5
#000000
#FFFFFF
For Immediate Release
November, 02 2011, 01:34pm EDT
Contact:
Gaza-Bound Humanitarian Flotilla Reaches International Waters
Two boats carrying twenty-seven human rights activists from five countries, including the United States, have made it to international waters and are headed to Gaza. Today, the flotilla set sail unannounced from Turkey with the aim of ending the siege and isolation of Gaza. The boats are carrying letters from people in the United States to the people of Gaza, as well as medicine.
NEW YORK
Two boats carrying twenty-seven human rights activists from five countries, including the United States, have made it to international waters and are headed to Gaza. Today, the flotilla set sail unannounced from Turkey with the aim of ending the siege and isolation of Gaza. The boats are carrying letters from people in the United States to the people of Gaza, as well as medicine. This latest attempt comes less than six months after the "Stay Human Flotilla" was detained and sabotaged in Greece by local port authorities in response to mounting pressure from the United States and Israel.
In light of Israel's attack on the May 2010 flotilla, which killed nine civilians including 18-year old U.S. citizen Furkan Dogan, the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) calls on the international community to ensure the safe passage of the ships through international waters into Gaza and prevent a repetition of last year's lethal assault by Israeli forces.
Said CCR senior staff sttorney Maria LaHood, "CCR applauds the persistence of civil society to break the siege on Gaza, where Palestinians remain imprisoned and isolated, without access to the supplies necessary to sustain and rebuild their lives."
The Center for Constitutional Rights also denounced the introduction in early October of House Bill H.R. 3131, in which the sponsors "express gratitude to the government of Greece for preventing the [July 2011 Freedom Flotilla II-Stay Human] from setting sail" and "direct the Secretary of State to...report on whether any support organization that participated in the planning or execution of the [flotilla] should be designated as a foreign terrorist organization." The Freedom Flotilla II was a July 2011 attempt by human rights activists to break the Israeli blockade and deliver aid to the Gaza Strip. As the International Committee of the Red Cross recently stated, "the easing of the closure in June 2010 has had little impact on the daily lives of the residents in Gaza," and "Israel retains effective control over the Gaza strip, in particular the movement of persons and goods."
CCR issued the following statement:
"The Center for Constitutional Rights denounces H.R. 3131 as another example of the increasing use of the word 'terrorism' to create fear and stoke irrational response to activism, including the growing use of 'material support' charges to punish people for humanitarian activity and expressions of international solidarity or dissent. The Center for Constitutional Rights has long called for the end of the siege of Gaza and has supported the flotilla efforts, which, at their core, seek to end the isolation of Palestinians living in Gaza. In May 2011, CCR filed a lawsuit against numerous government agencies, including the Defense, Justice, and State Departments, seeking the release of documents regarding the U.S. government's knowledge of, and actions in relation to, the May 31, 2010 attack by Israel on a six-boat flotilla in international waters, resulting in the death of nine civilians, including a 18-year old U.S. citizen Furkan Dogan. It is Israel's illegal blockade and the May 2010 killing of unarmed flotilla participants by Israeli commandos that should be condemned and for which accountability should be sought, rather than the victims' attempts to break the siege on Gaza."
"H.R. 3131 is a disgrace and an attempt at fear-mongering based on the libelous assertion that if you are against the illegal blockade of Gaza, you are a terrorist. This is yet another attempt to silence the voices of ordinary citizens acting in good conscience. We will continue to organize and send boats in order to show our support for the imprisoned population of Gaza. We will not be silenced," said Jane Hirschmann, one of the organizers of a U.S. boat with the Stay Human flotilla to Gaza, The Audacity of Hope.
The July 2011 flotilla was not the first aid attempt to be stopped. On May, 31, 2010, more than 700 civilians from nearly 40 countries on the Freedom Flotilla I sought to bring aid and supplies to the Gaza Strip, but Israeli commandos intercepted the six-boat flotilla in international waters, killing nine passengers, including one U.S. citizen, Furkan Dogan. There had been five successful voyages to Gaza in 2008, and all four attempts to reach Gaza in 2010 were forcefully blocked.
Also, Monday, UNESCO voted to recognize Palestine as a full member of the organization, which Center for Constitutional Rights attorneys said demonstrates that the international community increasingly rejects the United States' isolation of the Palestinian people, and is a small step toward their self-determination. Because of the vote, the United States is cutting funding to UNESCO.
The Center for Constitutional Rights is engaged in Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) litigation seeking information about the U.S. knowledge of, and response to, the attack on last year's flotilla. For more information, please see our case page. For a factsheet about the illegality of the blockade of Gaza and the attack on the Gaza flotilla, please click here.
