SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
For Immediate Release
June, 14 2013, 03:52pm EDT
Contact:
Kaitlyn Soligan, MADRE (212) 627-0444, media@madre.org
Women Speak Out: No Arms for Syrian Rebels
MADRE, an international women's human rights organization, spoke out today to oppose the Obama Administration's decision to send arms to Syrian opposition forces.
NEW YORK
MADRE, an international women's human rights organization, spoke out today to oppose the Obama Administration's decision to send arms to Syrian opposition forces.
"There is no question about the brutality of Assad's regime," said Yifat Susskind, Executive Director. "Its repression was exactly what drove Syrians to rise up in peaceful protests two years ago. First, these nonviolent organizers were sidelined by the armed opposition. Now, they are being sidelined again by President Obama, in favor of further militarizing a conflict that ultimately has no military solution."
She went on to say, "The Obama Administration should be offering political and diplomatic support to people who share a vision rooted in human rights. This will mean creating space for Syrians to negotiate a peaceful resolution to the conflict, prioritizing women's participation."
MADRE noted that Syria is already awash in weapons that will be circulating in the area for years to come. Funneling more arms to the opposition will only intensify the war and further diminish chances of a democratic outcome for Syria.
For more information, click here to read MADRE's Q & A on the War in Syria.
Available for interview:
Yifat Susskind, MADRE Executive Director, works with women's human rights activists from Latin America, Africa, and the Middle East, creating programs to address violence against women, economic development, climate change, armed conflict and more.
MADRE is an international women's human rights organization that partners with community-based women's groups to advance women's human rights, challenge injustice and create social change in contexts of war, conflict, disaster and their aftermath. MADRE advocates for a world in which all people enjoy individual and collective human rights; natural resources are shared equitably and sustainably; women participate effectively in all aspects of society; and all people have a meaningful say in policies that affect their lives. For more information about MADRE, visit www.madre.org.
LATEST NEWS
Calls Grow to Release Transcript of 'Highly Disturbing' Trump-MBS Call After Khashoggi Murder
Rep. Eugene Vindman—who was a White House national security lawyer at the time of the 2019 call—said it “would shock people if they knew what was said.”
Nov 21, 2025
The widow of Jamal Khashoggi on Friday joined Democratic members of Congress in urging President Donald Trump to release the transcript of a phone conversation between the US leader and Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman following the journalist's 2018 kidnapping and gruesome murder by Saudi operatives.
Speaking outside the US Capitol in Washington, DC flanked by Democratic members of Congress including Reps. Eugene Vindman of Virginia and Jamie Raskin of Maryland, Hanan Elatr Khashoggi said she is seeking the lawmakers' help "to get the contents of the conversation between President Trump and MBS to get the truth."
“Try as much as you can to save the democratic freedom of America," Khashoggi implored the audience at the gathering. "Do not be a copy of the Middle East dictator countries. We look to America as our role model of modern civilization. Please maintain it.”
Jamal Khashoggi's widow, Hanan Elatr Khashoggi: "I'm seeking the help of Congressmen Vindman and Jamie Raskin, to get the transcript of the conversation between President Trump and Crown Prince MBS to understand the truth."
[image or embed]
— The Bulwark (@thebulwark.com) November 21, 2025 at 8:44 AM
Vindman urged the declassification and release of what he called a "highly disturbing" 2019 call between Trump and MBS—who US intelligence agencies say ordered Khashoggi's murder—the contents of which the congressman claimed “would shock people if they knew what was said.”
At the time of the call, Vindman was serving as a lawyer on Trump's National Security Council, where his duties included reviewing presidential communications with foreign leaders.
"All week, I’ve urged the president to release this transcript," Vindman said during his remarks at Friday's press conference. "Yesterday, I sent him a letter with 37 of my colleagues demanding its release. We will continue pressing until the American people get the truth.”
"Given President Trump’s disturbing and counterfactual defense of Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman this week, I felt compelled to speak up on behalf of the Khashoggi family and the country I serve," he added.
On Tuesday, Trump warmly welcomed the crown prince to the White House, calling him a "respected man," designating Saudi Arabia a major non-NATO ally, and announcing the planned sale of F-35 fighter jets to the kingdom.
Trump also threatened an ABC News reporter who attempted to ask MBS about his role in Khashoggi's murder, calling the victim "somebody that was extremely controversial" and whom "a lot of people didn’t like."
“Whether you like him or didn’t like him, things happen," Trump said as MBS smugly looked on, dubiously adding that the crown prince "knew nothing about it."
