

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.

The new Conservative and Liberal Democrat coalition government
should re-establish Britain's reputation as a champion of human rights
by opening a judicial inquiry into allegations of complicity in torture
and by affirming support for the Human Rights Act, Human Rights Watch
said today.
"The two parties in government have indicated they are in
substantial agreement on civil liberties," said Tom Porteous, London
director at Human Rights Watch. "They should translate that into
practice by making a clean break with the previous government's abusive
approach to counterterrorism and by strengthening the UK's role in
bringing to justice those responsible for international crimes at home
and abroad."
Allegations of complicity by UK intelligence services in the
kidnapping and torture of terrorism suspects, including UK nationals,
have badly damaged the UK's reputation as a nation that respects human
rights, Human Rights Watch said. The Parliamentary Joint Committee on
Human Rights (JCHR) and the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee
have both issued critical reports about this issue. The JCHR, the All
Party Parliamentary Group on Extraordinary Rendition, the Liberal
Democrat Party and several Conservative Members of Parliament have
called for a judicial inquiry.
"An abusive approach to counterterrorism is also a counterproductive
approach," Porteous said. "There's an urgent need to open a thorough
and rapid judicial inquiry into these allegations of torture. Anyone
found responsible for wrongdoing should be held accountable."
In opposition the Conservative and the Liberal Democrat parties both
called for a review of counterterrorism legislation. Human Rights Watch
urged the government make good on its promises of reform by allowing
the 28 days pre-charge detention power to lapse when it comes up for
annual renewal in July, and by committing itself in the first Queen's
speech to the repeal of the discredited system of control orders.
A comprehensive and speedy review of counterterrorism laws and
policies should include a reconsideration of the policy under which
terrorism suspects can be deported to countries where they risk being
tortured, Human Rights Watch said. Research by Human Rights Watch has
shown that the policy, known as "deportations with assurances,"
breaches the UK's human rights obligations.
Human Rights Watch also urged the incoming coalition government to
affirm its support for the Human Rights Act. Since it was introduced by
the Labour government in 1998, the Human Rights Act has delivered
practical benefits and protections against excessive state power.
However, it has come under sustained attack both from the media and
from politicians of the right and left since it was introduced in 1998.
The Liberal Democrat Party has supported the Human Rights Act, but the
Conservative Party pledged in its manifesto to replace it with a Bill
of Rights.
"The attacks on the Human Rights Act are mostly based on myths and
misconceptions," said Porteous. "The Act reflects long-standing
traditions on law in the UK, including the presumption of innocence,
the right to liberty, the right to a fair hearing and the prohibition
of torture. The new ministers should pledge to support the Human Rights
Act and govern according to its principles. Scrapping the Act would
signal that the UK was turning its back on human rights."
One achievement of UK policy under Labour was its support for
international criminal justice, including its support for the creation
of the International Criminal Court (ICC) in 2002. Human Rights Watch
urged the new government to reaffirm its support for the ICC and for
the broader principles of international justice that underpin it,
namely accountability for grave international crimes such as torture
and war crimes. There has been growing evidence during the past year of
torture, deaths and other serious abuses of detainees by British forces
during the occupation of Iraq.
The new government should ensure that British nationals or anyone in
British territory against whom there is evidence of responsibility for
international crimes are investigated and either prosecuted in British
courts or extradited to countries that will prosecute them. Currently
the Attorney General, a government minister, has the power to veto any
prosecution for international crimes.
"The UK needs to ensure that accountability for war crimes is not
just for a few African warlords and dictators," Porteous said. "The new
government should ensure that British police and prosecutors can and
will independently investigate and prosecute those responsible for
torture and other international crimes without interference from
ministers."
The UK has been considering proposals to curtail the authority of
British courts to issue arrest warrants initiated by private parties
under universal jurisdiction, the legal principle by which certain
crimes, including war crimes and crimes against humanity, can be
prosecuted in any jurisdiction. Human Rights Watch urged the government
to retain the right for private individuals to apply for such warrants,
which are only issued after a senior judge is satisfied that there is
credible evidence of wrongdoing, and which serve as an important
mechanism to allow prompt action when alleged war criminals are present
in the UK.
