

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.

Judgment draws ‘line in the sand’ against misuse of terrorism powers
In response to today's High Court judgment that the proscription of Palestine Action under terrorism legislation is unlawful, Tom Southerden, Amnesty International UK’s Law and Human Rights Director, said:
“Today’s ruling is a vital affirmation of the right to protest at a time when it has been under sustained and deliberate attack. The High Court’s decision sends a clear message: the Government cannot simply reach for sweeping counter‑terrorism powers to silence critics or suppress dissent. We welcome this judgment as an essential check on overreach and a powerful reminder that fundamental freedoms still carry weight in UK law.
“We are relieved - and encouraged - that the Court has recognised the dangers of treating direct action as terrorism. This decision halts a pattern of escalating restrictions, aggressive policing tactics, and an ever-expanding definition of what constitutes ‘terrorism’. It draws an important line in the sand against attempts to narrow the democratic space and undermine public confidence in the right to speak out.
“The implications are profound. Thousands of peaceful protesters - including those involved in the Defend Our Juries campaign - have been arrested for something that should never have been a crime. This ruling offers hope not only for them, but for anyone who believes that challenging those in power is a legitimate and necessary part of public life.
“A healthy democracy depends on people being able to organise, protest, and demand accountability without fear of being branded a threat. Today’s outcome strengthens that principle and underscores the importance of safeguarding our rights against disproportionate, politically motivated interference.
“Amnesty will continue to expose attempts to erode these freedoms, stand with those targeted for peaceful activism, and defend the right to protest wherever it is threatened. This decision marks an important step forward - and we will keep working to ensure the Government respects both the spirit and the letter of today’s ruling.”
Amnesty International is a worldwide movement of people who campaign for internationally recognized human rights for all. Our supporters are outraged by human rights abuses but inspired by hope for a better world - so we work to improve human rights through campaigning and international solidarity. We have more than 2.2 million members and subscribers in more than 150 countries and regions and we coordinate this support to act for justice on a wide range of issues.
"Noem and Lewandowski are like the most toxic couple you have ever met given full rein of a government agency."
An explosive report published by the Wall Street Journal on Thursday shed fresh light on what critics have described as "outrageous corruption" by US Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem.
Among other things, the Journal report highlighted Noem's relationship with top adviser Corey Lewandowski, whom sources said is romantically involved with the Trump Cabinet official despite both of them being married.
Of particular note, the Journal wrote, is the way Lewandowski has taken over the contracting process at the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) despite being classified as a special government employee whose service is supposed to be capped at a maximum of 130 days per year.
"Given Lewandowski’s continuing business interests in the private sector, his role in awarding contracts has raised alarm bells inside the White House and DHS," reported the Journal. "Several officials inside the department said contracts and grants are being awarded in an opaque and arbitrary manner, and some are being held up without explanation."
The report also claimed that Noem and Lewandowski have been flying around the country together on a luxury 737 MAX jet, complete with a private cabin.
DHS has been leasing the plane, although the Journal's sources said it is in the process of buying it for $70 million, which "would be double the cost of each of seven other commercial planes the department is also buying at the pair’s direction to carry out deportations."
Additionally, the report outlined allegedly abusive behavior by Noem and Lewandowski toward DHS staff members, as sources said they "frequently berate senior level staff, give polygraph tests to employees they don’t trust, and have fired employees," including one incident where "Lewandowski fired a US Coast Guard pilot after Noem’s blanket was left behind on a plane."
The report generated fierce reaction from critics on social media.
"Noem and Lewandowski are like the most toxic couple you have ever met," wrote New York Times columnist Jamelle Bouie, "given full rein of a government agency."
Veteran foreign policy journalist Laura Rozen described Noem and Lewandowski as "the most vile scumbags on Earth" after reading the report, highlighting the details about the pair flying on the luxury jet as particularly egregious.
Investigative journalist Sarah Posner found herself floored by the conduct outlined in the Journal's report.
"There is so much crazy shit, outrageous corruption, and naked, ham-fisted ambition in this WSJ piece about Noem, Lewandowski, and DHS," she wrote. "Read and take note of the of eye-popping number of sources who have knives out for Kristi and Corey."
Former Rep. Barbara Comstock (R-Va.) argued the report showed Noem and Lewandowski "are wholly unqualified and a disaster at DHS," and have been "been very effective in driving [President Donald] Trump’s ratings into the ditch."
Ron Filipkowski, editor-in-chief of MeidasTouch, expressed disbelief at how much power Lewandowski had accumulated despite only being a special government employee.
"How the fuck is Corey Lewandowski in any position to fire a Coast Guard pilot?" he asked. "What is his title? What is his job? What is his official position in the US government? If you are Kristi Noem’s boyfriend you get to fire Coast Guard officers?"
The co-founder of Palestine Action called the decision "a monumental victory both for our fundamental freedoms here in Britain and in the struggle for freedom for the Palestinian people."
The British High Court ruled Friday that the United Kingdom government's ban on the anti-genocide advocacy group Palestine Action was unlawful, a decision that campaigners cheered as a major victory while also demanding the dismissal of all charges against those arrested and imprisoned for backing the group.
The UK-based Stop the War Coalition noted that roughly 3,000 activists have been arrested on terrorism charges for "holding signs in support of Palestine Action," which has targeted the UK operations of Israeli weapons manufacturers and engaged in civil disobedience to protest Israel's genocidal assault on Gaza. More than 250 people have been charged under the Terrorism Act due to the Palestine Action ban, according to the Associated Press, and more than 20 people are still jailed while awaiting trial.
Lindsey German, convenor of the Stop the War Coalition, called the High Court's ruling "fantastic news" and "an utter humiliation for Yvette Cooper, Shabana Mahmood, and the rest in this most authoritarian government in living memory," referring to the UK's foreign secretary and home secretary.
German said UK authorities must now "drop all the charges against those wrongly arrested and imprisoned without trial for peacefully protesting a genocide."
Fantastic news! Utter humiliation for Yvette Cooper, Shabana Mahmood and the rest in this most authoritarian govt in memory
We call on Mark Rowley and Cooper to resign
Now drop all the charges against those wrongly arrested and imprisoned for peacefully protesting genocide! https://t.co/RRqhw2s5AW
— Stop the War Coalition (@STWuk) February 13, 2026
Huda Ammori, the co-founder of Palestine Action who brought the case against the government, said the ruling represents "a monumental victory both for our fundamental freedoms here in Britain and in the struggle for freedom for the Palestinian people, striking down a decision that will forever be remembered as one of the most extreme attacks on free speech in recent British history.”
The Labour government's designation of Palestine Action as a terrorist group and ban on the organization, which took effect last summer, will remain in place pending appeal of the High Court's Friday decision. Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood said she was "disappointed" by the ruling and intends to "fight this judgment," which characterized the ban as "disproportionate" and unjustified. Under the ban, membership in or support for Palestine Action was made punishable by up to 14 years in prison.
"Thousands of people of conscience saw that branding protest as terrorism was a move straight out of the dictator’s playbook," said a spokesperson for the advocacy group Defend Our Juries in response to the decision. "Together we took action at great personal risk—inspired by each other’s courage. We helped make this proscription unenforceable by saying, 'We do not comply.'"