Responding to Trump's comments, Khashoggi's widow said during Friday's press conference that “there is no justification to kidnap [Khashoggi], torture him, to kill him, and to cut him to pieces."
"This is a terrorist act," she added.
Khashoggi—a Washington Post columnist and permanent US resident—vanished in October 2018 while visiting the Saudi consulate in Istanbul. Turkish officials said he was attacked, suffocated to death, and dismembered with a bone saw inside the consular compound. One Turkish investigator said Khashoggi was tortured in front the Saudi consul-general and dismembered while he was still alive.
Saudi officials initially denied that Khashoggi died in the consulate but later confirmed his death, claiming it resulted from a “fistfight” gone wrong. In 2019, a Saudi court sentenced five people to death and three others to prison terms in connection with Khashoggi’s murder. However, the death sentences were later commuted.
The Central Intelligence Agency concluded that MBS ordered Khashoggi's murder. Saudi officials refuted the CIA's findings. Trump also expressed skepticism at his own intelligence agency's conclusion, which came as the US was selling or seeking to sell billions of dollars worth of arms to Saudi Arabia despite its rampant war crimes in Yemen.
Hopes that former President Joe Biden would take a different approach to Saudi Arabia over war crimes and Khashoggi's murder were dashed as his administration continued selling arms to the kingdom and argued in federal court that MBS should be granted sovereign immunity in a civil case filed by the slain journalist's widow.
Trump has sought closer ties to Saudi Arabia during his second term as he courts up to $1 trillion in investments from the kingdom and works to broker diplomatic normalization between Riyadh and Israel.
The New York Times reported Monday that the Trump Organization—which is run by the president’s two eldest sons—is “in talks that could bring a Trump-branded property" to Saudi Arabia, raising concerns about possible corruption and conflicts of interest.
Keep ReadingShow Less
A Month After Trump Doubles Down on Atrazine, WHO Dubs It 'Probably Carcinogenic to Humans'
"It is outrageously irresponsible that we still allow use of this dangerous poison in the United States," said the Center for Biological Diversity's environmental health science director.
Nov 21, 2025
Just a month after the Trump administration doubled down on the alleged safety of atrazine, a United Nations agency said on Friday that the pesticide—which is banned by dozens of countries but commonly used on corn, sugarcane, and sorghum in the United States—probably causes cancer.
"It is outrageously irresponsible that we still allow use of this dangerous poison in the United States," said Nathan Donley, the Center for Biological Diversity's environmental health science director, in a Friday statement. "This finding is just the latest indictment of the industry-controlled US pesticide oversight process that is failing to protect people and wildlife from chemicals linked to numerous health harms."
Research into and alarm over atrazine have mounted since the World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer initially concluded in 1999 that it was not classifiable as carcinogenic to humans. IACR has now announced new findings for atrazine and alachlor, another herbicide widely used on crops, as well as the agricultural fungicide vinclozolin.
Of the three, only atrazine was previously examined by IARC. From October 28 to November 4, a working group of 22 international experts from a dozen countries met in France to evaluate the carcinogenicity of pesticides. They classified vinclozolin as "possibly carcinogenic to humans, and both alachlor and atrazine as "probably carcinogenic to humans."
The latter two decisions were based on a combination of limited evidence for cancer in humans, sufficient evidence for cancer in animals, and strong mechanistic evidence in experimental systems. IARC said that "for atrazine, positive associations have been observed for non-Hodgkin lymphoma that is positive for the chromosomal translocation t(14;18)."
A couple of weeks before that IARC meeting, the Trump administration sparked outrage with a US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) draft opinion claiming that atrazine does not pose an extinction risk to a single protected animal or plant.
That draft opinion came as President Donald Trump and Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. were already under fire for the second Make America Healthy Again report. After the first MAHA publication noted concerns regarding pesticides, even naming atrazine, agribusiness lobbyists confronted the administration, and the following document ultimately featured pesticide industry talking points.
The second report's "only mention of pesticides is an Orwellian promise to ensure 'confidence in EPA's robust pesticide review procedures'—procedures courts have repeatedly found unlawful and that frontline communities know cannot be trusted," the Center for Food Safety said after its September release. "Instead, it says that it will speed up pesticide approval and it will 'partner' with the pesticide industry to 'educate' the public about the 'robust review' of EPA's regulation of pesticides to provide the public with 'confidence.'"
Then came the USFWS draft, which Center for Food Safety senior attorney Sylvia Wu said "makes clear that despite the rhetoric of MAHA, there will be no robust review of the dangers of pesticides by the Trump administration... Instead, a toxic poison like atrazine will continue to contaminate our lands and waters, making our children sick for decades to come."
