

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.

Today, Center for Constitutional Rights Executive Director Vince Warren issued the following statement in response to the leaks of government allegations against 750 Guantanamo detainees and the multiple news stories that accompanied the leaks:
The documents that have just been released again shed light on the Bush administration's disarray and desperation and reaffirm that the primary goal of Guantanamo was always intelligence gathering and not keeping so-called dangerous men off the streets. They provide more public detail on the many innocent men at Guantanamo, many of whom remained and remain there long after the government knew they were innocent. The danger is that putting the outdated allegations in these documents out without proper context can lead to the assumption that many of the men are more dangerous than they turned out to be.
News organizations around the world have covered the leaks of allegations against men currently and formerly detained at Guantanamo, but the New York Times is most notable for its unfiltered recycling of out of date and long-discredited DOD claims and its sensationalizing of inflated risk assessments over revelations of abuses committed by the U.S. For example, the Times lists five Russian men as being recidivists when not even the DOD continues to include them since they were tortured on their return to Russia (as documented by Human Rights Watch). A Center for Constitutional Rights client, Abu Sufian Ibrahim Ahmed Hamuda bin Qumu, is also listed as a recidivist, when in fact he was jailed on his return to Libya and is now allegedly fighting with the U.S.-supported rebels, as is made clear in another article in the same paper. That the large print, "Released from Guantanamo, They Took Up Arms" headline is followed by a small print, "against various foes" does little to mitigate the inflammatory message.
These are only a few of the examples, but they amount to an irresponsible repetition of the scare stories that abet those forces seeking to legitimate the continued existence of Guantanamo and the scheme of detention without charge that the place was created to facilitate. Even the disclaimer included on the Times website has been watered down from its previous version: now, buried at the bottom of the About section of the Guantanamo Docket feature, it reads, "The documents contain the Defense Department's assessments of the detainees, some of which have been challenged in federal court, and in some of the cases lower court judges have ruled against evidence presented by the government. Those cases have been appealed." It fails to mention that some of the charges were dropped or withdrawn by the government itself, that a large number were overturned, and it presumes the existence of evidence when in may cases there was none. The coverage also continues the Times' incomprehensible policy of refusing to use the word "torture" to describe what was done to the men at Guantanamo. Reading the coverage in the Times and Washington Post, one would never know that the majority of remaining detainees - ninety of the 172 left - had been cleared for release by the Interagency Task Force set up in 2009.
Like the Defense Department's assessments of "recidivism," the risk assessments in the files are based on patently unreliable information, much of it the product of other interrogations at Guantanamo. The files are years out of date and repeat inaccurate Bush administration allegations long since put to rest. The Obama administration must release immediately its own Task Force assessments and, at a minimum, make public the list of who has been approved for transfer, who has been designated for trial and who is designated for indefinite detention, so that foreign governments, the U.S. Congress and the public can get a more accurate picture of the men who remain at Guantanamo. Without names and details of cases where the administration claims it needs to detain individuals without charges or trial, it will continue to be impossible to have any meaningful public debate about the wisdom of such a policy.
The broad picture these documents paint is not of men "too dangerous to release" but of a government attempting to justify its mistakes and detaining, interrogating and abusing men - as well as teenage boys and men old enough to be suffering from dementia - for years based on bad evidence, hearsay from self interested jailhouse informers and sheer incompetence. The files show a breakdown in accountability for what was done to these men and a lack of transparency that continues to this day. They show that for more than nine years the government has been withholding information the public sorely needs in order to be able to make informed decisions about vital government policies. They also show that the press - itself a vital component of our democracy - must also do a better job of holding the government to account.
CCR has led the legal battle over Guantanamo for the last nine years - sending the first ever habeas attorney to the base and sending the first attorney to meet with an individual transferred from CIA "ghost detention" to Guantanamo. CCR has been responsible for organizing and coordinating hundreds of pro bono lawyers across the country to represent the men at Guantanamo, ensuring that nearly all have the option of legal representation. In addition, CCR has been working to resettle men who remain at Guantanamo because they cannot return to their country of origin for fear of persecution and torture.
The Center for Constitutional Rights is dedicated to advancing and protecting the rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. CCR is committed to the creative use of law as a positive force for social change.
(212) 614-6464"The Democratic Party at the leadership level has really just become entirely feckless," said the progressive US Senate candidate running to unseat Republican Sen. Susan Collins.
