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
accountability
Enforce the Law: Trigger the Leahy Review Now Over IDF Abuses in Gaza
No foreign military, no matter how close the alliance, should receive blank checks from the U.S. government when there is credible evidence they are violating international humanitarian norms and committing war crimes.
Jul 26, 2025
The Leahy Law is not a fringe idea. It is settled United States law, enshrined in bipartisan legislation that prohibits American tax dollars from funding foreign military units that commit gross violations of human rights. Its purpose is simple and resonates across political lines: accountability.
That is why we are launching the Leahy Review Now campaign, calling on Congress to immediately initiate a formal Leahy Law review of the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) based on overwhelming evidence of systematic abuses in Gaza.
This is not a left or right issue. It is a matter of law and order, fiscal responsibility, and American integrity. No foreign military, no matter how close the alliance, should receive blank checks from the U.S. government when there is credible evidence they are violating international humanitarian norms and committing war crimes. That is exactly what the Leahy Law was written to prevent. And right now, it is being ignored.
I am not writing this as a politician or a pundit. I’m writing this as a physician who just returned from Gaza, where I served at Nasser Hospital during one of the largest mass casualty events of the war. On June 17, I crawled and knelt on the blood-covered floors of the trauma bay, surrounded by infants, children, and teenagers with gunshot wounds to the head, traumatic amputations, and shrapnel wounds carved deep into their torsos and faces. The scale and precision of the injuries made clear that these were not accidents. They were the result of deliberate military policy.
The children dying in Gaza are not abstractions. They are real. They are beautiful. And they are being erased with the help of American-made bombs and bullets.
One young girl wore a red sweater with the word “Love” across the front. Her left arm was severed off mid arm. I hesitated before cutting off her clothes because they were the only warm and beautiful thing left on her tiny frame. She was barely conscious, but she was still alive. Across from her were the bodies of five young boys, all lined up, all with single gunshots to the head. Their skulls were opened, and their brains spilled into their hair. Some had just finished hiding small bags of flour under their clothing just before they were shot.
The so-called “aid drop zones” are not safe. They are kill boxes. More than once, I treated children whose last act of hope was running toward a flour sack. Some died with food still in their hands. The IDF has repeatedly struck civilians at aid distribution points, evacuation corridors, hospitals, ambulances, schools, and United Nations shelters. None of this is speculation. These facts are backed by credible documentation from Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, United Nations agencies, and most importantly, by the firsthand testimony of those of us who were there.
The Leahy Law explicitly prohibits U.S. military aid to units that commit gross violations of human rights. That includes extrajudicial killings, torture, targeting civilians, and violations of the Geneva Conventions. The conduct of the IDF in Gaza is not in a gray area. It qualifies.
Yet despite this mountain of evidence, the United States continues to send billions in weapons and military support. Congress continues to write blank checks. And most American taxpayers have no idea that they are funding the systematic destruction of a civilian population.
The Leahy Review Now campaign demands a change. We are calling on members of Congress, particularly the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and House Foreign Affairs Committee, to immediately trigger a formal review of the IDF under the Leahy Law. The process must be transparent, independent, and thorough. If the law is applied honestly, the outcome will be clear.
To be silent now is to be complicit. And to be complicit is to be culpable.
Some will say this is about geopolitics. It is not. This is about law. This is about children. This is about the fundamental principle that no one is above accountability. Not even our allies.
Former Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) himself has stated clearly that the law bearing his name must apply to Israel just as it applies to every other nation. To carve out an exception now would be to gut the law entirely. That would send a chilling message to the world: The rules-based order is optional, and America plays favorites.
We cannot let that happen. The law must mean something. The deaths must mean something. The future depends on our ability to stop this cycle of impunity.
As a physician, I took an oath to do no harm. That oath doesn’t end at our borders. It extends to all people, everywhere, especially when they are being harmed with our money and our weapons.
That’s why I am asking you to sign the petition at https://sign.moveon.org/p/LeahyReviewNow. For more information on the petition go to www.LeahyReviewNow.org. Share it. Talk about it. Pressure your elected officials. Demand a review. Demand accountability. And demand it now.
This campaign is not symbolic. It is legal. It is grounded. And it is urgent. The children dying in Gaza are not abstractions. They are real. They are beautiful. And they are being erased with the help of American-made bombs and bullets. We can no longer say we didn’t know.
We know.
Now it’s time to act.
Keep ReadingShow Less
The Disappearing Face of Authority
When those who enforce the law hide their faces, democracy itself is under threat. But history shows people can—and have—pushed back.
Jul 23, 2025
In Los Angeles, they came at night, black helmets, tactical gear, no names, no insignia. Protesters were grabbed off the streets and loaded into unmarked vans. No one knew who they were. No one could ask. Their faces were hidden. Their power, absolute.