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) 614-6464LATEST NEWS
Trump Admin Readies Big Gift for Wall Street While Waging War, Gutting Aid Programs
“At a time of extreme and growing inequality," said one critic, "today’s proposals will drain lending away from Main Street families’ needs and priorities and further enrich the already wealthy on Wall Street."
Mar 19, 2026
The Trump administration and Federal Reserve unveiled proposals Thursday that would significantly reduce capital requirements for the largest banks in the United States, potentially setting the stage for another financial industry collapse as the US-Israeli war on Iran destabilizes the global economy and jacks up prices for consumers.
Under the new rules proposed by the Fed, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, large banks would have to hold nearly 5% less capital on average. The advocacy organization Better Markets noted that the proposals—combined with other deregulatory actions taken by the Trump administration and the Fed over the past year—would return Wall Street banks' capital requirements "to the irresponsibly low 2007 levels they had just before the 2008 crash."
“At a time of extreme and growing inequality, when tens of millions of Americans are struggling to pay their bills, today’s proposals will drain lending away from Main Street families’ needs and priorities and further enrich the already wealthy on Wall Street and the top 10% of Americans they focus on serving," Dennis Kelleher, the president of Better Markets, said in a statement. "The banking agencies’ proposals to loosen capital rules are a victory for Wall Street lobbying, and claims to the contrary are nothing more than an attempt to mislead the American people."
Fed Gov. Michael Barr, who was nominated by former President Joe Biden, was the central bank board's lone dissenting voice against the new rules, a product of years of aggressive Wall Street lobbying for less stringent regulations in the wake of the Great Recession.
"Today's proposals, if adopted, would harm the resilience of banks and the US financial system," Barr warned in a statement. "There are suggestions that liquidity requirements could also be reduced. Additionally, Federal Reserve supervisory staff have been cut by over 30%, and supervisory practices have been weakened. Banking is built on trust. I worry greatly that these actions are rapidly eroding that trust."
The new deregulatory package, which will be subject to a 90-day public comment period before it's finalized, comes as President Donald Trump is waging an expensive and deadly war on Iran with no end in sight and attacking social programs at home, from Medicaid to nutrition assistance.
“With private credit markets cratering, AI transforming the workforce, and Trump’s Iran war threatening the world economy, we need healthy, resilient, well-capitalized banks," said Bartlett Naylor, an economist for the consumer advocacy group Public Citizen. "Lessons learned after millions lost their jobs, homes, and savings following the 2008 megabank crash must not be ignored."
"Trump’s bank regulators propose to tear at the already tissue-thin layer of solvency levels at the nation’s banks," said Naylor. "Lowering solvency standards won’t generate more loans; it will only send banks closer to failure."
Matt Stoller, an anti-monopoly researcher and author of the BIG newsletter, wrote that the juxtaposition of a quagmire in Iran, Wall Street deregulation, and millions of Americans losing health insurance "tells the story" of the Trump administration.
Today's WSJ front page tells the story of the Trump admin.
#1: Hegseth Says ‘No Time Set’ on Ending Operations in Iran
#2: U.S. Regulators Propose More Lenient Capital Rules for Big Banks
#3: Millions of Americans Are Going Uninsured Following Expiration of ACA Subsidies pic.twitter.com/26jKsQuNc4
— Matt Stoller (@matthewstoller) March 19, 2026
The effort to curb banks' capital requirements was spearheaded by Fed Vice Chair for Supervision Michelle Bowman, a Trump appointee whose nomination last year was criticized by watchdogs as a "gift to the banking industry."
Kelleher of Better Markets said Thursday that "such counterproductive, shortsighted, and wrongheaded rulemaking isn’t a surprise given that the interests of Wall Street’s biggest banks are driving the priorities at the banking agencies, rather than facts, merit, and the public interest."
"The worst is at the Federal Reserve, where the senior regulatory staff comes from Wall Street’s top DC lobbyist (the Bank Policy Institute), Goldman Sachs, and one of Wall Street’s top law firms (a former partner is now the director responsible for supervising and regulating his recent Wall Street clients)," Kelleher observed. "That’s why mindless deregulation, especially for the biggest Wall Street banks, is at the top of the agenda, just as it was in the years before the 2008 crash."
Keep Reading
Show Less
Watchdog Blasts Mullin’s Self-Enrichment as Fetterman Joins GOP to Advance Trump DHS Pick
"Mullin’s long list of conflicts of interest even as he seeks this next level of public office is reprehensible."
Mar 19, 2026
Government watchdog Public Citizen on Thursday slammed the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee for voting to advance the nomination of Republican Sen. Markwayne Mullin to be the next US homeland security secretary.
