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
center for constitutional rights
Mahmoud Khalil Sues Trump Officials for Conspiracy Against Pro-Palestinian Organizers
"This case will expose the scheme that sought to criminalize the Palestine solidarity movement in the US."
Jul 14, 2026
A lawsuit filed by former Columbia University student organizer Mahmoud Khalil wasn't his first legal challenge stemming from his arrest last year for his Palestinian rights advocacy, but he emphasized that his decision to take members of the Trump administration and private pro-Israel organizations to court was "about far more than what was done to" him when he was detained for 104 days.
"This case will expose the scheme that sought to criminalize the Palestine solidarity movement in the US," said Khalil in a statement. "It is about a coordinated, ongoing plot to punish, silence, and intimidate everyone who dares to dissent and speak out for Palestinian liberation. We will hold them accountable.”
Represented by the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) and the law firm Beldock Levine & Hoffman, Khalil sued the Heritage Foundation, Canary Mission, Betar, Trump administration adviser Stephen Miller, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Secretary of Homeland Security Markwayne Mullin, his predecessor Kristi Noem, acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, and John Armstrong, an official at the State Department’s Bureau of Consular Affairs.
The lawsuit was filed under the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871, which was passed to stop efforts by vigilante groups like the KKK to coordinate with the government to strip individuals of their constitutional rights.
"Mahmoud is now using this statute to affirmatively challenge the illegal, anti-Palestinian, and anti-democratic public-private conspiracy to harass, intimidate, and punish Palestinians and their allies," said CCR.
Khalil: “I will not stop fighting until everyone who willingly contributed to my missing the birth of my son and to taking 104 days of my life from me answers for what they’ve done.” pic.twitter.com/x6iTgoxsXa
— Erik Uebelacker (@Uebey) July 14, 2026
As the Trump administration continues its efforts to deport Khalil, the lawsuit traces the alleged public-private conspiracy against pro-Palestinian organizers to October 2023, when Miller "vowed to punish Palestinians and their supporters through arrest and deportation."
A year later, the Heritage Foundation published Project Esther, which conflated criticism of Israel with antisemitism, claimed all pro-Palestinian organizers were Hamas supporters, and pledged to execute a plan to deport foreign protesters “when a willing administration occupies the White House.”
The Heritage Foundation said a “public-private partnership" would be required to carry out Project Esther. The lawsuit alleges that Canary Mission, an anonymously run Israeli surveillance and doxing organization, and Betar, a self-described vigilante group with a history of surveilling and harassing supporters of Palestinian rights, provided that partnership.
"Between March and May 2025, Miller, Rubio, Noem, and Armstrong used ICE to arrest or to try to arrest at least nine students or scholars pre-selected by the private groups," said CCR. "The federal defendants continue to seek Mr. Khalil’s deportation and pursue the conspiracy through sham, corrupted immigration proceedings under their control. Working together, the government and private co-conspirators sought to deny Palestinians and their supporters their constitutional rights: to equal protection, to freedom of speech and travel, to freedom from punitive detention, and, ultimately, to exist in this country."
As The New York Times reported, former Heritage Foundation national security director Robert Greenway said two months after Khalil was arrested that it was “no coincidence that we called for a series of actions to take place privately and publicly, and they are now happening.”
CCR pointed to a "range of harms" Khalil has suffered as the result of being targeted by the Trump administration, starting when he was arrested in March 2025. During three months in detention, he was sent to Jena, Louisiana—nearly 1,300 miles away from his family and lawyers—and was forced to miss the birth of his first child. He also faces "an ongoing threat to his lawful immigration status in the United States," with his attorneys preparing to appeal his deportation case to the US Supreme Court.
Baher Azmy, legal director for CCR, said that "the brazenness of this conspiratorial plan is matched only by the exquisitely detailed and shamelessly public record the conspirators produced of a collaborative plan to silence the growing student movement protesting US support for Israel’s genocidal campaign," referring to the country's assault on Gaza that began in October 2023 in retaliation for a Hamas-led attack.
“The conspirators acted through forms of state repression and arbitrary detention that numerous courts have found are blatantly unconstitutional," said Azmy. "They targeted Mr. Khalil, smeared him, and subjected him to the torment of detention for nothing other than being Palestinian and supporting Palestinian rights in order to send a message of terror across the student movement for Palestine."
"The KKK Act was designed to prevent conspiracies to stifle advocacy for political freedom," he added, "and together we are demanding accountability for this outrageous injustice.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Rights Groups Argue Trump Orders Have 'Murdered Over 210 Civilians With No Sound Legal or Moral Basis'
“By claiming that these attacks are legal while refusing to provide any evidence or rationale, President Trump shows once again his disdain for basic transparency, human rights, and the rule of law."
Jun 25, 2026
Civil rights groups squared off against the Trump administration in a New York federal court on Wednesday, with the former seeking to compel the release of a secret Department of Justice memo being used to justify illegal bombings of alleged narco-trafficking boats and the latter claiming executive privilege in a bid to avert the document's disclosure.
President Donald Trump signed an executive order on the first day of his second term designating drug cartels as foreign terrorist organizations and then reportedly signed a secret order directing the Pentagon to use military force against them. Last July, the DOJ's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) issued a classified opinion providing the legal rationale for the strikes, which international law experts around the world contend are illegal acts of murder and possibly war crimes or even crimes against humanity.
The ACLU, New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU), and the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) argued in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York that the Trump administration cannot conceal its legal justification for boat strikes from the American people while repeatedly referring to it.
“People across the country, politicians across the aisle, and the families of victims have been demanding answers as to how our government is justifying the cold-blooded murder of civilians,” ACLU National Security Project staff attorney Jeffrey Stein said in a statement. “The Trump administration has murdered over 210 civilians with no sound legal or moral basis. At a minimum, the administration must disclose to the American people why it thinks this killing spree is lawful.”
The DOJ, which is seeking a summary judgment, claimed that the memo contains classified and highly sensitive information that, if disclosed, would compromise intelligence operations and sources. DOJ attorneys argued that executive privilege shields the memo from disclosure.
“Wouldn’t that be true of any OLC memo?f” US District Judge Paul Engelmayer countered, according to Courthouse News Service. “Is it the government’s position that any presidential communications privilege cannot be waived?"
Stein asserted that the boat strikes are being carried out "on the basis of secret law" that "has no place in a democratic society" and dismissed the government's claim as “contrary to the foundational presidential communications privileges" in Freedom of Information Act cases.
CCR legal director Baher Azmy accused the Trump administration of "displacing the fundamental mandates of international law with the phony wartime rhetoric of a basic autocrat."
“If the OLC opinion seeks to dress up the obvious illegality of these serial homicides in legalese in order to provide cover, the public needs to see this analysis and ultimately hold accountable all those who facilitate murder in the United States’ name," he added.
CCR said that the OLC memo "supposedly validates the ongoing strikes as lawful acts in an alleged 'armed conflict' with unspecified 'drug cartels.'"
"Reportedly, the memo also purports to immunize personnel who authorized or took part in these unlawful strikes from future criminal prosecution for what would otherwise simply be homicides," the group added.
As CCR said Wednesday:
Contrary to the government’s public assertions, the US is not, and could not be, in an armed conflict with Latin American drug cartels. Under international law, an armed conflict between a state and a nonstate actor exists only if the nonstate actor is an “organized armed group” that is structured and disciplined like regular armed forces and is engaged in “protracted armed violence” against the state. There is no plausible argument that any drug cartel satisfies this test vis-à-vis the United States.
Even if the OLC does release the memo, it doesn't mean that its arguments are actually legal under international law. OLC lawyers have notoriously written opinions that affirm the purported legality of their administration's policies, from John Yoo positing during former President George W. Bush's War on Terror that detainee abuse only crossed the threshold of torture when the pain inflicted upon the victim was equal to “organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death," to the Obama-era OLC determining that the president could order the extrajudicial assassination of US citizens under certain circumstances.
Since last September, US Southern Command (SOUTHCOM) has publicly disclosed 66 strikes on boats in the Caribbean Sea and Pacific Ocean that it has claimed—without providing evidence—were involved in "narco-trafficking operations." The bombings have killed 215 people and left around a dozen survivors, according to a strike tracker published by The Intercept. In the first of the attacks, a special operations commander ordered a second strike that killed two survivors, reportedly on orders from Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to "kill everybody."
Relatives of people killed in previous US boat bombings, as well as officials in Venezuela and Colombia, have said that numerous victims were fishers who were not involved in the illicit drug trade. In January, relatives of two Trinidadian fishers killed in the strikes filed a federal wrongful death lawsuit in Massachusetts.
NYCLU staff attorney Ify Chikezie said Wednesday that "the public deserves to know how the Trump administration is rubber-stamping the killing of civilians."
“By claiming that these attacks are legal while refusing to provide any evidence or rationale, President Trump shows once again his disdain for basic transparency, human rights, and the rule of law," Chikezie added. "The court must step in and order the administration to release these documents immediately.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
US Appeals Court Upholds Verdict Against Contractor Liable for Abu Ghraib Torture
"This is a huge moment, a win that builds a foundation for a new precedent in the US," said one plaintiff. "Those who believe they are above the law will now think twice before violating human rights."
Mar 12, 2026
A federal appellate court on Thursday upheld a historic verdict against CACI Premier Technology, a military contractor found liable for its role in the torture of three prisoners at Abu Ghraib during the George W. Bush administration's invasion of Iraq in the early 2000s.
The three plaintiffs—middle school principal Suhail Al Shimari, fruit vendor Asa'ad Zuba'e, and journalist Salah Al-Ejaili—are represented by the Center for Constitutional Rights and two law firms. CCR noted Thursday that Al Shimari v. CACI was first filed in 2008 under the Alien Tort Statute and "is the only lawsuit brought by Abu Ghraib torture victims to make it to trial."
These three survivors of Abu Ghraib—where US captors subjected prisoners to broken bones, death threats, electric shocks, extreme temperatures, sexual abuse, and more torture—finally got their day in court in April 2024. The following November, a federal jury in Virginia ordered CACI to pay each plaintiff $3 million in compensatory damages and $11 million in punitive damages, for a total of $42 million.
"This victory isn't only for the three plaintiffs in this case against a corporation," Al-Ejaili said after the verdict. "This victory is a shining light for everyone who has been oppressed and a strong warning to any company or contractor practicing different forms of torture and abuse."