Wu's group has long been critical of atrazine. During the first Trump administration, it was part of a coalition that sued over the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) 2020 reapproval of the herbicide. So was the Center for Biological Diversity—which was also angered by the USFWS document, with Donley calling it "an absolute joke."
Donley took aim at the Trump administration again on Friday, after IACR announced its new classification for atrazine.
"Despite its rhetoric to the contrary, there is no better friend of atrazine than the Trump administration," he said. "Hiding behind the rhetoric of MAHA, EPA reapproval of a poison that's likely to keep Americans sick for generations is moving ahead full steam."
Keep ReadingShow Less
86 Democrats Join GOP in Voting for 'Very, Very Stupid' Resolution Condemning Socialism
"House Minority Leader Jeffries voting with the GOP in favor of this resolution is showing his ultrawealthy donors exactly who he fights for," said one progressive leader. "It’s not the people."
Nov 21, 2025
Dozens of US House Democrats who joined the Republican Party on Friday in backing a resolution that denounced “socialism in all its forms" and opposed "the implementation of socialist policies in the United States" did so despite the fact that the GOP has used the term "socialism" liberally to describe a variety of social welfare programs—making the true meaning of the resolution open to interpretation.
"Socialism" is the word President Donald Trump has used for proposals to ensure the federal government provides healthcare to everyone in the US, and he's among the Republicans who have warned extending Medicare to all Americans would "bankrupt our nation"—despite studies showing that the system would save more than $600 billion per year, and that wealthy countries that ensure all citizens have health coverage have far better health outcomes than the US.
Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) called the Green New Deal, which would create 3.4 million new green jobs per year, a "socialist scheme."
During the Great Depression, Social Security—now credited with lifting more Americans out of poverty than any other US government program—was denounced by opponents of President Franklin D. Roosevelt as "socialism," as was Medicare when it was introduced in 1965.
Republicans and their wealthy donors have warned that New York City's Democratic mayor-elect, democratic socialist Zohran Mamdani, will wreak havoc on the city with his plans for fare-free buses and a network of city-owned grocery stores, with the president calling him a "100% Communist lunatic." Fare-free public transit already exists in about 100 thriving cities around the world, including a growing number in the US, and more than a million Americans already benefit from publicly owned grocery stores where prices are 25-30% lower than at private stores—which also continue to run.
Friday's resolution, introduced by Rep. María Elvira Salazar (R-Fla.), states its opposition to "socialist ideologues" including Joseph Stalin and Kim Jong Un as well as the "collectivistic system of socialism in all of its forms."
After the US House vote on Friday, former Democratic Ohio state Sen. Nina Turner said that considering how "the GOP calls every social safety net measure 'socialism,' votes like this matter in a policy context."
They also say a lot, said Turner, about the Democratic leaders—like House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (NY), House Minority Whip Katherine Clark (Mass.), and House Democratic Caucus Chair Pete Aguilar (Calif.)—who voted for the resolution.
"House Minority Leader Jeffries voting with the GOP in favor of this resolution is showing his ultrawealthy donors exactly who he fights for," said Turner. "It’s not the people."
Jeffries waited until the final days of the New York City mayoral campaign to endorse Mamdani, despite the fact that the candidate had won Jeffries' district in the June primary and captured national attention for his relentless focus on making the city more affordable for New Yorkers.
Drop Site News was among those that noted the House voted as Mamdani was en route to Washington, DC to meet with Trump for the first time. The support for the resolution among top Democrats who have refused to embrace the popular young politician's meteoric rise was viewed by some as a statement regarding Mamdani's visit to the White House—during which Trump gave the mayor-elect a comparatively warm welcome.
Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) said those who supported the "pointless" resolution "feel threatened by democratic socialists like myself who are unbought and willing to take on the billionaire class."
Rep. Sean Casten (D-Ill.) called the debate over socialism on the House floor "so very, very stupid."
"A bunch of people with taxpayer-funded salaries, doing a job that is impossible to outsource to the private sector, are condemning the evils of socialism," said Casten. "Either they are stupid, or that they think you are."
"We have a mixed economy," he added. "We benefit from free markets and competition in lots of sectors, and also have a judicial system, border security, national defense, economic security for seniors and those who can't work that is socially funded. That's a good thing! Condemning one half of that equation has no more logic—and is no more deserving of finite House floor time—than condemning defensive linemen because they never score touchdowns."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular