A series of demonstrations involving young people across Europe has developed into a wider political phenomenon, as students and younger workers challenge governments over living costs, public services and their expectations for the future.
Protests have taken place in France, Belgium, Italy, Albania and several other countries, while a student-led movement in Serbia has achieved a particularly consequential political outcome.
In Serbia, nearly two years of demonstrations culminated in a parliamentary election victory for a student-backed political movement, ending the electoral dominance of President Aleksandar Vučić’s Serbian Progressive Party.
The outcome, reported by Reuters on 29 October, has given the movement a prospective parliamentary majority, although final certification of the election results remains outstanding.
Elsewhere, protesters have secured fewer immediate political concessions.
Nevertheless, their campaigns share a recurring concern: that conventional channels of political representation have failed to address problems affecting younger generations.
The grievances vary between countries, but housing affordability, insecure employment, education funding and living costs feature prominently.
A European Parliament youth survey published in February 2025 found that 40 per cent of respondents aged 16 to 30 considered rising prices and the cost of living a priority for the EU.
Almost one-third identified economic conditions and job creation as a principal concern, while education also ranked prominently.
More recent figures illustrate the financial pressures confronting younger Europeans.
According to Eurostat data published in June 2026, 24.2 per cent of EU residents aged 15 to 29 were at risk of poverty or social exclusion in 2025.
That compares with 20.9 per cent for the population as a whole.
These figures do not establish that economic hardship is the cause of every protest. They do, however, provide context for the dissatisfaction expressed by participants.
In Brussels, demonstrations have focused partly on the condition of schools and the availability of educational resources.
Students have criticised deteriorating facilities, shortages of teachers and government decisions affecting education funding.
Nineteen-year-old student Maya Gourdel told Reuters that peaceful attempts to draw attention to these concerns had attracted little response from political leaders.
Her account reflects a wider frustration among demonstrators who believe that public attention has increased only after protests became more disruptive.
Belgium’s education system is organised primarily at community level, meaning decisions concerning funding, staffing and school infrastructure are divided among different authorities.
The demands of protesters consequently involve both national political debates and decisions taken by regional and community institutions.
In France, demonstrations concerning the cost of living and public services have involved students alongside trade unions and other organisations.
Recent protests have also been accompanied by violence, including attacks on commercial premises and confrontations with police.
The involvement of younger demonstrators does not mean that every participant supports violent tactics.
Rather, the events illustrate how movements with economic and political grievances can encompass groups with different objectives and methods.
Italy has experienced similar tensions, particularly in Milan, where demonstrations against rising living costs have followed earlier episodes of unrest.
The Italian government has faced pressure over household expenditure, wages and the affordability of essential services.
These disputes have developed against a background of high energy prices and concerns about the broader economic outlook.
In Albania, student-led protests have challenged Prime Minister Edi Rama’s government over alleged corruption, limited employment opportunities and education standards.
Demonstrations that began in Tirana have spread to other cities.
On 29 October, opposition lawmakers disrupted proceedings in parliament following weeks of protests and confrontations between demonstrators and police.
The government has offered measures intended to address economic concerns while condemning violence associated with the demonstrations.
For many younger Albanians, employment prospects are closely connected to the possibility of emigrating.
The perception that professional opportunities depend on political connections or personal networks has become another source of dissatisfaction.
However, the Albanian movement cannot be treated as identical to protests in EU member states, given the country’s different economic conditions and political institutions.
Serbia provides the most substantial example of youth-led protest translating into electoral change.
The movement emerged after the collapse of a railway station canopy in Novi Sad in November 2024, which killed 16 people and prompted allegations of corruption and negligence.
Students organised prolonged demonstrations demanding accountability and institutional reform.
Their campaign subsequently developed into an electoral challenge to the governing Serbian Progressive Party.
Preliminary results from the October 2026 parliamentary election indicate that the student-backed list has secured a majority of seats.
However, electoral certification and the formation of a new government remain incomplete.
The movement now faces a different challenge: converting protest demands into administrative decisions, legislation and economic policy.
Its success will be judged not only by the election result but also by its ability to govern.
It would be misleading to describe Europe’s demonstrations as a unified political campaign.
Participants have different objectives, national circumstances and ideological positions.
Some demand increased public expenditure, while others concentrate on corruption, political accountability or employment opportunities.
What connects them is a recurring concern about whether established institutions respond adequately to younger citizens.
The political consequences will depend on whether demonstrations produce lasting organisations, influence elections or secure changes in government policy.
Serbia suggests that student mobilisation can translate into substantial political change.
For governments elsewhere in Europe, the question is whether the grievances driving these movements can be addressed through existing political institutions before dissatisfaction generates further unrest.
In a July 16 letter to California Secretary of State Shirley Weber, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) said a "preliminary review" suggested there "may be as many as 190,832 non-citizens registered to vote" in her state. Weber was skeptical—for good reason, it turned out. Three months later, the Trump administration reduced that estimate by nearly 90 percent, saying about 20,000 "likely noncitizens" had received California vote-by-mail ballots.
