Home Blog Page 395

Israel Releases Ahmad Manasra After 9.5-Year Sentence Sparked by 2015 Stabbing Attack

By
admin
-
0

JERUSALEM  — Israel on Thursday released Ahmad Manasra, a Palestinian who was imprisoned at the age of 13 for his role in a 2015 stabbing attack in Jerusalem. Manasra’s case drew widespread international attention over the years due to his age at the time of arrest and the mental health issues he reportedly developed during his incarceration.

Manasra, now 21, completed his nine-and-a-half-year sentence, according to his attorney Khaled Zabarqa. He was released to his family, though no immediate details were provided about his current health condition. Zabarqa confirmed that Manasra had been suffering from severe mental illness during his time in prison and was undergoing treatment.

In October 2015, Ahmad Manasra and his 15-year-old cousin Hassan carried out a knife attack in Pisgat Ze’ev, a Jewish settlement neighborhood in East Jerusalem. During the attack, Hassan critically wounded a 13-year-old Israeli boy and stabbed an adult Israeli man before being shot and killed by police. Ahmad was seriously injured after being hit by a car while fleeing. He was later beaten by bystanders, and a video of the incident — showing him bleeding and being verbally abused while lying on the street — circulated widely on social media and drew condemnation from rights groups.

Manasra was convicted of attempted murder and labeled a terrorist by Israeli authorities. Despite his young age and later-diagnosed mental illness, Israeli courts consistently rejected requests for early release, including appeals submitted to the country’s Supreme Court. Judges ruled that his terrorism conviction disqualified him from parole eligibility, regardless of age or medical status.

According to his lawyer and family, Manasra’s mental health significantly deteriorated during his detention. He was first placed in solitary confinement in November 2021 following an altercation with another inmate. Reports from that time stated that he was kept in a small isolation cell for 23 hours a day, suffering from hallucinations, paranoia, and insomnia. His condition worsened to the point that he reportedly attempted self-harm.

A physician who visited Manasra when he was 18 diagnosed him with schizophrenia, attributing the illness to the prolonged psychological stress and isolation experienced in prison. Medical professionals warned that continued incarceration could result in permanent psychiatric damage.

Over the years, Manasra was intermittently transferred to the psychiatric ward of another prison, where he was treated with medication, including regular injections to stabilize his condition. Despite the medical assessments and legal efforts, the Israeli judicial system did not grant early release or leniency.

The Israel Prison Service declined to provide specific details about the conditions of Manasra’s confinement but stated that all prisoners are treated in accordance with Israeli and international legal standards. The agency added that any complaints about mistreatment are investigated.

Human rights organizations have long criticized the treatment of Palestinian minors in Israeli custody, and Manasra’s case became emblematic of the issue. Advocacy groups described his imprisonment as a violation of international norms regarding juvenile justice and mental health care in detention.

Since the start of the Israel-Hamas war on October 7, 2023, conditions for Palestinian detainees in Israeli facilities have reportedly worsened. Several prisoners released in recent ceasefire deals appeared malnourished and in poor health, with many being taken directly to medical facilities upon release.

Last month, a Palestinian teenager held without charge in Israeli custody died after collapsing under unclear circumstances, becoming the first minor to die in Israeli detention in recent years.

Ahmad Manasra’s release ends a prolonged and contentious legal and humanitarian saga, but questions remain about the long-term impact of his incarceration on his mental health and future reintegration into society.

 ICE Tackles Venezuelan Man in New Hampshire Courthouse, Transfers Him to Texas

By
admin
-
0

NASHUA, N.H.  — A Venezuelan man attending a court hearing in New Hampshire was tackled and arrested by federal immigration agents inside a courthouse in February, in a forceful incident caught on newly released security footage that also shows a bystander being knocked over during the takedown.

Arnuel Marquez Colmenarez, 33, was apprehended by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents on February 20 as he arrived for his arraignment at Nashua Circuit Court. He was facing misdemeanor charges including driving under the influence, operating a vehicle without a license, and failing to provide information following an accident. The charges were filed earlier that month, on February 9.

Court surveillance video shows two ICE agents intercepting Marquez Colmenarez in a courthouse hallway, wrestling him to the ground and restraining him. In the process, an older man walking nearby with the assistance of a cane was also knocked down and landed on his back. The footage, released publicly this week, has added to ongoing concerns about immigration enforcement actions taking place within judicial buildings.

