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.
RABEEA EID, rabeea.eid at arabs48.com
Contrary to many media reports, the student who spoke up during Obama's speech to students in Jerusalem was not protesting the imprisonment of convicted spy Jonathan Pollard. Rather, Eid, who is a student from the village of Eilaboun, which is inside Israel, spoke out to question U.S. policy toward the Palestinians. Specifically, Eid asked Obama in English: "President Obama, did you come to make peace or to support Israel and the Israeli occupation? How can you be democratic and support a Jewish country? Who killed Rachel Corrie? Did you see the apartheid wall when you came from Ramallah?" Reached today by the Institute for Public Accuracy, Eid said: "President Obama talked about the violence from settlers but he didn't say anything against settlements -- they are illegally built on occupied land. He didn't talk about the apartheid wall that devastates life for many Palestinians. He talked about democracy and justice, but Israel is stopping democracy and justice. It's an ethnic-religious state -- such a state can't be democratic." Eid told the New York Times: "It is important for us that the American people know what is happening here, and to know that the money from their taxes is going for weapons for Israel." Eid also spoke to the Electronic Intifada.
JEREMY VARON, jvaron at aol.com
CHRISTOPHER KNESTRICK, cknest11 at gmail.com
The Guardian reports: "Guantanamo hunger strike much bigger than reported, rights group claims." Varon and Knestrick are with Witness Against Torture, which is organizing solidarity hunger strikes and protests around the U.S. this week. Today the group released this statement: "Prisoners at the U.S. military prison camp in Guantanamo are entering their seventh week of a hunger strike and may die soon. Many prisoners were falsely accused and sold for a bounty to the U.S. Around half of all the prisoners of Guantanamo have been cleared to be released but are still being held indefinitely. Most of the prisoners have been held for over 11 years without charge or trial. This is illegal and morally wrong. Because they are in an indefinite or apparently never-ending imprisonment without being convicted of any crime they have little options to help themselves and no hope left. So they stopped eating at the beginning of February."
ALEXANDER MAIN, main at cepr.net and via Dan Beeton, beeton at cepr.net
The AP reported on Saturday in "U.S. Aids Honduran Police Despite Death Squad Fears" that: "The U.S. State Department, which spends millions of taxpayer dollars a year on the Honduran National Police, has assured Congress that money only goes to specially vetted and trained units that don't operate under the direct supervision of a police chief once accused of extrajudicial killings and 'social cleansing.' But The Associated Press has found that all police units are under the control of Director General Juan Carlos Bonilla, nicknamed the 'Tiger,' who in 2002 was accused of three extrajudicial killings and links to 11 more deaths and disappearances. He was tried on one killing and acquitted. The rest of the cases were never fully investigated." The revelation comes a week after another AP investigative feature detailed current death squad activity within the Honduran police.
Alexander Main is senior associate for international policy at the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington, D.C. He is author of the recent blog post, "Fifty-eight Members of Congress ask for investigation of Honduras killings and policy review -- will Kerry and Holder act?" He said today: "For several years the U.S. administration ignored pleas from dozens of members of Congress demanding that human rights in Honduras take priority over the U.S.'s militarized security policy there. Despite the increasing number of reports of extrajudicial killings and attacks perpetrated by state security forces, the U.S. has continued to pump millions of dollars into Honduras' corrupt police and military, claiming that no units suspected of abuses receive U.S. support. Now key members of Congress are finally taking concrete steps to force the administration to reconsider its Honduras policy, itself a cornerstone of the regional 'war on drugs,' which has empowered security forces and undermined civilian institutions and human rights."
A nationwide consortium, the Institute for Public Accuracy (IPA) represents an unprecedented effort to bring other voices to the mass-media table often dominated by a few major think tanks. IPA works to broaden public discourse in mainstream media, while building communication with alternative media outlets and grassroots activists.
In an unprecedented move, Trump arrived at the court after accusing conservative justices of being "disloyal" for ruling against him in previous cases.
President Donald Trump is being accused of trying to "intimidate" the US Supreme Court as it hears oral arguments on his attempt to kill birthright citizenship.
Trump broke nearly 250 years of precedent as he arrived at the high court on Wednesday morning to personally observe the proceedings, which no sitting president has done.
As Kathryn Watson, a reporter for CBS News, explained, historically, "presidents have avoided attendance in part to honor the separation of powers."
Trump was in attendance as the justices—three of whom he appointed—mulled what could be their most consequential decision in decades: whether to uphold an executive order that would strip away a fundamental guarantee of citizenship enshrined in the US Constitution.
Making it all the more unnerving were the president's comments about the high court on Tuesday night in the Oval Office after letting reporters know he was "going" to keep tabs on Wednesday's proceedings.
He specifically zeroed in on the Republican-leaning justices, describing those he appointed as “disloyal” for ruling against him in previous cases. While describing the liberal justices as rank partisans, who’ll vote against him no matter what, he said the conservatives were “very different.”
"They want to show how honorable they are, so a man can appoint them, and they can rule against him and be so proud of it," Trump said.
"Some people would call it stupidity," Trump went on. "Some people would call it disloyal."
The court is expected to rule this summer on the legality of Trump’s executive order declaring that the children born to undocumented immigrants or those on temporary visas would no longer automatically become US citizens.
A lower court has already ruled against Trump's order, declaring it in violation of the 14th Amendment, which was passed following the Civil War and plainly states that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States."
The Supreme Court will now hear arguments from the Trump administration seeking to undo that fundamental understanding, including ones advanced over a century ago by a former Confederate officer who also helped to establish the “separate but equal” doctrine that legalized racial segregation for over half a century.
If the court votes to uphold Trump's executive order, hundreds of thousands of American citizens could become effectively stateless.
Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, a senior fellow at the American Immigration Council, said it could also throw the citizenship of tens of millions more into doubt, as it would effectively require people with legal birth certificates to "prove" their parents' legal status.
Trump's effort to strip millions of people of their citizenship comes as his Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has pushed to ultimately deport "100 million people" from the country—a number that far exceeds the population of undocumented immigrants in the US.
DaMareo Cooper explained on Tuesday for Common Dreams that the Supreme Court's decision will determine "whether a president can rewrite one of the clearest promises embedded in American law":
If the court strikes down birthright citizenship, it would let the government decide who counts as American based on the circumstances of their birth.
The 14th Amendment’s authors understood the danger of that approach.
Once citizenship becomes conditional, every other right soon follows. Ending birthright citizenship would affect everyone—not just children of immigrants—in a system that has long questioned the belonging of people of color, including Black Americans.
Allowing the Trump administration to determine who counts as a citizen takes on even more weight in light of another likely unconstitutional executive order signed by the president on Tuesday, requiring DHS to create a "citizenship list" to determine who is allowed to vote in the 2026 election.
Given these extraordinary stakes, many observers fear that Trump’s appearance before the Supreme Court's deliberations on Wednesday is designed to send a message to the justices he's accused of being "disloyal."
Historian Ruth Ben-Ghiat called Trump's arrival at the high court an “intimidation tactic to remind judges of the costs of defying him.”
Josh Sorbe, a spokesperson for the Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee, said, "The separation of powers is pure fiction at this point."
One critic warned that upholding President Donald Trump’s executive order “would create a permanent underclass of people born in the country but cut off from the rights that citizenship provides.”
As the US Supreme Court prepares to hear oral arguments Wednesday regarding President Donald Trump's executive order revoking birthright citizenship, several legal experts, advocacy groups, and commentators warned about the dire consequences that would come from not striking it down.
Michael Waldman, president and CEO of the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law, published an analysis on Monday explaining that, in an ideal world, the Supreme Court wouldn't even be entertaining arguments for upholding Trump's order because it so obviously violates the plain text of the US Constitution's 14th Amendment.
"Birthright citizenship is in the Constitution," wrote Waldman. "This has been the law for more than 150 years. The amendment overturned the notorious Dred Scott decision, which said that even free Black Americans could not be US citizens. The Supreme Court in 1898 confirmed the 14th Amendment’s plain meaning. In United States v. Wong Kim Ark, it ruled that children born here are citizens, even if their parents are not."
Waldman argued that "Donald Trump tried to Sharpie this out of the Constitution" with his executive order, but insisted that the 14th Amendment is "open and shut," making it easy for the Supreme Court to rule against the president.
The New York Times' Jamelle Bouie echoed Waldman's arguments in a Wednesday column, writing that "there are few lines in the Constitution that are as straightforward as the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment," whose "explicit aim... was to settle the question of American citizenship for good."
Bouie also dissected assorted arguments made by right-wing legal scholars in support of Trump's executive order, finding that they fail to offer "any new evidence regarding the drafting of the 14th Amendment, the intent of its framers, or the public meaning as understood at ratification."
"The evidence in favor of the traditional view of the citizenship clause is overwhelming," Bouie added. "To rule otherwise is to say, in essence, that two plus two equals five."
Virginia Kase Solomón, president and CEO of Common Cause, argued that the Supreme Court must strike down Trump's order because "the Constitution is not a suggestion, and its guarantees do not shift with the political winds of any one president."
"When the courts allow one president to change the definition of American citizenship with a stroke of a pen, it puts every American citizen at risk," Solomón added. "The Supreme Court must reject these unconstitutional overreaches before they cause irreversible harm to our families and our nation’s future."