The Justice Department gave Weber and Dean Logan, Los Angeles County's top election official, 48 hours to determine whether any of the people on the government's list were in fact citizens. Otherwise, it said, Weber and Logan should segregate those ballots and refrain from processing them until citizenship could be verified. After Weber and Logan declined to comply with the Justice Department's demands, it asked a federal judge for a temporary restraining order (TRO) requiring them to do so—a request that he rejected in a scathing opinion on Wednesday.
"Never before in American history has the federal government, on the eve of an election, sought to coerce a state and local government to abandon their own Constitutional elections procedures and bend to the will of the Executive Branch," writes U.S. District Judge David O. Carter, a Bill Clinton appointee. "This request violates longstanding constitutional principles mandating that states have control over their elections. If Plaintiff's last-minute request for relief were granted, either party could create chaos for their own political purposes to disrupt the election process. Over 20,000 registered Californians would potentially lose the right that generations of Americans have fought to preserve."
The Justice Department delivered its list of "likely noncitizens" to Logan three weeks before Election Day. At that point, Los Angeles County already had sent ballots to 5.9 million voters and processed 331,000 of them. Logan said he was "legally prohibited" from doing what the Justice Department wanted because it had failed to explain the methodology used to compile the list, raising the possibility that citizens would be denied their voting rights.
There was ample reason for that concern. On July 17, DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin averred that "as many as" 15,903 noncitizens were registered to vote in Nevada. The following month, when the DHS submitted a list of allegedly illegal voters to Nevada election officials, the number had fallen to 185—99 percent lower than Mullin's original figure. It turned out that every one of those 185 voters was a U.S. citizen.
"DHS has identified over 250,000 potential non-citizens illegally registered to vote" in California, New Jersey, Nevada, and Pennsylvania, Mullin said in July. He was echoing President Donald Trump, who for years has grossly exaggerated the extent of illegal voting by noncitizens, often in service of his own vanity.
Trump has repeatedly claimed, for example, that he would have won the popular vote in 2016 but for "the millions of people who voted illegally," and in January 2024 he warned that noncitizen voters "could very well affect the next election." In a speech the night before Mullin's announcement, Trump asserted that the DHS had "identified approximately 278,000 non-citizens who are registered to vote in federal elections."
Judging from Nevada's experience, the actual number may be closer to zero. It is hard to say, because the methods used by the DHS remain hazy.
In the California case, Carter says, the DHS "purchased a voter file that appeared to reflect 'the actual voter rolls in California, that as of August 2025, may be used for the 2026 federal election.'" It "then 'enhance[d]' the voter data through a 'reliable third-party data analytics'" and used records maintained by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) to find "an internal USCIS immigration number" that "may" correspond to each registered voter. "The matches are scored," Carter notes, "because 'the resulting data may be incomplete, outdated, or mismatched.'"
The DHS "then compared the potential identity matches to Department of State and Social Security Administration data to screen out U.S. citizens," Carter adds. "In the next step, a confidence level was assigned (where a high score supported a 'strong identity link') and a manual review was conducted for each match to 'determine which registered voters'" were "likely to be aliens." Then came "a 'quality review' to identify issues such as 'duplicate entries' and 'incomplete records,'" followed by "an 'enrichment process' that utilized 'additional unique identifiers' to 'improv[e]' the matching process."
The government did not initially specify the source of the "reliable third-party data analytics." But it later revealed that "the third-party platform it relied on was
Lexis Nexis," Carter notes. "It remains unknown how Lexis Nexis performed its analysis, such as how it 'linked names to Social Security numbers not available on the California public voter file.' Plaintiff likewise did not explain what its 'enrichment process' entailed or how it occurred. Plaintiff also provided 'no error rates' or 'validation against a reliable benchmark' that would enable a determination of the accuracy of its findings. Omissions of this critical information prevent an evaluation of Plaintiff's procedure, including how Plaintiff reduced its initial claim of nearly 200,000 alleged noncitizens to 20,000 individuals."
Potential sources of error include conflating people with similar or identical names and outdated records that do not reflect recent naturalization. Because it is unclear how the DHS tried to address such problems, it is not surprising that Weber and Logan did not want to rely on the Trump administration's list, especially given its pattern of dramatically reducing the putative number of illegally registered voters.
"It is well-documented that matching voter registration records with data from other
administrative databases 'presents numerous challenges,'" Carter writes. And given the potential for error, he says, "Plaintiff's allegations are not credible." He adds that the TRO sought by the Justice Department "would likely lead to voter disenfranchisement" and "would create a significant administrative burden for Defendants, leading to chaos and upending the election."
In any event, Carter says, the Trump administration does not have legal standing to seek such an order. The government's main argument was that California officials, by refusing to segregate ballots from people on its list, were interfering with its enforcement of 18 USC 611, which makes it a misdemeanor for "any alien to vote" in a federal election.
"Defendants do not 'interfere' with the United States' ability to enforce Section 611 by
administering an ongoing election in accordance with established State and Federal law, rather than assuming new obligations pursuant to a federal criminal law they are not responsible for enforcing," Carter writes. It is well established that state officials have no obligation to enforce federal law, he notes, and that they cannot be "commandeered" to do so.
Nor does the federal government need such assistance to enforce Section 611. "The very same day the United States filed its TRO [application] in this Court, the Department of Justice brought charges against 28 individuals" in California under that law, Carter notes. It is not clear how many of those defendants, who represent 0.0001 percent of California's 23 million registered voters, actually cast ballots. But "if fraudulent voting occurs," Carter says, "the United States should uphold the law and bring additional Section 611 indictments against those non-citizens it believes actually voted illegally in the current—or a prior—election."
The Constitution gives states the primary responsibility for conducting elections, subject to explicit limits imposed by Congress. But the Justice Department's actions in this case "are indicative of a broad, ongoing pattern of attempted election interference by federal officials," Carter writes. The department "has filed at least thirty-one lawsuits in federal district courts across the country seeking complete voter rolls from the States. Out of the twenty-six decided cases, the DOJ has prevailed in precisely zero."
In addition to "its failed attempt to seek State voter rolls," Carter notes, "the United States has also requested that States act based on the Executive's own lists." But "sister district courts across the country have cast doubt" on the reliability of those lists for the same reasons that Carter cites in this case.
On October 23, the Justice Department "sent letters to every county in California requiring them to set aside the votes of alleged non-citizens," Carter notes. "The letters stated that election officials 'risk significant federal scrutiny' if they failed to comply with the Government's demands. The government reiterated its threat in open court yesterday, stating that State and County election officials who do not comply with their letter risk federal charges under 18 U.S.C. § 2, which criminalizes aiding and abetting the commission of a criminal offense. The court reiterates what it said yesterday: these threats must stop."
The post Trump's Claims About Noncitizen Voting Are 'Not Credible,' a Federal Judge Says in a Scathing Decision appeared first on Reason Magazine.
Three legal complaints filed with the Argentine justice system call for an investigation into President Javier Milei, Foreign Minister Pablo Quirno, Security Minister Alejandra Monteoliva, and advisor Santiago Caputo, alleging their involvement in the escape of Brazilian Senator Flávio Bolsonaro. The filings cite potential offenses including concealment, human trafficking, the misuse of public resources, and facilitating the illegal stay of a fugitive from Brazilian justice.
RELATED:
Flávio Bolsonaro Flees to US, Claims Brazil Presidency
The complaints—brought by Left Front leader Gabriel Solano and Socialist lawmaker Esteban Paulón—are being processed in the Comodoro Py courts; the first has been assigned to Judge María Eugenia Capuchetti. Meanwhile, lawmaker Marcela Pagano filed her complaint in the federal courts of Misiones, where Judge Marcelo Cardoso is presiding.
Pagano argued that the case should examine a potential crime of “illegal human trafficking across national borders,” an offense aggravated by the involvement of government officials. The legislator warned that these actions could compromise the Argentine state’s sovereignty regarding “border control, the fulfillment of its criminal cooperation obligations with a Mercosur member state, and the integrity of federal agencies.”
Cases Against Flávio Bolsonaro
In Brazil, Flávio Bolsonaro has been under investigation for alleged money laundering, corruption, and violations of foreign exchange regulations—all linked to the financing of Dark Horse, a film about his father, former President Jair Bolsonaro. The investigation connects him to banker Daniel Vorcaro, who is accused of fraud; the senator allegedly solicited millions in funding from him for the film. He is also implicated in a separate case involving money laundering through online gambling platforms.
A few days ago, Brazilian Supreme Court Justice Flávio Dino ordered an investigation into whether there was foreign support—specifically involving funds from the United States—for the presidential campaign of Bolsonaro, who was defeated by Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva.
Brazilian senator Flavio Bolsonaro has fled to the United States and declared himself Brazil’s “true elected president” after losing the presidential election to Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva by 4.4 million votes. He is challenging the official result from abroad.
— teleSUR English (@telesurenglish) October 29, 2026
In a manifesto… pic.twitter.com/ilZxhozka4
Change in the official account
Solano’s complaint highlights a shift in the Argentine government’s account. After initially denying that Bolsonaro had entered the country, the National Migration Directorate acknowledged at 2:00 a.m. that the senator had crossed the border on October 27 via the Tancredo Neves International Bridge, using an Italian passport.
Although the ruling administration claimed the documentation was “valid,” Bolsonaro’s passport was actually suspended, and he faced ongoing criminal proceedings, including charges related to money laundering. Former Migration Director Florencia Carignano noted that the government made a political decision to allow his entry, despite these legal proceedings.
The filings also detail the alleged use of state resources. According to the complaints, agents from the Airport Security Police (PSA) escorted Bolsonaro, who arrived at the airport in a vehicle bearing Argentine diplomatic license plates.
Additionally, an investigation is underway regarding the logistics surrounding a private Gulfstream G400 aircraft operated by the company Baires Fly. The firm is linked to Sergio Mastropietro—who is currently facing prosecution in a corruption case involving the National Disability Agency (ANDIS)—and has ties to drug trafficker Federico Machado. The aircraft reportedly remained in Puerto Iguazú for over 24 hours without authorization from the National Civil Aviation Administration (ANAC), with an estimated cost of $140,000, arranged through a broker in the United States.
Constitutional law expert Andrés Gil Domínguez pointed out that Emergency Decree (DNU) 366/25 establishes that “failure to disclose the existence of a criminal record” serves as grounds for denying entry. The expert highlighted the irregularity of a foreign national—who was the subject of multiple judicial warrants—being able to travel through the country while circumventing the controls established by Law 25.871.
The complaints call for charges of abuse of authority and breach of public official duties. Furthermore, they request the preservation of surveillance camera footage as well as immigration and airport records, in order to determine the criminal liability of those involved.
One of the nation’s strangest laws is primed for reform in a new bill from Rep. Steve Cohen, D-Tenn., that would bring a dose of logic to federal drug policy.
That unusual law — Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch called it a “curious animal” — is the Controlled Substance Analogue Enforcement Act. Known as the Analogue Act for short, it’s part of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986, which was rushed into law ahead of that year’s midterm elections by a bipartisan Congress and Republican President Ronald Reagan. Passed in the shadow of high-profile deaths, including that of basketball star Len Bias, the Anti-Drug Abuse Act brought mandatory minimum sentences and a vast disparity in punishment for crack and powder cocaine offenses, respectively.
The Analogue Act separately sought to solve the problem of so-called designer drugs. The problem, as the authorities saw it, was that the law was too specific. Cocaine, heroin and other drugs were illegal because they were listed under the Nixon-era Controlled Substances Act’s drug schedules. But nothing was stopping underground chemists from tinkering with listed substances to produce new ones that the law didn’t capture. Congress could ban novel drugs as they appeared on the illicit market, but that took time and would only apply going forward. Bad actors went unpunished in the meantime, so the government thinking went.
As I laid out in my book, “Bizarro,” on the inside story of the Analogue Act and one of the most peculiar cases it spawned, law enforcement was tired of playing catchup in the cat-and-mouse game. It wanted to go on offense. The result was the Analogue Act, which expanded federal drug law to say that any substances “substantially similar” to already illegal ones like cocaine, heroin and others on the most restricted drug schedules were illegal, too.
In solving one problem, the Analogue Act confronted another: the Constitution.
Due process means that people need notice of what’s legal, so they can live their lives accordingly. Yet the act’s substantial-similarity test outlawed a potentially infinite number of substances with a vague, unscientific standard. Whether that standard is satisfied in a given case depends on whether prosecutors can convince juries that one substance is “substantially similar” to another. The ambiguous test has led to conflicting verdicts in different cases involving the same substance.
Even the Drug Enforcement Administration’s chemists haven’t always agreed among themselves about which substances qualify as analogues. If the government’s own experts can’t agree about what’s legal, how can people subject to the law be expected to know?
Judges appointed by Republican and Democratic presidents alike have questioned the act’s constitutionality. Notable among them is Gorsuch. Before President Donald Trump appointed him to the Supreme Court in 2017, the jurist called the act a “curious animal” in a 2015 ruling when he was on the Denver-based appeals court. Gorsuch deemed the “substantially similar” test’s meaning an “open question,” as he wondered whether it gives citizens fair notice.
But even since he joined the high court, the justices have refused to consider a petition attacking the Analogue Act. The court’s lack of interest effectively has left the matter with Congress.
Enter the new bill announced by Cohen, who has criticized the drug war during his nearly two decades in the House. The Democrat isn’t running for re-election this year, after Tennessee Republicans passed a congressional map, backed by recent Supreme Court rulings, that splintered his Memphis base in what was the state’s only majority-Black district.
Cohen’s “Public Health and Research Reforms in Controlled Substances Act” would, as its name suggests, shift drug law from a punitive approach to one centered on public health, with a revamped scheduling system, scientific research promotion and other measures.
Its analogue amendment wouldn’t overturn the constitutionally suspect “substantially similar” test, but it would address one of its ridiculous aspects.
To understand the fix, it’s necessary to know what the act says currently. It has three sections that define what a controlled substance analogue is, according to its 1) structure, 2) effect and 3) represented effect. It defines an analogue as a substance:
i) the chemical structure of which is substantially similar to the chemical structure of a controlled substance in schedule I or II;
ii) which has a stimulant, depressant, or hallucinogenic effect on the central nervous system that is substantially similar to or greater than the stimulant, depressant, or hallucinogenic effect on the central nervous system of a controlled substance in schedule I or II; or
iii) with respect to a particular person, which such person represents or intends to have a stimulant, depressant, or hallucinogenic effect on the central nervous system that is substantially similar to or greater than the stimulant, depressant, or hallucinogenic effect on the central nervous system of a controlled substance in schedule I or II.
Beyond the vagueness at the heart of the term “substantially similar,” a key issue is the language in between each section. There’s an “or” in between the second and third sections on effect and representation, but there’s nothing in between the first and second sections on structure and effect. A draft version of the 1986 law had an “and” in between those first two sections, which would have clearly meant that, to qualify as an analogue, at least a substantially similar chemical structure was required.
