

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.

Middle East governments repressed efforts to promote human rights
and backed away from bold reforms despite growing human rights
challenges and promises to take action, Human Rights Watch said today
in releasing the Jordan, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Yemen
country studies from its World Report 2010.
The 612-page report,
the organization's 20th annual review of human rights practices around
the globe, summarizes major human rights issues in more than 90 nations
and territories worldwide, including 15 countries in the Middle East
and North Africa.
"The year 2009 was one of the missed opportunities for women and
migrants in the region," said Sarah Leah Whitson, Middle East director
at Human Rights Watch."For human rights defenders, their small space
for maneuvering shrank even further."
The studies detail missed opportunities on women's rights in Jordan,
Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, and Syria; ineffective measures to protect
migrant domestic workers in Jordan, Lebanon, and Saudi Arabia; torture
of suspects in custody in Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, and Syria; and
repression of human rights defenders in Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Yemen.
Saudi Arabia discriminated against its Shi'a population and Syria
against its Kurds; Lebanon disregarded the plight of its Palestinian
refugees; and Jordan stripped some Jordanians of Palestinian origin of
their Jordanian nationality. Yemen's government committed violations in
the civil war in the north and the social unrest in the south.
"Middle East governments should publicly set out their human rights
agenda for 2010," Whitson said, "and expect to be measured against
their achievements."
Middle Eastern governments responded weakly to calls to curb
violence against women. Perpetrators of so-called honor killings in
Jordan (where there were at least 20 such killings), and in Syria (at
least 12), benefit from legal provisions that mitigate their
punishments, even though Syria closed a legal loophole that allowed
such perpetrators to avoid criminal sanction altogether. Domestic abuse
went largely unpunished in Saudi Arabia and Yemen. In Lebanon and
Jordan, where domestic abuse can be tried as assault, protection
mechanisms for women are largely inadequate and ineffective.
Despite their increasing participation in public life, women faced
discrimination in personal status, nationality, and penal laws. In
Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia, women cannot confer their
nationality either on foreign spouses or their children. Saudi women
require a male guardian's approval for travel, study or work, and to
receive health care in certain circumstances. Saudi Arabia promised to
abolish the male legal guardianship system over women, but failed to
take steps to do so.
Migrant domestic workers in the Middle East faced exploitation and
abuse by employers, including excessive work hours, non-payment of
wages, and restrictions on their liberty. Governments adopted some
measures to reduce the abuse but did not enforce them. Jordan issued
regulations providing certain rights to migrant domestic workers after
becoming the first Middle Eastern country in 2008 to include them under
the labor law. However, these regulations fell short of international
standards, and allow for an employer to confine a worker in the
employer's house.
In January in Lebanon, the Labor Ministry put in effect tighter
regulations for employment agencies and a standard employment contract
that clarifies certain terms and conditions of employment for domestic
workers, such as the maximum number of daily working hours. However,
the rules have no enforcement mechanisms. Suicides and botched escape
attempts killed many migrant domestic workers in Lebanon, with eight
deaths in October alone.
In Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Yemen, human rights defenders paid a
heavy price for their activities. Syrian State Security detained
Muhannad al-Hasani, president of the Syrian Human Rights Organization
in July, and Haytham al-Maleh, a prominent human rights lawyer, 78, in
October, and later charged them with "weakening national sentiment."
They remain detained. In Saudi Arabia, the secret police (mabahith)
arrested Muhammad al-'Utaibi and Khalid al-'Umair in January for
attempting to hold a peaceful protest in solidarity with the people of
Gaza. One year later, the mabahith still hold them despite the six-month legal limit on pre-trial detention and the prosecution's decision not to press charges.
In Yemen, Central Security, National Security, and Political
Security officers arrested scores of activists, mostly from the
secessionist so-called Southern Movement, and began trials of some of
them for "contesting the unity of the state," including Professor
Husain al-'Aqil, an online journalist, Salah al-Saqladi, and a former
diplomat, Muhammad 'Askar Jubran.