CACI unsuccessfully sought a new trial at the US District Court for the District of Virginia, then turned to the 4th Circuit, which heard arguments last September.
"We affirm the jury’s verdict in full," wrote Senior Judge Henry Floyd, joined by Judge Stephanie Thacker—both appointees of former President Barack Obama. Judge A. Marvin Quattlebaum Jr., who was appointed by President Donald Trump, dissented.
CCR legal director Baher Azmy, who argued the appeal, said Thursday that "we are gratified yet again that the 4th Circuit rejected CACI's cynical arguments for impunity for its responsibility for the torture of our clients, which the jury confirmed in a historic judgment last year. Our courageous clients have waited so long for recognition and justice, and we are happy for them that this judgment affirmed their entitlement to it."
Joining the center in this fight were the firms Akeel & Valentine and Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler. Michael Buchanan, a partner at the latter and lead co-counsel for the plaintiffs, also expressed gratitude "for the court's careful review of this matter and for its decision to uphold a verdict that acknowledges the severe harm our clients endured at Abu Ghraib at the hands of CACI employees and military personnel."
"I have been honored to work on this appeal alongside an exceptionally skilled and dedicated team at Patterson Belknap, which included Andrew Haddad, Alex Mahler-Haug, and other lawyers and paralegals, and with our colleagues at the Center for Constitutional Rights," Buchanan said. "While no verdict can undo what these individuals suffered, this outcome affirms their courage and the fundamental principle that all must be held accountable for their actions."
Al-Ejaili also celebrated the development, declaring that "this is a huge moment, a win that builds a foundation for a new precedent in the US."
"This will cause a positive difference in the future. Those who believe they are above the law will now think twice before violating human rights," the plaintiff added. "Thank you to the US legal system and thank you to everyone who had anything to do with this win."
The appellate court's decision notably comes as the Trump administration and Israel have launched another war in the Middle East: a joint assault of Iran, alongside Israeli bombing of Lebanon. Evidence of war crimes—including attacks on schools, hospitals, and other civilian infrastructure—has quickly mounted, fueling global demands for a diplomatic resolution.
This article has been updated with comment from lead co-counsel for the plaintiffs Michael Buchanan.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trinidadians Sue US for Caribbean Boat Bombing That Killed Relatives 'In Cold Blood'
“People may not simply be gunned down by the government, and the Trump administration’s claims to the contrary risk making America a pariah state," said one attorney in the case.
Jan 27, 2026
Relatives of two Trinidadian men killed during the Trump administration's internationally condemned bombing spree against boats allegedly transporting drugs in the Caribbean Sea filed a wrongful death lawsuit Tuesday against the United States.
Chad Joseph, 26, and Rishi Samaroo, 41, were killed in one of the at least 36 strikes the Trump administration has launched against civilian boats in the southern Caribbean and eastern Pacific Ocean since last September. According to the lawsuit and the Trump administration's own figures, at least 125 people have been killed in such strikes, which are part of the broader US military aggression targeting Venezuela.
The lawsuit was filed in the US District Court for the District of Massachusetts by lawyers from the ACLU, the ACLU of Massachusetts, the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR), and Professor Jonathan Hafetz of Seton Hall Law School on behalf of Joseph's mother Lenora Burnley and Samaroo's sister Sallycar Korasingh. The complaint alleges that the US violated the Death on the High Seas Act, which allows relatives to sue for wrongful deaths at sea, and the Alien Tort Statute, which empowers foreign citizens to seek legal redress in US federal courts.
According to the lawsuit:
On October 14, 2025, the United States government authorized and launched a missile strike against a boat carrying six people traveling from Venezuela to Trinidad. The strike killed all six, including Chad Joseph and Rishi Samaroo, two Trinidadian nationals who had been fishing in waters off the Venezuelan coast and working on farms in Venezuela, and who were returning to their homes in Las Cuevas, in nearby Trinidad and Tobago.
The October 14 attack was part of an unprecedented and manifestly unlawful US military campaign of lethal strikes against small boats in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific Ocean... The United States has not conducted these strikes pursuant to any congressional authorization. Instead, the government has acted unilaterally. And Trump administration officials, including President Donald J. Trump and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth have publicized videos of the boat strikes, boasting about and celebrating their own role in killing defenseless people.
"These premeditated and intentional killings lack any plausible legal justification," the lawsuit asserts. "Thus, they were simply murders, ordered by individuals at the highest levels of government and obeyed by military officers in the chain of command."
Burnley said in a statement announcing the lawsuit: "Chad was a loving and caring son who was always there for me, for his wife and children, and for our whole family. I miss him terribly. We all do."
“We know this lawsuit won’t bring Chad back to us, but we’re trusting God to carry us through this, and we hope that speaking out will help get us some truth and closure," she added.
Korasingh said, “Rishi used to call our family almost every day, and then one day he disappeared, and we never heard from him again."
“Rishi was a hardworking man who paid his debt to society and was just trying to get back on his feet again and to make a decent living in Venezuela to help provide for his family," she added, referring to her brother's imprisonment for taking part in the 2009 murder of a street vendor. "If the US government believed Rishi had done anything wrong, it should have arrested, charged, and detained him, not murdered him. They must be held accountable.”