It’s unclear why the “and” didn’t make it into the final version of the Analogue Act. But its omission has prompted an outlier legal argument that prosecutors only have to prove one of the three prongs: structure, effect or representation of effect. The consequences of that reading are extreme, because if only representation is required (regardless of what the substance actually is or does), then people can serve decades in prison for selling something that isn’t similar to a scheduled drug at all.
What an appeals court called an “absurd” example of that phenomenon arose in a prosecution against people who sold a mixture of candle wax and flour under the pretense that it was crack/cocaine. “The treatment of candle wax and flour, no matter how it is marketed, as a schedule I controlled substance is an ‘absurd’ result of the kind our canons of construction instruct us to avoid,” the Philadelphia-based court said in a 2003 case, reversing a district court that ruled otherwise.
Yet the concern over that absurdity was not relegated to history. Just a few years ago, a San Francisco-based appeals court suggested that the act could still be used to achieve such an outlandish outcome. Even the government wasn’t pressing for that aggressive interpretation, so the court didn’t feel bound to embrace it in that case.
But if the Analogue Act stays on the books as is, courts could keep reaching “absurd” results in future cases.
Cohen’s proposed legislation would prevent that absurdity by adding the “and.” Had it been there at the time of the wax-and-flour case, the district court would have had to side with the defense, because even if the mixture was marketed as crack, its chemical structure was not substantially similar to crack by any reasonable measure.
To be sure, the new bill’s analogue amendment wouldn’t solve the due process problem inherent in the “substantially similar” test; that could probably only be done by overturning the act entirely. Still, the bill would bring a dose of logic that has been missing for four decades.
Whether that modest measure has the votes to become law with today’s Congress and White House is, as Gorsuch put it in 2015, an “open question.” But even if this bill doesn’t pass, it’s an important question to keep asking.
Subscribe to the Deadline: Legal newsletter for expert analysis on the top legal stories of the week, including updates from the Supreme Court and developments in the Trump administration’s legal cases.
The post Neil Gorsuch called this law a ‘curious animal.’ A new bill would tame it. appeared first on MS NOW.
Ministry of Justice figures show recalls rose 27% in year to June despite emergency measures to ease overcrowding
More people were recalled to jails in England and Wales in the first half of this year than were released, despite government efforts to reduce the prison population, according to figures released on Thursday.
Ministry of Justice (MoJ) data shows that 12,338 people were recalled to custody between the beginning of April and the end of June, while 12,278 people were released. It continues a trend set between January and March, when 13,193 people were returned to prison and 12,977 released.
Continue reading...
© Photograph: Tolga Akmen/EPA
© Photograph: Tolga Akmen/EPA
© Photograph: Tolga Akmen/EPA
À rebours des lectures qui opposent mécaniquement État de droit et raison d'État, cette enquête montre comment les autorités américaines font du droit un outil de puissance. À partir d'une recherche fouillée portant sur le ministère de la justice, le politiste Mark Corcoral analyse comment l'exécutif s'affranchit parfois des principes fondamentaux : dignité humaine, respect de la vie privée, présomption d'innocence… La démonstration met en lumière le rôle singulier de l'attorney general, à la fois ministre, avocat-conseil de l'État fédéral et procureur général. Cette position lui permet d'imposer des pratiques controversées (quand elles ne sont pas illégales), de l'extension de la surveillance après le 11-Septembre à la torture de personnes suspectées de terrorisme. Le livre éclaire aussi comment les procureurs font de la justice un instrument de sécurité nationale, notamment en facilitant l'inculpation de cyberattaquants supposés servir des États adverses. Une contribution stimulante à l'étude des rapports entre droit, sécurité et puissance.
PUF, Paris, 2026, 224 pages, 25 euros.
Tel-Aviv n'est pas seul coupable des crimes commis depuis trois ans. Il appartient aux peuples de se saisir de la question, en examinant les implications de leurs gouvernements. Au Royaume-Uni, un tribunal citoyen donne l'exemple. L'écrivaine Sally Rooney s'y est associée. Elle signe cette postface du livre « The Gaza Tribunal : Britain's Complicity in Genocide », issu des audiences.
Le génocide à Gaza constitue un nouveau chapitre dévastateur dans l'histoire sans fin de la violence infligée au peuple palestinien. Depuis 2023, nous sommes nombreux, en Europe et ailleurs, à nous sentir impuissants face à une telle horreur. Nos propres États, nos propres élus ont totalement failli à leur devoir de prévenir le génocide. Mais nous n'avons pas toujours clairement saisi en quoi consistait, dans le détail, cette faillite. Après tout, le conflit se déroule loin de nos frontières. Il ne semble pas y avoir de levier facile à actionner pour faire cesser cette violence effroyable. Certains de nos dirigeants ont fait des déclarations qui pouvaient sembler empathiques sur les droits humains et le droit international. Dans l'ensemble, les médias dominants n'aident pas à comprendre ce que nos gouvernements devraient ou même pourraient réellement faire d'autre. Pourtant, nous suspectons que nos dirigeants politiques se sont, d'une manière ou d'une autre, montrés incapables d'agir.