Shortly after the committee delivered an 8-to-7 vote to advance Mullin's (R-Okla.) nomination out of committee, Public Citizen co-president Lisa Gilbert described the move as "simply inappropriate."
"It is inappropriate because of his self-enrichment," Gilbert said. "Mullin’s long list of conflicts of interest even as he seeks this next level of public office is reprehensible."
The New York Times reported on Sunday that Mullin has grown significantly wealthier throughout his tenure first as a US congressman then as a US senator, in part because he is "one of the most prolific stock buyers in Congress."
According to financial disclosure forms cited by the Times, Mullin's net worth in 2024 was between $29 million and $97 million, a massive jump from the estimated net worth of $2.8 million to $9 million he reported in 2012.
In addition to citing Mullin's self-enrichment during his political career, Gilbert decried the senator's past statements defending actions taken by federal immigration enforcement officials, including the fatal shootings of Minneapolis residents Renee Good and Alex Pretti.
"It is inappropriate because Mullin has consistently defended ICE agents involved in fatal shootings," said Gilbert, "and justified the use of lethal force in enforcement operations, rather than calling for accountability or reform of use-of-force policies. It is inappropriate because he treats protest against ICE operations as a prosecutable offense rather than a legitimate exercise of First Amendment rights and an expression of community concern."
While Mullin on Wednesday walked back his past attack on Pretty as "deranged," he stood by his claim that the shooting of Good was entirely justified.
Mullin's nomination advanced to the Senate floor after Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.) broke with his party, canceling out the "no" vote on the committee delivered by Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), who got into an angry spat with Mullin on Wednesday over past comments the Oklahoma Republican made justifying a 2017 assault on his colleague from Kentucky.
In a social media post defending his vote to advance Mullin, Fetterman argued that "we need a leader" at the US Department of Homeland Security and said his vote in favor of the nomination was "rooted in a strong committed, constructive working relationship with Senator Mullin for our nation’s security."
Keep Reading
Show Less
Nearly 70% of US Voters Oppose Iran Ground Invasion as Trump Weighs Troop Surge
A majority of those polled in a new Data for Progress survey also said that the war "is not worth the risk."
Mar 19, 2026
As President Donald Trump says he's "not afraid" of a Vietnam-style invasion of Iran and is reportedly considering sending thousands more US troops to the Middle East, polling published Thursday reveals that most American voters strongly oppose boots on the ground in a war a majority believe isn't worth it.
Just over two-thirds—68%—of respondents to the Data for Progress survey said they oppose deploying US ground troops to Iran, while just 26% support such action. Among Democratic respondents, 86% were against a ground invasion, which is also opposed by 71% of Independents. Republicans were split, with 48% supporting and 48% opposing sending troops into Iran.
Slightly more than half (52%) of those polled said they agree with the statement "going to war with Iran is not worth the risk because it will cost billions of dollars and result in the deaths of civilians and more American service members," 13 of whom have been killed during a war whose globally defining moment thus far has been the massacre of around 175 children and staff at a girls' school bombed by the US.
Among Democrats, 77% of survey respondents said the war isn't worth it. Conversely, 64% of Republicans said the war on Iran is worthwhile.
NEW: A strong majority of voters (68%) would oppose the U.S. putting boots on the ground in Iran.This includes 85% of Democrats, 71% of Independents, and about half of Republicans.
[image or embed]
— Data for Progress (@dataforprogress.org) March 19, 2026 at 8:38 AM
The Data for Progress survey follows Wednesday's publication of a Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft poll revealing that nearly 8 in 10 people who voted for Trump in 2024—when he campaigned heavily on a "no new wars" platform—want a swift end to the war on Iran.
Nearly three weeks into the US-Israeli war that Trump said was "won" more than a week ago, Iran remains undefeated, launching missiles and drones at targets throughout the Middle East, paralyzing international shipping in the Strait of Hormuz, and demonstrating continuity of government as Israel assassinates one of its leaders after another.
As the war grinds on with no clear objective or exit strategy, the Pentagon is reportedly seeking more money and more troops for the fight. Democratic senators have warned that the US is "on a path" to a land invasion of Iran. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has reportedly approved the deployment of more warships and thousands of Marines to the region.
Asked Wednesday by a reporter if he is afraid of "another Vietnam"—where more than 58,000 US troops and around 50 times as many Vietnamese, Cambodians, and Laotians were killed over two decades—Trump replied, "I'm really not afraid of anything."
The Pentagon is now reportedly asking Congress to authorize another $200 billion for a war that's already costing taxpayers around a billion dollars a day.
This, as American workers and families struggle to make ends meet as the price of gas and other consumer goods spike amid an expensive betrayal of Trump's campaign promise to "make America affordable again."
Keep Reading
Show Less
Most Popular