

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.

Syria should cease use of live fire and other excessive force against protesters, as it did on March 18and 20, 2011, in the southern town of Daraa, leaving at least five people dead, Human Rights Watch said today.
Sunday, March 20 marked the third day of protests in Daraa, where government forces yet again fired on protesters and used teargas to break up a public gathering, killing one person and injuring dozens of others, according to media reports. Today's fatality brings the total number of protesters killed in Daraa to at least five.
"The Syrian government has shown no qualms about shooting dead its own citizens for speaking out," said Sarah Leah Whitson, Middle East and North Africa director at Human Rights Watch. "Syrians have shown incredible courage in daring to protest publicly against one of the most repressive governments in the region, and they shouldn't have to pay with their lives."
Security forces used teargas and fired on protesters who gathered in the town. An eyewitness speaking on a BBC Arabic television broadcast claimed they used teargas in far greater quantities on Sunday than during Friday's protests. Today's protests also reportedly turned violent with the BBC reporting that some protesters in Daraa set fire to several buildings including the headquarters of the ruling Baath Party.
On March 18, following Friday prayer, several thousand protesters had marched from the al-Omari Mosque in the southern city of Daraa, calling for greater political freedom and accusing members of the government of corruption, according to a resident of the suburbs of Daraa who spoke to Human Rights Watch. Media reports provided similar accounts. Footage of the events on YouTube show security forces using water cannons to disperse protesters, but later, the security forces started firing at the protesters.
According to Reuters, security forces fired on and killed Wissam Ayyash, Mahmoud al-Jawabra, and Ayham al-Hariri. A fourth protester, Adnan Akrad, died on Saturday from wounds also sustained by live ammunition used by Syrian security forces. Another YouTube video shows a body being carried from the crowd, covered in blood, with the sound of repeated gunfire in the background. Human Rights Watch was unable to confirm independently the names of the dead. A resident in Daraa told Human Rights Watch on March 19 that he understood four people had been killed and that two bodies were returned to their families on Friday. The residents also heard that some of the wounded had been taken by helicopters to unknown destinations. They believed that there were approximately 35 other civilians wounded and 15 security men who were transported away by helicopter.
On March 19, security forces also used teargas to disperse thousands of mourners who gathered for the funeral of Ayyash and al-Jawabra who had been killed. A resident from Daraa told Human Rights Watch:
"After the burial of the two men, ... people left the cemetery chanting that after today there will not be any fear. Security members met them at the bridge with teargas canisters and later used bullets to disperse them."
"The Syrian government's attack on the funeral procession only adds insult to injury," said Whitson. "Syrian authorities promised to investigate, but such promises ring hollow while the government continues to attack Syrians to for exercising their rights to public assembly."
Authorities also restricted communications and movement from Daraa on Friday and Saturday. Two Syrian activists told Human Rights Watch on March 19 that the government had disconnected all landlines and interrupted cell phone service in the town of Daraa, though by March 20 telephone communication was restored. Meanwhile, authorities have reportedly sealed the city of Daraa, allowing people to leave but prohibiting anyone from entering.
The Syrian state news agency SANA announced on March 19 that the Ministry of Interior would form a committee to investigate Friday's "regrettable" events, and would respond with all measures deemed necessary after the committee's investigation. On March 20, the government sent a delegation to Daraa, and announced through SANA that 15 children from the town who had been arrested weeks earlier for anti-government graffiti would be released immediately. Friday's protest in Daraa was precipitated by the arrests of the group of schoolchildren.
This is not the first time that Syrian forces have used lethal force to break up a demonstration. On March 21, 2010, security forces fired at a group of Kurds celebrating Nowruz (Kurdish New Year) in Northern Syria, killing one person and wounding others. Two years previously, in March 2008, Syrian internal security forces had also opened fire on Kurds celebrating Nowruz in the town of Qamishli in northeastern Syria, killing three and wounding five others. To Human Rights Watch's knowledge, the authorities did not investigate these shooting incidents and no security official has ever been held accountable.