Progressive US Senate candidate Graham Platner said late Monday that the leadership of the national Democratic Party must be replaced as eight Democratic senators—with the tacit approval of Chuck Schumer—voted with Republicans to end the government shutdown without a deal to avert a disastrous surge in health insurance premiums.
"The Democratic Party, at the leadership level, has really just become entirely feckless," Platner, who is running to unseat Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), said on a call hosted by Our Revolution, a progressive advocacy group that is also calling on Schumer (D-NY) to step down as leader of the Senate Democratic caucus.
"It is his job to make sure that his caucus is voting along the lines that are going to be good for the people," Platner said on Monday's call. "He is just completely unable to rise to this moment in American history."
"We gotta get rid of them," Platner said of Democratic leaders. "They have to go."
🚨 Tonight, U.S. Senate candidate Graham Platner didn’t hold back:
“The Democratic Party at the leadership level has really just become entirely feckless. There’s an inability to wield power — and people are fed up," he said live on Our Revolution’s 2026 Kickoff Call.
"What… pic.twitter.com/OjiwOMTcaW
— Our Revolution (@OurRevolution) November 11, 2025
On Monday night, eight Democratic caucus members—Sens. Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire, Dick Durbin of Illinois, Tim Kaine of Virginia, Maggie Hassan of New Hampshire, Angus King of Maine, Jacky Rosen and Catherine Cortez Masto of Nevada, and John Fetterman of Pennsylvania—broke ranks and voted with Republicans to send a government funding deal to the House, effectively ending a standoff over Affordable Care Act (ACA) subsidies that are set to lapse at the end of the year.
In addition to doing nothing to extend the enhanced ACA tax credits, the bill lacks language "saying that Trump has to spend the money," The American Prospect's David Dayen lamented.
"He can keep withholding funds, and even rescind them with a party-line vote," Dayen added. "None of the problems that inspired the shutdown are resolved."
Schumer personally voted against the legislation, which progressives dismissed as a face-saving maneuver.
Durbin, who is not running for reelection next year, told reporters that Schumer was "not happy" when informed of the Illinois senator's decision to vote with Republicans to end the shutdown.
"But he accepted it," Durbin added. "I think our friendship is still intact."
The Democratic capitulation after what became the longest shutdown in US history sparked an eruption of anger within the Democratic Party and from outside advocates who backed Democrats' effort to extend the ACA tax credits as premiums skyrocket, viewing the fight as both good policy and good politics.
The progressive organization MoveOn said late Monday that, in the wake of Democrats' surrender, 80% of its members voiced support for Schumer resigning as leader of the Senate Democratic caucus, a position that was also expressed by progressives in the House of Representatives.
“With Donald Trump and the Republican Party doubling healthcare premiums, weaponizing our military against us, and ripping food away from children, MoveOn members cannot accept weak leadership at the helm of the Democratic Party," said Katie Bethell, executive director of MoveOn Political Action. "Inexplicably, some Senate Democrats, under Leader Schumer’s watch, decided to surrender. It is time for Senator Schumer to step aside as minority leader to make room for those who are willing to fight fire with fire when the basic needs of working people are on the line."
Schumer is not up for reelection until 2028; progressive Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) has been floated as a possible primary challenger. Prior to the 2028 contest, it's far from clear that enough Senate Democratic caucus would support removing Schumer from the position he's held since 2017.
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) voiced support for Schumer on Monday, indicating that he views the Senate Democratic leader as "effective" even as he folded, yet again, to President Donald Trump and the Republican Party.
"His campaign paired moral conviction with concrete plans to lower costs and expand access to services, making it unmistakable what he stood for and whom he was fighting for."
Amid calls for ousting Democratic congressional leadership because the party caved in the government shutdown fight over healthcare, a YouGov poll released Monday shows the nationwide popularity of New York City Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani's economic agenda.
Mamdani beat former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo in both the June Democratic primary and last week's general election by campaigning unapologetically as a democratic socialist dedicated to making the nation's largest city more affordable for working people.
Multiple polls have suggested that Mamdani's progressive platform offers Democrats across the United States a roadmap for candidates in next year's midterms and beyond. As NYC's next mayor began assembling his team and the movement that worked to elect him created a group to keep fighting for his ambitious agenda, YouGov surveyed 1,133 US adults after his victory.
While just 31% of those surveyed said they would have voted for Mamdani—more than any other candidate—and the same share said they would vote for a candidate who identified as a "democratic socialist," the policies he ran on garnered far more support.
