As Congress approved some $45 billion to expand ICE’s immigration detention capacity, including the jailing of families and children, we look at the case of one family. In May, plainclothes ICE agents detained a 6-year-old boy from Honduras who has acute lymphoblastic leukemia, along with his 9-year old sister and their mother, as they left their immigration court hearing in Los Angeles. In detention, the boy missed a key doctor’s appointment, and the family said his sister cried every night. As pressure grew over their conditions, the family was released on July 2. “The little boy doesn’t want to leave his home. He’s terrified. He sobs, cries and screams when his mother takes him out of the house,” says attorney Elora Mukherjee, who represents the boy and his family and is director of the Immigrants’ Rights Clinic at Columbia Law School. She says the young children are traumatized after their month in ICE detention.

This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

Thirty-year-old Aung Aung was arrested at gunpoint on a July morning as he left his house in central Myanmar - one of about 30 people rounded up and taken into custody in his town that day. Their crime? Being the right age to be enlisted in the struggling ranks of the Myanmar army.

Less than a month later, during a monsoon downpour, he and 10 others fled No. 7 Basic Military Training Center in Taungdwingyi township, about 70 miles from his home in Yenangchaung in Magwe region. They were clothed in little more than their underwear and were drenched in the heavy rain.

They spent two nights in the forest and had to avoid military checkpoints as they fled northward, relying on local people to provide them food, money, clothing - and directions – until they reached safety three days later.

“The journey was extremely difficult, unlike anything I had ever experienced,” Aung Aung told RFA Burmese. He requested his name be withheld as he remains at large from the military. The punishment for avoiding conscription is up to five years in prison; those who abscond from the military after enlistment could face the death penalty.

(Myanmar Ministry of Information)

It’s not an unusual story in Myanmar. Since the ruling junta declared national conscription in early 2024 for men aged 18-35 and women aged 18-27, growing numbers of men are being forced into the army.

The military’s ranks have been depleted in the civil war that has ensued since army chief Senior Gen. Min Aung Hlaing launched a coup four years ago against an elected government. The recruits to fill the ranks typically come from poor families that are unable to pay off officials to avoid conscription.

(Ministry of Human Rights, National Unity Government)

The shadow National Unity Government, formed by pro-democrats ousted from power in the coup, says that 23,000 people have been conscripted against their will since the start of 2024.

But the problem actually pre-dates the conscription law.

Killed in action

In November, the relatives of Min Khant Kyaw, 23, got a call out of the blue from authorities that he’d been killed in action. He’d been missing for three years, and it was the first they’d learned that he was in the Myanmar army.

Authorities offered little information. No details about how, when and where Min Khant Kyaw, who had been living in Yangon, died. They were just told that he was dead and the army would provide his next-of-kin with some benefits. It was only because his national registration card was found in his shirt pocket that authorities were able to contact next-of-kin in his native village.

His uncle, Lu Maw, recounts the story with sadness and anger. He had raised Min Khant Kyaw since age 7 after he was orphaned during the massive Cyclone Nargis in 2008 that devastated the Ayeyarwady delta and claimed the lives of his parents and three siblings.

Lu Maw is convinced that his nephew was forced to enlist.

“None of us, no one in our family, knew he had joined the army,” he told RFA Burmese.

“After asking all his relatives, we concluded he didn’t join the army of his own will. If he did, his relatives and everyone close to him would have known. We all knew nothing, but the authorities just informed us he died on the frontline,” Lu Maw said.

“I would not complain if Min Khant Kyaw had joined the army on his own account, but it was not like that. He was dragged into it.”

(Myanmar Ministry of Information)

The Myanmar military has a record of duping recruits and of forced recruitment. The International Labor Organization reported the practice in the 1990s, a time when the military was in the ascendant and was seeking to boost its ranks.

Its need for recruits has become far more acute since the 2021 coup. The ruling junta has suffered mounting losses on the battlefield and has lost control of most of the country.

RELATED STORY

‘My father’s death wasn’t worth it’: Poverty awaits families of Myanmar army dead

Snatched off the street

In an analysis last year, Myanmar expert Ye Myo Hein estimated that by late 2023, it had about 130,000 military personnel – about half of them frontline troops – compared with earlier estimates of between 300,000-400,000. Anecdotal evidence suggests battalions are at a fraction of regular fighting strength.

In February 2024, when the junta enacted a compulsory conscription law that took effect in April, chief junta spokesman, Maj. Gen. Zaw Min Tun, indicated that about 50,000 people would be recruited by year’s end. He said women would only be drafted starting in 2025, which has now begun.

There’s no reliable count of how many have been drafted so far. What is clear is that conscription has accelerated the exodus of able-bodied people from Myanmar. It’s also fueled a cottage industry of graft where families pay administrators the equivalent of hundreds, even thousands, of dollars to avoid the draft.

Even more sinister is that people are being snatched off the street both in cities and rural areas, multiple sources say.

Data collected by RFA showed a spike in youth arrests in Yangon, Mandalay, Naypyitaw and Bago in December. The spike appeared connected to clandestine operations at night, which residents described as “snatch and recruit,” by men wearing plain clothes and driving private vehicles. RFA reporting indicated 250 people were caught in the dragnet in those four cities in a single month.

Zaw Zaw, 27, lives outside the big city. He’s from Salay town in Magwe region. He told RFA Burmese that he was caught in a night raid on his home in early July. He was taken to the local police station before being sent for a medical at another town in the region, Chauk.

“Even those who were mentally unfit passed the test, as it seemed they accepted everyone regardless of their condition,” said Zaw Zaw – not his real name as he wanted to protect his identity.

“When I arrived at the training center, they confiscated everything my family had given me: clothes, watches, phones and money.”

Like Aung Aung, he was at No. 7 Basic Military Training Center in Taungdwingyi, and was among the group that escaped, heading toward an area controlled by an anti-junta People’s Defense Force.

(AA Info Desk)

No option but to enlist

Forcible recruitment takes different forms. Not all are snatched off the streets. Others are simply presented with little option but to enlist.

Moe Pa Pa, a mother of three living in Kungyangon township in Yangon region, says her missing husband, Ye Lin Aung, 29, signed up because he couldn’t afford to bribe his way out of conscription.

“He said that if he did not go this time, the ward administrator would force him again and again. I told him not to go, he should stay and work here so at least we wouldn’t run out of food. I strongly discouraged him, but he went anyway.” she said.

She last saw him, for a 15-minute conversation, just before he was shipped out to the front line in Rakhine state, where junta forces have taken a battering from the rebel Arakan Army.

“The ward administrator told my husband he would pay us 500,000 kyats ($110) up front. He also promised to pay 310,000 kyats per month while my husband was undergoing three months of training, with payments to be made monthly,” Moe Pa Pa told RFA.

All she’s seen is the bonus, no salary.

“He called me two or three times after arriving at the front line in Buthidaung and Maungdaw,” Moe Pa Pa, referring to two battle zones in Rakhine state. “He said he would transfer his salary, but since then, I have been unable to contact him. He never sent his payment, and we have been out of contact ever since.”

She suspects he’s dead. Phone calls made from the Rakhine front line stopped six months ago.

Other RFA Burmese journalists contributed reporting. Edited by Ginny Stein and Mat Pennington.

This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by Aye Aye Mon for RFA Burmese.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr., President Donald Trump’s nominee to lead the Department of Health and Human Services, was questioned by lawmakers Tuesday in his confirmation hearing before the Senate Finance Committee, which largely focused on his decades of anti-vaccine activism, as well as his views on abortion and other healthcare issues. We play excerpts from the contentious hearing and speak with the ranking Democrat on the committee, Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon, who says Democrats successfully highlighted his controversial views, potentially putting his confirmation at risk despite the Republican majority in the Senate. “This is one of the most important positions in the world as it relates to healthcare,” says Wyden. “He cannot be trusted, … and he’s unprepared.” Kennedy faces a second day of questioning today before the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions.

This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

Public health officials are decrying President-elect Donald Trump for selecting Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to head the Department of Health and Human Services. If confirmed, Kennedy would head a sprawling agency that oversees drug, vaccine and food safety, as well as medical research. Kennedy is one of the nation’s most prominent vaccine skeptics and has spread numerous public health conspiracy theories. Kennedy has claimed HIV may not cause AIDS. He claimed COVID-19 was designed to spare Ashkenazi Jews and Chinese people. He has claimed chemicals in the nation’s water supply are leading more children to be gay and transgender, and he’s publicly spoken about removing fluoride from drinking water. “I can’t think of a darker time for public health in America and globally than now,” says Lawrence Gostin, professor of global health law at Georgetown University. “He has no fidelity to truth, to science. … He will make America sick, certainly not healthier again.”

This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

Instead they stepped into a world where they, like many others before them, were to be bought and sold like possessions, and their lives were under the control of the brokers who had promised them freedom.

About 150,000 to 200,000 North Koreans live in China in areas close to the North Korean border and as many as 70% to 80% could be victims of human trafficking, a report released in March by the Dutch law firm Global Rights Compliance said.

The report said North Korean women are sold for hundreds of U.S. dollars, and the criminal organizations selling them collectively earn more than $100 million each year.

North Korean refugees who have fled to China without formal immigration status are especially vulnerable to trafficking, the U.S. State Department’s Trafficking in Persons report said.  

“Traffickers lure, drug, detain, or kidnap some North Korean women upon their arrival in the PRC and compel them into commercial sex in brothels and bars, through internet sex sites, or in relation to forced marriage,” it said.

Now both living in South Korea, Park and Son shared their experience as trafficking victims to Radio Free Asia’s Korean Service.

“You are just one of my possessions.”

Park Eun Mi was born in Hyesan, a city on the Chinese border in Ryanggang province. In 2007, during one of the worst food shortages in North Korea since the 1994-1998 famine, then 16-year-old Park crossed over into China with the help of a broker.

“My family’s financial life had become very difficult, so I sought a way out and that was defecting from North Korea,” she said. “I heard from people around me that there would be no problem making a living if I defected.”

The broker also promised her that she could also send money back from China to help her family.

“He said, there are many elderly couples without children in China, so when young girls go there, they are usually adopted as daughters. Then, through the work they give you, you can make a living and earn money to help your parents,’” said Park. “I didn’t even know the word human trafficking back then.”

She said she trusted the brokers, believing them to be kind people who helped poor North Korean children, but they turned out to be criminals who handed people over for money.  She didn’t realize she had been trafficked until she arrived in China.

“I felt it when I arrived at my destination and I was handed off to another broker in the countryside,” said Park. “From then on, people came and saw me, and suddenly took my friend next to me out early in the morning and sold her after only three days.”

Park said she feared retribution if she were to protest being sold when it was her turn.

“When people are too shocked, people become speechless. I felt like something terrible would happen to me if I said a word, so I was rather calm,” she said.

The day came when she was sold to a man seeking a wife. For the next six years her life consisted of sexual exploitation and constant threats from her buyer.

“He told me that if I ran away he would report me to the Chinese police,” she said. 

She had no choice but to comply with the demands of her buyer and his family.

“I think I waited a long time to earn their trust because it’s pretty obvious what they’d do to me if I’d have given them any sign of running away,” she said. 

“There were times when they went beyond my tolerance and insulted my personality. The most common words I heard were, ‘You are one of my possessions,’ and, ‘You are something I can just throw away if you become useless,’” she said. “It was hard to live hearing those words on a daily basis.”

‘My body is being sold’

Son Hye Young was born in the city of Tanchon in the northeastern province of North Hamgyong. Her parents died in the ‘90s famine and she found herself living on the streets as a kotjebi, a beggar child with no permanent place to live. 

Eventually, in 2007, while in China, she and several other kotjebi were rounded up by a trafficker.

“When I was taken away, the woman said things like, ‘How much will you charge for it? And ‘how much will you sell it for? So, I said to this woman, ‘Please don’t talk like that in front of us. I know my body is being sold, but this doesn’t seem right.’”