Trump officials have offered very little concrete evidence to support their claims that the targeted vessels were smuggling drugs. Critics allege that's why attorneys at the US Department of Defense reportedly inquired about whether two survivors of an October bombing in the Caribbean could be sent to the notorious Terrorism Confinement Center (CECOT) maximum security prison in El Salvador, which has been described by rights groups as a "legal black hole."
The survivors were ultimately returned to their home countries of Colombia and Ecuador. Some observers said their repatriation showed the Trump administration knew that trying the survivors in US courts would compel officials to explain their dubious legal justification for the attacks, which many experts say are illegal.
Trump officials also considered sending boat strike survivors to the military prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, but that would allow their lawyers to sue for habeas corpus—a right granted by the US Supreme Court in its 2008 Boumediene v. Bush decision during the era of extrajudicial imprisonment and torture of terrorism suspects, as well as innocent men and boys, at the facility. The Trump administration has even revived the term “unlawful enemy combatant”—which was used by the Bush administration to categorize people caught up in the War on Terror in a way that skirts the law—to classify boat strike survivors.
The Trinidadian and Tobagonian government has also been criticized for hosting joint military exercises with the United States in the Caribbean Sea amid Trump's boat-bombing campaign.
ACLU senior counsel Brett Max Kaufman said Tuesday that “the Trump administration’s boat strikes are the heinous acts of people who claim they can abuse their power with impunity around the world."
“In seeking justice for the senseless killing of their loved ones, our clients are bravely demanding accountability for their devastating losses and standing up against the administration’s assault on the rule of law," he added.
CCR legal director Baher Azmy argued that “these are lawless killings in cold blood; killings for sport and killings for theater, which is why we need a court of law to proclaim what is true and constrain what is lawless."
"This is a critical step in ensuring accountability, while the individuals responsible may ultimately be answerable criminally for murder and war crimes," Azmy added.
Hafetz said that "using military force to kill Chad and Rishi violates the most elementary principles of international law."
“People may not simply be gunned down by the government," he stressed, "and the Trump administration’s claims to the contrary risk making America a pariah state.”
Jessie Rossman, legal director at the ACLU of Massachusetts, contended that Trump's "lethal boat strikes violate our collective understanding of right and wrong."
“Rishi and Chad wanted only to get home safely to their loved ones; the unconscionable attack on their boat prevented them from doing so," Rossman added. "It is imperative that we hold this administration accountable, both for their families and for the rule of law itself.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Cold-Blooded Murder': US Rights Coalition Sues Trump Over Unlawful Boat Strikes
If the Office of Legal Counsel opinion “seeks to dress up legalese in order to provide cover for the obvious illegality of these serial homicides, the public needs to see this analysis,” said one attorney.
Dec 09, 2025
A coalition of US rights organizations is suing the Trump administration to obtain its documentation outlining the legal justifications for its campaign of military strikes against suspected drug boats in the Caribbean Sea and the Pacific Ocean.
The ACLU, the Center for Constitutional Rights, and the New York Civil Liberties Union on Tuesday announced they had filed a complaint under the Freedom of Information Act demanding the release of the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) opinion that provided the legal framework for the strikes, which many human rights organizations have decried as acts of murder.
The groups said that the Trump administration's rationales for the strikes deserve special scrutiny because their justification hinges on claims that the US is in an "armed conflict" with international drug cartels akin to past conflicts between the US government and terrorist organizations such as al-Qaeda.
The groups argued there is simply no way that drug cartels can be classified under the same umbrella as terrorist organizations, given that the law regarding war with nonstate actors says that any organizations considered to be in armed conflict with the US must be an "organized armed group" that is structured like a conventional military and engaged in "protracted armed violence" with the US government.
Baher Azmy, legal director of the Center for Constitutional Rights, accused the administration of warping the law beyond recognition in defense of its boat-bombing campaign.
"The Trump administration is displacing the fundamental mandates of international law with the phony wartime rhetoric of a basic autocrat," Azmy explained. "If the OLC opinion seeks to dress up legalese in order to provide cover for the obvious illegality of these serial homicides, the public needs to see this analysis and ultimately hold accountable all those who facilitate murder in the United States’ name."
Jeffrey Stein, staff attorney with the ACLU’s National Security Project, said the American public deserves to know "how our government is justifying the cold-blooded murder of civilians as lawful and why it believes it can hand out get-out-of-jail-free cards to people committing these crimes."
Ify Chikezie, staff attorney at the New York Civil Liberties Union, said the Trump administration was making a mockery of government transparency by refusing to release its OLC documentation justifying the strikes, and demanded that "the courts must step in and order the administration to release these documents immediately."
The administration's boat-bombing spree, which so far has killed at least 87 people, has come under intense scrutiny in recent weeks after it was revealed that the US military had launched a second strike during an operation on September 2 to kill two men who had survived an initial strike on their vessel.
While the September 2 strike has drawn the most attention, Daphne Eviatar, director for security and human rights for Amnesty International USA, argued last week that the entire boat-bombing campaign has been “illegal under both domestic and international law.”
