consider this conflict as wrapping up, or is it changing shape?" the reporter asked.
Leavitt responded that "the president likes to maintain options at his disposal."
Drop Site's Ryan Grim, citing an unnamed source, reported Thursday that "Naval Special Warfare teams were also given deployment orders yesterday, as well as a bunch of Tier 1 operators."
Taken together, Grim argued, recent developments suggest that "all the pieces are in place for a ground operation within a day."