

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, the New York-based Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) and the Canadian Centre for International Justice (CCIJ) lodged a detailed and lengthy indictment setting forth the case against former U.S. president George W. Bush with the Attorney General of Canada, urging him to open a criminal investigation against Bush for his role in authorizing and overseeing his administration's well-documented torture program. Bush will visit Surrey, British Columbia on October 20th, as a paid speaker at the Surrey Regional Economic Summit at the invitation of Surrey Mayor Diane Watts.
Earlier this year, CCR, supported by CCIJ and more than 60 international human rights organizations, called on Swiss authorities to prosecute Bush for torture based on his own admission that he authorized torture and the plethora of evidence in the public domain setting out his role in the U.S. torture program. However, Bush canceled his February trip to Switzerland at the last minute, a move that many speculated was motivated by fear of arrest.
"George Bush has openly admitted that he approved the use of torture against men held in U.S. custody," said Katherine Gallagher, Senior Staff Attorney at CCR. "Despite this admission, no country has been willing to investigate and prosecute Bush's criminal acts, leaving the victims of his torture policies without any justice or accountability. Canada is a signatory to the Convention Against Torture, and has an obligation to investigate Bush for his leadership role in the U.S. torture program. Torturers - even if they are former presidents of the United States - must be held to account and prosecuted. We urge Canada to put an end to impunity for Bush."
"Canada has a strong legal framework and there is absolutely no ambiguity in our criminal code when it comes to committing or allowing torture," said Matt Eisenbrandt, Legal Director of CCIJ. "There is grave evidence that former President Bush sanctioned and authorized acts of torture, not only in violation of Canadian laws, but also of international treaties that Canada has ratified. It is therefore clear that our government has both the jurisdiction and the obligation to prosecute Bush should he set foot again on Canadian territory."
According to the indictment submitted to the Attorney General for his action, former President Bush bears individual and command responsibility for the acts of his subordinates, which he ordered, authorized, condoned, or otherwise aided and abetted, as well as for violations committed by his subordinates, which he failed to prevent or punish. In particular, Bush is alleged to have authorized or overseen enforced disappearance and secret detention, exposure to extreme temperatures, sleep deprivation, punching, kicking, isolation in "coffin" cells for prolonged periods, threats of bad treatment, solitary confinement, and forced nudity.
One hundred and forty-seven countries, including Canada and the United States, are party to the United Nations Convention Against Torture (CAT), meaning that those countries have committed to promptly investigate, prosecute, and punish torturers. While the U.S. has thus far failed to comply with its obligations under the CAT, all other signatories are similarly obligated to prosecute or extradite for prosecution anyone present in their territory who they reasonably believe has committed torture. If the evidence warrants, as the Bush indictment contends it does, and if the U.S. fails to request that Bush be extradited to face charges of torture, Canada must, under law, prosecute him for torture.
The indictment prepared by CCR and CCIJ, along with more than 4,000 pages of supporting materials, are available at: https://ccrjustice.org/ourcases/current-cases/bush-torture-indictment.
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"AIPAC's brand is increasingly, perhaps irredeemably toxic," wrote one observer.
A centrist Democratic lawmaker on Thursday surprised many political observers when he announced he would be returning donations he'd received from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.
Rep. Seth Moulton (D-Mass.), who is running a primary challenge against Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), said that he was rejecting donations from AIPAC because it had aligned itself too closely with the government of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who last year was accused of committing crimes against humanity by the International Criminal Court.
"I'm a friend of Israel, but not of its current government, and AIPAC's mission is to back that government," Moulton said in a social media post. "I don't support that direction."
As flagged by New York Times reporter Annie Karni, Moulton is now the fourth Democratic lawmaker who once received heavy support from AIPAC to reject their donations, following Reps. Morgan McGarvey (D-Ky.), Deborah Ross (D-NC), and Valerie Foushee (D-NC).
Hamid Bendaas, communications director for the Institute for Middle East Understanding Policy Project, observed in a post on X that Moulton appeared to be ignoring advice given by a prominent Democratic consultant over the summer to not focus on the Israel-Palestine conflict because polls showed it wasn't important to voters.
Dylan Williams, the vice president for government affairs at the Center for International Policy, argued that Moulton's rejection of AIPAC cash showed how far the organization's reputation with the electorate has fallen over the past several years.
"AIPAC is now so toxic to Democratic voters that support from it is widely seen as a political liability," he wrote. "The NRA-ization of AIPAC is nearly complete."
Ishaan Tharoor, a Washington Post global affairs columnist, also reflected on how much AIPAC's brand has been damaged over the last two years of war in Gaza, which has resulted in the deaths of at least 68,000 Palestinians.
"There was a time when people would refer to AIPAC as the gold standard in lobbying," he wrote. "So many in India and the Indian diaspora have talked about a future 'Indian AIPAC' one day influencing US politics in similar fashion. But AIPAC's brand is increasingly, perhaps irredeemably toxic."
Journalist Ryan Grim had a one-word reaction to Moulton's rejection of AIPAC cash: "Wow."
"I might die if I stop going to the doctor," said one Tennessee resident whose premiums jumped from $10 to $1,140 a month.
More than 20 million Americans are expected to see their health insurance premiums more than double next year after Republicans refused to extend a tax credit for those who purchase health insurance on the Affordable Care Act marketplace.
And as the GOP remains firm in its stance that it will not vote to extend the credits in order to end the government shutdown entering its third week and the open enrollment period for ACA insurance fast approaching, Americans in some states are already getting a glimpse into how the price of their insurance will skyrocket in 2026.
On Wednesday, ACA health insurance marketplaces in six states—California, Maine, Minnesota, Vermont, Oregon, and Kentucky—launched "window shopping" tools that allow residents to compare their current insurance premiums with the ones they can expect to pay next year.
Across each of these states, the advocacy group Protect Our Care found plans that are expected to increase dramatically, sometimes to prices several times higher than they were this year.
“There is no longer any doubt about the healthcare disaster Republicans have created,” said the group's chair, Leslie Dach. “Working families can now log onto a computer and see the Republican healthcare betrayal right before their eyes."
Middle-income Americans who are older, but not yet old enough to receive Medicare, are expected to see the steepest increases in their premiums, according to KFF. When Protect Our Care looked at plans for 60-year-old couples making $85,000 a year, the group found staggering results in each state.
In Clay County, Kentucky, the group found that a Clear Silver plan, which charges that couple a premium of $559 per month this year, will cost $2,736—nearly five times that amount—next year after subsidies expire.

In Mission Viejo, California, premiums for the same couple's Anthem Blue Cross Silver plan would more than quadruple, from $516 per month this year to $2,188 next year.
The same is true in Medford, Oregon, where a Moda Health Silver plan would increase from $622 this year to $2,644.
In Burlington, Vermont, an MVP Silver plan that costs $602 per month this year will spike to $2,577.
While these are particularly egregious examples, KFF estimated earlier this month that the average ACA recipient will see their premiums increase by 114% next year, which the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office expects will result in more than 4 million people becoming unable to afford health insurance.
State-level estimates from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) found that across the states that have opened window shopping, costs for many families were doubling, tripling, or worse.
Residents across the country are beginning to grapple with the extraordinary rise in costs they are about to face.
In Tennessee, where more than half a million people pay lower premiums due to the ACA subsidies, a 62-year-old Chattanooga resident, Cheri Roberts, told the Chattanooga Times Free Press that if they are allowed to expire, her current $10 a month premium will explode to $1,140 next year.
"I just had no idea," Roberts said about the expiring tax credits, adding that she sees eight different specialists for varying health issues and has multiple surgeries planned. "I'm not trying to exaggerate, but I might die if I stop going to the doctor."
Julia Tilley, a resident of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, told PennLive/The Patriot-News that she fears her premiums will soar as Pennsylvania's insurance department predicts a premium increase of 102% on average for its 530,000 ACA recipients.
Though she says she has not yet received a letter from her insurer, Tilley said one of her friends was told their family's premiums were ballooning from $100 to $1,800 a month.
“There’s really no way to prepare for it,” Tilley said. “I mean, how do you suddenly come up with $15,000 more a year? My husband can’t work more because he has a head injury."
Tilley says she already works full-time taking care of her adult daughter, who has autism. "It’s not like I can go get another job," she says. "So we’re stuck.”
She says she has tried on multiple occasions to reach out to her Republican congressman, Rep. Scott Perry, but has not heard back.
According to KFF, 57% of ACA recipients live in congressional districts represented by Republicans, and polls by the organization have suggested that failure to extend the subsidies may hurt their electoral chances.
A poll from early October found that 78% of adults say that Congress should extend the subsidies, including the vast majority of Democrats and independents and even 57% of self-identified "MAGA" Republicans. If the subsidies are not extended, 39% who support extending them have said they'd blame US President Donald Trump, while another 37% say they'd blame Republicans in Congress. Just 22% say they'd blame Democrats.
"Virtually all marketplace enrollees—across states, ages, family sizes, and income levels—will see big premium increases," said Gideon Lukens, a senior fellow and director of health policy research for CBPP. "These are real people facing real consequences if Congress doesn’t act to extend the enhancements as soon as possible."
“These tax cuts are not only fiscally reckless but also deeply inequitable."
A progressive think tank has found that America's wealthiest citizens aren't just benefiting from the federal tax cuts passed in Republicans' One Big Beautiful Bill Act this past summer, but from tax giveaways offered by Republican-run states.
The Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) released a new analysis on Thursday showing that five states—Kansas, Mississippi, Missouri, Ohio, and Oklahoma—this year have enacted income tax cuts for families that earn over $1 million per year that are projected to collectively reduce their state governments' revenues by $2.2 billion per year once fully implemented.
The two biggest tax cuts for the wealthy came in Mississippi and Oklahoma, both of which have voted to phase out their state's income taxes over the span of several years. Once the income tax is fully repealed in those two states, ITEP estimates that millionaires living in them will pay $130,000 less per year.
ITEP also poked holes in any Republican claims that the tax cuts they passed were a benefit for "working families," and showed how the GOP's policy is overwhelmingly tilted to benefit the wealthy.
"The average millionaire tax cut is more than 50 times the size of the average cut for non-millionaires in each of the five states included in this report," the think tank noted. "In Mississippi and Ohio the average tax cuts for millionaires are over 100 times the size of those for non-millionaires."
The group found that the tax cuts passed in Missouri were particularly egregious when it comes to benefiting millionaires. As reported by the Missouri Independent, Missouri lawmakers over the summer made their state the first in the nation to eliminate taxes on capital gains, which is estimated to slash state revenues by more than $100 million per year.
According to ITEP, this tax cut is projected to deliver a $43,000 average annual benefit to Missouri families making over $1 million per year, and an $80 average annual benefit to Missouri's non-millionaire households.
Aidan Davis, ITEP's state policy director, expressed dismay at how much these state governments were willing to give to their wealthiest residents, even as their own state budgets face significant cuts to programs such as Medicaid the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, both of which help low-income Americans.
"These tax cuts are not only fiscally reckless but also deeply inequitable," Davis explained. "At a time when state budgets are under immense pressure, it's indefensible to hand millionaires five- and six-figure annual tax cuts while too many families struggle with affording the basics."
Dylan Grundman O’Neill, senior analyst at ITEP, argued that these states' policies "double down on inequality" and "prioritize millionaires while putting critical services like education, healthcare, and infrastructure at risk for everyone else."