Syria has not licensed any human rights groups, and Saudi Arabia
refused legal recognition to at least two new rights groups. Jordan
passed a new law extending the government's ability to control and
interfere in the work of charitable organizations.
Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Yemen failed to tackle frequent
incidents of torture. Jordan's prison reform program has not
strengthened accountability mechanisms for torture. Conditions in
prisons and detention facilities were poor in Lebanon, with
overcrowding and lack of proper medical care a perennial problem. While
Lebanon ratified the Optional Protocol to the Convention against
Torture (OPCAT) in December 2008, the country has not yet fulfilled its
obligation to set up a national preventive mechanism to visit and
monitor places of detention.
Saudi authorities punished those they believed responsible for
leaking footage of torture in Ha'ir prison, but did not announce steps
taken to hold accountable the prison guards who beat the inmates. In
Yemen, there were increased reports by detainees of torture in central
prisons around the country and in the detention facility of the
National Security and the Political Security Organizations in San'a.
The estimated 300,000 Palestinian refugees in Lebanon lived in
appalling social and economic conditions and were subject to
wide-ranging restrictions on housing and employment. Jordanian
authorities since 2004 have arbitrarily deprived over 2,700 Jordanians
of Palestinian origin of their nationality, usually on grounds that
they did not hold valid Israeli-issued residency permits for the West
Bank. No such condition for maintaining Jordanian nationality exists in
law. Hundreds of thousands more Jordanians may be at risk of losing
their nationality.
Following clashes in Saudi Arabia between minority Shi'a pilgrims
and Wahhabi religious policemen in Medina in February, the authorities
arrested scores of Shi'a in Medina and in the Eastern Province. The
Eastern Province governorate also arrested Shi'a who led prayers in
their private homes in Khobar and in Ahsa' and closed Khobar's only
mosque for Isma'ilis, a branch of Shi'ism.
Kurds, Syria's largest non-Arab ethnic minority, were subject to
systematic discrimination, including the arbitrary denial of
citizenship to an estimated 300,000 born in Syria. Authorities
suppressed expressions of Kurdish identity and prohibited teaching
Kurdish in schools. On February 28, security forces violently dispersed
Kurds who had gathered to protest a decree restricting real estate
transactions in border areas, and the authorities subsequently detained
21
demonstrators. The authorities also detained and tried at least nine
prominent Kurdish political leaders on vague charges of "weakening
national sentiment" and "broadcasting false information."
"Middle Eastern governments need to recognize that the rights of
minorities, refugees, and stateless persons need greater protections,"
Whitson said.
In 2010, Jordan should:
In 2010, Lebanon should:
In 2010, Saudi Arabia should:
In 2010, Syria should
In 2010, Yemen should
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.
"America’s 250th anniversary celebration is supposed to be an occasion for strengthening public trust in our democratic institutions," said one advocate. "Freedom 250 is a privately managed slush fund."
As the 250th anniversary of the United States' independence approaches, a government watchdog group is warning that the Trump administration has refused to release key documents regarding President Donald Trump's Freedom 250 project, in which the White House has partnered with corporations including Palantir and ExxonMobil to organize what it's called "a celebration of America like no other."
Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) filed a lawsuit Monday against the Department of Interior (DOI) in the US District Court for the District of Columbia on Tuesday, more than two months after the group filed multiple Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests regarding the funding of the "controversial and secretive" Freedom 250 initiative.
As the agency that oversees the National Parks Service, DOI and Interior Secretary Doug Burgum are playing a major role in the organization of Freedom 250, with the celebration including projects like the National Garden of American Heroes, the proposed Freedom 250 Grand Prix at the National Mall, and the proposed Independence Arch.
In late February, PEER's FOIA requests sought information from DOI on reports that public funds are being directed to Freedom 250 through the congressionally chartered National Park Foundation, "with no transparency, no accountability, and no guardrails."