We are entering an era in which the agents of state power no longer have faces.
Across the country, from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids in upstate New York to militarized police responses in Atlanta, Chicago, and Portland, Americans are increasingly confronted by law enforcement officers whose identities are concealed. Their names stripped from badges. Their faces obscured by masks, goggles, and helmets. Their authority rendered anonymous.
The stated rationale is familiar: protection from doxxing, retaliation, or harassment. And in an age of hyper-polarization and digital vigilantism, those concerns are not entirely unfounded. Former Federal Bureau of Investigation agent Ali Soufan warns, “Visibility puts a target on your back in the age of online extremism.” That may be true. But the inverse—faceless authority—puts a target on democracy itself.
The mask is not a neutral tool. It is a statement. And it is one that a free society cannot afford to make lightly.
At what point does protecting the enforcer obscure the principle of enforcement?
A democracy policed by faceless enforcers is not merely a tactical adaptation. It is a philosophical departure.
In literature, masks symbolize both freedom and concealment, rebellion and repression. Oscar Wilde famously quipped, “Give a man a mask and he’ll tell you the truth.” But there’s another truth lurking beneath: Masks don’t just enable expression; they also enable erasure.
Social psychologists have long understood this. In 1969, Stanford researcher Philip Zimbardo conducted a now-classic experiment in which participants donned hooded robes and were instructed to administer electric shocks to others. Unsurprisingly, the masked participants delivered higher shocks, exhibiting greater aggression and reduced empathy.
Even children grasp this dynamic. In a Halloween study, masked kids were significantly more likely to steal extra candy than their unmasked peers. A hidden face, even for a moment, grants permission to break the rules.
When combined with state power, anonymity can override individual conscience and turn human beings into instruments of group will.
The history of masked violence in America is not speculative; it is foundational. The Ku Klux Klan’s hooded anonymity wasn’t incidental. It was central to their terror. By day, Klan members were judges, sheriffs, or civic leaders. By night, they became ghosts, free to punish without consequence.
In Nazi Germany, SS and Gestapo agents wore masks during night raids, not only to instill fear but also to psychologically distance themselves from their crimes. In Chile under Augusto Pinochet, secret police donned balaclavas while abducting dissidents. In Iran under the Shah, SAVAK agents masked their faces during torture sessions to erase accountability.
This tactic is a hallmark of authoritarian regimes: concealment of identity to enable unchecked violence.
It is crucial to approach such parallels with care. No one is saying that masked ICE agents in American cities are equivalent to Gestapo squads in Berlin. But the comparison should serve as a warning, not a distraction. The question is not whether history repeats perfectly, but whether we are ignoring its lessons.
Of course, law enforcement officers face real threats. They have been harassed, even targeted for violence. Those risks are real and deserve attention. But the solution cannot be to erode public accountability.
We do not allow judges to hide their names. We do not permit anonymous juries. Our system of justice, however imperfect, relies on visible responsibility. To abandon that ideal in the name of safety is to accept a dangerous new social contract: one in which power flows only one way.
But here’s the hopeful truth: When communities resist the normalization of masked authority, they can win.
In Portland, Oregon, during the 2020 racial justice protests, federal agents from the Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Marshals deployed in camouflage uniforms and unmarked vehicles detained protesters without identifying themselves. The move drew national outrage and lawsuits. Oregon’s attorney general filed suit to stop these “secret police-style” tactics, and public pressure led to federal inspectors general investigating the practice. By 2021, Congress passed a provision requiring federal agents deployed in civil disturbances to display visible identification showing their name or a unique ID code and their agency.
In New York, years of grassroots organizing by groups like Communities United for Police Reform led to the June 2020 repeal of Section 50‑a, a decades-old law that had shielded police disciplinary records from public view. The change came amid mass protests, underlining how collective action can dismantle policies of anonymity that enable abuse.
In Oakland, California, the issue of hidden identity became headline news in 2011, during the Occupy Oakland demonstrations. An officer was caught on video covering his nameplate with tape, a violation of departmental policy. He was suspended for 30 days, and his supervising lieutenant was demoted. Public outrage led to stronger rules requiring all Oakland officers to display badge numbers and name tags even when outfitted in riot gear.
These victories didn’t happen overnight. They were the result of sustained advocacy and legal challenges. And they remind us: Faceless authority can be challenged, but only if we refuse to accept it as inevitable.
The logic of masking metastasizes. Today it may be ICE. Tomorrow it could be traffic cops, school resource officers, or regulators enforcing housing codes and environmental policy. Once anonymity is normalized, it becomes nearly impossible to roll back.
Imagine being confronted by a law enforcement officer whose face is completely obscured. What would you feel? Fear? Confusion? Powerlessness? These are not accidental responses. Perhaps that is the point.