“All of them constitute murder because none of the victims, whether or not they were smuggling illegal narcotics, posed an imminent threat to life,” she said. “Congress must take action now to stop the US military from murdering more people in the Caribbean and Eastern Pacific.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Rights Group Pushes Delaware AG to Revoke Gaza Humanitarian Foundation's Corporate Charter
A Center for Constitutional Rights lawyer called on Kathy Jennings to "use her power to stop this dangerous entity that is masquerading as a charitable organization while furthering death and violence in Gaza."
Aug 13, 2025
A leading U.S. legal advocacy group on Wednesday urged Delaware Attorney General Kathy Jennings to pursue revoking the corporate charter of the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, whose aid distribution points in the embattled Palestinian enclave have been the sites of near-daily massacres in which thousands of Palestinians have reportedly been killed or wounded.
Last week, the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) urgently requested a meeting with Jennings, a Democrat, whom the group asserted has a legal obligation to file suit in the state's Chancery Court to seek revocation of the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation's (GHF) charter because the purported charity "is complicit in war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide."
CCR said Wednesday that Jennings "has neither responded" to the group's request "nor publicly addressed the serious claims raised against the Delaware-registered entity."
"GHF woefully fails to adhere to fundamental humanitarian principles of humanity, neutrality, impartiality, and independence and has proven to be an opportunistic and obsequious entity masquerading as a humanitarian organization," CCR asserted. "Since the start of its operations in late May, at least 1,400 Palestinians have died seeking aid, with at least 859 killed at or near GHF sites, which it operates in close coordination with the Israeli government and U.S. private military contractors."
One of those contractors, former U.S. Army Green Beret Col. Anthony Aguilar, quit his job and blew the whistle on what he said he saw while working at GHF aid sites.
"What I saw on the sites, around the sites, to and from the sites, can be described as nothing but war crimes, crimes against humanity, violations of international law," Aguilar told Democracy Now! host Amy Goodman earlier this month. "This is not hyperbole. This is not platitudes or drama. This is the truth... The sites were designed to lure, bait aid, and kill."
Israel Defense Forces officers and soldiers have admitted to receiving orders to open fire on Palestinian aid-seekers with live bullets and artillery rounds, even when the civilians posed no security threat.
"It is against this backdrop that [President Donald] Trump's State Department approved a $30 million United States Agency for International Development grant for GHF," CCR noted. "In so doing, the State Department exempted it from the audit usually required for new USAID grantees."
"It also waived mandatory counterterrorism and anti-fraud safeguards and overrode vetting mechanisms, including 58 internal objections to GHF's application," the group added. "The Center for Constitutional Rights has submitted a [Freedom of Information Act] request seeking information on the administration's funding of GHF."
CCR continued:
The letter to Jennings opens a new front in the effort to hold GHF accountable. The Center for Constitutional Rights letter provides extensive evidence that, far from alleviating suffering in Gaza, GHF is contributing to the forced displacement, illegal killing, and genocide of Palestinians, while serving as a fig leaf for Israel's continued denial of access to food and water. Given this, Jennings has not only the authority, but the obligation to investigate GHF to determine if it abused its charter by engaging in unlawful activity. She may then file suit with the Court of Chancery, which has the authority to revoke GHF's charter.
CCR's August 5 letter notes that Jennings has previously exercised such authority. In 2019, she filed suit to dissolve shell companies affiliated with former Trump campaign officials Paul Manafort and Richard Gates after they pleaded guilty to money laundering and other crimes.
"Attorney General Jennings has the power to significantly change the course of history and save lives by taking action to dissolve GHF," said CCR attorney Adina Marx-Arpadi. "We call on her to use her power to stop this dangerous entity that is masquerading as a charitable organization while furthering death and violence in Gaza, and to do so without delay."
CCR's request follows a call earlier this month by a group of United Nations experts for the "immediate dismantling" of GHF, as well as "holding it and its executives accountable and allowing experienced and humanitarian actors from the U.N. and civil society alike to take back the reins of managing and distributing lifesaving aid."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Betrayal of Justice': US Court Nixes Plea Deals for Tortured 9/11 Defendants
"This decision will ensure nothing but a continued lack of justice and accountability for everyone involved in the 9/11 military trial at Guantánamo," said one critic.
Jul 11, 2025
Human rights defenders on Friday condemned a federal appellate panel's decision upholding former U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin's withdrawal of pretrial plea agreements for three men accused of plotting the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States.
Austin, who served under former President Joe Biden, "indisputably had legal authority to withdraw from the agreements; the plain and unambiguous text of the pretrial agreements shows that no performance of promises had begun," the D.C. Court of Appeals panel ruled in a 2-1 decision.
Under the proposed deal, accused 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and alleged co-conspirators Mustafa al-Hawsawi and Walid bin Attash would have been spared execution in return for pleading guilty. The agreement came amid years of stalled legal proceedings in a case complicated by the U.S. government's torture of the defendants and efforts to cover it up.
Austin withdrew the plea agreements last August, explaining that he "long believed that the families of the victims, our service members, and the American public deserves the opportunity to see military commission trials carried out in this case."
However, attorneys for the defendants called the legally dubious military commission regime established at the Guantánamo Bay prison—notorious for detainee torture and indefinite detention—during the George W. Bush administration "obviously corrupt and rigged." During the 2000s, several military prosecutors resigned from the commissions in protest over what some of them called a rigged system designed to ensure there were no acquittals.
