

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.

Jen Nessel, Center for Constitutional Rights, (212) 614-6449, jnessel@ccrjustice.org
Last night, the Center for Constitutional Rights asked a federal court to vacate the conviction and life-without-parole sentence of Ahmed Abu Ali in light of new evidence stemming from the Saudi government's cover-up of the torture and murder of Washington Post journalist Jamal Khashoggi. In 2003, when he was a 22-year-old university student, Mr. Abu Ali was detained by officers of the "Mabahith," a secret domestic police agency in Saudi Arabia--the same agency involved in the murder and cover-up of Khashoggi. During interrogations by the agency, Abu Ali "confessed" under torture to involvement in a Saudi Al Qaeda cell, which later served as the basis for his U.S. prosecution. At Abu Ali's trial, the government's chief witnesses attesting to the voluntariness of his statements were his Mabahith jailors and interrogators, who denied that he was tortured.
The motion filed last night argues that evidence of the agency's role in destroying evidence and obstructing international investigations after Khashoggi's murder, and the demonstrated willingness of the authorities to deny facts even in the face of the most intense outside scrutiny, bears crucially on the credibility of the agency officials who testified at Abu Ali's trial. The motion alleges fraud on the court by the Saudi government, and argues that the U.S. government knew or should have known that it was relying on fraudulent testimony in violation of Mr. Abu Ali's due process rights.
The Center for Constitutional Rights said:
Mr. Abu Ali's life without parole sentence is a travesty of justice. But for a tortured confession in Saudi custody, there would have been no conviction. The court should reexamine this case in light of what has by now been made plain - the Saudi government, and particularly the agency involved in Mr. Abu Ali's torture, has no credibility in denying its crimes.
Those investigating Saudi crimes should look closer to home.
Mr. Abu Ali's parents said:
We hope that this motion will bring attention to the magnitude of injustice our son Ahmed and our family has faced. Ahmed is serving a life sentence based on a coerced confession obtained through torture in Saudi prison as well as the testimony of the Mabahith, whom we know lack credibility. We hope that the court and the American public will see with clarity Ahmed's innocence and demand his immediate release.
After his arrest, Saudi Mabahith officers subjected Abu Ali to beating, whipping, and threats of amputation and beheading, and interrogated him for over 40 straight nights. At the end of this period, Abu Ali was forced to copy and sign a pre-written confession, which was the centerpiece of the government's case against him. At his trial, prosecutors presented testimony from Mabahith officials denying that any prisoner had ever been mistreated by them. "[N]ot once" had an officer or guard used physical force against a prisoner, an official insisted.
According to the motion filed yesterday, revelations that Mabahith officials were deeply involved in the cover-up of the Khashoggi murder have undercut the credibility of that testimony and give rise to a claim that Saudi authorities were engaged in deliberate deception. Based on the findings of international investigations, the filing alleges that Mabahith officials were part of the team that carried out the murder, and in the aftermath destroyed evidence, obstructed investigations, and helped mislead the international community about the truth of what happened.
Abu Ali was held in Saudi Arabia without access to counsel for close to two years without charge - by the Saudis or the U.S. In 2004, his parents filed a habeas corpus petition in federal court on his behalf, alleging that he was being held in Saudi Arabia at the behest of the U.S. and that he was being tortured. Two months after the judge ordered discovery in the case, Abu Ali was indicted and extradited to the U.S. to face charges. A U.S. official told the press at the time that the government wanted to make the civil case "go away" so that it could avoid having to disclose embarrassing and sensitive information.
Mr. Abu Ali was initially sentenced to a 30-year sentence. The sentencing judge emphasized the minimal nature of Abu Ali's alleged role in the conspiracy for which he was convicted, writing:
Mr. Abu Ali never planted any bombs, shot any weapons, or injured any people, and there is no evidence that he took any steps in the United States with others to further the conspiracy; no witness testified that they personally saw or conspired with Mr. Abu Ali to commit any acts of violence and there is no evidence that there were other co-conspirators in the United States; no weapons were ever found in Mr. Abu Ali's possession; and no victim was injured in the United States by Mr. Abu Ali's actions.
However, the government appealed his sentence as unreasonable, resulting in the life without parole sentence he is now serving.
For more information, visit the Center for Constitutional Rights' case page.
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) 614-6464The initiative appeared to be intended to prevent "people who are critical of Israel from getting hired by city government," said one critic.
Advocates denounced an initiative launched by the Anti-Defamation League in the wake of New York City Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani's electoral victory as "awful scaremongering," as the group founded more than a century ago as a civil rights organization announced it would be monitoring Mamdani's government for antisemitism—which the ADL has explicitly equated with anti-Israel sentiment.
