

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.

A Jordanian journalist has been given 15 days in jail after being accused of breaking a recent ban on coverage of a terror plot, according to the journalist's employer and other news reports. The Committee to Protect Journalists condemns the imprisonment and calls on authorities to release Ghazi Mrayat immediately.
The state-owned daily Al-Rai reported that Jordan's state security court in the capital, Amman,ordered Mrayat, its reporter, to be jailed for 15 days. The court said Mrayat's reporting had exposed the Kingdom and its citizens to danger and damaged the Kingdom's standing with an unidentified foreign country, according to the paper. Mrayat has been held at the Marka Center for Corrections and Rehabilitation since Wednesday.
Mrayat's detention was in connection with a July 6 report he wrote for Al-Rai which cited a "well-informed source" as saying that Jordanian security services had foiled an Iranian-backed terror plot. The article, which was widely cited by international media, claimed that a suspect of Norwegian and Iraqi citizenship had been arrested with nearly 100 pounds of explosives. The article is no longer accessible on Al-Rai's website.
On July 8, the newspaper published a follow-up article, which Mrayat also wrote, that included more details on the plot. The Iranian government has since denied any involvement, according to news reports.
According to the official Petra news agency, the state security court issued a ban on reporting on the plot on July 6, the day the suspect was first brought to court. Tareq Momani, editor-in-chief of Al-Rai and head of the Jordanian Press Association, denied receiving any notice from the Jordanian government banning coverage of the plot, news reports said.
CPJ could not find an official statement about the ban onthe website of the Jordanian Media Commission, which is responsible for overseeing the Jordanian press. CPJ's calls and emails to the commission were not immediately returned.
Prime Minister Abdullah Ensour spoke at the International Press Institute World Congress in Jordan in May 2013, a year after amendments to the Press and Publications Law were passed. In his speech, Ensour said that journalists "cannot be arrested or jailed for speech-related offenses, and can only be tried by specialized media courts presided over by specialized judges."
"The Jordanian government should immediately release Ghazi Mrayat, who merely did his job by reporting on a story of critical importance to the Jordanian public," said CPJ Middle East and North Africa Program Coordinator Sherif Mansour. "The Jordanian government is again breaking its promise to never jail journalists or prosecute them in front of the state security court for their reporting."
At least three other journalists have been imprisoned on orders of the state security court this year, according to CPJ research. In January 2015, Hashem al-Khalidi, the owner of Saraya News, and the site's editor-in-chief, Seif Obeidat, were arrested for "aiding terrorism" and "spreading false news" in connection with a report on the website that claimed an imprisoned Iraqi militant would be released in a hostage negotiation deal, according to news reports. Al-Khalidi and Obeidat were released on bail in March 2015, news reports said.
In April, opinion writer Jamal Ayyoub was arrested after he criticized Operation Decisive Storm, the bombing campaign by a Saudi-led coalition including Jordan against Houthi forces in Yemen. A court ordered Ayyoub to be held for 15 days pending investigation into accusations that he disrupted the kingdom's relationships with foreign states. CPJ could not determine if Ayyoub is still in prison or if he faces any charges.
The Committee to Protect Journalists is an independent, nonprofit organization that promotes press freedom worldwide. We defend the right of journalists to report the news safely and without fear of reprisal.
(212) 465-1004"Republicans have a million ideas regarding healthcare. Except one," said Sen. Bernie Sanders. "They will never acknowledge that healthcare is a human right—to be guaranteed to ALL."
As President Donald Trump postpones unveiling his supposed plan to tackle soaring US healthcare costs—reportedly after pushback from congressional Republicans—Medicare for All advocates have renewed calls for shifting to a single-payer system.
"Republicans have a million ideas regarding healthcare. Except one," Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who caucuses with Democrats, said on social media Monday afternoon. "They will never acknowledge that healthcare is a human right—to be guaranteed to ALL."
The union National Nurses United also called for Medicare for All on Monday, pointing to a recent West Health/Gallup poll that found 47% of US adults are worried they won't be able to afford healthcare next year, the highest level since they began tracking in 2021.
"The urgency around this is real," West Health president Timothy Lash told NBC News. "When you look at the economic strain that is on families right now, even if healthcare prices didn't rise, the costs are rising elsewhere, which only exacerbates the problem."