An important concern of UK voters during the election campaign was
immigration and asylum. But there has been little attention from
politicians or the media to the human rights costs of current UK
immigration and asylum policies. In particular, Human Rights Watch's
research has shown that the "Detained Fast Track" asylum procedure is
dysfunctional and unfit to deal with complex refugee claims that go
through it regularly. Human Rights Watch urged the new government to
reform this part of the asylum system in accordance with the right to a
full and fair examination of asylum claims, and to ensure that any
changes to the asylum system enhance access to protection for those
fleeing persecution overseas.
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.
"We will not be bullied."
Democratic lawmakers who participated in a video warning US military personnel against following unlawful orders issued by President Donald Trump remained defiant after being contacted by the FBI.
As reported by Reuters on Tuesday, the FBI has requested interviews with Sens. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.) and Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.), as well as Reps. Chris Deluzio (D-Penn.), Maggie Goodlander (D-NH), Chrissy Houlahan (D-Md.), and Jason Crow (D-Colo.), just days after Trump demanded their imprisonment or even death for supposed "sedition."
One US Department of Justice official told Reuters that the FBI interviews are to determine if the Democratic lawmakers engaged in "any wrongdoing" when they spoke out against the president potentially giving unlawful orders that pit the US military against American civilians.
The Democrats, however, vowed that they would not be intimidated by any FBI investigation.
In a social media post, Slotkin said that Trump's push to jail the Democrats for exercising their First Amendment rights demonstrated the reason why they decided to participate in the video in the first place. Slotkin accused Trump of "weaponizing the federal government against his perceived enemies," while adding that he "does not believe laws apply to him or his Cabinet."
"This is not the America I know," added Slotkin, a former CIA analyst. "I'm not going to let this next step from the FBI stop me from speaking up for my country and our Constitution."
Houlahan, Crow, Goodlander, and Deluzio issued a joint statement accusing Trump of "using the FBI as a tool to intimidate and harass members of Congress," and vowed that "no amount of intimidation or harassment will ever stop us from doing our jobs and honoring our Constitution."
"We swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States," they emphasized. "That oath lasts a lifetime, and we intend to keep it. We will not be bullied. We will never give up the ship."
The FBI interview requests came just a day after the US Department of Defense (DOD) said it had "received serious allegations of misconduct" against Kelly, who is a retired US Navy captain, and was launching an investigation that could result in him being recalled to active duty to face court-martial hearings for violating the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).
In a separate social media post, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth attacked all the Democrats who participated in the video as the "seditious six" and said that Kelly had been singled out for DOD investigation because he was the only member who was still subject to UCMJ given his status as a retired naval officer.
"After years of complaining that there wasn't enough viewpoint diversity in acceptable media discourse, Bari Weiss now appears to suggest that there's too much," said one critic.
Since Paramount's new Trump-aligned billionaire owner, David Ellison, installed the right-wing pundit Bari Weiss as the editor-in-chief of CBS News, fear has abounded about how she might attempt to reshape the network to fit her worldview.
Weiss once fashioned herself as a champion of "ideological diversity," in contrast to what she deemed a takeover of academia and media by intolerant "woke" types who'd fostered an "illiberal" atmosphere of political conformity.
But now that she's at the helm of one of America's most storied news organizations, she seems to view her role much differently.
During a panel at the Jewish Leadership Conference, a gathering of conservative and pro-Israel Jewish figures, this week Weiss laid out her goals for how she plans to use her powerful position.
"I think it's about who's in the room," Weiss said. "I think it's about redrawing the lines of what falls in the 40-yard lines of acceptable debate and acceptable American politics and culture."
She said her goal for the network is to create a new form of "centrist" news, not by adopting a dispassionate "voice from nowhere," but by amplifying people who are "clearly and identifiably on the center-left and the center-right in conversation with one another."