"The 9/11 case will never be resolved through a contested trial because the defendants were tortured by the CIA."
Last November, Air Force Col. Matthew McCall, a military judge, ruled that Lloyd "did not have the authority to do what he did, asserting that the plea deals "remain valid, and are enforceable," prompting the government's appeal. The following month, a military appeals court also ruled against Austin's bid to ditch the plea deals.
The Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR)—which has long represented Guantánamo detainees—called Friday's decision "a betrayal of justice."
"This decision will ensure nothing but a continued lack of justice and accountability for everyone involved in the 9/11 military trial at Guantánamo," CCR senior staff attorney Wells Dixon said in a statement. "The Biden administration's invalidation of plea agreements that would have resulted in convictions and life sentences for the 9/11 defendants is a painful betrayal of 9/11 victims' families."
"The 9/11 case will never be resolved through a contested trial because the defendants were tortured by the CIA," Dixon added. "The only way to resolve this case is for the Trump administration to succeed where every prior administration has failed and negotiate new deals with the 9/11 defendants that will finally close the 'War on Terror' prison at Guantánamo."
There are still 15 men currently imprisoned in Guantánamo, which is located on Cuban land leased to the U.S. in perpetuity by a dictatorship overthrown in 1959. Multiple detainees have been cleared for release, one of them for 15 years.
Some legal experts doubted whether the U.S. government would ever be able to try, let alone convict, the 9/11 suspects. Military judges and prosecutors have cited defendants' torture in declining to proceed with cases against them. Many men and boys were tortured at CIA "black sites," Guantánamo, and military prisons including Abu Ghraib. At least dozens of detainees died.
The three co-defendants were all captured in Pakistan during late 2002 and early 2003. After being turned over the United States, they were sent to CIA black sites, including the notorious "Salt Pit" outside Kabul, Afghanistan, where suspected militant Gul Rahman was tortured to death in November 2002. In 2006, the men were transferred to Guantánamo.
Mohammed was subjected to interrupted drowning, commonly called "waterboarding," 183 times, as well as other torture and abuse approved under the Bush administration's "enhanced interrogation" program. Hawsawi suffered a shredded rectum resulting from sodomization during so-called "rectal hydration" and has had to manually reinsert parts of his anal cavity to defecate. Bin Attash said he was placed in stress positions for extended periods, beaten, and doused in cold water.
The co-defendants must now decide whether to appeal the ruling to the full D.C. appeals court, the U.S. Supreme Court, or both.
"Putting aside the fantasy that this case is ever going to go to trial—assuming it does go to trial and that there's a conviction—you get to sentencing, and they have a right to put forward evidence... that they were tortured," Dixon told CNN Friday. "That's never going to happen."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Mahmoud Khalil to Sue Trump Admin for $20 Million Over 'Unconstitutional' Detention
"There must be accountability for political retaliation and abuse of power," said Khalil. "And I won't stop here."
Jul 10, 2025
Pro-Palestinian student protest leader Mahmoud Khalil on Thursday began the process of suing U.S. President Donald Trump's administration for $20 million in damages for the harm he suffered as a result of the government's "politically motivated plan to unlawfully arrest, detain, and deport" him.
"This is the first step towards accountability," Khalil said in a statement. "Nothing can restore the 104 days stolen from me. The trauma, the separation from my wife, the birth of my first child that I was forced to miss. But let's be clear, the same government that targeted me for speaking out is using taxpayer dollars to fund Israel's ongoing genocide in Gaza."
"There must be accountability for political retaliation and abuse of power," he asserted. "And I won't stop here. I will continue to pursue justice against everyone who contributed to my unlawful detention or spread lies in an attempt to destroy my reputation, including those affiliated with Columbia University. I'm holding the U.S. government accountable not just for myself, but for everyone they try to silence through fear, exile, or detention."
In March, federal agents who were in plain clothes and lacked a warrant accosted Khalil, a lawful permanent resident who recently finished a graduate program at Columbia, and his wife—Noor Abdalla, a U.S. citizen who was then pregnant with their son—outside their New York City home. Following Khalil's arrest, several other student activists critical of the U.S.-backed Israeli assault on Gaza were also targeted for deportation.
The claim that 30-year-old Khalil filed Thursday against the U.S. Homeland Security and State departments, as well as Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), is a precursor to a lawsuit that will cite the Federal Tort Claims Act of 1946, according to the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR), part of his legal team.
The filing accuses the Trump administration of carrying out a plan to deport Khalil "in a manner calculated to terrorize him and his family," and says the mistreatment caused "severe emotional distress, economic hardship, damage to his reputation, and significant impairment of his First Amendment and Fifth Amendment rights."
Mahmoud Khalil has filed a claim against the Trump administration, seeking either $20 million or an official apology and change in the administration’s policy after he was held in detention for over 100 days. NBC News’ Maya Eaglin spoke to Khalil in New York City.
[image or embed]
— NBC News (@nbcnews.com) July 10, 2025 at 5:01 PM
Khalil, an Algerian citizen of Palestinian descent who was finally freed from an ICE facility in Louisiana last month, is seeking $20 million to help others similarly targeted by the government and Columbia, but "he would accept, in lieu of payment, an official apology and abandonment of the administration's unconstitutional policy," CCR explained.
The Associated Press reported that "a White House spokesperson deferred comment to the State Department, which said its actions were fully supported by the law. In an emailed statement, Tricia McLaughlin, a spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security, called Khalil's claim 'absurd,' accusing him of 'hateful behavior and rhetoric' that threatened Jewish students."
While the departments' comments signal that the Trump administration won't be making any apologies, Khalil's team is determined to move forward with his case.
"The Trump administration's unconstitutional targeting of Mr. Khalil led to severe harms that he continues to navigate, including financial loss, reputational damage, and emotional distress," said Samah Sisay, staff attorney at CCR. "Mr. Khalil will never get back the three months stolen from him while in immigration detention, including his child's birth and first months of life. The government must take accountability for their unlawful actions and compensate Mr. Khalil for his suffering."
Khalil's claim was filed a day after an ICE official testified under oath that a task force formed in March used lists from Canary Mission, an operation linked to Israeli intelligence agencies, and the pro-Israel group Betar Worldwide to compile reports on international students targeted for their protest activities.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Rights Group Warns of Gaza Humanitarian Foundation's Complicity in Israeli 'War Crimes'
The Center for Constitutional Rights accused GHF of "directly contributing to or otherwise furthering Israel's commission of forcible transfer and other atrocity crimes."
Jun 12, 2025
As Israeli occupation forces continued to massacre desperate aid-seekers in Gaza this week, human rights defenders accused the U.S.-backed organization Israel is allowing to distribute limited aid in the embattled strip of being a "death trap" and giving cover to Israel's program of ethnic cleansing against the Palestinians.
Local and international media reported Thursday that at least 13 Palestinians were killed and upward of 200 others were wounded when Israel Defense Forces (IDF) troops opened fire on civilians waiting for humanitarian aid near the Netzarim corridor in central Gaza.
Medical sources also said Israeli shelling killed 12 Palestinians and injured dozens more gathered at an aid distribution center near the southern city of Rafah, while IDF troops shot dead five other people waiting for aid northwest of Gaza City.
Thursday's massacres followed similar IDF attacks on civilians seeking aid that have killed or wounded hundreds of Palestinians since the far-right government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu began allowing a trickle of humanitarian relief to enter Gaza amid a "complete siege" that has fueled mass starvation among the strip's more than 2 million people, almost all of whom have been forcibly displaced, often multiple times.
Many hundreds of Palestinians, mostly children and elders, have recently died from malnutrition and lack of medical care in Gaza.
This, as Israeli forces continued Operation Gideon's Chariots, which aims to conquer and indefinitely occupy all of Gaza and ethnically cleanse much of its population, possibly to make way for Israeli resettlement as advocated by many right-wing Israelis.
As the death toll among Palestinian aid-seekers mounts, critics have taken aim at the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF), the Delaware-based nonprofit tasked with distributing aid in the coastal enclave. Opponents have called GHF a "death trap" and a "ruse to weaponize aid."
This week, the New York-based Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) notified GHF "of its potential legal liability for complicity in Israel's war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide against Palestinians."
CCR—which unsuccessfully sued U.S. President Joe Biden and two of his top officials for alleged genocide complicity in Gaza—said in a letter to GHF executive chairman Johnnie Moore that "there is a reasonable basis to believe that your operations, planned and undertaken in close coordination with Israel, are directly contributing to or otherwise furthering Israel's commission of forcible transfer and other atrocity crimes in the occupied Gaza Strip."
"This militarized system of food distribution funneled through three distribution hubs in Rafah and one near Deir el-Balah requires malnourished Palestinians to travel great distances and often relocate within Gaza to access food aid under a regime overseen by Israeli forces and U.S. private military contractors," the letter continues.
"In the 10 days since GHF began its stop-and-go operations, reports range from at least 95 to as many as 130 Palestinians having
been killed and hundreds wounded while seeking food at GHF sites," CCR added. "We urge you to immediately cease and desist such operations and actions in Gaza. Failing to do so could result in the initiation of civil litigation or criminal prosecution in domestic courts in different countries, including under the principle of universal jurisdiction, or could subject you to the jurisdiction of international bodies."
Those bodies include the International Court of Justice in The Hague, Netherlands—which is currently weighing a genocide case against Israel—and the International Criminal Court, also based in the Dutch city, which last year issued arrest warrants for Netanyahu and former Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity including murder and forced starvation.
On Thursday, Zeteo published an interview with an anonymous former private U.S. security contractor who was hired to facilitate GHF aid distribution who said: "I thought I was signing up for an aid mission. But what I've witnessed in Gaza is horrific."
"You have guys with hardly any knowledge of the culture, no deployment experience, and are not necessarily qualified to be using the weapons they had in charge of security at aid sites in a place where we know millions are desperate for aid," he continued. "What could go wrong?"
According to the former contractor:
One episode sticks with me. We were monitoring an empty site all day; sometime after dark, dozens of flatbed trucks finally brought aid. The Israeli military soon radioed in that 200 to 300 civilians a couple of kilometers (less than two miles) north were approaching. We then observed an Israeli drone go out there.