The ADL, whose executive director, Jonathan Greenblatt, earlier this year falsely accused Mamdani of refusing to visit synagogues during his campaign, said its "Mamdani Monitor" would "track and monitor policies and personnel appointments of the incoming Mamdani administration and protect Jewish residents across the five boroughs during a period of unprecedented antisemitism in New York City."
Hate crimes driven by both antisemitism and Islamophobia have been on the rise in recent years in New York City. Mamdani has pledged that as mayor, he will work to represent all New Yorkers regardless of religion or ethnicity, and in his victory speech on Tuesday he said: "We will build a City Hall that stands steadfast alongside Jewish New Yorkers and does not waver in the fight against the scourge of antisemitism."
He repeated that commitment on Wednesday after a drawing of a swastika was found at a Jewish day school in Brooklyn, saying: "This is a disgusting and heartbreaking act of antisemitism, and it has no place in our beautiful city. As mayor, I will always stand steadfast with our Jewish neighbors to root the scourge of antisemitism out of our city."
About a third of Jewish people who voted in the election supported Mamdani, many actively campaigned on his behalf and joined him in his criticism of Israel, and a striking poll released by the Washington Post last month found that more than 60% of Jewish Americans agree with the mayor-elect's assessment that Israel has committed war crimes in Gaza since it began bombarding the exclave in October 2023.
Launching a project preemptively accusing Mamdani of bringing harm to Jewish New Yorkers, said journalist Sana Saeed, "is extremely—and expectedly—racist. There is no other way this should be talked about."
The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) was among those pointing out that the ADL "has never established a special monitor to harass any other elected official, including politicians who have actually expressed real bigotry against Jewish Americans."
"Singling out Mayor-elect Mamdani is an act of hypocrisy and anti-Muslim bigotry, pure and simple," said the group. "We strongly condemn the ADL’s increasingly unhinged, desperate attacks on American Muslims and other advocates for Palestinian human rights, and we call on New York community leaders to do the same.”
Dylan Williams of the Center for International Policy also called the "Mamdani Monitor" a display of "open bigotry" and noted that no such tracker has been established to keep tabs on the Trump administration, which has joined the ADL in attacking pro-Palestinian protesters as antisemitic while elevating numerous officials to top White House roles despite their ties to groups that espouse anti-Jewish views.
During the campaign, the ADL joined former Gov. Andrew Cuomo, Mamdani's top opponent in the race who ran as an independent after losing the Democratic primary in June, in attacking Mamdani for stating that the phrase "globalize the intifada" is not a call for violence but rather a demand to end Israel's occupation and apartheid policies in the Palestinian territories.
In response to the ADL's initiative targeting his incoming administration, Mamdani reiterated his commitment for standing against antisemitism and expressed doubt that Greenblatt will lead the group's new effort "honestly," considering his past lies about Mamdani's campaign.
"Anyone is free to catalog the actions of our administration," he said. "I have some doubts in Jonathan's ability to do so honestly, given that he previously said that I have not visited any synagogues only to have to correct himself."
A ‘Mamdani Monitor’?? Zohran RESPONDS to the ADL’s Jonathan Greenblatt for vowing to “track” his admin for antisemitism.
“I have some doubts in Jonathan's ability to do so honestly, given that he previously said I had not visited any synagogues only to have to correct himself.” pic.twitter.com/rWdaqh45nz
— Zeteo (@zeteo_news) November 5, 2025
While the ADL still attempts to portray itself as a leading group fighting against anti-Jewish hate—despite its refusal to condemn billionaire Trump megadonor Elon Musk's apparent Nazi salute at an inauguration event in January, and its recent removal of a commitment to "Protect Civil Rights" from its website—Yonah Lieberman of the Jewish-led Palestinian rights group IfNotNow said the Mamdani Monitor "should be the final straw to any liberal that has ever supported them."
The ADL is "treating the NYC mayor’s office like a hate group—because the next mayor is Muslim and believes Israel should follow international law," said Lieberman.
Peter Sterne of City & State NY added that the ADL's new feature appeared to be "its own version of Canary Mission"—the anonymously run pro-Israel website that identifies and targets pro-Palestinian students and professors.
The ADL's aim, said Sterne, appears to be "to prevent people who are critical of Israel from getting hired by city government."
“Trump put billionaires in charge of everything," said progressive Congressman Greg Casar. "It’s a disaster.”
The US labor market, which in recent months had ground nearly to a halt, now appears to be entering a downward spiral.
As reported by the Washington Post on Thursday, new data from corporate outplacement firm Challenger, Gray & Christmas found that employers in October announced 153,000 job cuts, which marked the highest number of layoffs in that month since October 2003.