Le Royaume-Uni a fourni des armes utilisées pour massacrer des civils
Sur ce point, nous nous trompons. Ce que le tribunal britannique pour Gaza établit indubitablement, c'est que le Royaume-Uni n'a pas été incapable d'agir. Au contraire, le gouvernement britannique a œuvré de manière décisive, en mobilisant d'importants moyens militaires, politiques, diplomatiques et économiques pour faciliter le génocide à Gaza. Comme ce livre (1) le démontre, le Royaume-Uni a fourni des armes utilisées pour massacrer en masse des civils ; opéré des vols de surveillance dans le ciel de Gaza et partagé les renseignements issus de ces missions avec l'armée israélienne ; contribué à entraîner des officiers israéliens ; garanti à des personnalités militaires israéliennes une immunité spéciale lors de visites ; défendu publiquement la famine imposée à des millions de civils ; travaillé activement à bloquer et à saper le système juridique international afin qu'Israël n'ait pas à rendre des comptes, etc.
Si le gouvernement britannique s'est ainsi rendu complice, ce n'est pas à la demande de son électorat, mais, au contraire, en dépit de l'opposition continue de l'opinion publique. Les sondages montrent que près de deux tiers des Britanniques sont favorables à un embargo complet sur les ventes d'armes à Israël. Des centaines de milliers de personnes sont descendues dans les rues, donnant corps à ce que The Guardian a qualifié de « plus grand mouvement de protestation dans l'histoire récente du Royaume-Uni ». Comme ce fut le cas lors du mouvement antiguerre de 2003, certains ont même estimé qu'ils devaient passer à l'action directe et ont tenté de perturber la chaîne d'approvisionnement militaire en sabotant des usines d'armement, des avions et des armes. En réaction, le gouvernement du Royaume-Uni n'a pas pris ses distances avec l'État israélien mais avec le peuple britannique, adoptant des mesures d'exception pour criminaliser la protestation pacifique, restreindre la liberté d'expression et traiter la désobéissance civile comme du terrorisme.
L'implication du Royaume-Uni dans le génocide a commencé sous un gouvernement conservateur et s'est poursuivie, sans interruption, jusqu'à aujourd'hui, sous l'actuelle majorité travailliste. Face à une opposition massive, les deux partis se sont entendus pour priver l'électorat britannique de toute influence sur les relations entre Londres et Tel-Aviv. Les élections ont été arrangées de manière à n'offrir aucune alternative. Les manifestations pacifiques ont été ignorées. Les protestations plus perturbatrices ont été rudement criminalisées. Même aujourd'hui, la complicité perdure. Le génocide à Gaza a tout à la fois révélé et accéléré la détérioration de la vie démocratique au Royaume-Uni. Et, si ce déclin n'est pas stoppé — si les partis dirigeants, qui se sont entendus pour aller contre la volonté du peuple et ont mis toute critique hors la loi, ne subissent pas les conséquences de leurs actes —, alors tous les aspects de la vie civique s'en trouveront affectés. C'est la démocratie elle-même qui est en jeu.
L'absence de toute volonté politique de s'opposer aux États-Unis
Ce livre établit le rôle particulier qu'a joué Londres dans la facilitation des crimes de guerre commis à Gaza. Mais le tribunal traite aussi, plus largement, de l'intégration de l'État israélien au sein d'un vaste réseau de soutien international. Au moment où ces lignes sont écrites, par exemple, chaque nation européenne viole certains de ses devoirs internationaux définis par la convention pour la prévention et la répression du crime de génocide — y compris les alliés supposés de la Palestine comme l'Irlande. De telles enquêtes sont essentielles pour établir la nature de la complicité des États et faire connaître au public ces faits capitaux. Le tribunal britannique pour Gaza doit servir de déclencheur et susciter une prise de conscience nationale au Royaume-Uni, mais aussi des investigations publiques ailleurs, débouchant sur la mise en cause de responsables.
Le calcul qui a conduit tant de nations prospères, tout autour du globe, à faciliter le génocide est, en dernière instance, politique. En ce qui concerne la fourniture illégale de composants militaires pour les avions de combat israéliens, ce livre l'affirme clairement : la « véritable raison » pour laquelle l'approvisionnement a continué est l'« absence de toute volonté politique de s'opposer aux États-Unis ». Israël, en soi, n'est en définitive qu'une petite nation, agressive et diplomatiquement toxique, du Proche-Orient ; ce n'est qu'en tant que prolongement de la puissance américaine qu'il jouit d'un soutien international si extraordinaire. L'absence, en Europe et ailleurs, de volonté politique d'affronter les États-Unis est, bien sûr, une forme de lâcheté, mais il s'agit d'une lâcheté calculée. Guigner les faveurs d'une superpuissance mondiale a certes quelque chose d'humiliant, mais on en attend des rétributions. Et c'est parce qu'ils espéraient ces rétributions que des États ont, aux quatre coins du monde, choisi non seulement de détourner les yeux d'un génocide, mais aussi, bien souvent, d'y prendre part.