"This is an opportunity to speak for the 75%, for the people that are on the center-left and the center-right," Weiss said.
Weiss gave an example of two figures she thought would represent this paradigm: "I was in... Chicago last week... where Dana Loesch, former spokeswoman for the [National Rifle Association], was debating Alan Dershowitz on guns. Now, these are people who have wildly different opinions on the Second Amendment, and yet showing they can have good faith, very passionate, very charismatic disagreement, and still like each other at the end of the day is very important."
Weiss contrasted these preferred figures with those "rising in the podcast charts," whom she said "don't represent the values and the worldview of the vast majority of Americans." These included pundits on the extreme right like Nick Fuentes and Andrew Tate, who have expressed overt Nazi sympathies, as well as former Fox News host-turned independent podcaster Tucker Carlson, who has given each of these men friendly interviews.
But she also mentioned Hasan Piker, a popular left-wing Twitch streamer who has faced accusations of antisemitism, including from members of Congress, for his denunciation of Israel's "genocide" in Gaza, which has resulted in the death or injury of more than 10% people living in the strip over the past two years. Piker has called antisemitism "completely unacceptable," adding that he finds "the conflation of antisemitism and anti-Zionism to be very dangerous."
what makes this funnier is that her outlet cbs news is currently trying to set up a debate with me ?! https://t.co/FuGjZnK0CH
— hasanabi (@hasanthehun) November 25, 2025
One critic on social media wrote that "after years of complaining that there wasn't enough viewpoint diversity in acceptable media discourse, Bari Weiss now appears to suggest that there's too much."
While Weiss said she does not mean for her narrowing of the discourse to be done in a "censorious, gatekeeping way," Weiss has long been criticized for her attempts to silence critics of Israel.
As David Klion wrote in the Guardian in September, Weiss' publication, the Free Press, which Ellison purchased in September for an eye-popping $150 million, has championed the second Trump administration's efforts to force institutions of higher learning to crack down on anti-Israel speech on college campuses, which it has portrayed as part of a crusade against "antisemitism."
"The pattern is clear: If you work at a liberal institution and you want the Trump-controlled federal government to step in and discipline it, Bari Weiss is there to help," Klion wrote.
Prior to Weiss' ascendance, CBS News and other major networks had already faced scrutiny for their near-total lack of Palestinian perspectives in their coverage of the Israel-Gaza war. In December 2024, Adam Johnson reported in the Nation that across the major Sunday shows on NBC, ABC, CNN, and CBS, there had been 2,557 mentions of Gaza since October 7, 2023, but only one Palestinian guest had appeared across all four of them, while Israeli guests had been featured 20 times.
Staffers at CBS have raised concerns about Weiss having an even more aggressive "hall monitor" approach to policing coverage in her new position. Critics say that her singling out of Dershowitz and Loesch as representatives for the bounds of acceptable opinion suggests that she will pursue rigid ideological conformity at the network.
"Everyone Bari Weiss thinks is too extreme to be included always has one thing in common: opposition to Israel," noted independent journalist Glenn Greenwald.
"Hey, I know what the kids want more of right now: Alan Dershowitz!"
— John Ganz (@lionel_trolling) November 25, 2025
As other critics noted, Dershowitz and Loesch are not figures that many would associate with the "center-left" and the "center-right" as Weiss claims.
While the clear majority of Democratic voters now believe Israel is committing a genocide in Gaza, Dershowitz—who left the party to become an independent last year—has referred to such accusations as antisemitic "blood libel," and denounced protesters against Israel's military campaign as the equivalent of "Hitler Youth."
The lawyer has also defended many of the most egregious actions by Israel, including its attacks on hospitals, which have killed over 1,400 people according to UN figures from August: "Sometimes attacking a hospital saves lives," was the title of one video he published on November 16, 2023.
"If you’re going to redraw the lines to square up more with what 75% of Americans believe, how are you going to cover aid to Israel, which is wildly unpopular among that 75%?" one social media user wrote in response to Weiss, referencing recent polls showing that the vast majority of Americans now disapprove of Israel's military actions in Gaza.
Loesch, meanwhile, is far from a moderate or a cordial participant in polite disagreement. She is widely credited with helping to morph the NRA from purely a gun advocacy group into a vehicle for a broader right-wing culture war.
She has personally described gun safety advocates as “tragedy dry-humping whores,” and the political left as "godless." Meanwhile, she's appeared to threaten journalists explicitly, saying they "need to be curb-stomped," after previously calling them "the rat bastards of the Earth" and "the boil on the backside of American politics."
The example Bari Weiss gave of the "charismatic" mainstream debates she believes will revitalize CBS -- namely, the gun control debate she arranged between Alan Dershowitz and Dana Loesch -- has so far been watched by a grand total of 860 people in the 5 hours since posting: https://t.co/hZp1bBbfe9 pic.twitter.com/osN4CwD9nY
— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) November 25, 2025
Rather than reflecting the consensus of American opinion, Greenwald noted, the "charismatic" conversation between Dershowitz and Loesch on gun control had garnered a grand total of 860 views on YouTube within five hours of being posted.
"I’ve been writing about elite vs. popular politics for a long time," said Zachary D. Carter, a senior reporter at HuffPost. "[I] don’t think I’ve ever seen elite consensus more disconnected from public reality."
"Medicare shouldn’t have premiums... or copays or deductibles," said US Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed. "Medicare should cover vision, dental, and hearing. And Medicare should cover everyone."
With much of the nation's focus on skyrocketing Affordable Care Act costs, the Trump administration recently announced a Medicare Part B premium increase of nearly 10% for next year—an amount that will swallow a significant chunk of Social Security recipients' already paltry cost-of-living boost.
The monthly premium for recipients of Medicare Part B, the insurance portion of the program, will be $202.90 next year—a $17.90 increase compared to 2025. The increase will push the monthly premium above $200 for the first time in the program's history.
Jeanne Lambrew, director of healthcare reform at The Century Foundation, wrote in an analysis last week that the $17.90-per-month Medicare premium increase will effectively wipe out 33% of next year's Social Security cost-of-living adjustment (COLA), which was 2.8%—or $53.76 monthly.
"This is the greatest erosion of the COLA in nearly a decade," Lambrew observed. "The Medicare premium increase is the highest in four years, the projected employer-sponsored insurance increase is the highest in fifteen years, and the health insurance marketplace premium increase for 2026 is the highest out-of-pocket cost increase for all types of coverage in history."
To proponents of Medicare for All—a proposal that would provide comprehensive health coverage to everyone in the US for free at the point of service, for a lower overall cost than the status quo—rising premiums across the for-profit US healthcare system provide yet another reason for urgent, transformational change.
"Medicare shouldn’t have premiums... or copays or deductibles," Michigan US Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed wrote in a social media post on Tuesday. "Medicare should cover vision, dental, and hearing. And Medicare should cover everyone."
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), the lead sponsor of the Medicare for All Act in the Senate, bashed Republicans for their willingness to entertain a range of healthcare proposals "except one."
"They will never acknowledge that healthcare is a human right—to be guaranteed to ALL," the senator wrote on Monday, the day President Donald Trump was expected to unveil a patchwork healthcare proposal aimed at averting an Affordable Care Act (ACA) subsidy disaster of the GOP's making.
But the White House postponed the rollout as the plan—which reportedly would have extended the ACA tax credits for two years while imposing new limits on the program—faced pushback from Republicans on Capitol Hill. The president's proposal also reportedly included a scheme to push Americans into higher-deductible plans.
"Trump, facing collapsing polling and a potential riot-inducing scenario on health insurance, might have backed off temporarily on the longstanding Republican tendency to ruin the healthcare system so rich people can have more tax cuts," The American Prospect's David Dayen and Ryan Cooper wrote Tuesday. "But he’s still ruining the healthcare system, make no mistake, just a bit more stealthily. This has always been the GOP approach to healthcare, and it’s not going anywhere."