The trafficker sold her for 36,000 yuan (about $5,000).

What followed was a life of misery, she said, living in a rat-infested hut with an incompetent husband who spoke a language she didn’t understand and who came from a culture she hadn’t yet adapted to.

“I got pregnant and gave birth to a baby but there was no formula. I had no money to buy formula, so I thought of an idea of buying a goat and mixing goat milk to make it,” she said. “So, I worked at a construction site for a month despite not being able to speak Chinese. I bought a goat and then I said I had to learn Chinese. So, I didn’t go out anywhere, locked myself up and watched TV at home.”

Son said that there are still many North Korean women who are involved in “human trafficking scams” in China.

“The reality is that North Korean refugees cannot earn money, so they are sold to families. Then they run away,” said Son. “There are many cases where the seller and the broker coordinate and instruct the North Korean refugee to live in the house of the buyer for 10 days and then come back. There are some caught doing that by the Chinese police.”

By 2012, Son had made a life for herself in China as the caretaker of her 3-year-old daughter and a 2-year-old son. But she was forcibly repatriated to North Korea one day after someone reported her to the Chinese police.

Back in her homeland, she was severely beaten and tortured by North Korean authorities, she was sent to a prison.

Two paths 

Park explained that for North Korean women who escape to China, there are only two paths for them to avoid being trafficked.

“First … is getting a job through connections such as relatives. The second is that if you don’t have any connections, you literally have to sleep out in an open place you don’t know, but that itself doesn’t make sense,” she said. “The moment you are on the street, you are caught by the police and sent back to North Korea. In the end, you have no choice but to go through with being trafficked.”

Park, now in South Korea, works to help other victims like herself. She has learned English so she can discuss human trafficking with an international audience. She explained how she used to think that her situation was her own fault. 

“I felt guilty. It’s as if I’d done something wrong to have this happen,” she said. “But now thinking rationally, it’s not my fault.”

Park said that she was afraid to speak about her situation because human trafficking involves sexual assault, and victim blaming is rampant.

“I thought that if I talked about it, everyone would point fingers at me. … But when I saw someone else [talking about it] I thought a lot … ‘It’s not your fault.’ And isn’t it the right thing to have a little courage?” 

Park says that without help from the international community to ensure the safety of North Korean refugees in China, many more will become human trafficking victims.

“There are probably North Korean refugees still waiting for their repatriation date in Chinese prison,” she said. “I think the ultimate goal is for all residents of North Korea to enjoy the freedom and human rights we enjoy now. In order to do that, wouldn’t it be right to take steps to save North Korean refugees who are living in a third country right now?” 

She said she will continue to advocate for undocumented North Koreans in China. 

“All I can do is speak up for those people, and if someone says they will save them, I’ll be willing to join in as well.”

Translated by Claire Shinyoung Oh Lee. Edited by Eugene Whong.

This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by By Seo Hye Jun for RFA Korean.

Among them was veteran democracy activist Kyaw Min Yu, a writer and translator better known as Ko Jimmy,  who was a prominent leader of the pro-democracy 88 Generation Students Group who fought military rule three decades ago.

He was arrested in October 2021 after spending eight months in hiding and was convicted in a closed-door trial by a military tribunal in January under the Counter-Terrorism Law.

Ko Jimmy was accused of contacting the Committee Representing Pyidaungsu Hluttaw, National Unity Government (NUG), and People’s Defense Forces (PDF) an opposition coalition and militia network formed by politicians ousted in the coup.

The junta also said he advised local militia groups in Yangon and ordered PDF groups to attack police, military targets, and government offices, and asking the NUG to buy a 3D printer to produce weapons for local militias.

The executions of Ko Jimmy, Phyo Zeya Thaw, Hla Myo Aung and Aung Thura Zaw were decried by UN Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights in Myanmar, Tom Andrews, as “depraved acts,” while U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken called the executions “reprehensible acts of violence.” 

One year after the execution, Radio Free Asia’s Burmese Service interviewed Ko Jimmy’s widow Nilar Thein. She discussed the sacrifices her husband made for the country.

The interview has been edited for length and clarity.

RFA: It’s been a year since Jimmy and the other three political activists were executed by the junta. How has the past year without him affected you?

Nilar Thein: Since the time he was executed, we have suffered, grieved and are in great pain. But I have turned those feelings into strength to continue his fight. I believe that I have one new responsibility: to live his dream and work even harder.

RFA: What have you been doing these days?

Nilar Thein: I am shouldering as much responsibility for the revolution as I can. I am working on tasks that are suitable for my age and situation with a determination that whatever I do, regardless of where I am, must strengthen the revolution. 

RFA: Reports from Myanmar say that the junta forces continue acts of violence and violate human rights in prisons and all over the country. What’s your opinion on that?

Nilar Thein: In my opinion, I can say one thing that this is the junta’s last moment. Their brutality and cowardice have become worse. The revolutionary forces are in control of more areas of the country these days, so in response the junta’s actions have become even more brutal and cowardly. We continue to witness their serious violations of human rights.

RFA: What is your view towards young people opposed to the junta?

Nilar Thein: A generation was born during the spring revolution. This generation sacrificed their hopes, dreams, future and even their lives and took part in the revolution in any way they can to try to bring an end to this military dictatorship. Their involvement in the revolution, their ideas, opinions and their performance were recognized, applauded and idolized globally. 

RFA: I’d like to ask a little about Jimmy. Did he not know how much danger he could be in by continuing to stay in Yangon? And if he did, why did he remain in Yangon?

Nilar Thein: Since Jimmy left home on the morning of the military coup until he was arrested, he only stayed in Yangon. After seeing younger activists and children being slaughtered by the junta, he said that when younger people who were as young as his own children were sacrificing their lives, old men like him who can live or die at their age have to participate. He was so eager to work together, networking with urban guerrilla groups, young people from student unions and other organizations. He was completely devoted to the revolution. That’s not because he did not know the danger he could be in. I knew what trouble he would be in. But he worked his best for the revolution while he still could. 

RFA: What kind of impact do you think the sacrifice that Jimmy and other activists made has had on the fight for democracy?

Nilar Thein: When we heard that Jimmy, Phyo Zayar Thaw, Hla Myo Aung and Aung Thura Zaw were executed by the junta, it was not just a threat to their families alone. It was not just a threat to our country alone. But it was a threat to the whole world. As a result, all our people have become more strenuous in their revolutionary acts with a resolution that they will not give in to the junta’s execution of their leaders. They worked harder and took up responsibilities where they could. Those who could not participate on the front lines provided even a handful of rice or a cup of water, whatever they could support the revolution. Those who can provide supplies for the revolution have worked harder for the cause. Although the junta has tried to threaten the people with these executions, we have become more fearless and more rebellious against the military. 

RFA: We’ve heard news that the military junta that once gave death sentences now does not even bother to prosecute political prisoners in court and kills them after taking them out in a fake prison transfer. What is your view toward such actions of the military junta?

Nilar Thein: We’ve heard lately that the junta has killed prisoners … after taking them out in a fake prison transfer. So now, I have learned that the word prison transfer could mean an execution. Since local and international communities seriously condemned the junta’s execution of political prisoners, I think they now try to avoid official execution that will cause criticism. So they lawlessly kill our comrades on the purported excuse that they tried to escape. We heard these days that the junta killed our comrades from Insein, Tharyarwaddy and Dike-U prisons during transfers. The fact that the junta doesn’t even bother to officially execute prisoners like before and lawlessly murders them instead, indicates how the military junta is oppressing the people without any regard to law and regulations in our country. I would like to urge the international community to condemn these atrocious acts by the military junta and stand with the people. 

RFA: Would you tell us about your daughter? What is she doing these days and how has she understood what kind of person her father was?

Nilar Thein: My daughter takes part in volunteering activities and also teaches children. She loves her father very much and her father loved her so dearly too. She said that her father helped other people more than himself as a politician, a selfless and responsible person who did not oppress others with his power of leadership and someone who defies unjustness. As a father, even though he might not wholly accept the views of young people, he showed respect. He hung out with them. He supported his daughter’s interests and activities. He did not put pressure on our daughter regarding her studies. Jimmy made time for his daughter even when he was very busy. What he used to tell her often was that any result she got was good enough because she tried her best regarding her exams and competitions. Our daughter said that her dad was a politician who loved the arts. 

RFA: How would you evaluate the status of the fight for democracy these days?

Nilar Thein: During the past two years, there were many sectors that we had to try to rebuild after being totally destroyed. I’ve seen that those who have taken responsibility for this are working so hard, facing a lot of difficulty to rebuild and readjust and try to be able to reach the international community. They have achieved some success and strength but there are still many problems and weaknesses on this side too. We accept the existence of these problems. We are going to cooperate with a positive mindset that we will do what we can for the revolution. 

Translated by Khin Maung Nyane. Edited by Eugene Whong. 

This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by By Khin Maung Soe for RFA Burmese.

The post “He Loved America…”* appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

This content originally appeared on CounterPunch.org and was authored by Howard Lisnoff.

Calls for an investigation into Judge Matthew J. Kacsmaryk mounted Saturday after The Washington Post revealed that the U.S. judge behind a temporarily blocked ruling against an abortion medication may have taken his name off of a controversial law review article as he sought a nomination to the federal bench from then-President Donald Trump.

In February 2017, Kacsmaryk was deputy general counsel for the Christian conservative legal group First Liberty Institute and sent an application to the Federal Judicial Evaluation Committee, established by U.S. Sens. John Cornyn and Ted Cruz, both Texas Republicans, to vet potential nominees from their state. He was interviewed by the committee in March, the two senators in April, and White House and Justice Department offices in May.

Trump nominated Kacsmaryk to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas in September—the same month that the journal Texas Review of Law and Politics, which Kacsmaryk led as a University of Texas a law student, published "The Jurisprudence of the Body," an article criticizing Obama administration protections for transgender patients and people seeking abortions, with First Liberty lawyers Justin Butterfield and Stephanie Taub listed as the sole authors.

\u201cThe only thing MAGA judges enjoy more than limiting our personal freedoms is lying.\u201d

— Indivisible Guide (@Indivisible Guide) 1681594638

Kacsmaryk's nomination was sent back to the White House twice, but Trump renominated him both times and the judge was eventually confirmed by Senate Republicans in June 2019. Although judicial nominees are required to disclose any publication with which they are associated, the article is never mentioned in the questionnaire that Kacsmaryk filled out for the Senate Judiciary Committee.

When Kacsmaryk initially submitted a draft of the article to the journal in early 2017, Butterfield and Taub's names did not appear anywhere, including in the footnotes, the Post reported. On April 11, a week after he was interviewed by the GOP senators, Kacsmaryk—whose initials are MJK—emailed an editor an updated version and attached a file titled "MJK First Draft."

Later that month, Kacsmaryk, wrote in an email that after consulting with the editor in chief, "For reasons I may discuss at a later date, First Liberty attorneys Justin Butterfield and Stephanie Taub will co-author the aforementioned article."

\u201cOne thing I appreciate about Matt Kacsmaryk is he keeps finding ways to make clear that he\u2019s a stone-cold right-wing freak, and no one in the Biden administration should respect him or take his opinions seriously\u201d

— Jay Willis (@Jay Willis) 1681584910

According to the Post:

Kacsmaryk did not respond to a request for comment. A spokesman for First Liberty, Hiram Sasser, said that Kacsmaryk's name had been a "placeholder" on the article and that Kacsmaryk had not provided a "substantive contribution." Aaron Reitz, who was the journal's editor in chief at the time and is now a deputy to Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R), said Kacsmaryk had been "our chief point of contact during much of the editing" and "was the placeholder until final authors were named by First Liberty."

On Saturday, after this story was first published, Sasser provided an email showing that Stephanie Taub, one of the people listed as an author on the published article, was involved in writing an early draft.