Human Rights Watch said that in policing demonstrations, security forces should abide by the United Nations Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials. These international standards call on law enforcement officials to apply nonviolent means before resorting to the use of force, and then they may only use force in proportion to the seriousness of the threat against them. Security forces should use lethal force only when strictly necessary to protect lives. Article 21 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which Syria is a party, guarantees the right of peaceful assembly and obliges states to ensure that the right can be effectively exercised. Article 6 of the ICCPR also prohibits the arbitrary deprivation of life.
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.
"Can't follow the law when a judge says fund the program, but have to follow the rules exactly when they say don't help poor people afford food," one lawyer said.
As the Trump administration continued its illegal freeze on food assistance, the US Department of Agriculture sent a warning to grocery stores not to provide discounts to the more than 42 million Americans affected.
Several grocery chains and food delivery apps have announced in recent days that they would provide substantial discounts to those whose Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits have been delayed. More than 1 in 8 Americans rely on the program, and 39% of them are children.
But on Sunday, Catherine Rampell, a reporter at the Washington Post published an email from the USDA that was sent to grocery stores around the country, telling them they were prohibited from offering special discounts to those at greater risk of food insecurity due to the cuts.
"You must offer eligible foods at the same prices and on the same terms and conditions to SNAP-EBT customers as other customers, except that sales tax cannot be charged on SNAP purchases," the email said. "You cannot treat SNAP-EBT customers differently from any other customer. Offering discounts or services only to SNAP-eligible customers is a SNAP violation unless you have a SNAP equal treatment waiver."
The email referred to SNAP's "Equal Treatment Rule," which prohibits stores from discriminating against SNAP recipients by charging them higher prices or treating them more favorably than other customers by offering them specialized sales or incentives.
Rampell said she was "aware of at least two stores that had offered struggling customers a discount, then withdrew it after receiving this email."
She added that it was "understandable why grocery stores might be scared off" because "a store caught violating the prohibition could be denied the ability to accept SNAP benefits in the future. In low-income areas where the SNAP shutdown will have the biggest impact, getting thrown off SNAP could mean a store is no longer financially viable."
While the rule prohibits special treatment in either direction, legal analyst Jeffrey Evan Gold argues that it was a "perverted interpretation of a rule that stops grocers from price gouging SNAP recipients... charging them more when they use food stamps."
The government also notably allows retailers to request waivers for programs that incentivize SNAP recipients to purchase healthy food.
Others pointed out that SNAP is currently not paying out to Americans because President Donald Trump is defying multiple federal court rulings issued Friday, requiring him to tap a $6 billion contingency fund to ensure benefit payments go out. Both courts, in Massachusetts and Rhode Island, have said his administration's refusal to pay out benefits is against the law.
One labor movement lawyer summed up the administration's position on social media: "Can't follow the law when a judge says fund the program, but have to follow the rules exactly when they say don't help poor people afford food."
"You need to understand that he actually believes it is illegal to criticize him," wrote Sen. Chris Murphy.
After failing to use the government's might to bully Jimmy Kimmel off the air earlier this fall, President Donald Trump is once again threatening to bring the force of law down on comedians for the egregious crime of making fun of him.
This time, his target was NBC late-night host Seth Meyers, whom the president said, in a Truth Social post Saturday, "may be the least talented person to 'perform' live in the history of television."
On Thursday, the comedian hosted a segment mocking Trump's bizarre distaste for the electromagnetic catapults aboard Navy ships, which the president said he may sign an executive order to replace with older (and less efficient) steam-powered ones.
Trump did not take kindly to Meyers' barbs: "On and on he went, a truly deranged lunatic. Why does NBC waste its time and money on a guy like this??? - NO TALENT, NO RATINGS, 100% ANTI TRUMP, WHICH IS PROBABLY ILLEGAL!!!"
It is, of course, not "illegal" for a late-night comedian, or any other news reporter or commentator, for that matter, to be "anti-Trump." But it's not the first time the president has made such a suggestion. Amid the backlash against Kimmel's firing in September, Trump asserted that networks that give him "bad publicity or press" should have their licenses taken away.
"I read someplace that the networks were 97% against me... I mean, they’re getting a license, I would think maybe their license should be taken away,” Trump said. "All they do is hit Trump. They’re licensed. They’re not allowed to do that.”
His FCC director, Brendan Carr, used a similar logic to justify his pressure campaign to get Kimmel booted by ABC, which he said could be punished for airing what he determined was "distorted” content.
Before Kimmel, Carr suggested in April that Comcast may be violating its broadcast licenses after MSNBC declined to air a White House press briefing in which the administration defended its wrongful deportation of Salvadoran immigrant Kilmar Abrego Garcia.
"You need to understand that he actually believes it is illegal to criticize him," wrote Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) on social media following Trump's tirade against Meyers. "Why? Because Trump believes he—not the people—decides the law. This is why we are in the middle of, not on the verge of, a totalitarian takeover."
"An ICE officer may ignore evidence of American citizenship—including a birth certificate—if the app says the person is an alien," said the ranking member of the House Homeland Security Committee.
Immigration agents are using facial recognition software as "definitive" evidence to determine immigration status and is collecting data from US citizens without their consent. In some cases, agents may detain US citizens, including ones who can provide their birth certificates, if the app says they are in the country illegally.
These are a few of the findings from a series of articles published this past week by 404 Media, which has obtained documents and video evidence showing that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agents are using a smartphone app in the field during immigration stops, scanning the faces of people on the street to verify their citizenship.
The report found that agents frequently conduct stops that "seem to have little justification beyond the color of someone’s skin... then look up more information on that person, including their identity and potentially their immigration status."
While it is not clear what application the agencies are using, 404 previously reported that ICE is using an app called Mobile Fortify that allows ICE to simply point a camera at a person on the street. The photos are then compared with a bank of more than 200 million images and dozens of government databases to determine info about the person, including their name, date of birth, nationality, and information about their immigration status.
On Friday, 404 published an internal document from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) which stated that "ICE does not provide the opportunity for individuals to decline or consent to the collection and use of biometric data/photograph collection." The document also states that the image of any face that agents scan, including those of US citizens, will be stored for 15 years.
The outlet identified several videos that have been posted to social media of immigration officials using the technology.
In one, taken in Chicago, armed agents in sunglasses and face coverings are shown accosting a pair of Hispanic teenagers on bicycles, asking where they are from. The 16-year-old boy who filmed the encounter said he is "from here"—an American citizen—but that he only has a school ID on him. The officer tells the boy he'll be allowed to leave if he'll "do a facial." The other officer then snaps a photo of him with a phone camera and asks his name.
In another video, also in Chicago, agents are shown surrounding a driver, who declines to show his ID. Without asking, one officer points his phone at the man. "I’m an American citizen, so leave me alone,” the driver says. "Alright, we just got to verify that,” the officer responds.
Even if the people approached in these videos had produced identification proving their citizenship, there's no guarantee that agents would have accepted it, especially if the app gave them information to the contrary.
On Wednesday, ranking member of the House Homeland Security Committee, Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), told 404 that ICE agents will even trust the app's results over a person's government documents.
“ICE officials have told us that an apparent biometric match by Mobile Fortify is a ‘definitive’ determination of a person’s status and that an ICE officer may ignore evidence of American citizenship—including a birth certificate—if the app says the person is an alien,” he said.
This is despite the fact that, as Nathan Freed Wessler, deputy director of the ACLU's Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project, told 404, “face recognition technology is notoriously unreliable, frequently generating false matches and resulting in a number of known wrongful arrests across the country."
Thompson said: "ICE using a mobile biometrics app in ways its developers at CBP never intended or tested is a frightening, repugnant, and unconstitutional attack on Americans’ rights and freedoms.”
According to an investigation published in October by ProPublica, more than 170 US citizens have been detained by immigration agents, often in squalid conditions, since President Donald Trump returned to office in January. In many of these cases, these individuals have been detained because agents wrongly claimed the documents proving their citizenship are false.
During a press conference this week, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem denied this reality, stating that "no American citizens have been arrested or detained" as part of Trump's "mass deportation" crusade.
"We focus on those who are here illegally," she said.
But as DHS's internal document explains, facial recognition software is necessary in the first place because "ICE agents do not know an individual's citizenship at the time of the initial encounter."
David Bier, the director of immigration studies at the Cato Institute, explains that the use of such technology suggests that ICE's operations are not "highly targeted raids," as it likes to portray, but instead "random fishing expeditions."