YouGov found:
Data for Progress similarly surveyed 1,228 likely voters from across the United States about key pieces of Mamdani's platform before his win. The think tank found that large majorities of Americans support efforts to build more affordable housing, higher taxes for corporations as well as millionaires and billionaires, and free childcare, among other policies.

"There's a common refrain from some pundits to dismiss Mamdani's victory as a quirk of New York City politics rather than a sign of something bigger," Data for Progress executive director Ryan O'Donnell wrote last week. "But his campaign paired moral conviction with concrete plans to lower costs and expand access to services, making it unmistakable what he stood for and whom he was fighting for. The lesson isn't that every candidate should mimic his style—you can't fake authenticity—but that voters everywhere respond when a candidate connects economic populism to clear, actionable goals."
"Candidates closer to the center are running on an affordability message as well," he noted, pointing to Democrat Mikie Sherrill's gubernatorial victory in New Jersey. "When a center-left figure like Sherill is running on taking on corporate power, it underscores how central economic populism has become across the political spectrum. Her message may have been less fiery than Mamdani's, but she drew from a similar well of voter frustration over rising costs and corporate influence. In doing so, Sherrill demonstrated to voters that her administration would play an active role in lowering costs—something that voters nationwide overwhelmingly believe the government should be doing."
"When guys like Jeffries and Schumer say 'effective' they're talking about effectively flattering large-dollar donors," said one critic.
Progressive anger and calls for primary challenges followed House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries' Monday endorsement of top Senate Democrat Chuck Schumer—under whose leadership numerous Democratic lawmakers caved to Republicans to pave the way to ending the government shutdown without winning any meaningful concessions.
As progressives demanded the resignation or ouster of Schumer (D-NY), Jeffries (D-NY) was asked during a press conference whether the 74-year-old senator is effective and whether he should remain as the upper chamber's minority leader.
"Yes and yes," replied Jeffries. "As I've indicated, listen, Leader Schumer and Senate Democrats over the last seven weeks have waged a valiant fight on behalf of the American people."
"I don't think that the House Democratic Caucus is prepared to support a promise, a wing and a prayer, from folks who have been devastating the healthcare of the American people for years," he said.
Asked if he thinks Schumer is effective and should keep his job, Hakeem Jeffries replies: "Yes and yes."
[image or embed]
— Ken Klippenstein (@kenklippenstein.bsky.social) November 10, 2025 at 2:07 PM
Both Schumer and Jeffries say they will vote "no" on the the GOP bill to end the shutdown.
Activist and former Democratic National Committee Co-Vice Chair David Hogg said on social media that Schumer's "number one job is to control his caucus," and "he can't do that."
Eight members of the Senate Democratic caucus—Catherine Cortez Masto (Nev.), Dick Durbin (Ill.), John Fetterman (Pa.), Maggie Hassan (NH), Tim Kaine (Va.), Angus King (I-Maine), Jacky Rosen (Nev.), and Jeanne Shaheen (NH)—enabled their Republican colleagues to secure the 60 votes needed for a cloture vote to advance legislation to end the shutdown.
Critics say the proposal does nothing to spare Americans from soaring healthcare premiums unleashed in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act signed by President Donald Trump in July.
"Standing up to a tyrant—who is willing to impose pain as leverage to compel loyalty or acquiescence—is hard," Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) said Monday. "You can convince yourself that yielding stops the pain and brings you back to 'normal.' But there is no 'normal.' Submission emboldens the tyrant. The threat grows."
Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) said on X: "Sen. Schumer is no longer effective and should be replaced. If you can’t lead the fight to stop healthcare premiums from skyrocketing for Americans, what will you fight for?"
New York City Councilman Chi Ossé (D-36)—who on Sunday said that Schumer and Senate Democrats "failed Americans" by capitulating to "MAGA fascists"—laughed off Jeffries' ringing endorsement of Schumer's leadership.
Former Democratic Ohio state Sen. Nina Turner called Jeffries and Schumer "controlled opposition" while demanding that they both "step down."
The progressive political action group Our Revolution published a survey last week showing overwhelming grassroots support for running primary challenges to Schumer and Jeffries. The poll revealed that 90% of respondents want Schumer to step down as leader, while 92% would support a primary challenge against him when he’s next up for reelection in 2028. Meanwhile, 70% of respondents said Jeffries should step aside, with 77% backing a primary challenge.
Turner also called for a ban on corporate money in politics and ousting "corporate politicians."
Left Reckoning podcast host Matt Lech said on X that "when guys like Jeffries and Schumer say 'effective' they're talking about effectively flattering large-dollar donors."