Hudson Police Department Court Liaison Officer Jared Neff, who was on-site at the time, described the scene in an official incident report. Neff wrote that he heard shouting and a loud bang, which he believed was the sound of people falling and struggling on the ground. He assisted ICE agents in subduing Marquez Colmenarez, who he said resisted being handcuffed.

ICE agents informed Neff that they had orders to detain Marquez Colmenarez due to his immigration status. They stated that an attempt had been made to arrest him quietly in an elevator before he allegedly tried to flee. The arrest occurred just before the defendant was scheduled to appear for arraignment on his pending charges. As a result of his failure to appear, a judge issued a bench warrant.

Nashua police later confirmed that the local prosecutor was not informed of the arrest in advance and did not witness the event. The unexpected nature of the arrest and lack of coordination with local legal authorities have raised questions about communication between federal and local agencies during sensitive court procedures.

As of Monday, Marquez Colmenarez remained in federal custody at an ICE detention facility in Texas, according to public immigration records. ICE has not issued a public statement regarding the incident or the circumstances of his transfer.

The incident underscores the return of aggressive immigration enforcement practices under President Donald Trump’s second term. During his first administration, ICE presence in courthouses increased significantly, drawing widespread criticism from state judges, local officials, and immigrant advocacy groups. A 2011 directive that had generally discouraged arrests in “sensitive locations” such as schools, houses of worship, and hospitals was formally repealed, allowing greater flexibility for courthouse operations.

Under current policy, ICE agents are authorized to make arrests in or near courthouses if they have credible information that a targeted noncitizen will be present and if no state or local laws prohibit such actions. The policy change has led to several controversial arrests nationwide.

Just last month in Boston, an ICE agent was held in contempt of court after detaining a man while he was on trial, further intensifying the legal and ethical debate around federal immigration enforcement within judicial spaces.

The arrest of Marquez Colmenarez has drawn renewed scrutiny to the balance between immigration law enforcement and the protection of due process rights for individuals navigating the legal system.

AP Barred from Oval Office Despite Court Order Against Trump Administration

By
admin
-
0

WASHINGTON  — The White House on Monday barred Associated Press journalists from attending a high-profile Oval Office news conference between President Donald Trump and El Salvador’s President Nayib Bukele, defying a recent federal court order prohibiting retaliation against the AP for its editorial decisions.

The exclusion came despite a ruling that took effect the same day, issued by U.S. District Judge Trevor N. McFadden, which declared the Trump administration could not penalize the AP for refusing to follow an executive order that renamed the Gulf of Mexico the “Gulf of America.” The judge concluded that the government’s actions constituted unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination, reinforcing the news organization’s First Amendment protections. The administration, however, is appealing the decision and argues it is not yet required to implement the ruling while the appeals process is underway.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit is scheduled to hold a hearing Thursday to consider the administration’s request to delay the enforcement of the order during the ongoing legal review. Meanwhile, the Associated Press is pushing to regain full access immediately, arguing that the court’s injunction is already in effect and must be followed.

Later the same day, the AP was allowed limited access to another event honoring Ohio State University’s football team on the White House South Lawn. Two AP photographers were admitted, but a text reporter was turned away without explanation, signaling continued restrictions despite the court’s ruling.

Since February, the Trump administration has systematically blocked AP reporters and photographers from accessing key events in the Oval Office and aboard Air Force One. While the AP still maintains some level of access to other events, including regular press briefings conducted by White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, the Oval Office remains off limits. Leavitt is one of three officials named in the AP’s ongoing lawsuit.

The dispute centers on the AP’s editorial decision not to adopt language mandated by President Trump’s executive order, which sought to rename the Gulf of Mexico in government references and publications. Though AP style guidance includes a note referencing the president’s preference, the news organization chose not to implement the renaming in its reports. The federal judge ruled that the administration’s efforts to punish the outlet for that decision infringed on its right to free speech.

Despite this legal victory, AP’s future access to White House events remains uncertain. The court did not explicitly order the administration to reinstate previous privileges, only to stop excluding the AP based on content or viewpoint. The ruling emphasized that the government cannot deny access to journalists simply because it disapproves of their editorial stance.

White House attorneys have responded by arguing that the AP was never guaranteed the level of access it previously enjoyed. In recent court filings, the administration claimed that no news outlet is entitled to perpetual preferential access and that the AP’s expectations are inconsistent with constitutional standards.

In a statement Monday, AP spokesperson Lauren Easton reiterated the organization’s expectation that the White House restore its participation in the press pool, in line with the court’s order. The legal battle is ongoing, with broader implications for press freedom and government transparency.

Indian Billionaire Jeweler Mehul Choksi Arrested in Belgium Over $1.8 Billion Fraud Allegations

By
admin
-
0

HARARE, Belgium  – Indian jeweller and businessman Mehul Choksi was arrested in Belgium on Saturday following an extradition request from India, his lawyer said. Choksi, who left India in 2018, faces charges of defrauding one of the country’s largest banks of nearly $1.8 billion, officials allege.

According to lawyer Vijay Aggarwal, Choksi was taken into custody in Belgium and is scheduled to face extradition proceedings. Aggarwal told the BBC on Monday that his client had not yet commented publicly on the case but that his legal team planned to appeal against the detention and contest the extradition on several grounds. He said Choksi is not a flight risk and is currently undergoing cancer treatment. His legal team intends to argue that there is insufficient evidence to support the allegations and that the extradition request is politically motivated, noting that a trial in India may not meet fair trial standards.

Choksi, a high-profile diamond trader and former owner of Gitanjali Gems, is one of two businessmen sought by Indian authorities in connection with a fraud case at Punjab National Bank. His nephew, Nirav Modi, also faces similar allegations and is currently detained in a London prison awaiting extradition to India. Both men have denied any wrongdoing in connection with the allegations that they colluded with employees at a Mumbai branch of Punjab National Bank to obtain fraudulent advances for payments to overseas jewellery suppliers.

The Enforcement Directorate has accused Choksi and Modi of diverting and laundering funds, a case that has drawn considerable attention in both India and abroad. Earlier reports indicated that Choksi was the subject of non-bailable warrants issued by an Indian court in 2018 and 2021, although the timing of the recent arrest in Belgium remains unclear. After leaving India, Choksi reportedly traveled to the United States and later to Antigua, where he obtained citizenship. In 2021, he was arrested in Dominica and deported back to Antigua.

Bengaluru-based entrepreneur Hariprasad SV, who alerted authorities about the alleged scam at Punjab National Bank in 2016, welcomed the news of Choksi’s arrest and stressed the importance of recovering the billions allegedly looted from India.

Indian authorities have not yet commented publicly on Choksi’s arrest but have confirmed that the case is being pursued as part of a broader investigation into alleged bank fraud involving high-profile diamond traders. The case continues to develop as extradition proceedings move forward in Belgium.

Trump Administration Freezes $2 Billion Funding As Harvard Rejects Government Interference

By
admin
-
0

HARVARD, Mass.  – Harvard University rejected demands from the Trump administration on Monday to overhaul its campus policies, prompting federal authorities to freeze more than $2 billion in grants and contracts. The administration’s Joint Task Force to Combat Anti-Semitism had issued conditions requiring the university to eliminate diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives, adopt merit-based admissions and hiring practices, and allow third-party audits of campus programs, as well as to restrict the enrollment of international students deemed “hostile to American values.”

In a statement posted on its official social media account and sent via email to its community, Harvard President Alan Garber said the university “will not surrender its independence or relinquish its constitutional rights.” Garber asserted that no private university should be forced to conform to federal mandates that interfere with academic freedom. He described the administration’s requirements as an unprecedented overreach that invades the intellectual life of the institution.

Legal counsel for Harvard has argued that the administration’s conditions circumvent statutory processes established by Congress and violate the university’s First Amendment rights. In a letter to federal officials, Harvard’s lawyers maintained that while the university is committed to combating antisemitism and other forms of bigotry, the government’s demands impose disruptive remedies not supported by evidence or law.

The Trump administration defended its measures as necessary to safeguard federal funding and ensure that taxpayer dollars are not used to support what it considers dangerous racial discrimination or ideological bias. A White House spokesperson said the conditions are designed to hold universities accountable for creating a campus environment that promotes free speech and combats unchecked anti-Semitism.

The funding freeze marks a critical moment in the ongoing debate over federal oversight of higher education. By refusing to comply, Harvard risks significant federal financial support while asserting its longstanding commitment to academic independence. Legal challenges in the coming weeks are expected to determine whether the administration’s actions will set a precedent for future government intervention in the policies of private universities.

Columbia Student Arrested During Citizenship Interview Amidst ICE Crackdown

By
admin
-
0

In a striking incident that has ignited controversy and alarm across academic and immigrant rights circles, Columbia University student Mohsen Mahdawi was arrested by ICE agents during his U.S. citizenship interview in Vermont earlier this week. The Palestinian refugee, who has resided in the United States for over a decade as a lawful permanent resident, was taken into custody outside the USCIS Burlington Field Office while making peace signs with his hands as officers led him away in handcuffs.

