

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.

Rachel Myers, (212) 549-2689 or 2666; media@aclu.org
According to a report by the New York
Times today, the Obama administration changed a new manual on military
commissions rules to accommodate its illegal drone program. Under the
old rules, "murder in violation of the laws of war" was defined as
killings by people who did not meet "the requirements for lawful
combatancy," which would have suggested that CIA drone operators - who
are not members of the military and do not wear a military uniform -
could be charged with war crimes for killing individuals using drones.
The American Civil Liberties Union
maintains that the U.S. program of targeting and killing people,
sometimes far from any battlefield, with little oversight or
transparency is illegal regardless of the military commissions rules.
The following can
be attributed to Jonathan Manes, Legal Fellow in the ACLU National
Security Project:
"Attempts to fix the military
commissions rules to protect drone operators completely miss the point.
Targeting people for killing outside armed-conflict zones is illegal
regardless of who operates the drones, except in narrow circumstances
where lethal force is used against a person who poses a genuinely
imminent threat of death or grave physical harm, and there are no other
means available to prevent that threat.
"Changing the rules in order to
accommodate CIA drone strikes underscores the flaws in the entire
'global war on terror' paradigm. The entire world is not a battlefield.
The government cannot use quintessentially warlike measures - deploying
missiles and other offensive force - anywhere in the world that it
believes a suspected terrorist might be located."
The American Civil Liberties Union was founded in 1920 and is our nation's guardian of liberty. The ACLU works in the courts, legislatures and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to all people in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States.
(212) 549-2666"Our city has gone from a thriving city to a standstill," said one local official.
Residents in Charlotte, North Carolina are expressing outrage after two local women were arrested for honking their car horn to alert others that US Border Patrol was in the area.
Local news station WCNC reported on Monday that the two women, who are US citizens, were taken into custody in the city's Plaza Midwood neighborhood after Border Patrol agents pulled them over and accused them of interfering in operations by honking their horn.
Video of the incident shows masked federal agents yelling at the women and demanding that they roll down their car windows. When the women do not comply, one officer smashes through the window and then he and other officers pull them out of the vehicle.
The two women, who have not been identified, then spent several hours in an FBI facility before being released with citations.
Local resident Shea Watts, who took video of the encounter, told WCNC that he was feeling "somewhere between disbelief and just being really upset that this is our reality now" as he watched the incident unfold.
Watts also discussed his own interactions with the federal officers whom he was filming.
"I was already close to despair and feeling helpless and hopeless," he said. "But I think just the reminder that if we see something, to document it. I tried to be respectful and ask questions and knowing my own rights, and I was told to back up a couple times, which, that's fine, but at the end of the day, this all feels a little heavy handed."
Charlotte has become the latest target of the Trump administration's mass deportation operation, which has already drawn opposition from both local residents and elected officials in the North Carolina city.
NBC News reported on Monday that many Charlotte residents are living in fear of immigration operations in the city, with some local businesses closing down and some local churches reporting dramatic drops in attendance during the current operation.
Jonathan Ocampo, US citizen of Colombian descent who lives in the area, told NBC News that he's started carrying his passport with him everywhere for fear of being mistaken for an undocumented immigrant.
"I’m carrying it here right now, which is sad," he said. "It's just scary."
Charlotte city council member-elect JD Mazuera Arias told The Guardian on Monday that the immigration enforcement operations have had a chilling effect on the entire community.
"Our city has gone from a thriving city to a standstill," he said.
"Eliminating protections from small streams and wetlands will mean more pollution downstream—in our drinking water, at our beaches, and in our rivers," said one advocate.
Environmental justice campaigners on Monday said the Trump administration's latest rollback of wetland protections was "a gift to developers and polluters at the expense of communities" and demanded permanent protections for waterways.
“Clean water protections shouldn’t change with each administration,” said Betsy Southerland, former director of the Office of Science and Technology in the US Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Office of Water. “Every family deserves the same right to safe water, no matter where they live or who’s in office.”
EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin proposed changes to the rule known as "Waters of the United States" (WOTUS), which has been the subject of debate and legal challenges in recent decades. Under the Trump administration, as in President Donald Trump's first term, the EPA will focus on regulating permanent bodies of water like oceans, lakes, rivers, and streams.
The administration would more closely follow a 2023 Supreme Court decision, Sackett v. EPA, which the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) found this year would remove federal protections from 60-95% of wetlands across the nation.
The Zeldin rule would eliminate protections for most wetlands without visible surface water, going even further than Sackett v. EPA in codifying a narrower definition of wetlands that should be protected, said the Environmental Protection Network (EPN). The rule comes after pressure from industry groups that have bristled over past requirements to protect all waterways.
Wetlands provide critical wildlife habitats, replenish groundwater, control flooding, and protect clean water by filtering pollution.