Over objections from progressives, including Sanders, a small group of Senate Democrats earlier this month agreed to help GOP lawmakers end the longest federal government shutdown in US history in exchange for just the promise of a mid-December vote on extending Affordable Care Act (ACA) subsidies to help over 20 million Americans who face skyrocketing premiums.
Citing unnamed White House officials, MS NOW reported Sunday that Trump was set to introduce the Healthcare Price Cuts Act to combat what the sources called "surprise premium hikes" as soon as Monday.
"The plan would also eliminate 'zero-premium' subsidies currently offered under the ACA, intending to stop 'ghost beneficiaries,' a frequent Republican concern about alleged fraudulent policy recipients, by requiring a small minimum payment as a means to verify eligibility to receive benefits," according to the outlet.
"The nascent plan also features a deposit program that would incentivize lower-premium options on the ACA exchange," MS NOW continued. "For individuals who downgrade coverage, the difference in coverage costs would be distributed to a 'Health Savings Account' provided with taxpayer dollars."
However, as Politico detailed Monday, also citing unnamed sources, "Trump's healthcare plan is in limbo after pushback from Republicans who were caught off guard by the president's forthcoming proposal—questioning, in particular, whether it would include additional abortion restrictions."
As parts of Trump's proposal continued to leak in the absence of its formal introduction, the American Prospect's Ryan Cooper and David Dayen wrote Tuesday that "all told, there's a good chance that Democrats will accept this offer, or something like it, as the best they're likely to get for the time being."
"If they are ever in power again, they can fix the ACA permanently, and avoid the danger of subsidies expiring (as the Prospect advocated back in 2021). But it's quite revealing as to the total bankruptcy of the Republican Party when it comes to healthcare policy," the duo added. "The GOP will flinch from more than doubling health insurance premiums—at least if middle-class people and up are the most affected—but only if they can also make the insurance worse, and make poor people pay more."
Last week, in a pair of op-eds and a letter to Democratic lawmakers, Sanders argued that "at a time when the Republicans have been forced to finally talk about the healthcare crisis facing our country, it is essential that the Democratic Caucus unify behind a set of commonsense policies that will make healthcare more affordable and accessible."
He called for not only extending the ACA tax credits, but also repealing Trump and congressional Republicans' $1 trillion in cuts to the ACA and Medicaid; expanding Medicare to cover dental, vision, and hearing; cutting prescription drug costs by requiring pharmaceutical companies to charge no more for medications in the United States than they do in Europe or Canada; investing in expanding primary healthcare; and banning stock buybacks and dividends, and restricting CEO compensation.
Although Medicare for All lacks majority support in the Democratic Caucus, Sanders—the ranking member of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions—also emphasized his belief that it remains the ideal long-term solution. He reintroduced the Medicare for All Act in April with Democratic Reps. Pramila Jayapal (Wash.) and Debbie Dingell (Mich.).
Other single-payer advocates have also seized on current concerns and debates about the ACA. In a column for Truthdig last Thursday, Conor Lynch wrote that "with Republicans spotlighting the greed, corruption, and inefficiency of US healthcare, progressive Democrats have an opening to take Medicare for All off the back burner and renew the push for a comprehensive overhaul."
"The fact that Republicans are calling out insurance companies for their profiteering shows how much the national mood has changed since the passage of the ACA," he continued. "With Republicans unable to offer anything but a return to an intolerable status quo ante, Democrats should make the case for moving beyond the broken status quo."
The previous week, CJ Mikkelsen, a retired firefighter and paramedic now leading a small nonprofit in Michigan, made the case in the Midland Daily News that "we need a system like every other country in the developed world has."
Mikkelsen shared some of his and his wife's health struggles and stressed the society-wide benefits: "Medicare for All would mean that everyone is covered for everything at all times. No more losing coverage because you’ve lost your job, want to go back to school, or are starting your own business. The last thing I want you to know about Medicare for All, and pay attention here—IT’S CHEAPER THAN WHAT WE'RE DOING NOW."
The Dutch historian said the BBC's edit of his lecture shows what happens "when institutions start censoring themselves out of fear of those in power."
The BBC is being accused of bending to pressure from the White House once again after it removed a historian's claim that President Donald Trump was “the most openly corrupt president in American history” from one of its broadcasts.
Rutger Bregman, a Dutch author and historian, said Tuesday that Britain's flagship news broadcaster cut the "key line" out of a speech he gave as part of its prestigious Reith Lecture series.