Des États comme le Royaume-Uni ont trahi leur propre peuple et bafoué le droit international. Et pour quel résultat ? Le régime israélien, enhardi par les complicités internationales dont il bénéficiait, a envahi le Liban, tuant des milliers de personnes et provoquant le déplacement forcé de plus d'un million d'habitants. Dans le même temps, le tandem américano-israélien a déclenché une guerre illégale contre l'Iran, conduisant à la fermeture du détroit d'Ormuz et à une crise de l'énergie catastrophique à l'échelle de la planète. Des pays comme le Royaume-Uni — qui ont docilement permis la perpétration de crimes atroces pour s'attirer les bonnes grâces des États-Unis — sont maintenant confrontés au chaos économique à l'intérieur de leurs frontières et à une dynamique de violence incontrôlable au Proche-Orient. Le pari incroyablement cruel des Européens s'est révélé perdant. Et nous n'avons même pas commencé à en mesurer les conséquences.
Entrer dans un rapport différent à notre avenir
La Palestine représente peut-être le point de contradiction le plus aigu du système géopolitique mondial. La violence inhérente aux rapports impériaux — qui, ailleurs, est souvent disséminée et exercée par l'intermédiaire d'organisations et d'agences non étatiques — se trouve ici mise à nu et étalée aux yeux du monde entier. Et, de même que la question palestinienne révèle, mieux qu'aucune autre, le gouffre qui sépare, dans le « Nord global », l'opinion publique et l'action de l'État, elle fait apparaître l'écart abyssal entre les institutions du droit international et une réalité géopolitique faite d'apartheid, de tortures, de déplacements forcés, d'assassinats et de génocide. Ces contradictions, qui atteignent en Palestine leur niveau le plus suffocant, s'avivent désormais partout. La fragilité du système alimentaire mondial, la domination politique accablante des industries militaires et pétrolières, les inégalités galopantes qui ont sapé la vie de la collectivité, l'écroulement des organisations syndicales dignes de ce nom et l'imminence d'un effondrement climatique total : ce sont là quelques-unes des réalités qui ont permis et intensifié un génocide retransmis en direct. Gaza nous oblige à les regarder en face, non pas comme une lointaine image de l'avenir, mais ici et maintenant.
Dans une lettre-essai écrite au cours de son interminable emprisonnement, le romancier Walid Daqqa (2) avançait la notion de « temps parallèle » pour décrire l'expérience des prisonniers palestiniens : « Nous, dans le temps parallèle, nous vous voyons, tandis que vous ne nous voyez pas… Nous sommes un passé continu et sans fin. C'est de là que nous nous adressons à vous aujourd'hui, afin que cela ne devienne pas votre avenir. » Gaza est aujourd'hui peut-être le « temps parallèle » de toute civilisation, voyant sans être vu, passé et sans fin. Voir Gaza — non comme un événement tragique, non comme une liste de faits et de statistiques, mais comme un lieu réellement existant, en ce moment même —, c'est entrer dans un rapport différent à notre avenir.
« J'avoue que mon cœur s'emballe à la vue d'une fleur à la télévision, devant le spectacle de la nature, devant la mer, écrivait Walid Daqqa après presque vingt années passées en prison. J'avoue que je suis joyeux malgré tout… » Oui, Gaza est depuis longtemps une prison à ciel ouvert, et elle est maintenant devenue un vaste charnier. Mais c'est aussi l'endroit où demeurent des millions de Palestiniens vivants, et aimés. En regardant Gaza telle qu'elle est aujourd'hui, nous devons prendre conscience que la vie est une chose indiciblement précieuse : que même un seul moment de vie, un simple instant de conscience vivante, est d'une beauté infinie et irremplaçable. Et nous devons être prêts à nous battre pour cela : pour la vie des vivants, pour notre avenir et pour une Palestine libre.
(Traduit de l'anglais par Antony Burlaud.)
« Vous aviez raison. » Le 28 septembre dernier, lors de la conférence travailliste à Liverpool, le nouveau ministre des affaires étrangères bat sa coulpe auprès « des millions de personnes émues et indignées par le sort du peuple palestinien ». Interrogé le soir même par LBC, M. Edward (« Ed ») Miliband élude néanmoins sur les exportations d'armes vers Israël ou l'interdiction du réseau de désobéissance civile Palestine Action (1). Les travaillistes refusent toujours de prendre leurs responsabilités. Déjà, en juin 2025, quand le député indépendant Jeremy Corbyn avait proposé une enquête parlementaire sur l'implication du Royaume-Uni dans les massacres à Gaza, le gouvernement avait estimé que ce serait « inutile ». Pour établir la vérité sur les livraisons d'équipements britanniques à l'armée israélienne, ou l'appui que lui aurait apporté la Royal Air Force (RAF) basée à Chypre, l'élu a donc lancé une autre initiative : la convocation du tribunal citoyen pour Gaza, sur le modèle du tribunal Russell, présidé par Jean-Paul Sartre (2).