The Biden administration required the Clean Water Act to protect “traditional navigable waters, the territorial seas, interstate waters, as well as upstream water resources that significantly affect those waters," but was constrained by the Sackett ruling in 2023.
“This proposed rule is unnecessary and damaging, and ignores the scientific reality of what is happening to our nation’s water supply."
Tarah Heinzen, legal director for Food and Water Watch, said the new rule "weakens the bedrock Clean Water Act, making it easier to fill, drain, and pollute sensitive waterways from coast to coast."
“Clean water is under attack in America, as polluting profiteers plunder our waters—Trump’s EPA is openly aiding and abetting this destruction," said Heinzen. “This rule flies in the face of science and commonsense. Eliminating protections from small streams and wetlands will mean more pollution downstream—in our drinking water, at our beaches, and in our rivers."
The "critical functions" of wetlands, she added, "will only become more important as worsening climate change makes extreme weather more frequent. EPA must reverse course."
Leda Huta, vice president of government relations for American Rivers, added that the change to WOTUS will "likely make things worse for flood-prone communities and industries dependent on clean, reliable water."
“This proposed rule is unnecessary and damaging, and ignores the scientific reality of what is happening to our nation’s water supply,” said Huta. "The EPA is taking a big swipe at the Clean Water Act, our greatest tool for ensuring clean water nationwide.”
The proposal was applauded by the National Association of Manufacturers, whose president, Jay Timmins, said companies' "ability to invest and build across the country" has been "undermined" by the Obama and Biden administration's broader interpretation of WOTUS.
But Southerland said Zeldin's proposal "ignores decades of science showing that wetlands and intermittent streams are essential to maintaining the health of our rivers, lakes, and drinking water supplies."
“This is one of the most significant setbacks to clean water protections in half a century,” she said. "It’s a direct assault on the clean water Americans rely on.”
Drew Caputo, vice president of litigation for lands, wildlife, and oceans at Earthjustice, said the group was evaluating the legality of the proposal and would "not hesitate to go to court to protect the cherished rivers, lakes, streams, and wetlands that all Americans need and depend on.”
"The proposal avoids specifying the exact scale of the deregulation it proposes, but it clearly would result in a serious reduction in legal protections for waters across the United States," said Caputo. "Many waters that have been protected by the Clean Water Act for over 50 years would lose those protections under this proposal."
"Sadly, we have a president who prefers the Saudi model—an autocracy run by a trillionaire family—to democracy," said US Sen. Bernie Sanders.
US President Donald Trump said Monday that he intends to authorize the sale of F-35 fighter jets to the autocratic kingdom of Saudi Arabia as the country's leader, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, heads to the United States for the first time since the horrific 2018 murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi.
"We will be selling F-35s," Trump told reporters in the Oval Office ahead of bin Salman's arrival.
The Saudis, Trump added, "want to buy them, they’ve been a great ally."
The Saudi crown prince, commonly known as MBS, is set to meet with Trump in the White House on Tuesday, heightening concerns among experts and watchdogs about a potential security pact and corrupt business deals with the kingdom. The New York Times reported Monday that the Trump Organization, formally run by the president's two eldest sons, is "in talks that could bring a Trump-branded property to one of Saudi Arabia’s largest government-owned real estate developments."
"The prince is overseeing a $63 billion project that is set to transform the historic Saudi town of Diriyah into a luxury destination with hotels, retail shops and office space," the Times noted. "Saudi officials toured the Diriyah development with Mr. Trump during the president’s official state visit in May, with the goal of piquing his interest in the project."
Robert Weissman, co-president of the watchdog group Public Citizen, said Tuesday that "we're seeing the complete merger of Trump’s business interests with US diplomacy and military policy."
"Trump's apparent authorization of F-35 sales to Saudi Arabia comes amidst reports of new Trump family business deals with the Saudi government and its affiliates," said Weissman. "These deals seem poised to direct tens of millions into the Trump family coffers in exchange for little more than permitting the family name to be attached to development projects."
The F-35 program, which is expected to cost US taxpayers trillions of dollars in the coming years, is widely seen as a boondoggle that primarily benefits massive defense contractors such as Lockheed Martin, the producer of the jets.
Internally, Pentagon officials have voiced concern that selling F-35s to Saudi Arabia could give China access to the jets' technology.
"How are Americans supposed to think that Trump’s decision on F-35 sales, over internal objections, not to mention over human rights concerns, is unconnected to Trump’s business arrangements with Saudi Arabia?" Weissman asked.
US Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) said in response to bin Salman's upcoming White House visit that "this is the dictator who had a US columnist murdered for criticizing the Saudi royal family."
"Sadly, we have a president who prefers the Saudi model—an autocracy run by a trillionaire family—to democracy," Sanders added.