Tom Southerden, Amnesty International UK’s law and human rights director, praised the High Court's ruling as "a vital affirmation of the right to protest at a time when it has been under sustained and deliberate attack."
"The High Court’s decision sends a clear message: The government cannot simply reach for sweeping counter‑terrorism powers to silence critics or suppress dissent," said Southerden. "We welcome this judgment as an essential check on overreach and a powerful reminder that fundamental freedoms still carry weight in UK law."
The demand came after a group of United Nations experts condemned the embargo as "a serious violation of international law and a grave threat to a democratic and equitable international order."
The United Nations' human rights chief on Friday called on the Trump administration to lift its oil embargo against Cuba as the humanitarian crisis on the island deepens, with fuel shortages disrupting critical functions on the island and food and medicine shortages leaving families desperate for relief.
Marta Hurtado, a spokesperson for UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk, said in a statement that "we are extremely worried about Cuba’s deepening socio-economic crisis—amid a decades-long financial and trade embargo, extreme weather events, and the recent US measures restricting oil shipments."
"This is having an increasingly severe impact on the human rights of people in Cuba," Hurtado said. "Given the dependence of health, food, and water systems on imported fossil fuels, the current oil scarcity has put the availability of essential services at risk nationwide. Intensive care units and emergency rooms are compromised, as are the production, delivery, and storage of vaccines, blood products, and other temperature-sensitive medications."
The spokesperson noted that more than 80% of Cuba's water-pumping equipment depends on electricity, which has been undermined by widespread power cuts stemming from fuel shortages.
"The fuel shortage has disrupted the rationing system and the regulated basic food basket, and has affected social protection networks—school feeding, maternity homes, and nursing homes—with the most vulnerable groups being disproportionately impacted," said Hurtado. "Access to essential goods and services, including food, water, medicine, and adequate fuel and electricity, should always be safeguarded, as they are fundamental in modern societies to the right to life and the ability to enjoy many other rights."
In the face of the growing humanitarian catastrophe, Turk "reiterates his call on all states to lift unilateral sectoral measures, given their broad and indiscriminate impact on the population," Hurtado said.
"Policy goals cannot justify actions that in themselves violate human rights," she added.
The US has been economically suffocating Cuba for decades, but the Trump administration intensified the assault last month by cutting the island off from its primary source of oil—Venezuela—and threatening to slap tariffs on countries that send fuel to the beleaguered Caribbean nation, which has long been in the crosshairs of Secretary of State Marco Rubio and other right-wing supporters of regime change.
"Cuba is ready to fall," US President Donald Trump declared in early January after his administration kidnapped Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro.
In a statement on Thursday, a group of UN human rights experts said that Trump's January 29 executive order imposing a fuel blockade on Cuba represents "a serious violation of international law and a grave threat to a democratic and equitable international order."
“It is an extreme form of unilateral economic coercion with extraterritorial effects, through which the United States seeks to exert coercion on the sovereign state of Cuba and compel other sovereign third States to alter their lawful commercial relations, under threat of punitive trade measures,” the experts said. "A democratic international order cannot be reconciled with practices whereby one State claims the authority to dictate the internal policies and economic relations of others through threats and coercion."