

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.

Bahraini authorities should immediately release seven prominent opposition activists and a surgeon arrested on March 17, 2011, or charge them with a recognizable criminal offense and bring them immediately before an independent judicial authority, Human Rights Watch said today. Authorities should also reveal their whereabouts and provide them with immediate access to counsel and their families.
The official Bahrain News Agency announced on March 17 that the Bahraini Defense Force had arrested "several leaders of the sedition ring who had called for the downfall of the regime and had intelligence contacts with foreign countries." The statement accused the seven of inciting violence that led to the "killing of citizens and the destruction of public and private property." On March 15 King Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa decreed a three-month state of emergency to quell continuing peaceful anti-government street protests.
"The government is depriving them of their liberty in a completely arbitrary manner, apparently for their leading roles in peaceful protests demanding democracy," said Joe Stork, deputy Middle East director at Human Rights Watch. "At this point the lawyers and families of the people who have been arrested don't even know who is holding them or where."
Security forces arrested the seven activists between 2 and 5 a.m. on March 17. The surgeon, Dr. Ali Alekry, was detained later the same day. The arrested activists are Ebrahim Sharif, leader of the National Democratic Action Society; Hassan Mushaima, leader of the Haq Movement of Liberties and Democracy; Abd al-Wahab Hussein, leader of the al-Wefa Islamic Movement; Abdul-Jalil al-Singace, a leading member of the Haq Movement; Shaikh Saeed al-Nuri, a cleric and political activist; Shaikh Abd al-Hadi al-Mukhuther, also a cleric and political activist; and Hassan al-Haddad, a member of the Committee of the Unemployed.
Dr. Alekry was arrested at Salmaniya Medical Complex, the country's largest public health facility, after security forces surrounded the hospital. The whereabouts of another cleric and political activist, Shaikh Muhammed Habib al-Moqdad, are currently unknown. Human Rights Watch has not been able to confirm reports that he has been arrested.
Sharif, al-Singace, Mushaima, and Hussein are leading members of political societies that formed a loose coalition demanding democratic reforms. Sharif's secular leftist National Democratic Action Society (Wa'ad), along with the main Shia opposition group (al-Wifaq), has called for Bahrain's transformation to a constitutional monarchy. Mushaima, al-Singace, and Hussein's groups formed the "Coalition for a Republic," which called for abolishing the monarchy altogether. Sheikh al-Nuri, Sheikh al-Mukhuther, and Sheikh al-Moqdad were generally regarded as being more closely aligned with those seeking more radical changes in the power structure.
Dr. Alekry has been an outspoken critic of the government's actions following the attack on protesters at the Pearl Roundabout during the early morning hours of February 17 that led to the deaths of four Bahrainis, and has more recently been a leading voice in exposing restrictions on providing medical care to injured protesters.
Farida Qolam, Sharif's wife, released a statement on March 17 describing her husband's arrest. She said that their doorbell rang at about 1:50 a.m. When the couple opened the door they saw a large group of men wearing masks behind the entry gate, most of them wearing black civilian clothes. One pointed a gun toward Sharif, who gently asked him to put it down.
The couple repeatedly asked the men who they were, Qolam said, and one finally replied that they were "state security" (amn el dawla) and demanded that Sharif open the gate. Sharif did and went out to speak with them. In her statement, Qolam said there were 35 to 40 people in all, about 6 carrying guns. They took Sharif away to an undisclosed location.
Two of the lawyers handling the activists' cases told Human Rights Watch that several hours after security forces arrested their clients, the lawyers had filed requests to visit the arrested men with both the civil Public Prosecution Office and the office of the military prosecutor. The lawyers said the offices refused to accept their request or provide any information regarding the circumstances of the activists' detention.
The lawyers also told Human Rights Watch that Bahraini law does not provide any regulations limiting Bahraini Defense Force actions under a martial law decree. The explanatory memorandum to Article 36(b) of the Bahraini constitution says only that the "state of national safety" authorizes the government to restrict peoples' rights and freedoms to the extent required to preserve the national security.
Under international law, a state may not invoke a public emergency to justify arbitrary deprivations of liberty or unacknowledged detentions, nor may it deviate from fundamental principles of fair trial, including the presumption of innocence. People held as administrative detainees under a lawful state of emergency should, at a minimum, have the right to be brought before a judicial authority promptly after their arrest, be informed of the reasons for their detention, and have prompt access to legal counsel and family. They also should be allowed to challenge the lawfulness of their detention in a fair hearing, and to seek a remedy for mistreatment and arbitrary detention.
The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which Bahrain ratified in 2006, permits some restrictions on certain rights during an officially proclaimed public emergency that "threatens the life of the nation." According to the Human Rights Committee, the international body of experts that monitors state compliance with the treaty, any derogation of rights during a public emergency must be of an exceptional and temporary nature, and must be "limited to the extent strictly required by the exigencies of the situation." Certain fundamental rights - such as the right to life and the right to be secure from torture and other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment - must always be respected, even during a public emergency.
"To the best of our knowledge Bahraini authorities have not made public any rules or regulations under the so-called national safety law," Stork said. "The authorities apparently think they can do as they wish, but they are wrong."
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.
Israel is seeking to invalidate the ICC's arrest warrants for fugitive Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant for alleged crimes against humanity and war crimes.
Appellate judges at the embattled International Criminal Court on Monday rejected Israel's attempt to block an investigation into alleged Israeli war crimes committed during the Gaza genocide.
The ICC Appeals Chamber dismissed an Israeli challenge to the assertion that the October 7, 2023, attacks and subsequent war on Gaza were part of the same ongoing "situation" under investigation by the Hague-based tribunal since 2021. Israel argued they were separate matters that required new notice; however, the ICC panel found that the initial probe encompasses events on and after October 7.
The ruling—which focuses on but one of several Israeli legal challenges to the ICC—comes amid the tribunal's investigation into an Israeli war and siege that have left at least 250,000 Palestinians dead, maimed, or missing and 2 million more displaced, starved, or sickened.
The probe led to last year's ICC arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyhau and former Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity, including murder and forced starvation. The ICC also issued warrants for the arrest of three Hamas commanders—all of whom have since been killed by Israel.
Israel and the United States, neither of which are party to the Rome Statute governing the ICC, vehemently reject the tribunal's investigation. In the US—which has provided Israel with more than $21 billion in armed aid as well as diplomatic cover throughout the genocide—the Trump administration has sanctioned nine ICC jurists, leaving them and their families "wiped out socially and financially."
The other Hague-based global tribunal, the International Court of Justice, is currently weighing a genocide case against Israel filed in December 2023 by South Africa and backed by more than a dozen nations, as well as regional blocs representing dozens of countries.
University of Copenhagen international law professor Kevin Jon Heller—who is also a special adviser to the ICC prosecutor on war crimes—told Courthouse News Service that “the real importance of the decision is that it strongly implies Israel will lose its far more important challenge to the court’s jurisdiction over Israeli actions in Palestine."
Although Israel is not an ICC member and does not recognize its jurisdiction, Palestine is a state party to the Rome Statute, under which individuals from non-signatory nations can be held liable for crimes committed in the territory of a member state.
The Israeli Foreign Ministry condemned Monday's decision, calling it "yet another example of the ongoing politicization of the ICC and its blatant disregard for the sovereign rights of non-party states, as well as its own obligations under the Rome Statute."
The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), a Washington, DC-based advocacy group, welcomed the ICC decision.
“This ruling by the International Criminal Court affirms that no state is above the law and that war crimes must be fully and independently investigated," CAIR said in a statement. "Accountability is essential for justice, for the victims, and survivors, and for deterring future crimes against humanity.”
"Wales and Sanger must be stopped from trying to censor the Wikipedia ‘Gaza genocide’ entry that clearly documents Israel’s horrifying crime against humanity.”
More than 40 advocacy groups on Monday called on Wikipedia editors and the Wikimedia board of trustees to reject efforts by the web-based encyclopedia's co-founders to censor the site's entry on the Gaza genocide.
After months of internal debate, editors of the Wikipedia article titled “Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Israeli attack on Gaza” renamed the entry "Gaza genocide" in July 2024, reflecting experts' growing acknowledgement that Israel's annihilation and siege of the Palestinian exclave met the legal definition of the ultimate crime. The entry also notes that the Gaza genocide is not settled legal fact—an International Court of Justice case on the matter is ongoing—and that numerous experts refute the claim that Israel's war is genocidal.
The move, and the subsequent addition of Gaza to Wikipedia's article listing cases of genocide, sparked heated "edit wars" on the community-edited site—which has long been a target of pro-Israeli public relations efforts. In the United States, a pair of House Republicans launched an investigation to reveal the identities of the anonymous Wikipedia editors who posted negative facts about Israel.
"Israeli officials and pro-Israel organizations are attempting to hide the horrifying reality... by putting pressure on institutions like Wikipedia to engage in genocide denial."
Wikipedia co-founders Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger have intervened in the dispute, with Wales—a self-described "strong supporter of Israel"—publicly stating that the Gaza genocide entry lacked neutrality, failed to meet Wikipedia's "high standards," and required "immediate attention" after an editor blocked changes to the article.
"Wales and Sanger are using their roles as Wikipedia founders to bypass the normal editing and review process and introduce their
own ideological biases into an entry that has already undergone exhaustive vetting and review by Wikipedia editors, including thousands of edits and comments," the 42 advocacy groups said in a letter to Wikimedia's board and site editors.
"Their efforts deny the documented reality of Israel’s genocide in Gaza and contradict the broad consensus among genocide scholars, international human rights organizations, UN experts, and both Palestinian and Israeli human rights organizations," the groups continue. "In doing so, Wales and Sanger are engaging in attempted censorship and genocide denial."
The letters' signers include the American Friends Service Committee, Artists Against Apartheid, Brave New Films, CodePink, Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), Democracy for the Arab World Now (DAWN), Doctors Against Genocide, MPower Change Action Fund, Peace Action, and United Methodists for Kairos Response.
Since the Hamas-led October 7, 2023 attack, Israel's retaliatory obliteration and siege on Gaza—for which Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant are wanted by the International Criminal Court for alleged crimes against humanity and war crimes—have left more than 250,000 Palestinians dead, maimed, or missing. Around 2 million other Palestinians have been forcibly displaced, sickened, or starved in what hunger experts say is an entirely human-caused famine.
"The simple reality is that Israeli officials and pro-Israel organizations are attempting to hide the horrifying reality of Israel’s genocide in Gaza by pretending that there is a substantive debate and by putting pressure on institutions like Wikipedia to engage in genocide denial," the groups' letter asserts.
"Wales’ 'both sides' framework for denying the Gaza genocide," the groups warned, "could also be used to legitimize Holocaust denial, denial of the Armenian genocide, or to platform 'flat-earthers' who deny the Earth’s spherical shape."
"Healthcare is a human right. That’s why we need Medicare for All," said one senator. "And the American people agree!"
In Maine, only one of the top two candidates in the Democratic US Senate primary has expressed support for the specific healthcare reform proposal that continues to be treated by the political establishment as radical—but which is supported by not only a sizable majority of Mainers but also most Americans surveyed in several recent polls.
Graham Platner, a veteran and oyster farmer who was a political novice when he launched his campaign in August and has polled well ahead of Gov. Janet Mills in several recent surveys, and a poll that asked Mainers about healthcare on Saturday showed he is in lockstep with many people in the state.
As the advocacy group Maine AllCare reported, the Pan Atlantic 67th Omnibus poll found that 63% of Mainers support Medicare for All, the proposal to transition the US to a system like that of other wealthy countries, with the government expanding the existing Medicare program and guaranteeing health coverage to all.
Those results bolster the findings of More Perfect Union in October, which found 72% of Mainers backing Medicare for All, and of Data for Progress, which found last month that 65% of all Americans—including 78% of Democratic voters—support a "national health insurance program... that would cover all Americans and replace most private health insurance plans.”
Even more recently, a Pew Research survey released last week found that 66% of respondents nationwide said the government should guarantee health coverage.
Platner has spoken out forcefully in support of Medicare for All, saying unequivocally last month that the proposal "is the answer" to numerous healthcare crises including the loss of primary care providers in many parts of the country and skyrocketing healthcare costs.
He made the comments soon after Mills said at a healthcare roundtable that "it is time" for a universal healthcare system, but did not explicitly endorse Medicare for All.
Maine AllCare noted that the latest polling on Medicare for All in the state comes as Maine "is on the verge of a multi-pronged healthcare crisis" due to Republican federal lawmakers' refusal to extend Affordable Care Act subsidies—which is projected to significantly raise monthly premiums for many Maine families as well as millions of people across the country. People in Maine and other states are also bracing for changes to Medicaid, including eligibility requirements.
Those changes "alongside long-standing affordability and access gaps, are projected to cost Maine billions and trigger deep operating losses in already strained hospitals," said Maine AllCare.
The group emphasized that that the Republican budget reconciliation law that President Donald Trump signed in July is projected to have a range of economic impacts on Maine, including a $450 million decline in statewide economic output, the loss of 4,300 state jobs, and the loss of $700 million in revenue at the state's hospitals due to Medicaid cuts.
“Maine needs a sustainable and universal healthcare system now. Poll after poll show people want Medicare for All. Our leaders can let the current health system continue collapsing—harming families, communities, and the economy of our state—or they can meet the moment and fight like hell to enact change that protects both the people and the future of the state," said David Jolly, a Maine AllCare board member. "That is the work Mainers elected them to do and that is what they must do now.”
Despite the broad popularity of the proposal to expand the Medicare program to everyone in the US—a system that would cost less than the current for-profit health insurance system does, according to numerous studies—supporters, including the 17 cosponsors of the Medicare for All bill in the US Senate and the 110 cosponsors in the US House, continue to face attacks from establishment politicians regarding the cost and feasibility of the proposal.
On Monday, Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) explained to Fox News anchor Maria Bartiromo how the Affordable Care Act that was passed by the Democratic Party is "not the solution" to the country's healthcare crisis, because it keeps in place the for-profit health insurance industry.
"The solution, as everyone knows, in my view, who has studied this, is Medicare for All," said Khanna. "People should have national health insurance. Healthcare is a human right. You should not be subject to these private insurance companies that have 18% admin costs, that are making billions of dollars in profits."
I made the case for Medicare for All on @MorningsMaria with @MariaBartiromo with facts and basic economics. https://t.co/ExZpCNQT7B pic.twitter.com/F226Kutv16
— Ro Khanna (@RoKhanna) December 15, 2025
Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) also spoke out in favor of the proposal, pointing to the recent Data for Progress poll that showed 65% of Americans and 78% of Democrats backing Medicare for All.
"Healthcare is a human right. That’s why we need Medicare for All," said Merkley. "We need to simplify our system and make sure folks can get the care they need, when they need it. And the American people agree!"