“America’s 250th anniversary celebration is supposed to be an occasion for strengthening public trust in our democratic institutions, not eroding it,” Tim Whitehouse, PEER’s executive director, said late Monday. “In contrast, Freedom 250 is a privately managed slush fund... It epitomizes what is wrong with politics today."
In its lawsuit, PEER said the DOI "has failed to make a final determination on any of PEER’s FOIA requests and has failed to disclose any of the requested records within the time stipulated under FOIA."
The department has failed to respond to the requests as reports have mounted that Trump is using Freedom 250 to:
In its lawsuit, PEER noted that the DOI was required to respond to the FOIA requests by March 20, but communications from the department have indicated officials plan to respond no sooner than August 3—after the main 250th anniversary celebrations occur.
Whitehouse said DOI's failure disclose information about the funding mechanisms for Freedom 250 continue "a pattern of Secretary Doug Burgum dispensing with a variety of legal safeguards to improperly facilitate Trump projects—particularly around the nation’s capital."
"Just look no further than his more than $1 billion ballroom or vanity projects, such as the arch," said Whitehouse.
Burgum has pushed for the construction of a 250-foot arch in Washington, saying it "embodies American freedom." Trump has said the project could be paid for by private donors, while veterans groups and historians have filed legal challenges over the proposed project, arguing Congress needs to approve its construction.
"The government’s subpoenas to The Wall Street Journal and our reporters represent an attack on constitutionally protected newsgathering," said the newspaper's publisher.
The US Justice Department has reportedly subpoenaed The Wall Street Journal and other news outlets at the urging of President Donald Trump, who has complained incessantly about coverage of his illegal and disastrous Iran war.
The Journal reported Monday that it received grand jury subpoenas dated March 4 for records of its journalists as Trump pushed the Justice Department—now led by his former personal attorney, Todd Blanche—to investigate war-related leaks. "Blanche vowed to secure subpoenas specifically targeting the records of reporters who have worked on sensitive national security stories," the Journal reported, citing an unnamed administration official.
During one meeting, the Journal reported, "Trump passed a stack of news articles he and other senior officials thought threatened national security to Blanche with a sticky note on it that said 'treason.'"
Trump and other top administration officials, including Pentagon Secretary Pete Hegseth, have publicly voiced outrage over the US media's Iran war coverage and threatened reporters who publish classified information—a common journalistic practice.
In April, Trump said he would work to imprison journalists involved in reporting on a US fighter jet shot down in Iran and subsequent efforts to rescue the warplane's crew. The previous month, Trump floated "charges for treason" against journalists he accused of circulating "false information" about the Iran war.
Don't like the press coverage of your disastrous war with Iran?Just sic DOJ on the press.www.wsj.com/politics/nat...
[image or embed]
— Brian Finucane (@bcfinucane.bsky.social) May 11, 2026 at 5:50 PM
Ashok Sinha, the chief communications officer of Dow Jones, the Journal's publisher, said in a statement that "the government’s subpoenas to The Wall Street Journal and our reporters represent an attack on constitutionally protected newsgathering."
"We will vigorously oppose this effort to stifle and intimidate essential reporting," said Sinha.
The subpoena targeting Journal reporters pertained to "a February 23 article that reported that Gen. Dan Caine, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and others at the Pentagon warned the president about the risks of an extended military campaign against Iran," the newspaper reported Monday.
"Other news outlets, including Axios and the Washington Post, published similar stories that day," the Journal added. "Trump launched the war five days later, on February 28."
CNN reported Monday that "in addition to The Journal, other news outlets have also received subpoenas in recent months."
"But some of the news organizations have chosen not to comment on the matter for the time being," CNN added.
Scott Stedman, an investigative journalist with The Newsground, accused the leaders of targeted outlets of "cowardice" for not speaking out against the Trump administration's brazen assault on press freedom.