But one former review editor familiar with the events said there was no indication that Kacsmaryk had been a "placeholder," adding that this was the only time during their tenure at the law review that they ever saw author names swapped. The former editor, who spoke on the condition of anonymity out of fear of reprisal, provided emails and several drafts of the article.

Butterfield and Taub, who still work at First Liberty, did not respond to requests for comment, but Sasser told the Post that "Matthew appears to have not gotten to the project so Stephanie decided to do a first draft that Justin edited."

"It appears Matthew provided some light edits," Sasser added.

After the article was published, "Sasser sent what he said were emails showing that Taub, who was then associate counsel, was involved in writing the article as early as December 2016," the Post reported. "She sent an outline to Kacsmaryk, according to the emails provided by First Liberty, and then a first draft one month later."

\u201cLead counsel in the fight over venue before Judge Tipton; co-counsel in the fight before Judge Kacsmaryk:\u201d

— Steve Vladeck (@Steve Vladeck) 1681593232

As the newspaper noted:

When Kacsmaryk requested the authorship switch, the editor familiar with the events said they raised the issue with Reitz, the law review's editor in chief. The lower-ranking editor asked why Kacsmaryk was making the request.

Reitz smiled, the editor recalled, then said, "You'll see."

Reitz did not address the exchange with the editor in his statement to the Post. But he said that "because of their work on the article, Mr. Butterfield and Ms. Taub rightfully received credit as authors."

As a judge, Kacsmaryk has issued key decisions on both reproductive and trans rights. Earlier this month, he struck down the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's 2000 approval of mifepristone, one of two drugs often taken in tandem for abortions, though his "junk science" ruling was temporarily halted by the U.S. Supreme Court on Friday.

In response to the revelations Saturday, Congressman Ted Lieu (D-Calif.) urged Kacsmaryk to step down, tweeting: "Why did Judge Kacsmaryk mislead the American people during his confirmation hearing about his abortion views? Because he knew he wouldn't be confirmed if people found out he was a religious zealot. Judge Kacsmaryk made a mockery of the confirmation process and must resign."

U.S. Rep. Daniel Goldman (D-N.Y.), an attorney who served as lead counsel in Trump's first impeachment trial, called for a probe: "The judge hand-picked by the GOP to enjoin mifepristone withdrew his name from a law review article denouncing medication abortion *during* his confirmation process—and did not disclose the article. He needs to be investigated."

Federal judges serve lifetime appointments unless they retire or are removed from the bench—which requires being impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives and then convicted by the Senate.

"Unless there is some really surprising and persuasive innocent explanation for the sudden authorship swap, this is grounds for impeachment and removal," New York University School of Law professor Christopher Jon Sprigman said of Kacsmaryk.

\u201cFor the sake of our democracy, the judiciary needs to be held accountable. \n\nhttps://t.co/pekpjKzw0j\u201d

— Let America Vote (@Let America Vote) 1681588794

Given that the House is currently controlled by Republicans, the reporting provoked some calls for a probe by the Senate Judiciary Committee, which is chaired by Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.)—who has openly criticized Kacsmaryk's mifepristone ruling and this week pledged to soon hold a hearing on "the devastating fallout" since the U.S. Supreme Court overruled Roe v. Wade last June.

"A functioning Senate Judiciary Committee could investigate this," declared The Nation's Jeet Heer.

Drexel University Thomas R. Kline School of Law professor and reproductive rights activist David S. Cohen agreed, arguing: "The Senate Judiciary Committee needs to call him in to testify and explain. Now."

Alex Aronson, a former chief counsel to Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), who questioned Kacsmaryk during his confirmation hearing, told the Post that not disclosing such an article is "unethical" and raises concerns about "the candor and honesty of the nominee."

"The Senate Judiciary questionnaire requires nominees to disclose all 'published materials you have written or edited,'" Aronson tweeted. "It's not a close call. Kacsmaryk needed to disclose this article he ghostwrote. What else did he bury?"

This post has been updated with information about emails that First Liberty Institute spokesperson Hiram Sasser shared with The Washington Post after the initial article was published.

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Jessica Corbett.

New revelations about U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas's business dealings with Texas Republican megadonor Harlan Crow on Thursday led to intensified calls for the right-wing justice's impeachment, as ProPublicareported on a previously undisclosed real estate transaction between the two men.

A week after the first report on Crow's funding of Thomas' travel was published, ProPublica revealed that Crow purchased two vacant lots and the home where Thomas' mother lived, all owned by Thomas and his family, in Savannah, Georgia in 2014.

The purchase, completed for $133,363, marked "the first known instance of money flowing from Crow to the Supreme Court justice," the news outlet reported.

Federal disclosure laws state that in most cases, Supreme Court justices and other government officials must disclose real estate transactions over $1,000.

"Thomas did not disclose the purchase as required by law. He must be impeached," said Democratic strategist Sawyer Hackett.

Exceptions to the law include cases in which someone sells "property used solely as a personal residence of the reporting individual or the individual's spouse," but legal experts confirmed to ProPublica that the sale of the Savannah properties did not meet the criteria for any of the exemptions.

"He needed to report his interest in the sale," Virginia Canter, chief ethics counsel at watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), told ProPublica.

The news outlet's previous reporting on Crow and Thomas revealed that the billionaire paid for Thomas to travel on a Bombardier Global 5000 jet, to Crow's ranch in Texas, and to his private resort in the Adirondacks—all of which was left off federal disclosure forms.

"Given the role Crow has played in subsidizing the lifestyle of Thomas and his wife, you have to wonder if this was an effort to put cash in their pockets," Canter said of the real estate sale in Savannah.

Crow released a statement on Thursday saying he had purchased Thomas' family home—which he still owns and where the justice's mother continued living until at least 2020, according to public records—to "one day create a public museum at the Thomas home dedicated to telling the story of our nation's second black Supreme Court Justice."

"I approached the Thomas family about my desire to maintain this historic site so future generations could learn about the inspiring life of one of our greatest Americans," said Crow.

Critics suggested the statement raised more questions than it answered.

"Clarence Thomas previously said that free flights on Harlan Crow's private jet counted as 'hospitality' and thus did not have to be disclosed," saidSlate journalist Mark Joseph Stern. "That made no sense, but this is even worse. How is a covert real estate deal that enriched Thomas 'hospitality'? This is pretty brazen."

Brett Edkins, managing director of policy and political affairs for Stand Up America, said the new reporting offers clear evidence that "Justice Thomas' vote on the Supreme Court is bought and paid for by right-wing billionaire Harlan Crow."

"Crow is not, as Thomas claims, his 'dearest friend' so much as his corrupt benefactor," said Edkins. "Thomas is unfit to serve on any court, let alone our nation's highest court. His failure to disclose his close financial dealings with a GOP billionaire has single-handedly destroyed what little credibility this MAGA Court had left."

"Failing to hold Justice Thomas accountable, hold hearings, and pass a Supreme Court code of ethics," he added, would be a dereliction of duty by federal lawmakers.

Demand Justice released polling data showing that 70% of Americans would back a federal investigation into alleged ethics violations of Supreme Court justices.

"This shady land deal amounts to a payoff of a sitting Supreme Court justice, plain and simple. Senate Democrats need to announce a thorough investigation into the details of Clarence Thomas' ties to Harlan Crow, including calling witnesses to get to the bottom of their financial relationship and Thomas' apparent lawbreaking," said Demand Justice executive director Brian Fallon.

"[Former Supreme Court Justice] Abe Fortas resigned under threat of impeachment for less," he noted, "and while impeachment may not be possible here with Republicans in control of the House, Thomas needs to face real accountability for his likely illegal behavior. Polls show that if Senate Democrats act, the public will strongly support them."

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Julia Conley.

This article was originally published by The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan local newsroom that informs and engages with Texans. Sign up for The Brief Weekly to get up to speed on their essential coverage of Texas issues.

This story includes graphic descriptions of injuries, and one graphic image taken from inside a classroom. We are not publishing images of injured or deceased victims.

UVALDE, Texas — Once they saw a torrent of bullets tear through a classroom wall and metal door, the first police officers in the hallway of Robb Elementary School concluded they were outgunned. And that they could die.

The gunman had an AR-15, a rifle design used by U.S. soldiers in every conflict since Vietnam. Its bullets flew toward the officers at three times the speed of sound and could have pierced their body armor like a hole punch through paper. They grazed two officers in the head, and the group retreated.

Uvalde Police Department Sgt. Daniel Coronado stepped outside, breathing heavily, and got on his radio to warn the others.

“I have a male subject with an AR,” Coronado said.

The dispatch crackled on the radio of another officer on the opposite side of the building.

“Fuck,” that officer said.

“AR,” another exclaimed, alerting others nearby.

Almost a year after Texas’ deadliest school shooting killed 19 children and two teachers, there is still confusion among investigators, law enforcement leaders and politicians over how nearly 400 law enforcement officers could have performed so poorly. People have blamed cowardice or poor leadership or a lack of sufficient training for why police waited more than an hour to breach the classroom and subdue an amateur 18-year-old adversary.

But in their own words, during and after their botched response, the officers pointed to another reason: They were unwilling to confront the rifle on the other side of the door.

A Texas Tribune investigation, based on police body cameras, emergency communications and interviews with investigators that have not been made public, found officers had concluded that immediately confronting the gunman would be too dangerous. Even though some officers were armed with the same rifle, they opted to wait for the arrival of a Border Patrol SWAT team, with more protective body armor, stronger shields and more tactical training — even though the unit was based more than 60 miles away.

“You knew that it was definitely an AR,” Uvalde Police Department Sgt. Donald Page said in an interview with investigators after the school shooting. “There was no way of going in. … We had no choice but to wait and try to get something that had better coverage where we could actually stand up to him.”

“We weren’t equipped to make entry into that room without several casualties,” Uvalde Police Department Detective Louis Landry said in a separate investigative interview. He added, “Once we found out it was a rifle he was using, it was a different game plan we would have had to come up with. It wasn’t just going in guns blazing, the Old West style, and take him out.”

Uvalde school district Police Chief Pete Arredondo, who was fired in August after state officials cast him as the incident commander and blamed him for the delay in confronting the gunman, told investigators the day after the shooting he chose to focus on evacuating the school over breaching the classroom because of the type of firearm the gunman used.

“We’re gonna get scrutinized (for) why we didn’t go in there,” Arredondo said. “I know the firepower he had, based on what shells I saw, the holes in the wall in the room next to his. … The preservation of life, everything around (the gunman), was a priority.”

None of the officers quoted in this story agreed to be interviewed by the Tribune.

That hesitation to confront the gun allowed the gunman to terrorize students and teachers in two classrooms for more than an hour without interference from police. It delayed medical care for more than two dozen gunshot victims, including three who were still alive when the Border Patrol team finally ended the shooting but who later died.

Mass shooting protocols adopted by law enforcement nationwide call on officers to stop the attacker as soon as possible. But police in other mass shootings — including at Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, and the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, Florida — also hesitated to confront gunmen armed with AR-15-style rifles.

Even if the law enforcement response had been flawless and police had immediately stopped the gunman, the death toll in Uvalde still would have been significant. Investigators concluded most victims were killed in the minutes before police arrived.

But in the aftermath of the shooting, there has been little grappling with the role the gun played. Texas Republicans, who control every lever of state government, have talked about school safety, mental health and police training — but not gun control.

A comprehensive and scathing report of law enforcement’s response to the shooting, released by a Texas House investigative committee chaired by Republican Rep. Dustin Burrows in July, made no mention of the comments by law enforcement officers in interviews that illustrated trepidation about the AR-15.

Other lawmakers have taken the position that the kind of weapon used in the attack made no difference.

“This man had enough time to do it with his hands or a baseball bat, and so it’s not the gun. It’s the person,” Sen. Bob Hall, R-Edgewood, said in a hearing a month after the shooting.

Republican state and legislative leaders, who are in the midst of the first legislative session since the shooting, are resisting calls for gun restrictions, like raising the age to purchase semi-automatic rifles like the AR-15. Republican Gov. Greg Abbott has suggested such a law would be unconstitutional, while House Speaker Dade Phelan said he doubts his chamber would support it.

Abbott, Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick and four Republican members of the Legislature — Phelan, Hall, Burrows and Rep. Ryan Guillen, chairman of the House committee that will hear all gun-related proposals, declined to discuss the findings of this story or did not respond. Two gun advocacy groups, Texas Gun Rights and the Texas State Rifle Association, also did not respond.

Limiting access to these kinds of rifles may not decrease the frequency of mass shootings, which plagued the country before the rifle became popular among gun owners. During the decade that the federal assault weapons ban was in place, beginning in 1994, the number of mass shootings was roughly the same as in the decade prior, according to a mass shooting database maintained by Mother Jones. It also would not address the root causes that motivate mass shooters, merely limit the lethality of the tools at their disposal.

Relatives of Uvalde victims, like Jesse Rizo, whose 9-year-old niece Jackie Cazares was killed in the shooting, say the comments by police who responded in Uvalde are undeniable proof that rifles like the AR-15 should be strictly regulated.

“(Police) knew the monster behind the door was not the kid. It’s the rifle the kid is holding,” said Rizo, referring to the 18-year-old gunman. “It’s the freaking AR that they’re afraid of. … Their training doesn’t say sit back and wait.”

Officers arriving at Robb Elementary on May 24 had similar reactions as they realized that the gunman had an AR-15.

“You know what kind of gun?” state Trooper Richard Bogdanski asked in a conversation captured on his body-camera footage outside of the school.

“AR. He has a battle rifle,” a voice responded.

“Does he really?” another asked.

“What’s the safest way to do this? I’m not trying to get clapped out,” Bogdanski said.

They had good reason to worry: The AR-15 was designed to efficiently kill humans.

ArmaLite, a small gunmaker in California, designed the AR-15 in the late 1950s as a next-generation military rifle. Compared with the U.S. Army’s infantry rifle at the time, the AR-15 was less heavy, had a shorter barrel and used lighter ammunition, allowing soldiers to carry more on the battlefield. It also fired a smaller-caliber bullet but compensated for it by increasing the speed at which it is propelled from the barrel.

A declassified 1962 Department of Defense report from the Vietnam War found the AR-15 would be ideal for use by South Vietnamese soldiers, who were smaller in stature and had less training than their American counterparts, for five reasons: its easy maintenance, accuracy, rapid rate of fire, light weight and “excellent killing or stopping power.”

“The lethality of the AR-15 and its reliability record were particularly impressive,” the authors reported.

Its bullets could also penetrate the body armor worn by the initial responding officers to Robb Elementary, an added level of danger they were aware of. While most departments, including the city of Uvalde’s, have rifle-rated body armor, it is not typically worn by officers on patrol because of its added weight.

“Had anybody gone through that door, he would have killed whoever it was,” Uvalde Police Department Lt. Javier Martinez told investigators the day after the shooting. You “can only carry so many ballistic vests on you. That .223 (caliber) round would have gone right through you.”

Coronado echoed the concern in his own interviews with investigators about the moment he realized the gunman had a battle rifle.

“I knew too it wasn’t a pistol. ... I was like, ‘Shit, it’s a rifle,’” he said. He added, “The way he was shooting, he was probably going to take all of us out.”

The AR-15 is less powerful than many rifles, such as those used to hunt deer or other large game. But it has significantly more power than handguns, firing a bullet that has nearly three times the energy of the larger round common in police pistols.

The AR-15 also causes more damage to the human body. Handgun bullets typically travel through the body in a straight line, according to a 2016 study published by The Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery. High-energy bullets become unstable as they decelerate in flesh, twisting and turning as they damage a wider swath of tissue. This creates “not only a permanent cavity the size of the caliber of the bullet, but also a … second cavity often many times larger than the bullet itself.”

The Defense Department report detailed this effect in plainer language, describing the AR-15’s performance in a firefight with Viet Cong at a range of 50 meters: “One man was shot in the head; it looked like it exploded. A second man was hit in the chest; his back was one big hole.”

The Defense Department placed its first mass order for the rifle in 1963, calling its version the M16, and based each of its service rifles until 2022 on this design. The only significant difference between the military and civilian versions of the AR-15 is that the military rifle can fire automatically, meaning the user can depress the trigger to shoot multiple rounds. The civilian AR-15 is semi-automatic, requiring a trigger pull for each round.

In the context of mass shootings, it is a distinction without a meaningful difference: Both rates of fire can kill a roomful of people in seconds.

That’s what happened in Uvalde.

In two and a half minutes, before any police officer set foot inside the school, the gunman fired more than 100 rounds at students and teachers from point-blank range. Several victims lost large portions of their heads, photos taken by investigators show. Bullets tore gashes in flesh as long as a foot. They shattered a child’s shin, nearly severed another’s arm at the elbow, ripped open another’s neck, blasted a hole the size of a baseball in another’s hip. Other rounds penetrated the wall of Room 111, passed through the empty Room 110, punctured another wall and wounded a student and teacher in Room 109, who survived.

When medics finally reached the victims, there was nothing they could do for most, they said in interviews with investigators. Eighteen of the 21 were pronounced dead at the school. Police assigned each a letter of the alphabet and took DNA samples so they could be identified by family.

Ruben Torres, who saw what the rifle can do in combat while serving as a Marine infantryman in Iraq and Afghanistan, never imagined someone would use it to try and kill his daughter, Khloie, who was wounded by bullet fragments at Robb Elementary.

The Corps spends so much time drilling firearm safety into Marines that Torres can recite the rules from memory. Even now, he has no objection to civilians owning AR-15s, but he thinks they should be required to complete training like soldiers because too many who buy one treat it like a toy.

“You get people that never served in the military or law enforcement, and yet they’re wannabes,” Torres said. “They purchase this weapons system, not having a clue how to use it, the type of power and the level of maturity needed to even operate it.”

It was customers seeking a military experience who helped spur the rifle’s surge in popularity over the past 15 years, gun industry researchers say. Civilians have been able to buy an AR-15 since the mid-1960s, but for decades it was a niche product whose largest customer segment included police SWAT units.

A federal assault weapons ban expired in 2004, creating a new opportunity to market rifles like the AR-15 to the general public, said Timothy Lytton, a professor at the Georgia State University College of Law who researches the gun industry.

The number of military-style rifles, including AR-15 and AK-style, produced or imported in the U.S. went from about 74,000 in 1990 to a national high of almost 2.8 million in 2020. Since 1990, an estimated 24.4 million of these rifles have been in circulation.

“In the 2000s, there was a shift in the industry’s marketing to people who are not just looking for self-defense, but people who are also looking for some sort of tactical experience,” Lytton said. He said this new consumer wanted to “simulate military combat situations.”

Sales of the rifle exploded. The National Shooting Sports Foundation, a prominent trade group, estimates American gunmakers produced 1.4 million semi-automatic rifles like the AR-15 in 2015, excluding exports — a figure 10 times higher than a decade earlier. This group of semi-automatic rifles accounted for 89% of the rifles made by domestic manufacturers in 2020, according to government and industry data.

As it grew more popular with the public, the rifle also became more popular with mass shooters. AR-15-style rifles weren’t used in any mass shootings until 2007, according to the mass shooting database maintained by Mother Jones, which includes indiscriminate killings of at least three people in public places, excluding crimes that stem from robbery, gang activity or other conventionally explained motives.

Gunmen used the rifle in 5% of attacks that decade and 27% in the 2010s. 2022 cemented the AR-15 as the weapon of choice for mass shooters. They wielded the rifle in 67% of the 12 massacres that year, including a parade in Illinois where seven were slain and a supermarket shooting in New York that killed 10.

The death toll in Uvalde exceeded them both.

Little is known about what motivated the shooter in Uvalde or why he targeted the elementary school he once attended. But signs of planning, and a fixation on guns, stretched back months.

Beginning in late 2021, he began buying accessories: an electronic gun sight, rifle straps, shin guards, a vest with pockets to hold body armor and a hellfire trigger, which can be snapped onto semi-automatic weapons to allow near-automatic fire.

He faced a single significant obstacle to assembling an arsenal: Under Texas law, the minimum age to purchase long guns like rifles is 18. That hindrance vanished on May 16, 2022, his 18th birthday. He ordered an AR-15-style rifle from the website of Daniel Defense, a gunmaker that has pioneered marketing firearms via social media.

Its sleek Instagram videos often feature young men rapidly firing the company’s rifles, wearing outfits that resemble combat uniforms. Other posts feature members of the U.S. military. A lawsuit filed by Uvalde victims’ families against Daniel Defense alleges the gunmaker’s marketing intentionally targets vulnerable young men driven by military fantasies.

The company rejected these claims and cast the lawsuit as an attempt to bankrupt the gun industry.

“To imply that images portraying the heroic work of our soldiers risking their lives in combat inspires young men back home to shoot children is inexcusable,” then-CEO Marty Daniel said last year. The case is ongoing.

Federal law requires weapons purchased online to be picked up at a licensed dealer, which also performs a background check. The Uvalde gunman had no criminal history and had never been arrested, ensuring he would pass. He had the Daniel Defense rifle shipped to Oasis Outback, a gun store in town.

The gunman visited the store alone three times between May 17 and May 20. First, he purchased a Smith & Wesson AR-15-style rifle, then returned to buy 375 rounds of ammunition, then came back again to pick up the Daniel Defense rifle. Surveillance footage from the shop shows an employee placing the case on the counter and opening it. The gunman picked up the rifle, peered down the barrel and placed his finger on the trigger — a breach of a cardinal rule of gun safety, to never do so until you are ready to fire.

The gun store’s owner told investigators he was an average customer with no “red flags,” though patrons told FBI agents he was “very nervous looking” and “appeared odd and looked like one of those school shooters.”

An online order he’d placed for 1,740 rifle cartridges arrived at 6:09 p.m. on May 23. In the eight days after he became eligible to purchase firearms, he bought two AR-15-style rifles and 2,115 rounds of ammunition.

He had broken no laws. He had aroused no suspicion with authorities. And, like many mass shooters, he had given no public warning about his plan.

May 24, the day of the Uvalde shooting, was most likely the first time he had ever fired a gun, investigators concluded. To do so with an AR-15 is simple: Insert a loaded magazine, cock the rifle to force a cartridge into the firing chamber, slide the safety switch off and pull the trigger. Still, he initially struggled to attach the magazine correctly in the previous days, a relative recalled to investigators, and it kept falling to the floor.

He figured it out by the time he pointed one of the rifles at his grandmother and shot her in the face, amid a dispute about his cellphone plan. The bullet tore a gash in the right side of her face; she required a lengthy hospitalization but survived. He took only the Daniel Defense rifle to the school, leaving the Smith & Wesson at his grandmother’s truck, which he had stolen, driven three blocks and crashed on the west edge of the elementary campus.

The 77-minute delay in breaching the fourth grade classroom was an “abject failure” that set the law enforcement profession back a decade, the Texas state police director said in June. Police had failed to follow protocol developed after the 1999 Columbine school shooting that states the first priority is to confront shooters and stop the killing. Yet even beyond Uvalde, the performance of police against active shooters with AR-15-style rifles — which were rarely used in mass shootings when the standards were developed — is inconsistent.

Since 1982, AR-15-style rifles have been used in 30 mass shootings — their use significantly rising after the federal assault weapons ban expired in 2004. In 2022, 67% of mass shootings involved at least one AR-15-style weapon.

When a gunman began firing an AR-15-style rifle in 2016 at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, an officer providing security waited six minutes for backup before pursuing the suspect into the club; he later said his handgun was “no match” for the shooter’s rifle.

Two years later, a sheriff’s deputy at Stoneman Douglas High School in Florida did not confront the AR-15-wielding shooter there, either. Investigators said he instead retreated for four and a half minutes, during which the gunman shot 10 students and teachers, six fatally.