But a free society cannot function on intimidation.
We live in an open society. Police do not rule us; they serve us. To wear a badge is to accept a burden, to be known, to be scrutinized, to be restrained by the public’s gaze.
The philosopher Michel Foucault warned that power is most effective when it is least visible. But the inverse is also true: Power is most just when it is most seen.
A democracy cannot thrive on ghosts. It requires people, real, visible people, making visible decisions in the full light of day.
So, what can be done?
To stop the normalization of faceless power, we can:
- Demand transparency laws banning face coverings in non-high-risk operations;
- Support local watchdog journalism that documents abuses of anonymity;
- Join campaigns for demilitarizing police departments and banning unmarked uniforms during public interactions; and
- Insist on civilian oversight boards with real teeth to enforce accountability.
The mask is not a neutral tool. It is a statement. And it is one that a free society cannot afford to make lightly.
If we want a future where power serves people, not the other way around, it begins with insisting that authority shows its face.
Keep ReadingShow Less
We Didn't Fight a Revolution for a King
Why presidential power should worry every American.
Jul 04, 2025
The Fourth of July marks the day America declared our independence from the idea that one man should hold unchecked power over an entire people and from a system that placed loyalty to the crown above fairness, above freedom, and above the law. That's the kind of government America's founding fathers risked their lives to overthrow.
Alexander Hamilton summed it up in Federalist No. 47, which most readers were required to read in high school, "The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny." President Donald Trump does not wear a crown, but some of his unilateral, unconstitutional actions—past and planned—echo the exact abuses that America's founders opposed. And whether you support him or not, this should give you pause.
I say this as someone not looking to insult or belittle anyone's vote. Millions of Americans supported Trump in 2024 for valid reasons. Many voters simply felt he was the better of two flawed choices. But if you're one of those Americans—someone who voted for Trump but doesn't want to see one man hold all the power—this message is for you.
A system that allows one person to "do whatever I want" is only comforting if you always agree with that person.
The Founders didn't just oppose King George III because of taxes or trade. They rejected the very idea that one man should rule without real accountability. The Declaration of Independence laid out a vision of a republic in which power is limited, divided, and checked.
Our system was built with friction on purpose—three co-equal branches, independent agencies, freedom of the press, and state sovereignty—all to prevent the rise of a single ruler.
Donald Trump has stated that Article II of the Constitution gives him "the right to do whatever I want as president."
Maybe you trust Trump with that power. Maybe you think he is using it wisely, or at least in your interests by abducting college students off of city streets because of their speech, cutting off federal funds to universities that refuse to cede academic freedom to the government, summarily stripping away birthright citizenship from children born in our nation, starting a war with another nation without any justification or congressional authorization, and funding a genocide in clear violation of U.S law. But what about the next president who runs with this precedent and goes even further? Or the one after that? A system that allows one person to "do whatever I want" is only comforting if you always agree with that person.
Many Americans, especially Republicans, have historically been skeptical of big government and concentrated power—and rightly so. Because when power gets centralized, it never stays in the hands of just one party.
Presidents of both parties have tested boundaries. But what President Trump proposes goes further: He's not testing the guardrails—he's removing them. And he's doing it while promising "retribution" and calling political opponents "enemies of the state."
The Declaration of Independence includes 27 grievances against King George III. Among them: obstructing justice, making judges dependent on his will alone, keeping standing armies under his personal command, manipulating elections, and using public offices as instruments of personal loyalty.
Read those carefully and reflect on the last few months.
As a Muslim, I'm also reminded that the warning against absolute authority isn't just a constitutional principle—it's a moral one. In Islam, power is a trust (amanah), not a privilege, and leaders are servants accountable to those they lead—and to God. Yusuf ben Ali, whose name appears in a revolutionary war era military muster role, is just one example of Muslims risking all for American ideals.
The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) said, "Every one of you is a shepherd, and every one of you is responsible for his flock." American Muslims know what it's like when government power turns its gaze on a single community—through surveillance, profiling, and fear-mongering. That's why we are especially sensitive to executive overreach. Because when power becomes personal, the Constitution becomes optional.
Too often, we treat criticism of a president as disloyalty. But that's not how the Founders saw it. They built a system where debate, dissent, and accountability were patriotic. Where allegiance is owed to the Constitution—not to a man.
We can and should insist on a system where no one—left or right—can ignore the law, silence opponents, or rig the system for personal gain.
The Founders gave us a framework strong enough to withstand kings, tyrants, and demagogues—but only if we choose to uphold it. We uphold it by not letting any president—Trump, Joe Biden, or the next one—rule without limits. And that's something every American—no matter who you voted for—should stand up and defend.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular