

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.

Jessica Lass at 310-434-2300 (main), 202-468-6718
The Natural Resources Defense Council filed a lawsuit yesterday
seeking federal action to protect the whitebark pine, an imperiled tree
species critical to the health of the high elevation mountain country
of the Northern Rockies and Pacific Northwest. The lawsuit was filed
against the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for failing to make a
ninety-day finding on NRDC's petition to list the whitebark pine as an
endangered species.
"Within the past few years, certain
regions have seen an 80 percent die-off of whitebark pine trees," said
Rebecca Riley, endangered species attorney with NRDC. "This unique and
wide-ranging tree is iconic and critical to the American West and it is
under attack. The Fish and Wildlife Service needs to move quickly to
protect this vanishing species."
Whitebark pine is found
at high elevations throughout western North America, but it is
particularly important in the Northern Rockies and high Sierras of
California. Threatening these trees is a "perfect storm" of problems,
including an unprecedented outbreak of mountain pine beetles due to
warming temperatures and the infestation of a non-native fungus, white
pine blister rust.
Scientists regard the tree as a
"foundation species" because it creates the conditions necessary for
other plants and animals to get established in harsh alpine ecosystems.
Whitebark pine supports the growth of other plant and tree species,
providing habitat, food, and shelter for wildlife such as grizzly
bears, squirrels, and many bird species. The tree's branches block wind
and slow snowmelt, regulating spring runoff and providing a steady
supply of water for rivers and streams in the critical late summer
season.
"What happens to whitebark pine will have
sweeping effects on the entire high mountain forest ecosystems of the
Northern Rockies," said NRDC senior wildlife advocate Louisa Willcox.
"Of particular concern is the future of Yellowstone's threatened
grizzly population, which relies on the high-fat seeds of whitebark
pine as a primary food source. Fewer whitebark pine seeds lead to
higher numbers of grizzly bear deaths and lower reproductive success
among females."
The rate of the whitebark pine tree's
disappearance has increased significantly in recent years and raised
concern from the scientific community. Fire suppression, white pine
blister rust, and climate-driven mountain pine beetle outbreaks all
threaten the ability of the tree to serve its important role in
maintaining the health of the ecosystems where it lives.
"Growing
at the highest elevations of any trees in the West, the whitebark pine
has survived everything nature has to throw at it: lightening strikes,
80 mile an hour winds, rock and ice, and frigid winter temperatures,"
said NRDC senior wildlife advocate Louisa Willcox. "But the tragedy is
that it may not be able to survive what we are throwing at it now: a
warming climate and invasive disease."
Until recently,
harsh winters have helped protect whitebark pine, by keeping mountain
pine beetles (which are the size of a grain of rice) at lower
elevations, where beetles have coevolved with other pine species such
as lodgepole. North America's high elevation ecosystems are some of the
fastest warming areas on the planet. Those warmer winter temperatures
have allowed beetles to flourish at higher elevations and vigorously
attack whitebark pine, which lack the defenses of lower elevation
forests. Additionally, the extreme cold snaps that used to limit the
insects' breeding have not been present for many years. Decades of
drought, blister rust, and a non-native invasive fungus species have
killed more than 50 percent of whitebark pines in the Northern Rockies
over the last four decades. In certain areas, between 80-100 percent of
the remaining trees are infected with blister rust or beetles and will
die.
"If we fail to take action to protect the whitebark
pine, forests across the West will change as we know them," said Dr.
Sylvia Fallon, wildlife biologist with NRDC. "Whitebark pines are just
the tip of the melting iceberg--we are going to endanger our treasured
wildlife and wild places if we don't do something quickly.
Fortunately, there is some indication that restoration of this
important species may be possible--but we'll have to act quickly if we
are to save these ancient trees from ruin."
Endangered Species Act Process
Under
the ESA, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service must make an initial
assessment of the strength of the petition within ninety days. If the
Service finds the petition presents "substantial scientific evidence"
that whitebark pine may be endangered, the agency is required to
conduct a formal status review of the species and make a final decision
about whether to extend endangered species protection within a year. In
this case, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has delayed making its
initial assessment for more than a year.
Solutions
Like
so many other species, controlling climate change is the best hope for
whitebark pine's long-term survival. Researchers are also cultivating
blister rust resistant trees and investigating strategies to combat
pine beetle infestations. Listing the whitebark pine as endangered
could help recover these forests by protecting critical habitat areas,
requiring a plan for restoration and recovery, and changing government
forest fire suppression policies in some areas.
NRDC is
helping to track and monitor the health of whitebark pine forests
through a citizen science program and other research efforts around
Yellowstone and is working with the U.S. Forest Service, leading
academics, and other organizations to track and monitor the damage in
the Northern Rockies. Data on the loss of whitebark pine from mountain
pine beetles in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem will be released
later this year.
Additional Media and Resources
NRDC works to safeguard the earth--its people, its plants and animals, and the natural systems on which all life depends. We combine the power of more than three million members and online activists with the expertise of some 700 scientists, lawyers, and policy advocates across the globe to ensure the rights of all people to the air, the water, and the wild.
(212) 727-2700The US military has publicly confirmed using "a variety of advanced AI tools" in the Iran assault to "help us sift through vast amounts of data in seconds."
A group of more than 120 Democrats in the US House on Thursday pressed Pentagon Secretary Pete Hegseth on whether American forces used artificial intelligence in the deadly bombing of an elementary school in southern Iran.
"What is the role of artificial intelligence, if any, in selecting targets, assessing intelligence, and making legal determinations during Operation Epic Fury?" the Democratic lawmakers, led by Rep. Sara Jacobs (D-Calif.), asked in a letter to Hegseth. "If AI is used, is it subject to human review and at what point? Was artificial intelligence, including the use of the Maven Smart System, used to identify the Shajareh Tayyebeh school as a target? If so, did a human verify the accuracy of this target?"
The letter to Hegseth was sent a day after The New York Times reported that Pentagon investigators preliminarily concluded that US forces were responsible for the bombing of the girls' school in Minab, Iran—a strike that killed at least 175 people, mostly children.
The Democratic lawmakers cited the Times' reporting in their letter, writing that they "are particularly disturbed" by the school bombing, which President Donald Trump initially—and without a shred of evidence—tried to pin on Iran before later saying he didn't "know enough about it" to assign blame.
According to the Times, the school strike "was the result of a targeting mistake by the US military, which was conducting strikes on an adjacent Iranian base of which the school building was formerly a part."
The US military has confirmed using AI tools in its illegal war on Iran, which is being carried out in partnership with Israeli forces that have used artificial intelligence extensively in their genocidal assault on the Gaza Strip.
“Our war fighters are leveraging a variety of advanced AI tools," Brad Cooper, the head of the US Central Command, said in a video message released Wednesday. "These systems help us sift through vast amounts of data in seconds so our leaders can cut through the noise and make smarter decisions faster than the enemy can react."
NBC News reported earlier this week that the US military is "using AI systems from data analytics company Palantir to identify potential targets in the ongoing attacks."
"The use of Palantir’s software, which relies in part on Anthropic’s Claude AI systems, comes as Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth aims to put artificial intelligence at the heart of America’s combat operations," the outlet noted.
During his tenure as head of the Pentagon, Hegseth has worked to dismantle initiatives aimed at reducing civilian killings, scoffed at "stupid rules of engagement," and touted "maximum lethality" as a top priority for the US military.
In their letter on Thursday, the House Democrats wrote that mass civilian deaths in the US-Israeli war on Iran are "alarming yet unsurprising" given Hegseth and Trump's open contempt for legal constraints on American forces.
"The US and Israel have reportedly struck or impacted numerous civilian sites—including schools, hospitals, gymnasiums, public gathering spaces, and a UNESCO heritage site," the lawmakers wrote. "Civilians and civilian infrastructure may under no circumstances be the object of attack and must at all times be respected and protected by all parties."
"This is a huge moment, a win that builds a foundation for a new precedent in the US," said one plaintiff. "Those who believe they are above the law will now think twice before violating human rights."
A federal appellate court on Thursday upheld a historic verdict against CACI Premier Technology, a military contractor found liable for its role in the torture of three prisoners at Abu Ghraib during the George W. Bush administration's invasion of Iraq in the early 2000s.
The three plaintiffs—middle school principal Suhail Al Shimari, fruit vendor Asa'ad Zuba'e, and journalist Salah Al-Ejaili—are represented by the Center for Constitutional Rights and two law firms. CCR noted Thursday that Al Shimari v. CACI was first filed in 2008 under the Alien Tort Statute and "is the only lawsuit brought by Abu Ghraib torture victims to make it to trial."
These three survivors of Abu Ghraib—where US captors subjected prisoners to broken bones, death threats, electric shocks, extreme temperatures, sexual abuse, and more torture—finally got their day in court in April 2024. The following November, a federal jury in Virginia ordered CACI to pay each plaintiff $3 million in compensatory damages and $11 million in punitive damages, for a total of $42 million.
"This victory isn't only for the three plaintiffs in this case against a corporation," Al-Ejaili said after the verdict. "This victory is a shining light for everyone who has been oppressed and a strong warning to any company or contractor practicing different forms of torture and abuse."
CACI unsuccessfully sought a new trial at the US District Court for the District of Virginia, then turned to the 4th Circuit, which heard arguments last September.
"We affirm the jury’s verdict in full," wrote Senior Judge Henry Floyd, joined by Judge Stephanie Thacker—both appointees of former President Barack Obama. Judge A. Marvin Quattlebaum Jr., who was appointed by President Donald Trump, dissented.
CCR legal director Baher Azmy, who argued the appeal, said Thursday that "we are gratified yet again that the 4th Circuit rejected CACI's cynical arguments for impunity for its responsibility for the torture of our clients, which the jury confirmed in a historic judgment last year. Our courageous clients have waited so long for recognition and justice, and we are happy for them that this judgment affirmed their entitlement to it."
Al-Ejaili also celebrated the development, declaring that "this is a huge moment, a win that builds a foundation for a new precedent in the US."
"This will cause a positive difference in the future. Those who believe they are above the law will now think twice before violating human rights," the plaintiff added. "Thank you to the US legal system and thank you to everyone who had anything to do with this win."
The appellate court's decision notably comes as the Trump administration and Israel have launched another war in the Middle East: a joint assault of Iran, alongside Israeli bombing of Lebanon. Evidence of war crimes—including attacks on schools, hospitals, and other civilian infrastructure—has quickly mounted, fueling global demands for a diplomatic resolution.
The BBC has long been accused of centering Israel and dismissing the humanity of Palestinians in its coverage of Gaza.
British journalist Owen Jones on Thursday celebrated a UK High Court judge's ruling in his favor in a libel lawsuit that a BBC editor brought against him—and said that should the editor choose to move forward with his case despite the decision, he was looking forward "to defending my article in court."
The High Court ruled that Jones was expressing an opinion when he wrote an article for Drop Site News in December 2024 titled "The BBC's Civil War Over Gaza," in which he spoke to BBC staffers about Middle East online editor Raffi Berg's influence over the news outlet's coverage of Israel and Palestine.
The court also said Jones had expressed his opinion and that of his sources based on concrete examples of Berg's editorial role and journalism.
Jones' article described staffers' allegations that "internal complaints about how the BBC covers Gaza have been repeatedly brushed aside" as Berg "sets the tone" for the outlet's online coverage of Israel's onslaught in the exclave, where more than 75,000 Palestinians have been killed since October 2023 in what's been called a genocide by top Holocaust scholars and human rights groups.
It noted that the BBC failed to report on Amnesty International's finding that Israel was committing genocide in Gaza and displayed an on-screen chyron reading, "Israel rejects 'fabricated' claims of genocide.'"
"Journalists expressed concerns over bias in the shaping of the Middle East index of the BBC news website," wrote Jones. "Several allege that Berg 'micromanages' this section, ensuring that it fails to uphold impartiality."
The BBC has long been criticized for centering Israel and "dehumanizing" Palestinians, as more than 1,000 artists said in a letter last year when they condemned the network for refusing to air a documentary about the impact of Israel's attacks on children in Gaza, on the grounds that it featured the child of the exclave's deputy minister of agriculture—suggesting "that Palestinians holding administrative roles are inherently complicit in violence."
The article also pointed to Berg's own history of pro-Israel coverage, including a 2002 story "that presented young [Israel Defense Forces] soldiers as courageous defenders of their country while failing to mention the occupation and settlement of Palestinian land or the widespread allegations of crimes" documented by human rights groups and the US government.
Berg also presented Israeli settlers in the West Bank as "victims seeking 'a better quality of life' and did not mention the fact that the settlements have been repeatedly deemed illegal," and wrote about the Mossad "in glowing terms" in a book he wrote with extensive cooperation from the Israeli intelligence agency.
He also posted a photo on social media showing Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu with a copy of Berg's book on his bookshelf, Jones reported.
Berg's lawyer said last year that Jones' reporting attacked Berg's "professional reputation as a journalist and editor," and led to death threats.
In order for his case against Jones to proceed, Berg would now need to prove in court that "Jones did not genuinely hold the opinion he expressed in his reporting, or demonstrate that the opinion is not one an honest person could hold on the basis of any fact that existed at the time of its publication," Middle East Eye reported.
"I am proud to stand by my journalism," said Jones Thursday.