Garrett Epps, legal affairs editor at Washington Monthly, warned that failing to uphold the 14th Amendment would create "an exploitable non-citizen class" who would live in the country without any constitutional rights or protections.
Picking apart Trump aide Stephen Miller's remarks about denying citizenship to children of a "foreign labor class," Epps argued that the real goal of the Trump administration's attack on the 14th Amendment isn't strictly mass deportations, but the elimination of rights to an entire group of US-based workers.
"As a practical matter," explained Epps, "reinstating a hereditary, lifelong, inferior status—which, after all, is what removing 'full political rights, including welfare and the right to vote' would mean—recreates the conditions for the growth of a racialized slave economy."
TV host and activist Padma Lakshmi, writing in a Wednesday New York Times column, also pointed to the horrific impact that eliminating birthright citizenship would have on families across the country.
"If the Supreme Court doesn't block this executive order, it would create a mess of legal and logistical consequences," Lakshmi argued. "Confusion would replace certainty, opening the door to discrimination and a patchwork of rules governing noncitizens’ access to our society. Hundreds of thousands of children born in the United States would be thrown into legal limbo every year."
The end result, Lakshmi said, "would create a permanent underclass of people born in the country but cut off from the rights that citizenship provides."
"Full respect for media independence and freedoms is all the more important in such circumstances, as fundamental to holding governments to public account," said Volker Türk.
The United Nations' top human rights official on Tuesday accused a Trump administration agency of attempting to "limit media freedom" by publicly threatening outlets engaged in critical coverage of the Iran war.
Volker Türk, the UN human rights chief, specifically called out the US Federal Communications Commission (FCC) over its chairman's threat last month to pull the broadcast licenses of broadcasters accused by the administration of "news distortions." FCC Chair Brendan Carr issued the threat in response to a March 14 tirade by US President Donald Trump, who baselessly condemned The Wall Street Journal and other media outlets for publishing "intentionally misleading" war coverage.
Türk's mention of the FCC came at the tail-end of a statement decrying the "deepening clampdown on freedom of expression" amid the US-Israeli war on Iran. The UN official pointed to mass arbitrary detentions in Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, the Israeli-occupied Palestinian territories, and Iran, as well as crackdowns on free assembly.
"There have also been attempts to limit media freedom, such as restrictions imposed by Israeli military censorship authorities, and a threat by the US Federal Communications Commission to revoke broadcast licenses for coverage deemed critical of the war," said Türk. "Full respect for media independence and freedoms is all the more important in such circumstances, as fundamental to holding governments to public account. The exercise of such rights must be protected, not threatened."
A day after the FCC chief threatened broadcasters, Trump floated "treason" charges against media outlets he accused of spreading "false information"—something the president does constantly.
Tom Jones, senior media writer at Poynter, wrote earlier this week that "perhaps the most dangerous figure in Trump’s aggression against the press is Brendan Carr," who "made his feelings abundantly clear at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Texas on Friday."
"He bragged about the damage Trump has done to the media," Jones wrote. "Carr told an approving crowd, 'Look at the results so far. PBS, defunded. NPR, defunded. Joy Reid, gone from MSNBC. Sleepy-eyes Chuck Todd, gone. Jim Acosta, gone. John Dickerson, gone. Stephen Colbert is leaving. CBS is under new ownership, and soon enough, CNN is going to have new ownership as well.'"
"Then," Jones added, "he chillingly said, 'So, we’re not at the point yet where we’re raising the mission accomplished flag, but President Trump is taking on the fake news media, and President Trump is winning.'"
Carr's attack on broadcasters over their Iran war coverage led Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) to reiterate his call for the FCC chair's resignation. In a letter to Carr, Markey wrote that the chairman's threat demonstrated his "continued effort to turn the FCC into Trump’s personal speech police."
Carr's threat to pull media outlets' broadcast licenses "follows that same logic but extends it to the coverage of an active military conflict, where the chilling effect on journalists and the damage to the public’s right to know are most severe."
Other Trump administration officials, most notably Pentagon Secretary Pete Hegseth, have vocally complained about press coverage of the illegal Iran war, describing American media outlets as insufficiently "patriotic."
Under Hegseth's leadership, the Pentagon recently ramped up its crackdown on journalists' access to the department following a court ruling against earlier press restrictions. As part of the new crackdown, the Pentagon closed a press area known as Correspondents' Corridor and moved reporters to an unfinished annex in a separate building.
“Closing the Correspondents’ Corridor and forcing escorted access undermines independent reporting at the Pentagon at a moment when the public needs clear, unfiltered information about the US military," said Mark Schoeff Jr., president of the National Press Club. "Independent reporting on the US military is not optional. It is essential to accountability, transparency, and public trust. Any policy that curtails that access should concern everyone who values a free and informed society.”