Total announced job cuts in 2025 have now reached 1.1 million, a number that the Post describes as a "recession-like" level comparable to the steep job cuts announced in the wake of the dotcom bust of the early 2000s, the global financial crisis of 2008, and the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic in 2020.
John Challenger, the CEO of Challenger, Gray & Christmas, told the Post that the huge number of October layoffs showed the economy was entering "new territory."
"We haven’t seen mega-layoffs of the size that are being discussed now—48,000 from UPS, potentially 30,000 from Amazon—since 2020 and before that, since the recession of 2009," he explained. "When you see companies making cuts of this size, it does signal a real shift in direction."
CNBC noted that the Challenger report found that the tech sector is currently being hardest hit by the layoffs, and it said that the adoption of artificial intelligence was a significant driver of job cuts.
"Some industries are correcting after the hiring boom of the pandemic, but this comes as AI adoption, softening consumer and corporate spending, and rising costs drive belt-tightening and hiring freezes," the report said. "Those laid off now are finding it harder to quickly secure new roles, which could further loosen the labor market."
With the backing of Big Tech investors, President Donald Trump has pushed to prevent states from regulating AI, over the objections of labor groups and progressive lawmakers. Last month, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) warned that without strong regulation, tech billionaires' investments in AI will likely "increase their wealth and power exponentially" while wiping out "tens of millions" of jobs.
According to Bloomberg, however, AI adoption is just one factor in companies' decision to enact mass layoffs, as some firms have also cited the need to protect their profit margins from the impacts of President Donald Trump's tariffs, which have raised prices for a wide variety of products and materials.
Democratic lawmakers were quick to seize on the news of mass layoffs as evidence that Trump is sending the US economy into a ditch.
"Trump put billionaires in charge of everything," remarked Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas) in a social media post. "It’s a disaster."
"Trump inherited the fastest growing economy in the [Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development], fastest reduction in inflation, record job creation," said Rep. Sean Casten (D-Ill.). "Dumb tariffs, racist immigration policies, attacks on the rule of law and termination of congressionally mandated programs did this."
Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), meanwhile, simply wrote that "Trump’s economy suuuuucks."
The Trump administration "has once again gone out of its way to inflict further harm on low-income families," said the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
The average recipient of federal food aid will see a massive 61% benefit cut this month—and millions will lose November benefits entirely—under the Trump administration's plan to only partially fund the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program as the government remains shut down.
That's according to an analysis published Wednesday by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP), which found that the expected 61% benefit cut exceeds what's necessary to keep November SNAP spending within the limits of the program's contingency fund.
The think tank said that roughly 1.2 million low-income US households with around 5 million people will receive no benefits at all this month because the across-the-board benefit cut is larger than their typical monthly benefit. The average SNAP recipient receives around $180 per month, or approximately $6 daily.
"Nearly 5.4 million households with one or two members will receive a minimum benefit of $12 for November," CBPP added. "This appears to violate SNAP's regulations, which require these households to receive the typical minimum benefit of $24 unless benefits are cancelled, suspended entirely, or reduced by more than 90%."
"By cutting benefits even more deeply than necessary, the administration—which previously argued (contrary to federal law and the administration's own prior practice) that SNAP's contingency funds aren't legally available to cover regular benefits—has once again gone out of its way to inflict further harm on low-income families," the think tank added.
"There is no excuse that justifies the administration delaying the release of benefits and then choosing not to utilize every resource available to provide full benefits."
The new analysis was released after President Donald Trump sparked confusion and outrage with a Truth Social post earlier this week threatening to defy court orders and withhold SNAP funding entirely until the end of the government shutdown, which is now the longest in US history.
The White House later insisted that the administration is complying with court directives, but advocates and Democratic lawmakers have denounced the partial SNAP funding plan outlined by the US Department of Agriculture as badly inadequate—particularly as families are also facing unprecedented cuts to Medicaid benefits and Affordable Care Act premium hikes stemming from congressional Republicans' refusal to extend subsidies.
"There is no excuse that justifies the administration delaying the release of benefits and then choosing not to utilize every resource available to provide full benefits to the 42 million people who rely on SNAP to put food on the table," said Crystal FitzSimons, president of the Food Research & Action Center. "The decision to provide only partial benefits forces state agencies to scramble under unclear guidance, which will further delay benefits."
"It also means that families are missing out on much needed nutrition support," FitzSimons said. "Enough time has already been lost—the funds must be released immediately to avert further harm, chaos, and confusion."
Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) wrote Thursday that "families can't pay half of the bill at the grocery store or make half of a meal to feed their kids."
"Americans deserve their full SNAP benefits," Jayapal added.