Mahdawi, whose arrest was captured on video and has since circulated online, is at the center of a growing legal and political firestorm. His attorneys have filed a habeas corpus petition challenging the government’s attempt to deport him, arguing that his detention is a retaliatory act aimed at silencing his First Amendment-protected political expression. The legal filing asserts that Mahdawi, who has held a green card for ten years, is being targeted for his activism and speech rather than for any legitimate immigration violation.

Born and raised in a refugee camp in the West Bank, Mahdawi fled hardship and instability in pursuit of a safer future in the United States. He arrived in 2014 and later transferred to Columbia University after studying computer science for two years at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania. At Columbia, he has become a prominent voice for Palestinian rights, co-founding the university’s Palestinian Student Union in 2023. The organization, created with fellow student Mahmoud Khalil, aimed to celebrate Palestinian heritage and advocate for human rights in the face of increasing international scrutiny. Khalil was recently deported following a legal battle, and Mahdawi’s legal team fears he is now facing a similar fate.

Mahdawi’s habeas petition states that he stepped back from organizing campus protests in March 2024, but had been a key figure in demonstrations that criticized Israel’s military actions in Gaza. He became publicly visible in December 2023 after appearing in a segment on CBS’s 60 Minutes, where he recounted witnessing an Israeli soldier kill his best friend as a child in the West Bank. He also condemned Hamas’s October 7, 2023, attack on Israel, saying he was horrified by the violence and fearful of the “huge level of revenge” Israel might unleash on Palestinians.

During that same interview, Mahdawi made headlines by forcefully rejecting antisemitism, responding to an incident during a Columbia protest where a participant shouted “death to Jews.” Mahdawi said he was shocked and immediately confronted the individual, telling him, “You don’t represent us.” He emphasized that opposing antisemitism was central to his values and to the Palestinian cause, stating, “The fight for the freedom of Palestine and the fight against anti-Semitism go hand in hand, because injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.”

Now, with his graduation from Columbia University just weeks away, Mahdawi’s future remains in limbo. He is expected to receive his undergraduate degree in May 2025 and has plans to return in the fall to pursue a master’s degree in International Affairs at Columbia’s School of International and Public Affairs. However, the Department of Homeland Security, under the leadership of Marco Rubio, is reportedly using the same legal mechanism to attempt his removal as was used against Khalil.

That mechanism, a Cold War-era clause of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, allows the federal government to deport individuals whose presence is deemed to pose “potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences.” The statute was cited in Khalil’s deportation order, and Mahdawi’s legal team now fears it may be wielded in the same way to silence another vocal critic of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East.

His attorneys argue that deporting Mahdawi would expose him to extreme danger. The petition states that, if returned to the West Bank, he would likely face harassment, imprisonment, and torture—conditions that members of his family have already endured. The lawsuit also outlines Mahdawi’s commitment to nonviolence, noting that he served for two years as president of the Columbia University Buddhist Association, where he promoted empathy and peaceful resistance as fundamental values.

As Mahdawi’s case gains national attention, it is increasingly seen as a flashpoint in the Trump administration’s aggressive crackdown on immigration and perceived dissent. Advocates warn that his arrest signals a troubling trend of using immigration enforcement to punish political activism. With the outcome of his legal challenge pending, the case may become a landmark moment in the ongoing battle over civil liberties, academic freedom, and the rights of non-citizens in the United States.

Harvard Rejects Trump Demands, Risks Billions in Federal Funding

By
admin
-
0

In a bold rebuke to escalating pressure from the Trump administration, Harvard University has formally rejected a series of sweeping federal demands—moves that could jeopardize nearly $9 billion in federal funding. The conflict pits one of the nation’s most prominent academic institutions against a presidential administration that is increasingly targeting higher education over ideological and cultural issues.

On Monday, Harvard President Alan Garber sent a defiant letter stating that the university “will not surrender its independence or relinquish its constitutional rights” in exchange for federal support. The message came in response to a series of mandates from the Trump administration, which include dismantling the university’s diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs, implementing merit-based-only admissions and hiring policies, and fully cooperating with federal immigration authorities.

The administration has threatened to withhold billions in funding unless Harvard agrees to the terms—an ultimatum that Garber says not only violates Harvard’s institutional values but also exceeds the lawful authority of the federal government.

“The administration’s prescription goes beyond the power of the federal government,” Garber wrote. “It violates Harvard’s First Amendment rights and exceeds the statutory limits of the government’s authority under Title VI. And it threatens our values as a private institution devoted to the pursuit, production, and dissemination of knowledge.”

The move marks the first time a major U.S. university has openly resisted the Trump administration’s funding threats, setting the stage for a historic legal confrontation over academic freedom, federal overreach, and civil rights.

In a letter sent last Friday, Trump officials accused Harvard of failing to meet the intellectual and civil rights standards that justify public funding. The administration demanded that Harvard:

  • Eliminate all DEI programs
  • Shift to merit-based admissions and hiring
  • Allow federal audits of classroom and governance practices to ensure “viewpoint diversity”
  • Cooperate with immigration enforcement agencies

These demands were framed as necessary conditions to maintain federal funding, which currently supports nearly $9 billion in multi-year research grants and $255 million in immediate allocations. Harvard’s leadership and faculty, however, argue the administration is attempting to coerce ideological conformity and suppress academic freedom.

“No government—regardless of which party is in power—should dictate what private universities can teach, whom they can admit and hire, and which areas of study and inquiry they can pursue,” Garber emphasized.

The university’s rejection of the Trump administration’s terms has been followed by a legal offensive. On Friday, faculty representatives from Harvard filed a federal lawsuit seeking to block the funding cuts. The lawsuit, filed by the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) and its Harvard chapter, alleges that the administration is unlawfully threatening the institution’s independence and violating constitutional protections.

“This case involves an unprecedented threat from the Trump administration to withhold nearly nine billion dollars in federal funding to one of our nation’s leading universities unless it accedes to changes that fundamentally compromise the university’s independence and the free speech rights of its faculty and students,” the suit alleges.

The plaintiffs argue that the administration failed to follow required procedures under the Civil Rights Act and instead issued vague and ideologically motivated demands. They are asking the court for an emergency injunction to stop the federal government from conditioning funding on political conformity.

“These sweeping yet indeterminate demands are not remedies targeting the causes of any determination of noncompliance with federal law,” the lawsuit states. “They overtly seek to impose on Harvard political views and policy preferences and commit the University to punishing disfavored speech.”

Harvard is not alone in facing the Trump administration’s scrutiny. Just weeks earlier, Columbia University agreed to modify its governance and campus policies in compliance with similar demands, after its federal funding was suspended in the wake of anti-Israel protests and safety concerns. The Department of Education has also launched investigations into Cornell and Northwestern, leading to the suspension of $1 billion and $790 million in federal funding, respectively, citing alleged civil rights violations.

The Trump administration’s crackdown on elite institutions is part of a broader ideological campaign targeting what it views as left-leaning academic environments. Critics, however, warn that the strategy amounts to coercive control over education and a violation of constitutional freedoms.

For Harvard, the financial stakes are enormous. The university depends heavily on federal grants to support life-saving research, faculty salaries, and student aid. President Garber warned earlier that losing this funding would severely impact the university’s ability to conduct cutting-edge scientific and medical research.

Still, the institution appears unwilling to compromise its principles.

“We are committed to making changes that foster a welcoming and supportive learning environment and combat antisemitism,” Garber wrote. “But we will not implement policies that undermine the values of intellectual freedom and academic integrity upon which this university was built.”

Legal scholars and education advocates say the outcome of this battle could set a pivotal precedent for how future administrations interact with America’s higher education system. If the courts uphold the administration’s power to condition funding on ideological demands, it could open the door to far-reaching political control over universities.

Harvard’s refusal to comply with the Trump administration’s demands represents a significant escalation in the national debate over free speech, academic freedom, and the role of federal oversight in higher education. As the case heads to court, it may ultimately determine whether public funding can be wielded as a political weapon—or whether America’s universities retain the right to govern themselves free from government interference.

Trump Suggests Deporting U.S. Citizens: Legal Experts Slam Proposal as Unconstitutional

By
admin
-
0

U.S. President Donald Trump has sparked intense legal and political backlash after floating a legally dubious proposal to deport U.S. citizens convicted of crimes to El Salvador—a suggestion that constitutional law experts have condemned as both dangerous and clearly unconstitutional.

US President Donald Trump speaks to journalists as he signs executive orders in the Oval Office of the WHite House in Washington, DC, on January 20, 2025. (Photo by Jim WATSON / POOL / AFP) (Photo by JIM WATSON/POOL/AFP via Getty Images)

During a recent White House meeting with El Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele, Trump implied that certain “homegrown” criminals—presumably American-born individuals convicted of violent offenses—should be included in ongoing deportation efforts. Trump referenced recent violent crimes in the U.S. and lamented what he described as the country’s inability to remove its most dangerous offenders, even if they are American citizens.

“We always have to obey the laws,” Trump said, “but we also have homegrown criminals that push people into subways, that hit elderly ladies on the back of the head with a baseball bat when they’re not looking. These are absolute monsters. I’d like to include them.”

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt later confirmed that the Trump administration is exploring legal options to deport what she described as “heinous, violent criminals” to El Salvador, including U.S. citizens, “if there’s a legal pathway to do that.”

However, immigration and constitutional law experts have roundly rejected the idea, calling it a flagrant violation of the U.S. Constitution. Emma Winger, senior attorney at the American Immigration Council, stated plainly: “The laws that allow the U.S. to deport people apply only to non-citizens. U.S. citizens cannot be deported. Full stop.”

The legal ambiguity surrounding whether Trump’s proposal would target only naturalized citizens adds further controversy. While U.S. citizenship can be revoked in rare instances—typically involving fraud during the naturalization process—legal experts say this standard cannot be applied retroactively or arbitrarily.

Trump claimed that Attorney General Pam Bondi is currently reviewing the law, but neither the Department of Justice nor the White House has provided further details or clarification.

Legal scholars have issued stark warnings about the implications of Trump’s proposal. Ilya Somin, a law professor at George Mason University’s Antonin Scalia Law School, dismissed the idea outright as “pretty obviously illegal and unconstitutional.”

Georgia State University law professor Anthony Kreis drew parallels to the colonial-era British practice of exiling alleged criminals without trial, noting that the American Revolution was partly a rebellion against such abuses.

“I can’t see how exiling someone is permissible under the rights fundamental to U.S. citizenship—especially if that involves turning a person over to a foreign government,” said Kreis.

David Bier, an immigration policy analyst at the libertarian Cato Institute, warned that the proposal could open the door to extrajudicial imprisonment by foreign proxies. “There is no legal basis for deporting U.S. citizens to imprisonment abroad,” Bier said. “This must be shut down before U.S. citizens are unlawfully caught up in it.”

Concerns about the Trump administration’s approach to deportations have been amplified by the controversial case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a non-citizen allegedly linked to the MS-13 gang who was deported to El Salvador despite never being convicted of a crime in the U.S. or El Salvador. He was removed from the country before courts could evaluate his due process claims. Although a judge has ordered his return, the administration has argued it no longer has jurisdiction, and President Bukele has refused to repatriate him.

The Supreme Court weighed in, acknowledging that while the U.S. government must attempt to facilitate Abrego Garcia’s return, courts cannot override the president’s authority in foreign affairs. However, Justice Sonia Sotomayor issued a blistering opinion, warning that the government’s logic could be extended dangerously.

“If the judiciary cannot intervene, not only non-citizens but also U.S. citizens could be removed, flown out, and imprisoned abroad without judicial review,” she wrote.

This interpretation, legal experts say, sets a dangerous precedent. If the administration’s logic were extended to American citizens, they could potentially be deported without court oversight, denied access to due process, and imprisoned in foreign facilities with no legal recourse.

President Bukele has signaled his willingness to accept deportees, including potentially American citizens, into a newly constructed high-security prison known for its harsh conditions. Last week, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said Bukele told her those sent to the facility “will never leave.”

This statement has alarmed human rights advocates, who note that prisoners in the U.S.—regardless of their crimes—retain constitutional rights, including the right to appeal their conviction and challenge prison conditions. It remains unclear whether any such rights would be honored in an El Salvadoran facility.

The legal and ethical implications of this policy are profound. Critics argue it would erode the concept of citizenship, undermine the Constitution, and create a system where the government can unilaterally exile its own people.

Bier and other experts are urging the courts to act swiftly to block any attempts to deport U.S. citizens. “The government has already illegally deported someone to El Salvador and claimed no ability to bring them back,” Bier said. “This sets a terrifying precedent, and the courts must intervene before the Constitution is further violated.”

Somin echoed the sentiment, calling Trump’s proposal “an additional reason why courts must compel the administration to return Abrego Garcia and stop this unconstitutional train wreck.”

As Trump continues to test the limits of executive power, legal experts warn that even discussing the deportation of U.S. citizens sets a dangerous precedent—and one that demands immediate judicial scrutiny.

Russia Defends Sumy Missile Strike as Targeting Troops Amid Global Outrage Over Civilian Deaths

By
admin
-
0

Russia is facing intense international condemnation after launching a deadly missile strike on the Ukrainian city of Sumy, which left at least 34 people dead—including two children—and injured more than 119 others. The Kremlin claimed the attack was aimed at Ukrainian military targets, but the devastating damage in civilian areas has sparked allegations of war crimes and calls for harsher sanctions.

The strike, which occurred early on Palm Sunday, targeted central Sumy—a city located less than 20 miles from the Russian border. Ukrainian officials reported that two ballistic missiles hit the city, one of which exploded near university buildings while another detonated above a crowded street. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy condemned the strike as part of Russia’s continued disregard for human life and called for immediate and severe international pressure. In a social media post, Zelenskyy said only tangible sanctions against sectors that finance “the Russian killing machine” could help stop further bloodshed.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov responded by stating that the Russian military strikes only legitimate targets and accused Ukraine of using civilian areas as cover for military operations. Russia’s Ministry of Defense further claimed that the strike killed over 60 Ukrainian troops, including senior officers allegedly attending a meeting in Sumy’s city center. However, Russia has not provided evidence to support its claims, and Ukraine insists the attack primarily hit civilian infrastructure.

The international community swiftly responded to the incident, with several European Union leaders labeling the strike as a war crime. Polish Foreign Minister Radek Sikorski, speaking from a meeting of EU foreign ministers in Luxembourg, called the strike “Russia’s mocking answer” to Ukraine’s earlier ceasefire agreement, which had been proposed by the United States. Sikorski urged the Trump administration to recognize the move as a clear rejection of peace efforts by Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Finnish Foreign Minister Elina Valtonen echoed those concerns, especially noting the attack came shortly after a visit to Russia by President Donald Trump’s envoy, Steve Witkoff. Valtonen said the timing shows that Russia not only ignores international peace initiatives but also places no value on human life. Lithuania’s foreign minister, Kestutis Budrys, claimed that Russia used cluster munitions in the Sumy strike, calling it a war crime “by definition,” although that allegation has not been independently verified.

France’s Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot accused Putin of having no genuine interest in a ceasefire, arguing that the only way to halt the war is to impose the “toughest possible sanctions” to cripple Russia’s ability to continue its military campaign. The EU, which has already enacted 16 rounds of sanctions against Moscow, is currently negotiating a 17th package, though increasing resistance from member states facing economic backlash has made new measures more difficult to finalize.

Germany’s chancellor-designate, Friedrich Merz, described the Sumy strike as a “serious war crime” during an appearance on national television. He reaffirmed his support for supplying Ukraine with long-range Taurus cruise missiles—an initiative blocked by the outgoing government. Merz argued that Ukraine needs advanced capabilities to stay ahead of Russian attacks and that such a move should be coordinated with European allies.

The Kremlin swiftly condemned Merz’s proposal, claiming that the delivery of long-range missiles would only escalate the war. Spokesman Dmitry Peskov warned that European leaders are choosing provocation over diplomacy and are deliberately avoiding avenues for potential peace talks.

Russia’s military campaign has sharply intensified in recent weeks. According to Ukrainian officials, Russian forces dropped more than 2,800 air bombs and launched over 1,400 strike drones and 60 missiles of various types this month alone. The Sumy attack followed a deadly April 4 missile strike on Zelenskyy’s hometown of Kryvyi Rih, which killed around 20 people, including nine children.

U.S. President Donald Trump, addressing reporters in the Oval Office, referred to the Sumy attack as a “mistake”—but emphasized that the real mistake was allowing the war to begin. He blamed current President Joe Biden, along with Zelenskyy and Putin, for failing to prevent the conflict. “Everybody’s to blame,” Trump said, further fueling political controversy over the U.S. role in the war.

Meanwhile, late Sunday night, Russian drones targeted the southern Ukrainian port city of Odesa, injuring eight people and damaging a medical facility. Ukraine’s air force reported that Russia launched 62 Shahed drones across the country in just one night, 40 of which were shot down and 11 jammed.

In another striking development, two Chinese nationals captured on the battlefield by Ukrainian forces claimed they had voluntarily joined Russia’s war effort after responding to online recruitment videos on TikTok. Speaking at a Kyiv news conference, the men said they were not recruited by Chinese authorities and alleged that they were misled and trapped by Russian forces. They described poor treatment and coercive tactics, expressing hope they would be returned home in a future prisoner exchange.