In some instances, police have confronted the rifle without hesitation. Officers killed a gunman who had fatally shot seven people in a 2019 shooting spree in the Texas cities of Midland and Odessa. During the 2021 supermarket shooting in Boulder, Colorado, one of the 10 victims the gunman killed with his AR-15 was one of the first responding officers.

The extreme stress the body experiences in a gunfight slows critical thinking and motor skills, said Massad Ayoob, a police firearms trainer since the 1970s. Officers can overcome this with repeated training that is as realistic as possible, he said. Without it, they are more likely to freeze or retreat.

“Have you ever been in a firefight? Have you ever been in a situation where you were about to die?” said Kevin Lawrence, a law enforcement officer for 40 years and the executive director of the Texas Municipal Police Association. “None of us knows how we’re going to react to that circumstance until we’re in it.”

Improved training that reinforces the expectation that police immediately confront active shooters would improve the likelihood that they do so, said Jimmy Perdue, president of the Texas Police Chiefs Association. But because they attack at random locations and times, he said it is unrealistic to expect that all 800,000 law enforcement officers in the United States would be prepared. That rifles like the AR-15 are especially lethal, he acknowledged, adds an additional mental obstacle for officers.

“All we can do is play the averages … and hope that the training will take place and they’ll be able to understand the gravity of the situation and respond accordingly,” Perdue said. “But there is no guarantee that the one officer that happens to be on duty when this next shooting occurs is going to respond correctly.”

In many cases, whether officers follow active-shooter training is irrelevant. Most mass shootings end in less than five minutes, research from the FBI concluded, often before officers arrive.

This was the case in Newtown, Connecticut, where a gunman killed 26 people at an elementary school in 2012, and in Aurora, Colorado, where another killed 12 people at a movie theater the same year. Both used AR-15-style rifles.

Texas has a long, proud and increasingly less-regulated history of gun ownership. It is rooted in a belief in personal responsibility, that average citizens can sensibly own guns to protect themselves and their families and intervene to stop armed criminals in the absence of police.

“Ultimately, as we all know, what stops armed bad guys is armed good guys,” said U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz at the National Rifle Association convention in Houston three days after the Uvalde shooting.

He cited two examples: the Border Patrol team who finally breached the classroom at Robb Elementary and the firearms instructor who shot the gunman who in 2017 attacked a church in Sutherland Springs, Texas, with an AR-15-style rifle. Both actions potentially saved lives. But they failed to prevent the murders of 47 people.

This year a group of Uvalde families has been regularly visiting the Capitol to push for stricter gun laws, including to raise the age someone can legally purchase AR-15-style rifles to 21.

The mass shootings since 2016 in Dallas, Sutherland Springs, Santa Fe, El Paso and Midland-Odessa — all but one committed with a semi-automatic rifle — did not persuade the Legislature to restrict access to guns. Instead, lawmakers relaxed regulations, including allowing the open carry of handguns without a license or training. And Democrats who have proposed a number of new restrictions this session admit that their bills face nearly insurmountable odds.

The AR-15s carried by state troopers at the Capitol give Sandra Torres flashbacks. Her daughter, 10-year-old Eliahna, a promising softball player, died at Robb Elementary. Sandra never got to tell her she’d made the all-star team. Mack Segovia, Eliahna’s stepfather, didn’t grow up around guns, but he’s seen enough pictures of 200-pound wild hogs his friends tore up with AR-15s while hunting to understand what the rifle did to his daughter.

The couple has made the six-hour round trip to Austin five times already, squeezing with other families into tiny offices for meetings with lawmakers to ask for what they think are commonsense regulations. Most legislators are cordial, but sometimes the families can tell they are being rebuffed, Torres said. Her partner recalled how the House speaker drove 360 miles from his home in Beaumont to Uvalde to tell families he did not support new gun laws, which struck him as a hell of a long way for a man to travel to say: Sorry, I can’t help you.

The experience is frustrating. Torres and Segovia said they did not have a strong opinion about guns until their daughter was taken from them by a young man who bought one designed for combat, no questions asked. They said they feel compelled, if Eliahna’s death served any purpose, to make it harder for other people to do the same.

“Those were babies,” Segovia said. “I promise you, if it happened to those people in the Senate, or the governor, it would be different.”

Lomi Kriel contributed reporting.

This content originally appeared on Articles and Investigations - ProPublica and was authored by by Zach Despart, The Texas Tribune.

In an analysis for Haaretz last week, former Israeli diplomat Alon Pinkas asks a pertinent and important question: "When will the U.S. stop pretending that things are normal in Netanyahu's Israel?" It's a rhetorical question, but nonetheless crucial after the United States embarrassed itself yet again by touting a completely phony "agreement" reached in Aqaba, Jordan, between the far-right Israeli government and the quisling Palestinian Authority while Israeli settlers were burning the town of Huwwara. But Pinkas addresses this question, ultimately, with an equally empty line: "Friends don't let friends rescind democracy."

The sub-headline on the article, taken directly from the piece itself, is the beginning of where Pinkas goes wrong. "It is not the U.S.' responsibility, moral duty, or place to alter the authoritarian trajectory of Israel. But it is equally negligent of the Americans to act as if nothing is happening."

Pinkas' view is representative of many who are currently criticizing Israel either for the first time publicly or in harsher tones than they ever have before, in light of Israel's assault on its democracy for its Jewish citizens. But it elides a broader, more incisive view of the trajectory Israel has been on since the birth of the Political Zionism movement and how the seeds of the current government were not only planted long ago but have been evident in the treatment of Palestinians by that movement all along. Indeed, that misguided view is intrinsic to much, though not all, of the protest movement in Israel, the criticisms from some of Israel's more liberal supporters, and, especially from American and Israeli opposition leaders.

Ultimately, of course, Israel is responsible for its own behavior and policies. But the notion that the United States bears neither responsibility nor moral duty to change Israeli behavior for the better is thoroughly misguided. The only real question is whether the Biden administration would use the leverage it has to, if not bring Israel fully to heel, then at least to rein in Israel's violence against Palestinians, attempts to subvert the status quo in Jerusalem, ongoing efforts to annex the West Bank, and its ongoing strangulation of Gaza.

U.S. responsibility

The United States, because of its unconditional support for Israel, no matter the latter's crimes and violations of international and U.S. law, bears enormous responsibility for Israel's behavior. Moreover, the U.S. has, with Israel's full cooperation, established itself as the only acceptable "broker" between Israel and the Palestinians, and as such, is the only body in the world with enough influence, power, and leverage with Israel to credibly press the Jewish state to change its policies. The U.S. is, therefore, absolutely obliged as both a moral and practical matter to "alter the authoritarian trajectory of Israel."

In fact, for most of Israel's existence, the United States has supported it financially, and, at significant diplomatic cost, in international arenas, writing a blank check to Israel and creating the cancerous "special relationship" and "unbreakable bond." This does not make Israel act as it does, but it does give it the ability to act with impunity. That is an enormous incentive for Israel not only to maintain its harsh and illegal policies, but to consistently push the envelope of its brutal treatment of the Palestinians. That gift of impunity is what establishes U.S. culpability and creates not just the moral responsibility that Pinkas denies the U.S. has; it also, and more importantly, creates the practical need for the U.S. to act if the situation is not to deteriorate further and faster. No other country or international body can rival the United States in the array of options it has at its disposal to incentivize Israel to change, even if Washington refuses to use them.

This isn't new. It has been the case, certainly since before the 1967 war and arguably even before the state of Israel was established through the devastation of Palestinian society, the nakba, from 1947-49. And that's one of the problems with Pinkas' thinking.

U.S. abdication

By asking when the U.S. will recognize the current government as "abnormal," Pinkas implies that the new Netanyahu government is unique. In terms of domestic Israeli politics, that's true. The assault on the Israeli judiciary is certainly new, even if Netanyahu has been building toward it out of fear of prosecution for his massive corruption for years. Rhetorical attacks on the Israeli legal system are as old as the state itself, but actual structural changes meant to rob the judiciary of its power relative to the rest of the government are new, and the protests throughout Israel are the result.

But while Benjamin Netanyahu's new partners, Itamar Ben Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich, have escalated the size and scope of routine attacks on Palestinians, they are not doing anything new. These incursions by both the army and the settlers are regular practices, and they were escalating long before this government came into power. It's worth remembering that 2022 saw the largest number of Palestinians killed by Israel since 2005. That was not under Netanyahu, Smotrich, and Ben Gvir, but the supposedly more "moderate" and centrist governments of Naftali Bennett and Yair Lapid.

Similarly, while Netanyahu flirted with an accelerated annexation of the West Bank in 2020, the process of gradual annexation of the occupied territory has been underway since 1968. By putting the West bank under Bezalel Smotrich's civilian authority, a line was crossed, and, as Israeli human rights lawyer Michael Sfard put it, it amounted to "de jure annexation of the West Bank."

In the face of all this, the United States is silent. Pinkas talks about some words of rebuke from Washington but what mild rebukes have been issued have been overwhelmingly directed at the Israeli assault on its own judiciary. There was no rebuke of the Israeli army for its routine practice of protecting settlers as they assaulted Huwwara, for instance.

Three letters to President Joe Biden are circulating in Congress. One by Senator Peter Welch (D-VT) is unusually direct in its criticism of the Netanyahu government, and the other two, whose contents are not yet public, are also firm in calling on President Biden to save the two-state solution. And therein lies the problem. The fact that Welch is justifiably considered bold for bluntly stating that "as far as the Netanyahu government is concerned, the two-state solution is dead" reflects the desperate clinging of American officials, elected and otherwise, to a two-state solution that is neither politically nor physically feasible any longer is a big part of the problem.

An even more serious problem is that none of the letters express any more concern for the wanton attacks on Palestinians than the Biden administration has shown. Rep. Ilhan Omar's statement of concern about the harm to both Palestinian and Israeli civilians was the only such statement from any member of Congress expressing concern about the assaults and killings of both Palestinians and Israelis.

What the U.S. could do

Pinkas argues that a U.S. president could confront Israel without any political cost. While this is not exactly correct, it is closer to reality than is generally believed. The myth of the political cost of criticizing Israel—although based on very real factors like an exceptionally effective lobbying apparatus and a huge imbalance in campaign contributions between pro-Israel PACs and those that support Palestinian rights or even just a more even-handed U.S. policy—has taken on a life of its own, growing far bigger than the reality.

Pinkas' piece omits any recommendations for American action, only a defense of the idea that the U.S. could act if it wanted to. He refers to a "menu" of actions the United States could take if it wished but never specifies any items on that menu. Similarly, Americans for Peace Now spoke of the "large toolbox" the U.S. has to show its displeasure with the current Israeli government but didn't go on to recommend any specific actions.

It should be clear by now that the Biden administration does not want to confront Israel, regardless of the depth of its crimes. But it is also becoming clear that he is soon going to have to do something. It might be nothing but theater, or it might be something substantive. But the pressure from within his own party is growing, and Biden will, correctly, look extremely weak if he tries to maintain his silence on Israel's actions, no matter how many chummy pictures of Chuck Schumer kissing up to Netanyahu circulate.

The idea of ending military aid to Israel remains impossible, but conditioning it on compliance with U.S. law and human rights norms is an idea that is no longer outside of all discussion in Washington. Still, it will still be a long while before even that obvious step is taken if it ever is. But that is not Biden's only option.

One alternative is to halt work to expand the so-called Abraham Accords, the deals the United States has brokered between Israel and various Arab dictatorships to normalize relations even without any agreement with the Palestinians. Without robust U.S. involvement, it will be very hard to expand the Accords, since the real prize for the Arab autocrats is access to Washington, especially to its weapons market. This is not a small thing, as international investors are already starting to feel nervous about investing in an increasingly illiberal Israel. That makes expanding the Abraham Accords an even higher priority for Netanyahu.

Biden can also slow other business cooperation that the U.S. government facilitates, which will certainly fuel concerns in Tel Aviv that are already starting to boil about the potential of Israeli tech companies and leaders in the field leaving the country as it moves too far to the right for their tastes. There is also the loan guarantee program, currently approved to run through FY 2023, which provides a big boost to Israel's credit rating. A loss there, amid so much financial uncertainty, would certainly impact Israel.

Taking any of those steps would send shock waves throughout Israel, because, even if they are not devastating by themselves, they would imply that the U.S. may take even more steps, as the blank check has been rescinded. And any of them are politically feasible for this administration.

Biden still won't want to take such steps, but with enough political pressure, he may have to. It will be crucial, if such pressure does build, that advocates for Palestinian rights not allow them to focus only on the issues for Jewish democracy. They must include an end to the U.S. ignoring Israeli escalations, at the very least.

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Mitchell Plitnick.

Ahead of former President Donald Trump's Wednesday visit to East Palestine, Ohio—where a Norfolk Southern-owned train transporting carcinogenic chemicals derailed on February 3, prompting a mass evacuation and release of pollutants—progressive critics highlighted the key role his administration played in making the fiery crash and its toxic aftermath more likely.

During his speech, Trump—considered a leading GOP presidential candidate for 2024 despite spearheading a deadly coup attempt following his 2020 loss—criticized how President Joe Biden's administration has responded to the environmental and public health disaster unfolding in East Palestine, a poor rural town of about 4,700 people located a few miles west of the Pennsylvania border.

But as critics noted beforehand, the Trump administration's gutting of train safety rules at the behest of railroad industry lobbyists was instrumental in creating the conditions for the derailment and ensuing chemical spill and burnoff, which has provoked fears of groundwater contamination and air pollution.

"He should be apologizing to that community for his administration rolling back rail regulations," progressive stalwart Nina Turner, a former Ohio state senator, tweeted prior to Trump's address.

Philadelphia Inquirer columnist Will Bunch made a similar point in an opinion piece published earlier this week.

"If residents of East Palestine—a modern news desert of downsized or disappeared news sources, which allows misinformation to fester—truly knew the reality, a delegation of townsfolk would likely greet Trump with tiki torches and pitchforks," Bunch wrote, comparing the former president's visit to "the tendency of a criminal to return to the scene of his crime."

Bunch noted that "Trump acted specifically to sabotage a nascent government effort to protect citizens from the growing threat posed by derailments of outdated, poorly equipped, and undermanned freight trains that were increasingly shipping both highly flammable crude oil from the U.S. fracking boom as well as toxic chemicals like the ones that would derail in East Palestine."

"Trump had been in office for less than a year when he moved to kill the 2015 rule change initiated by the Obama administration that would have required freight trains to upgrade the current braking technology that was developed in the 19th century for state-of-the-art electronic systems," wrote Bunch, who pointed out that this came after Norfolk Southern and other rail carriers donated more than $6 million to Republican candidates in 2016 and spent millions more on lobbying.

"With the investigation into the East Palestine wreck still in its early phases, it's not clear if the modern brakes—originally required for installation by 2021—could have prevented the toxic derailment or whether the specific Obama rule would have applied," Bunch continued. "But experts do believe the new brakes could have mitigated the wreckage—and thus the release of so many hazardous chemicals."

"The rule reversal wasn't the only time that Team Trump sided with Big Rail over the forgotten Americans who live on the wrong side of their tracks," he added. "In 2019, for example, the Trump administration moved to not strengthen but relax regulations on shipping fracked natural gas through communities like East Palestine. The same year, Trump's White House also killed an Obama-era proposal that would have required two crew members in freight-train locomotives."

"The Trump approach to the rail industry was to let the companies do what they wanted, which was to avoid regulations, slash jobs, and extract profit."

Ahead of Trump's visit, More Perfect Union also argued on social media that the ex-president's "attempt to portray himself as a friend of the town and as someone who would have stood up to Norfolk Southern... couldn't be further from the truth."

As the progressive media outlet observed, the Trump administration "withdrew multiple rail safety recommendations and moved toward a 'self-regulatory approach' where rail companies could do as they pleased."

"It's no surprise that the Trump years were filled with dangerous deregulation," More Perfect Union asserted, describing his decision to nominate top rail industry executives to lead the Federal Railroad Administration and the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration as "a prime example of the revolving door between business and government."

"The Trump approach to the rail industry was to let the companies do what they wanted, which was to avoid regulations, slash jobs, and extract profit," the outlet continued. "This approach, and rail companies' greed, has led to over 1,000 derailments each year. Some are massive catastrophes like East Palestine. But every single one is harmful. And if the industry isn't regulated and forced to change, we'll soon be seeing more disasters."

When Trump "pretends to care about rail workers, or the people of East Palestine, we can't believe him," More Perfect Union added. "His record tells a very different story, the story of his own role in creating this problem in the first place."

Even some conservative critics of Trump have questioned the sincerity of his visit.

"It's clear that it's a political stunt," Ray LaHood, a Republican ex-member of Congress who led the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) during former President Barack Obama's first term, toldPolitico on Wednesday. "If he wants to visit, he's a citizen. But clearly his regulations and the elimination of them, and no emphasis on safety, is going to be pointed out."

Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) wasted little time in doing exactly that, calling the GOP's indignation "fake" soon after Trump announced his travel plans.

Bunch acknowledged that "it's beyond hypocritical for Trump to bring his Harold Hill-huckster shtick to East Palestine when residents are still experiencing headaches and breathing foul air from the kind of catastrophe he didn't lift a finger to stop from the Resolute Desk."

"But also it's a bit baffling why Biden or his Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg—who seems to be channeling his inner McKinsey & Co. these days—haven't gone to Ohio," he argued. "Especially when Trump and any other Republicans hoping to make political hay off of East Palestine's misery are coming to town empty-handed."

"None of the anti-Biden critics on this issue have offered a solution, because they can't," wrote Bunch. "The only fix for the kind of runaway abuses of modern capitalism that cause these environmental catastrophes is government regulation, aided by empowering worker safety with strong unions—two things that the Trump-led GOP has opposed at every turn."

Even in the wake of the disaster, Republican lawmakers have refused to demand stronger regulations, as HuffPostreported:

Rep. Bill Johnson (R-Ohio), a vocal Biden critic who represents East Palestine, on Tuesday dismissed immediate calls for stricter rail regulations, saying actions toward accountability will hinge on the findings of a National Transportation Safety Board [NTSB] investigation into the derailment.

"That will dictate whether there are laws, regulations that need to be changed, whether there were rules that were violated," he said during a news conference in East Palestine. "We don't know any of that yet, and we won't know that until NTSB releases its report."

Hours before Trump spoke, Buttigieg announced that he plans to travel to East Palestine on Thursday. His visit is expected to coincide with the publication of the NTSB's preliminary report about its ongoing probe into the crash.

"Trump and any other Republicans hoping to make political hay off of East Palestine's misery are coming to town empty-handed."

On Tuesday, Buttigieg unveiled DOT's recommendations for improving the safety of the nation's rail system, though an inter-union alliance of rail workers immediately criticized the plan as inadequate.

Given the scale of the problems—and in light of the transportation secretary's ongoing refusal to exercise his authority to reinstate previously gutted rules along with his consideration of an industry-backed proposal to further weaken the regulation of train braking systems—union leaders have called for nationalizing the railways and implementing their proposed solutions.

Turner, for her part, emphasized that she has "been outspoken about the two years the Biden administration had [to] fix these problems."

"The Trump administration is at fault, as is the Obama administration," Turner contended, referring to the fact that the latter's regulations were also watered down in response to industry pressure.

"The Ohio GOP is to blame as well," she added, echoing recent reporting on Norfolk Southern's campaign to influence state-level lawmakers and officials. "Failure at every level of government and multiple administrations led to this."

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Kenny Stancil.

Photograph Source: Gage Skidmore – CC BY-SA 2.0

“We want education and not indoctrination,” Ron DeSantis announced at a press conference in early February. That’s DeSantis’ opinion, like it or not. But as Governor DeSantis, he can influence how education policy is implemented throughout Florida’s public education system: he blocked the College Board’s Advanced Placement course in African American studies for high school students in its current form and is trying to overhaul the state’s higher education system by mandating courses in Western civilization, eliminating courses in diversity and equity, and reducing protections of tenure. His efforts have already effected the leadership at New College of Florida, a small liberal arts school in Sarasota.

DeSantis confirmed his belief in an Academic Golden Rule – whoever pays the bills runs the schools – at his news conference when he described his plans to change the leadership and curriculum at New College: “If it was a private school…that’s fine. I mean, what are you going to do,” quickly adding, “But this is paid for by your tax dollars.” If further confirmation was needed, he said he was asking the state legislature to free up $15 million to recruit new faculty and scholarships for New College. “We’re putting our money where our mouth is,” the Governor declared.

In a somewhat similar vein of politicians challenging academic independence, here in Geneva a legally constituted Assembly of staff, students and faculty agreed on a candidate to be the next rector (president) of the University of Geneva (UNIGE). An outside group of experts, also designated by the authorities to participate in the selection, confirmed the Assembly’s choice. But the cantonal (state) executive, the legally constituted ultimate authority, rejected the Assembly’s and experts’ choice.

“The future rector must be able to defend the place of universities in Switzerland and Europe, especially when these universities are under pressure as is currently the case,” argued the head of Geneva’s education department. She said the chosen candidate, Canadian Professor Eric Bauce, was not familiar enough with the Swiss higher education environment.

The decision of the Geneva government called into question the autonomy of the academic institution, UNIGE. “This decision denotes a mistrust of a participatory Assembly representing the various bodies of the University,” protested the Bureau of the Assembly.

The current UNIGE rector, Yves Flückiger, said that in his eyes there was no attack on the autonomy of the university. He supported a division of labor between the university and the government. “Each body has played its role. The University Assembly had to appoint a person, the Council of State has taken on its responsibilities,” he explained. “The law specifies the role of each.”

For Flückiger, the government was clearly the highest authority in the selection of the new rector. It also has the last say in the appointment of professors. In Geneva, DeSantis’ Academic Golden Rule is strictly applied.

The Florida and Geneva experiences highlight the delicate balance between academic freedom and the role of public authorities, the educational institutions funders. While the Florida DeSantis case is clearly part of a cultural attack against woke activism and Critical Race Theory in schools, and the Geneva case is one of poorly constructed selection criteria, both show how the Academic Golden Rule challenges academic freedom. Do funders have a right to determine who manages the public education system, what is taught and who teaches, or is that a function only limited to those directly involved?

In an ideal world, where absolute academic freedom reigns, public officials would vote budgets for public educational institutions while schools and universities independently would decide who would manage, teach and what would be taught. Total academic autonomy would be Academic Nirvana.

But public institutions vote budgets because they believe it is their role to exercise oversight as representatives of the general public, the taxpayer. And the taxpayer wants to know how tax money is spent and what is being taught in public schools and universities. For those outside the education ecosystem, the Ivory Tower exists only within the minds of educational professionals. The binary split between town and gown may be Academic Nirvana, but it ignores, at its own peril, financial realities.

How then to reconcile Academic Nirvana with the Academic Golden Rule? Is it possible for public funders to ignore who runs the schools and universities as well as what is actually taught? Ideally, in Academic Nirvana, public funders would be neutral. “Here’s the money for your budget,” they would say. “Do with it as you please since you are the education experts.”

A reconciliation between Academic Nirvana and the Academic Golden Rule means checks and balances. While DeSantis and the Geneva government have the legal right to oversee academic policy, they are politicians who can be voted out of office. Politicians can check academics, but citizens can check politicians.

We assume DeSantis believes his position reflects most Floridians’ perspective – he won his 2022 re-election by over 19 %, carrying 62 of 67 Florida counties – and assume he believes his views on education will help him get elected nationally. DeSantis’ Florida success cannot be denied, although attention should be paid to the legality of his proposals.

Educators and politicians need checks to have a balanced public education system. Educators should not be allowed to live in Academic Nirvana in any true democracy. In the public sphere, the split between town and gown negates the democratic basis of citizenry. Politicians, if they represent the people, have their right of say, but only up to a certain point.

In that sense, the UNIGE current rector is correct about the separation of powers between academics and politicians. What he didn’t say, however, is that citizens must have the final decision about how their money is spent. The right to vote is the ultimate check to balance academic freedom and political oversight. If citizens are not pleased with the political oversight of the education system, they can vote the politicians out of office.

In the end, citizens have the gold that rules. In the Golden Rule – whoever has the gold rules -the whoever turns out to be you and me, the general public, the taxpayer, the ballot box decider. No politician or educator should ever forget that.

This content originally appeared on CounterPunch.org and was authored by Daniel Warner.

The widow of murdered Washington Post journalist Jamal Khashoggi on Monday denounced former U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo for his comments about her husband in Pompeo's upcoming memoir, in which he questions Khashoggi's journalism credentials and his allegiances.

As excerpts from Pompeo's book, Never Give an Inch: Fighting for the America I Love, became public a day before its publication date, Hanan Elatr Khashoggi told NBC News she wishes she were able "to silence all of these people who publish books, disparage my husband, and collect money from it."

Elatr Khashoggi fired back after NBC News reported that in Pompeo's book, he writes of Jamal Khashoggi, "He didn't deserve to die, but we need to be clear about who he was—and too many in the media were not."

The book contains accusations that Khashoggi "was cozy with the terrorist-supporting Muslim Brotherhood," alludes to his coverage of and friendship with Osama bin Laden when both were young, and says he was an "activist" rather than a journalist.

Elatr Khashoggi, whom the Saudi national married in 2018 in an Islamic ceremony, told NBC that "Jamal Kashoggi is not part of the Muslim Brotherhood" and that he "always condemned" the September 11, 2001 attacks masterminded by bin Laden.

"Whatever Mike Pompeo mentions about my husband Jamal Khashoggi, he doesn't know my husband," Elatr Khashoggi tweeted.

Khashoggi, who wrote critically of the Saudi government, was killed in October 2018 by a group of assassins in Istanbul. Khashoggi's family sued Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and accused him of personally ordering the execution in 2020, and a United Nations report found that "high-level officials" in Saudi Arabia were responsible for the murder, but last year the Biden administration recommended that bin Salman, as prime minister, be shielded from U.S. lawsuits regarding the case.

While attacking Khashoggi for his loyalties, Pompeo, a Republican who has said he is considering a 2024 presidential run, notes in the book that the U.S. has a "strategic" relationship with the Saudis to consider.

"Shame on you, Mike Pompeo, HarperCollins, and Broadside Books for publishing these lies about my husband," tweeted Elatr Khashoggi.

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Julia Conley.

“China’s foreign affairs are always fascinating, but following you has made my life even more so,” she wrote.

“Niuniulovegungunbaobao” responded with a bit more equanimity. She urged Zhao’s fans to “look at Uncle’s healing smile and bid him farewell properly.”

Zhao, she added, is “just changing a position and continuing to safeguard the motherland.”

That Zhao has developed a fervent fan base may surprise some people outside of China, where online expressions of love and devotion are typically reserved for movie stars and famous musicians – the Ryan Reynoldses and Taylor Swifts of the world as opposed to the Ned Prices (the U.S. State Department spokesman).

But while Zhao’s glasses and conservative sartorial style suggest career bureaucrat more than hunky celebrity, his penchant for slapping down the United States with his tough -- some say offensive -- rhetoric and his ability to stir international controversy through Twitter posts has prompted an online fan group of more than 76,000 members.

Almost daily, Zhao fanatics create music videos highlighting his most swoon-worthy moments, like when he responds confidently to questions at a press conference or adjusts his glasses, a signature Zhao move. His decision to wear a red or blue tie can set Weibo alight with new posts.

“He is always perfect in my heart,” Weibo user Wojiushiwoxiyue said. “Whatever he does, I support it, whatever he says, I follow it.”

The adoration of Zhao fits into China’s embrace of nationalism under leader Xi Jinping, according to experts. The reaction from global leaders, though, has been more mixed, to say the least. While Zhao’s supporters in China appreciate his unusually aggressive remarks in the usually cautious world of international diplomacy, counterparts in other countries have often been put off by the comments.

Wolf warrior

In July 2019, for example, Zhao, then the deputy chief of mission of the Chinese Embassy in Islamabad, Pakistan, wrote on Twitter in apparent response to the Chinese government persecution of Uyghurs in Xinjiang that white people didn’t go to southeast Washington, D.C., “because it’s an area for the black & Latin.”

Susan Rice, the former national security adviser to President Barack Obama, responded by calling Zhao a “racist disgrace.”

“To label someone who speaks the truth that you don’t want to hear a racist, is disgraceful & disgusting,” Zhao wrote in response, although his posts were soon after deleted, according to news reports.

In 2020, Zhao suggested that the U.S. Army might have brought the coronavirus to Wuhan, which is widely accepted as ground zero for the COVID pandemic.

And he angered Australia by posting a fake image of a soldier holding a knife against the throat of an Afghan child, a reference to an Australian Defense Force inspector general’s report on alleged war crimes committed by a small group of the country’s forces.

It’s through these types of posts that Zhao has come to be seen as a chief practitioner of a more assertive, “wolf warrior” diplomacy. The term refers to a series of nationalistic Chinese films about a special forces soldier.

Despite the international ill will Zhao has inspired, it isn’t clear that his announced move represents a demotion. Zhao may not be as much in the public eye as deputy director-general of Boundary and Ocean Affairs, but he will likely play a large role in one of the most sensitive diplomatic issues facing China -- its claims to the South China Sea.

Other countries, including Vietnam and the Philippines, say China is encroaching on territory that belongs to them.

The wife

Some online posters, however, have interpreted the switch as a slight to their hero. And they are clear on who’s to blame: Zhao’s wife, Tang Tianru, whom he met while posted in Pakistan.

“You’ve got your wish. It’s like a curse has been brought upon Zhao’s family by bringing such a worthless, untalented, and unkind beast into their home,” Cuicanchulian posted.

That level of vitriol toward Tang is actually not all that unusual within the chat group, particularly among her husband’s more fervent “girlfriend” fans.

Weibo user Youlanfeimo analyzed photos posted online of the two and declared that they didn’t really love one another. Others have criticized Tang for everything from oversharing to wearing a Patek Philippe watch, which can cost tens of thousands of dollars.

She’s also been pummeled online for appearing in public without a mask despite her vocal support for “zero-COVID” policies and for describing her life in Germany as “plain and true.” She apparently lived in the country for a time during the pandemic, despite travel restrictions.

Occasionally the anger spills over onto Zhao, as when Xiaobabeibei revealed the deep betrayal the relationship had sparked within her. “What sickens me is that your actions completely make me lose faith in love and completely destroys the impression of men in my heart,” she wrote.

A new diplomacy

Gabriele de Seta, a sociologist who has studied celebrity worship, said Zhao’s fan base may be an outgrowth of an effort by Xi’s government to use social media to promote China as it moves to challenge the United States as another global superpower.

Fan participation can help to amplify the messages the government wants to convey. As such, maintaining an active online presence is now part of a Chinese diplomat’s job description, he said.

“It’s how the ecosystem works,” de Seta said. “The fandom is actively creating more content or amplifying it.”

Every spokesperson within the Foreign Ministry has a fan base that on Chinese Weibo coalesce in Super Topic groups. The Zhao Lijian Super Topic has more than 76,000 followers and 39,000 posts. Hua Chunying, the assistant minister for Foreign Affairs, has 60,000 followers. So does Wang Wenbin, another Foreign Ministry spokesperson. Wang Yi, China’s highest-ranking diplomat, has 36,000. 

Bright star

The idea of politicians engendering heated comments on social media platforms is of course not wholly unheard of in the United States. President Donald Trump had millions of followers on Twitter – and millions of detractors -- before he was removed from the platform. (New owner Elon Musk has said he’s welcome back on.)

Trump administration spokesperson Kayleigh McEnany has a Twitter fan club with more than 20,000 followers that reposts pictures of her family and promotes her post-administration accomplishments, like the release of a new memoir.

Michelle Obama has 22 million followers. Her husband has more than 133 million. Zhao has nearly 2 million Twitter followers. 

But the fervency of Zhao’s fans seems to set them apart. 

Zhao has not been seen in public since a December media briefing, which has prompted worries he had contracted COVID (and more nasty comments directed at Tang).

Woshiweilaiyidaoguang urged Zhao to take care of himself. 

“Don’t worry too much about your work during this period, your dedicated and responsible colleagues will handle it well… A diplomatic position needs a vigorous Spokesperson Zhao, and what the fans long to see is also a shining, healthy you.”

Occasionally, a skeptical voice shows up in the chats. A post by Hanliangyishi prompted an incredulous reply and a charge of brainlessness from one commenter. 

“I’ve seen people fawn over singing stars and movie stars, but I’ve never seen anyone obsess over a government official!” the commenter said.

Hanliangyishi wasn’t having it: “Not only are you brainless, but you’re also blind! Can’t you see that Uncle Zhao is a star brighter than any other?”

This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by By Mary Zhao for RFA.

Sen. Raphael Warnock on Sunday blasted his Republican opponent Herschel Walker—represented at the Atlanta debate by an empty podium to the Democratic incumbent's left—for lying about his "well-documented history of violence" and opposing student debt relief, prescription drug price reforms, and other popular policy moves.

"I think Herschel Walker, if he were here, should tell the people of Georgia why he thinks they should pay for expensive insulin and pharmaceutical companies should be able to charge us whatever they like," Warnock said, referring to Walker's opposition to the Inflation Reduction Act, a law that includes a number of provisions aimed at lowering sky-high drug costs.

"If Mr. Walker were here, I'd ask him about this disturbing history of violence."

Walker, who refused to attend Sunday's event, has campaigned against the Inflation Reduction Act and mocked its climate investments, asking during an August campaign event, "Don't we have enough trees around here?"

Up until Sunday's debate, which Libertarian candidate Chase Oliver also attended, Warnock had largely declined to spotlight revelations about Walker's personal life, including accusations that he—a fervent opponent of reproductive rights—paid for a former girlfriend's abortion in 2009.

After The Daily Beast broke the abortion story earlier this month and Walker's son accused him of violence, Warnock told reporters that he would "let the pundits decide how they think it will impact the race."

But during Sunday's event, Warnock offered sharp criticism of Walker's past violence against his ex-wife and slammed the Republican Senate nominee for refusing to be forthright with the public.

"If Mr. Walker were here, I'd ask him about this disturbing history of violence," said Warnock. "And we're not just talking about one woman, but multiple women. He threatened to kill his ex-wife, put a gun to her head. He's threatened other women."

"When asked about that, he really hasn't given account for this kind of violence. I want to know from him why he thinks he is ready to represent the people of Georgia and if he's ready to face up to this history of violence," Warnock continued. "This race is about who's ready to represent the people of Georgia in the U.S. Senate. And by not showing up tonight for the job interview, by giving nonsensical answers about this history of violence, Herschel Walker shows he is not ready."

Warnock's victory in a 2021 runoff helped Democrats secure the narrow Senate majority that they're now hoping to retain and expand with the Georgia incumbent's help.

Despite the numerous scandals that have plagued his campaign, Walker remains close behind Warnock in the polls as the national Republican Party, GOP big-money organizations, and former President Donald Trump remain supportive of the former NFL star's candidacy.

With early voting set to begin Monday, Warnock continues to campaign heavily on policy achievements such as the Biden administration's student debt cancellation plan, which the Georgia Democrat pushed for. Applications for up to $20,000 in debt relief went live on Friday.

Walker has said he opposes student debt forgiveness, which surveys indicate is popular with the public—including those who have paid off their student debt.

"I didn't co-sign for anyone's loan and it's not right," Walker said during a debate with Warnock on Friday. "It's not fair."

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams - Breaking News & Views for the Progressive Community and was authored by Jake Johnson.

“We are relieved by today’s acquittal of Bolot Temirov, but he should never have been on trial in the first place,” said Gulnoza Said, CPJ’s Europe and Central Asia program coordinator, in New York.  “Kyrgyz authorities must stop harassing his outlet Temirov Live and conduct a transparent inquiry into allegations that police planted drugs on him as part of an effort to silence his uncompromising reporting on official corruption.”

The Sverdlovsk District Court in the capital Bishkek found Temirov not guilty and ruled that the investigation into alleged drug possession had not been conducted impartially, those reports stated. The court found Temirov – who has both Kyrgyz and Russian citizenship – guilty of using forged documents to obtain a Kyrgyz passport but did not apply a punishment as the statute of limitations had expired.

Temirov plans to appeal the conviction for the use of forged documents, his lawyer Zamir Jooshev told CPJ by phone, saying that authorities had forged documents to prosecute the case.

Police detained Temirov in a raid on the offices of YouTube-based investigative outlet Temirov Live in January; Temirov said officers planted drugs on him during the raid.

The raid came two days after Temirov Live published a video investigation into alleged corruption by family members of Kamchybek Tashiev, the head of Kyrgyzstan’s State Committee for National Security (SCNS). Temirov has repeatedly stated he believes the charges against him are retaliation for that and other reporting on Tashiev.

Subsequent investigations by Temirov Live and the global investigative network Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project, partnering with local outlet Kloop, presented numerous indications that authorities fabricated the cases against him and had long been surveilling and harassing Temirov Live staff.

CPJ emailed the Interior Ministry, the prosecutor general’s office, the SCNS, and Tashiev but did not receive any replies. Tashiev denied that Temirov’s investigations are connected to the journalist’s prosecution and stated that SCNS did not play a significant role in the authorities’ investigations into the journalist, according to reports.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by Committee to Protect Journalists.

During an abortion rights rally in Providence, Rhode Island, on Friday, Jennifer Rourke, Democratic candidate for state Senate, was punched multiple times by her Republican opponent Jeann Lugo, an off-duty Providence police officer. A video recording shows Lugo confronting Rourke before striking her in the face. Lugo dropped out of the race after being placed on paid administrative leave and charged with simple assault and disorderly conduct. We speak with Rourke about the attack, and her longtime activism for reproductive rights and her current campaign in Rhode Island. “As a senator, I will work hard to pass the Quality Abortion Care Act, and that’s to provide coverage to people on Medicaid and state employees to have the abortion care that they need,” says Rourke. She also warns that interracial and same-sex marriage rights are at risk from the Supreme Court.

This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

Donald Trump's incessant and frequently outlandish lies about the 2020 election were in the spotlight Monday as a special House committee laid out its case that the former president's falsehoods about widespread voter fraud were pivotal in catalyzing the violent attack on the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021.

Monday's hearing, the second in a series of six, featured videotaped testimony from Trump administration insiders—including former Attorney General William Barr—and campaign officials who told House investigators that they informed their boss his claims about the 2020 election were unfounded, but he nevertheless made them on the night of the November contest and in subsequent weeks, ginning up his right-wing base and raking in massive sums in donations from supporters.

"He and his allies methodically and knowingly spread untruths about the election, with the goal of overturning it."

"Today's hearing showed clearly that Trump lied. And he knew he lied," Lisa Gilbert, executive vice president of Public Citizen, said in a statement following the hearing. "He and his allies methodically and knowingly spread untruths about the election, with the goal of overturning it. The words of Trump's former campaign manager, as well as testimony from other prominent GOP representatives today, cannot be denied."

While Bill Stepien—who directed Trump's 2020 presidential campaign—backed out of his planned in-person testimony at the last minute Monday because his wife went into labor, lawmakers played a recorded deposition clip in which Stepien says he cautioned Trump against declaring victory prematurely on election night.

"It was far too early to make any calls like that. Ballots were still being counted, ballots were still going to be counted for days," Stepien told congressional investigators, noting that Trump's personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani was pushing for an election-night victory declaration.

"It was far too early to be making any proclamations like that," added Stepien, who said he told Trump that early returns would likely be more favorable to him than later ones—the so-called "red mirage" phenomenon.

Barr, who helped boost the former president's voter fraud lies as attorney general, similarly testified that "everyone understood for weeks" that in-person vote counts would potentially favor Trump early on and later ballots would favor Biden—particularly given the surge in mail-in voting amid the coronavirus pandemic.

But that didn't dissuade Trump from baselessly citing the later-counted Democratic votes as evidence of a nefarious plot to steal the election.

"He's become detached from reality if he really believes this stuff," Barr told the panel. "There was never an indication of interest in what the actual facts were."

Christina Harvey, executive director of Stand Up America, said in a statement that the House January 6 committee's second high-profile public hearing made clear that "President Trump knew he lost the 2020 election—his own attorney general, lawyers, and campaign manager testified that they told him so."

"Today, we even heard testimony from an electoral expert who was a Fox News political editor on election night 2020 that 'Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr.' was the clear winner of the 2020 presidential election," said Harvey, pointing to Chris Stirewalt, part of the Fox team that drew the ire of Trump supporters by calling Arizona for Biden on election night.

Stirewalt, whom Fox fired just months after the presidential election, said during his testimony that "you're better off to play the Powerball than to have that come in," referring to the Trump team's floundering multistate legal effort to overturn the election.

Harvey noted Monday that "instead of accepting his loss, Trump planned, promoted, and paid for a criminal conspiracy to overturn the will of American voters."

"He peddled bogus claims of election fraud, swindled his supporters out of millions of dollars, and encouraged them to break the law in an effort to block the peaceful transition of power," she added. "It's clear we cannot allow Trump or his allies to evade accountability for the dangerous lies and actions that continue to put our democracy in peril."

Former Philadelphia City Commissioner Al Schmidt, a Republican who helped investigate the Trump team's claims of voter fraud in Pennsylvania, told the House panel during in-person testimony Monday that local officials took seriously every claim of wrongdoing "no matter how fantastical," including Giuliani's baseless assertion that more than 8,000 "dead people" voted by mail in the battleground state.

"Not only was there not evidence of 8,000 dead voters voting in Pennsylvania," said Schmidt, "there wasn't evidence of eight."

Khalif Ali, executive director of Common Cause Pennsylvania, applauded Schmidt for his testimony "and for his continued willingness to speak the truth in the face of lies and harrowing threats" from Trump supporters.

"The Big Lie was just that—a lie," said Ali. "We look forward to the planners and perpetrators of the attack on the Capitol on January 6 being held responsible. We also look forward to accountability for the people who have threatened and harassed election workers and officials."

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams - Breaking News & Views for the Progressive Community and was authored by Jake Johnson.

Health workers in Aotearoa New Zealand are thanking Director-General of Health Dr Ashley Bloomfield for his work stopping the ailing health system from collapsing in the covid-19 pandemic — and for saving lives.

They say they can relate to him needing a rest.

Dr Bloomfield leaves his job in July, stepping down 12 months early after the huge stress of the past two years.

• LISTEN TO RNZ MORNING REPORT: ‘We have had the best outcome in the pandemic in the world and that’s down to good leadership’ – Professor Rod Jackson
• A salute to Dr Ashley Bloomfield from a bitter and ungrateful nation of moaners and feral lunatics
• Other NZ covid-19 outbreak reports

There are few public servants who have had the same degree of fame.

For two years he has been a regular in the living rooms of the country, particularly in the first lockdown when almost everyone was home turning in every day to hear news of the covid-19 threat.

Emergency doctor and chair of the Council of Medical Colleges Dr John Bonning said Dr Bloomfield had to step up to communicate with the public in a role that would normally have been done by politicians.

He exuded trust and had stellar public health credentials, as a medical doctor who had worked for the World Health Organisation and headed a district health board (DHB), Dr Bonning said.

Engaged and communicated
He engaged and communicated very regularly with health worker groups.

“He felt the pain, he felt the pressure along with the rest of us,” he said.

Frontline GP and chair of the Pacific GP Network Api Talemaitoga said the country was lucky to have a director-general with top public health skills when they were needed most.

That meant Dr Bloomfield understood the practicalities of what had to be done — like limiting numbers, mass masking, vaccination programmes and the importance of communication, he said.

Covid-19 Minister Chris Hipkins said Dr Bloomfield’s advice had been at the heart of the government’s decision making and he “had saved thousands if not tens of thousands of lives”.

But not everything was perfect under his tenure. There was a blunder that meant high-risk border workers were not being routinely tested as promised, criticisms about spread in MIQ facilities, delays at times over testing, and a slow vaccine rollout for Māori.

Delays over Māori health autonomy
Te Whānau O Waiapareira chief executive John Tamihere said the director-general had done a decent job but he was uncomfortable with the “idolatry” that had sprung up around him.

He had called Dr Bloomfield out over the past two years on issues like the delays giving Māori health groups autonomy to look after their communities, and of the ministry’s initial failure to hand over health data.

It would be mean-spirited to criticise Dr Bloomfield on his way out, he said.

He was a highly-paid public servant who had done a decent job, particularly for mainstream New Zealand, but his copybook was not completely clean, Tamihere said.

“But … Dr Bloomfield will go down as leading a great result when compared with other nations,” he said.

Pacific health groups had shared the concerns about not initially being able to lead the response for their communities, who bore the brunt of early waves of the virus.

Privy to the big picture
GP Dr Api Talemaitoga said while that was frustrating, he and his colleagues on the frontline were not always privy to the big picture Dr Bloomfield was dealing with “in terms of the whole country, the ministry, and his political masters”.

Senior emergency doctor Dr Kate Allan represents the College of Emergency Medicine and said Dr Bloomfield inherited a “broken health system” but led a response that stopped it from collapsing under the weight of covid-19.

“I take my hat off to him. I think it’s been an amazing job and an incredibly difficult job and I can’t imagine how tired he must be,” she said.

Dr Bloomfield is, in turn, quick to credit people like Dr Allan who worked on the frontline to battle the virus.

‘Relentless’
The director-general of health was one of three top health chiefs to announce their resignations yesterday.

Director of Public Health Caroline McElnay and Deputy Director of Public Health Niki Stefanogiannis are also leaving the ministry.

Health Minister Andrew Little told RNZ Morning Report they had been at the forefront of the covid-19 response and had worked tirelessly. “As Ashley said to me in the weekend, he is just exhausted.”

Thousands of front line health workers had done a phenomenal job and would be feeling the same after two years of the pandemic, he said.

There was still work to be done in terms of the rebuild and the nationwide health restructure “because we’ve got to create that extra capacity.”

“I am committed to filling the gaps that are there.”

‘Saved thousands of lives’
Epidemiologist Professor Rod Jackson said the key leadership group including Dr Bloomfield, the prime minister, senior ministers and others “saved thousands of lives, it saved our health services”.

“The work that they did over the past couple of years, it’s just relentless.” Jackson said. “I’m amazed that they lasted so long.”

All three were there at the most important stage but it was “a bit worrying” they were leaving. “The next phase is going to be messy, it’s going to be more political.”

However, New Zealand had “fantastic” vaccines and the knowledge on how to slow down and contain a pandemic.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by APR editor.

This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by By Jane Tang.

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has entered its 12th day as civilians across Ukraine are shelled while trying to flee for safety. More than 1.5 million refugees have now left Ukraine in what the United Nations is calling the fastest-growing refugee crisis since World War II. We speak to Kateryna Ivanova, who ran a dental clinic with her husband just outside of Kyiv, about the toll of war on daily life as medical professionals risk their lives by staying behind to meet the shortage. “We cannot work as a dental office at the moment, but I really want to be of use for my neighborhood and for my country, so I’m doing what I can,” says Ivanova.

This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.