"The president uses the DOJ to target your news organization with subpoenas because he wants to out your sources and you don’t even have the guts to say anything," Stedman wrote. "Grow a fucking spine!"
"Mifepristone is safe and effective, and women should be able to get abortion medication through the mail or telehealth if they need," said Sen. Patty Murray.
Defenders of reproductive rights, including key Democrats in Congress, reiterated the safety of mifepristone on Monday after the US Supreme Court temporarily extended access to the medication—commonly used in abortion and miscarriage care—by mail while the justices review a ruling from a notoriously right-wing appellate court.
The US Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit blocked a federal rule allowing mifepristone to be dispensed by mail at the beginning of the month. Drugmakers quickly appealed to the high court, where Justice Samuel Alito, who is part of the right-wing supermajority, issued a one-week stay to give himself and colleagues time to review the case.
As Alito's initial Monday evening deadline approached, he extended the stay until 5:00 pm ET on Thursday. The move means that "for now, mifepristone is still available via telehealth, mail order, and pharmacy while the case proceeds," noted the Democratic Women's Caucus in the US House of Representatives.
However, pro-choice advocates and policymakers are still sounding the alarm and arguing that, as the caucus put it in a social media post, "reproductive freedom should not depend on emergency rulings or political attacks."
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said in a statement that "mifepristone has been safe, effective, and trusted for decades. Today's order keeps access in place for now, but it's not cause for celebration—it's a reminder that basic reproductive care is still under attack every day. Anti-abortion extremists are trying to use the courts to roll back access to medication abortion nationwide, and Senate Dems will keep fighting to protect women's freedom to make their own healthcare decisions."
Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) similarly wrote on social media: "Another extension, but this shouldn't be complicated. Mifepristone is safe and effective, and women should be able to get abortion medication through the mail or telehealth if they need. Extremist judges shouldn't get to decide how women get healthcare."
This case traces back to early 2023, when the Biden administration's Food and Drug Administration permanently lifted mifepristone's in-person dispensing requirement, just months after the Supreme Court's right-wing supermajority overturned Roe v. Wade. Louisiana, which has among the most restrictive abortion policies in the country, sued over the FDA's policy change.
Medication abortions account for the majority of abortions provided in the United States, and those patients generally take both mifepristone and another drug, misoprostol. Demand for abortion pills by mail increased after Roe's reversal, as advocates of forced pregnancy policies in Republican-controlled states ramped up attacks on reproductive freedom.
"With the Supreme Court punting a decision on access to mifepristone—a safe, effective medication used in abortion care—until later this week, patients and providers are left facing continued uncertainty," said Rachel Fey, interim co-CEO of Power to Decide. "Wondering day by day whether you'll have access to an essential medication is not practical, and the confusion only deepens the barriers people already face when seeking abortion care."
"Access to mifepristone should be based on scientific evidence, not ideology," Fey declared. "We urge the Supreme Court to follow that science and maintain current telehealth access to mifepristone—not just for a few days at a time, but permanently."
Alito's extensions in recent days are not necessarily signals of where the conservative will ultimately come down. The Associated Press pointed out Monday that "the current dispute is similar to one that reached the court three years ago," when the justices blocked another 5th Circuit ruling "over the dissenting votes of Alito and Justice Clarence Thomas," and then unanimously dismissed that case due to lack of standing, or a legal right to sue.
The battle comes as the Trump administration's FDA is conducting a review of mifepristone that Julia Kaye, senior staff attorney for the ACLU’s Reproductive Freedom Project, has said seems "designed to manufacture an excuse for further restricting medication abortion across the country."
The New York Times noted Monday that US Department of Justice "lawyers have not said in court proceedings or publicly whether they back regulations that allow people to be prescribed the pills through telehealth appointments. Instead, they have asked the lower courts to pause the litigation to give the FDA time to complete a review of the safety of mifepristone, which was first approved in 2000."