Their statements could not be independently verified, and the Associated Press noted that their remarks were made under unclear conditions. Chinese authorities previously said they urge their citizens to avoid all foreign military involvement, although Beijing has offered Moscow diplomatic support throughout the conflict.

U.S. officials continue to accuse Iran of supplying drones to Russia, while both American and South Korean intelligence agencies claim that North Korea has deployed thousands of troops to assist Moscow’s efforts on the battlefield.

As outrage mounts and the death toll rises, the Sumy missile strike has reignited international urgency for action—whether through escalated sanctions, enhanced military support for Ukraine, or renewed pressure on Russia to engage in genuine peace negotiations.

El Salvador’s Bukele Refuses to Return Mistakenly Deported Man, Echoing Trump’s Gang Allegations

By
admin
-
0

El Salvador’s President Nayib Bukele made headlines after firmly rejecting a U.S. Supreme Court-backed order to return Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Maryland resident who was mistakenly deported from the United States. The announcement came during Bukele’s high-profile Oval Office meeting with U.S. President Donald Trump, where the two leaders showcased their shared hardline stance on immigration and criminal enforcement.

Bukele dismissed any responsibility for facilitating Abrego Garcia’s return, framing the request as a dangerous proposition. He likened complying with the order to “smuggling a terrorist into the United States,” echoing the Trump administration’s disputed claim that Abrego Garcia is affiliated with the notorious MS-13 gang. Although Abrego Garcia’s legal representatives have denied these allegations, U.S. officials have continued to characterize him as a gang member, despite lacking publicly presented evidence.

During the meeting, members of Trump’s team, including Attorney General Pam Bondi and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, reinforced the administration’s refusal to act on the deportation order. Bondi emphasized that the court’s mandate to help return Abrego Garcia was conditional upon El Salvador’s cooperation, which Bukele unequivocally denied. Rubio went further, declaring that foreign policy is directed by the U.S. President, not the judiciary, thereby challenging the legal authority of the court’s decision.

The dispute over Abrego Garcia’s deportation stems from a controversial use of the 1798 Alien Enemies Act. Under this provision, the Trump administration deported hundreds of individuals—many of them Venezuelan nationals—to El Salvador. Critics argue that many of those deported were denied due process and were labeled gang members without evidence, effectively bypassing protections afforded by U.S. immigration law. Abrego Garcia had previously received protection from deportation due to credible fears of gang violence and held legal work authorization in the United States.

Despite those safeguards, he was abruptly removed and sent to El Salvador’s high-security mega-prison, officially known as the Terrorism Confinement Center. The facility has drawn intense criticism for its sweeping incarceration policies and alleged human rights abuses. Photos and video footage released after the deportation showed Abrego Garcia and others being hurried off a plane under the cover of night. Bukele later posted a taunting message on social media, writing “Oopsie… Too late” alongside the footage, in apparent defiance of judicial efforts to reverse the deportation.

In a recent court filing, the Trump administration reiterated that it had no legal obligation to secure Abrego Garcia’s release or repatriation, despite the Supreme Court upholding a lower court’s directive to “facilitate and effectuate” his return. The justices noted that the term “effectuate” was ambiguous and may have exceeded the lower court’s authority, creating legal gray areas that the administration has exploited.

Public backlash over the case has intensified, with demonstrators—including Abrego Garcia’s wife, a U.S. citizen—gathering outside the White House to demand his return. Holding signs and chanting slogans, the crowd called on President Trump to rectify the mistake and “bring Kilmar home now.” Despite mounting pressure, Trump remained dismissive, calling reporters who questioned the administration’s handling of the case “sick people” and praising Bukele’s approach to incarceration.

The Salvadoran president defended his mass incarceration policies by reframing accusations that he had imprisoned thousands as a campaign to liberate millions from gang rule. Trump responded with enthusiasm, applauding Bukele’s methods and pledging continued cooperation, including increased deportations and assistance in building more prisons.

In a symbolic gesture of alignment, the U.S. State Department recently downgraded its travel advisory for El Salvador to the safest level, citing Bukele’s efforts to reduce violent crime. However, critics warn that this image masks a darker reality, where mass detentions and politically motivated deportations leave vulnerable individuals without recourse or justice.

As legal battles continue and public scrutiny grows, the fate of Kilmar Abrego Garcia hangs in the balance—a human face in a clash of politics, immigration enforcement, and international law.

1...394395396...996Page 395 of 996