Shortly thereafter, that area started getting lit up with artillery. The generous interpretation? Maybe the Israelis were firing between our position and the people in order to keep them from moving forward. I don't think that's the case. After all, tanks fire all day long near these aid sites. Snipers fire from what used to be a hospital. Bombs and bullets fly all day long in one direction—toward Palestinians. It's very clear that the Israeli military will take any opportunity available to fire.
Last month, Jake Wood, a former U.S. marine and co-founder of the disaster relief group Team Rubicon, resigned as executive director of GHF. Wood cited "the lack of independence from Israel and the likelihood that the plan would result in forced displacement," according to CCR.
Earlier this month, Christoph Schweizer, CEO of Boston Consulting Group—which played a key role in creating GHF—apologized for and ended BCG's participation in the endeavor.
"I deeply regret that in this situation, we fell short—of our own standards and of the trust that you, our clients and our broader communities place in BCG," he wrote. "I am sorry for how deeply disappointing this has been."
Keep ReadingShow Less
As Israel Slaughters Gazans, US House Progressives Push 'Block the Bombs Act'
"Netanyahu and Trump are a lethal, unaccountable, extremist duo," said Congresswoman Delia Ramirez. "Congress needs to assert its oversight authority."
Jun 05, 2025
With over 54,000 Palestinians in the Gaza Strip killed by the Israeli assault and the 2 million survivors suffering from the ongoing bombings and blockade on essentials, nearly two dozens progressives in the U.S. Congress came together Thursday to call for passage of a bill that would withhold offensive weapons from Israel.
Like former Democratic U.S. President Joe Biden, Republican President Donald Trump has continued to provide diplomatic and weapons support to the government of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, whose forces have left the Palestinian enclave in ruins since the Hamas-led October 7, 2023 attack on Israel.
"Netanyahu has laid siege to Gaza, killing at least 54,000 people, repeatedly displacing the entire population, and cutting off access to desperately needed humanitarian aid."
"Netanyahu and Trump are a lethal, unaccountable, extremist duo. Trump has bypassed congressional oversight on weapons transfers. The Israeli government is currently escalating attacks on the civilian population of Gaza. They are both out of control. Congress needs to assert its oversight authority," said Congresswoman Delia Ramirez (D-Ill.) in a statement.
"Enough is enough," Ramirez declared. "By introducing the Block the Bombs Act, a broad coalition is listening to the American people who don't want their taxpayers' money to continue supporting gross violations of U.S., international, and humanitarian law."
Two former leaders of the Congressional Progressive Caucus—Reps. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) and Mark Pocan (D-Wis.)—as well as Rep. Sara Jacobs (D-Calif.) are spearheading the fight for the bill alongside Ramirez. Another 18 Democrats in the House of Representatives have signed on as co-sponsors, including current CPC Chair Greg Casar (D-Texas) and Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), the only Palestinian American in either chamber.
"For the last year and a half, Benjamin Netanyahu has laid siege to Gaza, killing at least 54,000 people, repeatedly displacing the entire population, and cutting off access to desperately needed humanitarian aid," said Pocan. "This commonsense bill will prevent more unchecked transfers of these offensive weapons systems that are used to violate international human rights laws and hopefully help bring this devastating conflict to an end."
Although there was a cease-fire in place for nearly two months earlier this year, Netanyahu abandoned it in March. Since then, negotiations for an end to Israel's annihilation of Gaza and the release of both Palestinians held in Israeli prisons and hostages taken by Palestinian militants in 2023 have been unsuccessful.
Throughout the war, efforts by progressives in both chambers of Congress—including multiple resolutions led by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.)—to block U.S. weapons that Israel uses to massacre civilians in Gaza also have not been successful. A growing number of critics across the globe condemn the U.S.-backed Israeli assault as genocide.
This morning @ramirez.house.gov, @sarajacobs.house.gov, @jayapal.house.gov, and @pocan.house.gov introduced historic legislation to stop sending bombs to the Israeli military. It should be common sense. We should not be supporting mass killing and starvation. Thank you all for your leadership.
[image or embed]
— Sunrise Movement (@sunrisemvmt.bsky.social) June 5, 2025 at 12:57 PM
The new bill is backed by dozens of advocacy groups that have spent the past 20 months sounding the alarm about the soaring death toll, starvation, and destruction of infrastructure in Gaza, including Amnesty International USA, Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR), Council on American-Islamic Relations, Demand Progress, Human Rights Watch, IfNotNow Movement, IMEU Policy Project, Indivisible, Jewish Voice for Peace Action, Justice Democrats, Institute for Policy Studies, Progressive Democrats of America, Rabbis for Cease-Fire, Sunrise Movement, Win Without War, and Working Families Party.
"The Block the Bombs Act is a historic bill," but also "a straightforward challenge to United States complicity in Israel's genocidal campaign in Gaza as Israeli forces block humanitarian assistance and directly target schools, hospitals, and civilians," said CCR associate director of policy Brad Parker. "As the Israeli government escalates the murder, starvation, and forcible transfer of Palestinians with President Trump's full support, we recognize and appreciate the bold leadership of Reps. Ramirez, Jacobs, Jayapal, and Pocan."
CCR also encouraged supporters of the bill to visit blockthebombs.org, which features a tool enabling U.S. voters to write to their members of Congress and ask them to co-sponsor the legislation, H.R. 3565.
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More Stories
Most Popular
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy