

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.
Emilie Surrusco, Alaska Wilderness League (202) 544-5205
Rebecca Noblin, Center for Biological Diversity (907) 274-1110
Erik Grafe, Earthjustice (907) 723-3813
Eric Myers, National Audubon Society (907) 276-7034
Justin Allegro, National Wildlife Federation (202) 797-6611
Bob Deans, Natural Resources Defense Council (202) 289-2393
Pamela Miller, Northern Alaska Environmental Center (907) 441-2407
Michael Levine, Oceana (907) 723-0136
Carole Holley, Pacific Environment (907) 277-1029
Marilyn Heiman, Pew Environment Group (206) 905-4796
Kristina Johnson, Sierra Club (415) 977-5619
Joe Pouliot, World Wildlife Fund (202) 495-4730
Lois Epstein, The Wilderness Society (907) 272-9453, x107
Department of Interior Secretary Ken Salazar announced today that more environmental review is needed before Shell Oil can proceed with drilling in the Beaufort Sea in the Arctic Ocean. The Secretary announced that the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement (BOEMRE) is preparing a supplemental environmental assessment of Shell Oil's plans to drill in an important feeding and resting area for endangered bowhead whales and directly offshore the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in the Beaufort Sea in 2011. In addition, Secretary Salazar announced that Interior will consider including the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas in a proposed new five-year plan.
The following statement comes from Alaska Wilderness League; Center for Biological Diversity; Earthjustice; National Audubon Society; Natural Resources Defense Council; National Wildlife Federation; Northern Alaska Environmental Center; Oceana; Pacific Environment; Pew Environment Group; Sierra Club; The Wilderness Society and World Wildlife Fund.
"The Department of the Interior has taken an important step forward today by requiring an additional environmental review and rejecting Shell Oil's request that its plans be approved without such review.
However, it is disturbing that Interior proposes to evaluate including the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas in the 2012-2017 five-year plan, despite a severe lack of information and an inability to clean up oil spills in Arctic conditions. The same reasons that Secretary Salazar gave for leaving out the Eastern Gulf and mid-Atlantic apply to the Arctic's Beaufort and Chukchi Seas: 'We need to proceed with caution and focus on creating a more stringent regulatory regime.' The Arctic's Beaufort and Chukchi Seas should not be proposed for inclusion in the 2012-2017 plan.
Any drilling in the Arctic Ocean is highly risky. The Department of the Interior announcement today recognizes that more scientific analysis is needed before an informed decision can be made on whether to drill in the Arctic. The law and common sense mandate that no drilling move forward until environmental review is complete. This process also will allow impacted Alaska Native communities and the general public to participate before that decision is made, which is important to ensure that the lessons of the Deepwater Horizon are learned.
Today's announcement is an important first step, but Interior should require a full environmental impact statement before Shell is permitted to drill in the Arctic Ocean because that drilling could result in significant environmental impacts, for example, from a major oil spill.
A new environmental analysis for Shell Oil's Beaufort Sea drilling must address:
Potentially significant effects to species such as endangered bowhead whales, threatened polar bears and the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge coastline and from potential oil spills;
The need for research and data collection to provide a baseline understanding of Arctic species, ecosystems and environmental conditions, and the impacts of oil spills in that environment;
The need for a candid and accurate risk assessment and imposition of risk prevention measures;
Identification of the shortfalls in spill response systems, known as the response gap, and spill prevention measures that must be in place to mitigate those gaps;
Enhanced and vigilant oversight by government agencies and citizens to reduce the possibility of oil spills."
"We want this case to help stop these killings from taking place again," said the American lawyer representing the family.
Family members of a Colombian fisherman killed in one of the Trump administration's illegal strikes on boats in the Caribbean is preparing to take legal action over what they describe as the murder of their loved one.
The New York Times reported Thursday that the family of Alejandro Carranza "has hired an American lawyer, who said he was preparing a legal claim."
The lawyer, Dan Kovalik, told the Times that the impending case is important both because "the family deserves compensation for the loss" of Alejandro and, more broadly to stop the Trump administration from killing people with impunity.
"We want this case to help stop these killings from taking place again," Kovalik said. "This is murder, and it is destroying rule of law."
The description of Carranza's killing as murder aligns with the views of United Nations experts and human rights advocates who have characterized the Trump administration's bombings in international waters as extrajudicial killings. To date, the administration has carried out at least 19 strikes on vessels in international waters, killing an estimated 75-80 people in total.
"I never thought I would lose my father in this way," said Cheila Carranza, Alejandro's 14-year-old daughter.
Trump has claimed, without providing any evidence, that the targeted vessels were smuggling drugs to the US. Though his body has yet to be found, Carranza is believed to have been killed in an attack in the Caribbean on September 15, part of the Trump administration's broader military campaign and buildup in the region that has sparked fears of a direct US war with Venezuela and other nations.
The attack infuriated Colombia President Gustavo Petro, who suspended intelligence cooperation with the US in response and accused the Trump administration of trampling international law.
"If intelligence communications only serve to kill fishermen with missiles, it is not only irrational, but a crime against humanity, insofar as the murder of civilians is systematic," Petro wrote in a lengthy social media post earlier this week.
"Colombia respects international law and defends it because it is the only wall we have as a human civilization against the barbarism that threatens to take over all of humanity," he added.
"Everyone deserves to be treated with dignity," said Congresswoman Alma Adams, warning of "what we have seen Border Patrol and ICE agents do in places like Chicago and Los Angeles."
Elected officials in North Carolina are letting it be known they do not want to see federal immigration raids in their communities like those suffered by other states in recent months.
As CBS News reported Friday morning that after two months of terrorizing Chicago, US Border Patrol Commander-at-Large Gregory Bovino left for Charlotte, officials came together in his apparent destination to speak out against the looming assault on immigrants there.
"We're all gathered here from many branches of government, from obviously our state Legislature, our school board, our County Commission, our City Council members, because we do not want ICE here," said state House Rep. Aisha Dew (D-107), referring to Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
"We do not need to have Border Patrol. As I've already said, I'm not quite sure what border we're patrolling here," she continued. Stressing that the surrounding US states pose no threat to North Carolina, Dew added that "this is a safe city. Our crime rates have gone down since the previous year. This is just another something out of the playbook."
The press conference—which also included leaders of local organizations—came after various reports this week cited unnamed US officials who said President Donald Trump has set his sights on Charlotte.
Amid mounting reports of the forthcoming operation, Mecklenburg County Sheriff Garry L. McFadden said in a Thursday statement that he was contacted a day earlier "by two separate federal officials confirming that US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) personnel will be arriving in the Charlotte area as early as this Saturday or the beginning of next week."
"At this time, specific details regarding the federal operation have not been disclosed and the Mecklenburg County Sheriff's Office (MCSO) has not been requested to assist with or participate in any enforcement actions," the statement highlighted.
The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department similarly said in a Friday statement that CMPD "has no authority to enforce federal immigration laws" and "does not participate in ICE operations, nor are we involved in the planning of these federal activities."
ICE and CBP are both part of the US Department of Homeland Security. DHS Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin has declined to provide any details about possible action in Charlotte, telling multiple outlets: "Every day, DHS enforces the laws of the nation across the country. We do not discuss future or potential operations."
As the Associated Press noted Thursday:
Trump has defended sending the military and immigration agents into Democratic-run cities like Los Angeles, Chicago, and even the nation's capital, saying the unprecedented operations are needed to fight crime and carry out his mass deportation agenda.
Charlotte is another such Democratic stronghold. A statement of solidarity from several local and state officials estimated the city is home to more than 150,000 foreign-born people. The city's population is about 40% white, 33% Black, 16% Hispanic, and 7% Asian.
While a spokesperson for North Carolina Congressman Tim Moore, a Republican whose district includes parts of Mecklenburg County, expressed support for DHS in a statement to the Charlotte Observer, Democratic Congresswoman Alma Adams, who represents the targeted city, sounded the alarm about the department's reported plans.
"I am extremely concerned about the deployment of US Border Patrol and ICE agents to Charlotte," Adams said in a Thursday statement. "Charlotte's immigrant community is a proud part of the Queen City, and I will not stand by and watch my constituents be intimidated or harassed."
"Everyone deserves to be treated with dignity, and what we have seen Border Patrol and ICE agents do in places like Chicago and Los Angeles—using excessive force in their operations and tear gassing peaceful protestors—threatens the well-being of the communities they enter," she continued. "Those tactics and values have no place in the city of Charlotte or Mecklenburg County."
After the sheriff's Thursday announcement, Charlotte's Democratic mayor, Vi Lyles, also shared a statement on social media: "We still don't know any details on where they may be operating and to what extent. I understand this news will create uncertainty and anxiety for many people in our community. Everyone in our community deserves to feel secure, and I am committed to doing all that I can to inform our community, help make sure everyone feels safe, and understands their rights."
"It is also important that people understand CMPD is not involved in federal immigration activities, so people who need local law enforcement services should feel secure calling 911," she added. "There continues to be rumors about enforcement activities and I would ask that everyone refrain from sharing unverified information. Doing so creates more fear and uncertainty when we need to be standing together. We will continue to work with local and state partners to do what we can to ensure the safety of our community."
"The barriers to performing sophisticated cyberattacks have dropped substantially—and we predict that they’ll continue to do so," said AI company Anthropic.
A Democratic senator on Thursday sounded the alarm on the dangers of unregulated artificial intelligence after AI company Anthropic revealed it had thwarted what it described as "the first documented case of a large-scale cyberattack executed without substantial human intervention."
According to Anthropic, it is highly likely that the attack was carried out by a Chinese state-sponsored group, and it targeted "large tech companies, financial institutions, chemical manufacturing companies, and government agencies."
After a lengthy technical explanation describing how the attack occurred and how it was ultimately thwarted, Anthropic then discussed the security implications for AI that can execute mass cyberattacks with minimal direction from humans.
"The barriers to performing sophisticated cyberattacks have dropped substantially—and we predict that they’ll continue to do so," the firm said. "With the correct setup, threat actors can now use agentic AI systems for extended periods to do the work of entire teams of experienced hackers."
Anthropic went on to say that hackers could now use AI to carry tasks such as "analyzing target systems, producing exploit code, and scanning vast datasets of stolen information more efficiently than any human operator," which could open the door to "less experienced and resourced groups" carrying out some of the most sophisticated attack operations.
The company concluded by warning that "the techniques described above will doubtless be used by many more attackers—which makes industry threat sharing, improved detection methods, and stronger safety controls all the more critical."
This cybersecurity strategy wasn't sufficient for Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), who said government intervention would be needed to mitigate the potential harms caused by AI.
"Guys wake the f up," he wrote in a social media post. "This is going to destroy us—sooner than we think—if we don’t make AI regulation a national priority tomorrow."
Democratic California state Sen. Scott Wiener noted that many big tech firms have continuously fought against government oversight into AI despite threats that are growing stronger by the day.
"For two years, we advanced legislation to require large AI labs to evaluate their models for catastrophic risk or at least disclose their safety practices," he explained. "We got it done, but industry (not Anthropic) continues to push for federal ban on state AI rules, with no federal substitute."
Some researchers who spoke with Ars Technica, however, expressed skepticism that the AI-driven hack was really as sophisticated as Anthropic had claimed simply because they believe current AI technology is not yet good enough to execute that caliber of operation.
Dan Tentler, executive founder of Phobos Group, told the publication that the efficiency with which the hackers purportedly got the AI to carry out their commands was wildly different than what he has experienced using the technology.
"I continue to refuse to believe that attackers are somehow able to get these models to jump through hoops that nobody else can," he said. "Why do the models give these attackers what they want 90% of the time but the rest of us have to deal with ass-kissing, stonewalling, and acid trips?"