The broadcast had included Bregman's descriptions of Trump as "a convicted reality star" and a "modern-day Caligula." It also included his criticism of the "establishment propping up" former President Joe Biden, whom he called "an elderly man in obvious mental decline."
But the BBC admits it cut out the line referring to Trump's corruption.
“The BBC has decided to censor my first Reith lecture,” Bregman said. “This sentence was taken out of a lecture they commissioned, reviewed through the full editorial process, and recorded four weeks ago in front of 500 people in the BBC Radio Theatre."
In a subsequent BBC radio broadcast discussing the controversy, the host said Bregman's assessment of Trump's corruption was removed "on legal advice."
"That same BBC legal advice means I can't tell you what was removed," he continued.
Bregman said he "was told the decision came from the highest levels within the BBC.”
The decision to pull Bregman's quote came as the network faces threats of a multibillion-dollar lawsuit from Trump over its edit of one of his speeches leading up to the January 6, 2021 US Capitol riot, which was fueled by the president's false assertions that his defeat in the 2020 election was the result of widespread voter fraud.
A documentary for the network's Panorama series, released days before the 2024 US election, had spliced together three clips of the president's speech to those assembled at the Capitol, which had occurred about 50 minutes apart. The statements made it appear as if Trump had urged supporters to march with him and called for violence.
Trump has since pardoned everyone who committed acts of violence on January 6, referring to them as “patriots,” and has purged investigators within the Justice Department who pursued cases against them.
The BBC issued an apology for its edit of Trump's comments, and its director general, Tim Davie, and the BBC News chief, Deborah Turness, have both resigned. However, it has insisted it did not defame Trump and that it would not settle any lawsuit with him.
In comments to the Guardian, a BBC spokesperson said it removed Bregman's comments because "all of our programs are required to comply with the BBC’s editorial guidelines, and we made the decision to remove one sentence from the lecture on legal advice.”
On social media, Bregman said the network's explanation did not make sense.
"The edit was made at the last minute, after editorial approval and four weeks after the live recording," he said. "A standard editorial edit doesn’t require days of high-level legal review or the involvement of many people at the top level."
He said the real reason was the network's fear of drawing Trump's ire.
"The truth is that the sentence wasn’t inaccurate—it was removed because of legal fears," he said. "And that’s exactly the concern my lecture raises: when institutions start censoring themselves out of fear of those in power."
"We will not be bullied."
Democratic lawmakers who participated in a video warning US military personnel against following unlawful orders issued by President Donald Trump remained defiant after being contacted by the FBI.
As reported by Reuters on Tuesday, the FBI has requested interviews with Sens. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.) and Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.), as well as Reps. Chris Deluzio (D-Penn.), Maggie Goodlander (D-NH), Chrissy Houlahan (D-Md.), and Jason Crow (D-Colo.), just days after Trump demanded their imprisonment or even death for supposed "sedition."
One US Department of Justice official told Reuters that the FBI interviews are to determine if the Democratic lawmakers engaged in "any wrongdoing" when they spoke out against the president potentially giving unlawful orders that pit the US military against American civilians.
The Democrats, however, vowed that they would not be intimidated by any FBI investigation.
In a social media post, Slotkin said that Trump's push to jail the Democrats for exercising their First Amendment rights demonstrated the reason why they decided to participate in the video in the first place. Slotkin accused Trump of "weaponizing the federal government against his perceived enemies," while adding that he "does not believe laws apply to him or his Cabinet."
"This is not the America I know," added Slotkin, a former CIA analyst. "I'm not going to let this next step from the FBI stop me from speaking up for my country and our Constitution."
Houlahan, Crow, Goodlander, and Deluzio issued a joint statement accusing Trump of "using the FBI as a tool to intimidate and harass members of Congress," and vowed that "no amount of intimidation or harassment will ever stop us from doing our jobs and honoring our Constitution."
"We swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States," they emphasized. "That oath lasts a lifetime, and we intend to keep it. We will not be bullied. We will never give up the ship."
The FBI interview requests came just a day after the US Department of Defense (DOD) said it had "received serious allegations of misconduct" against Kelly, who is a retired US Navy captain, and was launching an investigation that could result in him being recalled to active duty to face court-martial hearings for violating the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).
In a separate social media post, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth attacked all the Democrats who participated in the video as the "seditious six" and said that Kelly had been singled out for DOD investigation because he was the only member who was still subject to UCMJ given his status as a retired naval officer.