Avec ses deux coprésidents, les juristes Neve Gordon et Shahd Hammouri, M. Corbyn a récapitulé les deux jours d'audience à Londres, en septembre 2025, dans The Gaza Tribunal, publié en juillet dernier. Ils rapportent la parole des témoins, du journaliste palestinien Abubaker Abed, chassé de Gaza en 2025, à la rapporteuse spéciale des Nations unies Francesca Albanese. Les éléments recueillis confirment la production britannique de composants d'avions F-35 destinés à Tel-Aviv — malgré la suspension partielle des exportations d'armes en septembre 2024 —, comme la transmission à l'armée israélienne de renseignements recueillis par la RAF lors de vols au-dessus de Gaza, depuis la base chypriote d'Akrotiri (plus de six cents entre décembre 2023 et octobre 2025).
Verdict ? Le Royaume-Uni a bien pris part au génocide, en plus d'avoir réprimé ceux qui le dénonçaient. Notamment Sally Rooney, qui signe la postface de l'ouvrage (lire « Gaza, juger les complices »). Auteure de romans vendus à des millions d'exemplaires — dont Normal People (L'Olivier, 2021) —, l'Irlandaise avait annoncé en 2025 le reversement d'une partie de ses droits à Palestine Action, juste après que ce groupe avait été classé terroriste par Londres. Le 14 octobre dernier, son éditeur britannique Faber a suspendu la distribution de ses livres au Royaume-Uni par crainte d'une loi qui punit d'emprisonnement la fourniture d'argent ou d'autres biens « en sachant ou en ayant des raisons raisonnables de soupçonner qu'ils seront ou pourraient être utilisés à des fins terroristes ». Anne Carson, John Maxwell Coetzee, Arundathi Roy ou encore Colm Tóibín ont apporté leur soutien à la romancière. Pour sa part, Sally Rooney a déclaré qu'elle était entièrement prête à assumer les conséquences de ses choix politiques. Contrairement au gouvernement britannique.
(1) Rayan Freschi et Mathieu Rigouste, « Ces “terroristes” britanniques qui soutiennent la Palestine », Le Monde diplomatique, janvier 2026.
(2) Lire Serge Halimi, « Et Sartre définit le génocide », Le Monde diplomatique, mars 2024. De son côté, le juriste Richard Falk a présidé une instance similaire destinée à déterminer la nature des crimes commis à Gaza.
Le 20 octobre dernier, M. Jean-Luc Mélenchon proteste contre les réquisitions du procureur — dix mois de prison avec sursis et deux ans d'inéligibilité — à l'encontre de l'eurodéputée Rima Hassan, poursuivie pour apologie du terrorisme en raison d'un tweet de soutien à la cause palestinienne. Deux heures plus tard, le garde des sceaux Gérald Darmanin s'indigne sur X : « Une preuve supplémentaire que M. Mélenchon et LFI ont un grave problème avec l'État de droit. S'attaquer à l'indépendance et à l'intégrité des magistrats est extrêmement préoccupant. Inadmissible. »
Or les magistrats du parquet — procureurs notamment — ne sont pas « indépendants » du pouvoir exécutif puisque le ministre de la justice a autorité sur eux. Et quand bien même, théoriquement, ce dernier ne peut pas s'immiscer dans une affaire individuelle, il oriente plus ou moins chaque cas par le biais de ses instructions générales.
Si, par exemple, la chancellerie avait en 2017-2018 exigé des procureurs une extrême sévérité contre les personnes accusées de viol, harcèlement sexuel ou abus de confiance, M. Darmanin, contre qui plusieurs plaintes de ce type avaient été déposées, aurait peut-être connu les éviers en inox de Fleury-Mérogis plutôt que les dorures de la place Vendôme.
Au demeurant, quelques heures avant la protestation de M. Mélenchon, le ministre s'était lui-même vanté de son interventionnisme judiciaire pour châtier les personnes interpellées lors de la journée du 17 octobre : « Mes instructions aux parquets sont claires : une réponse de la justice extrêmement ferme contre ceux qui pillent les commerces, qui attaquent les bâtiments publics ou qui s'en prennent aux forces de l'ordre ou aux sapeurs-pompiers. » Deux jours plus tard (22 octobre), M. Darmanin demandait aux parquets de « requérir en particulier : l'interdiction de manifester ; la privation des droits civiques, dont le droit de vote ; le bannissement numérique, c'est-à-dire la fermeture des comptes sur les réseaux sociaux et l'interdiction d'en créer de nouveaux », préparant ainsi le terrain de la répression au Rassemblement national.
Puis il précisait sur LCI les contours d'un nouveau type de partenariat public-privé pour le licenciement des indociles : « J'ai demandé à tous les procureurs de la République d'informer les employeurs, parce qu'il y a beaucoup de gens qui ont un métier, un travail, parfois un emploi public, parfois un emploi privé, de prévenir effectivement que leur salarié, leur agent, a été dans un pillage, a été dans une émeute. » Médusé par cette dérive « illibérale », le bâtonnier de Paris a averti (X, 23 octobre) : « Nous ne ramènerons pas la concorde et la paix civile dans le pays en dérogeant aux principes de l'État de droit, aux droits de la défense et ici particulièrement au principe intangible de la présomption d'innocence. » C'est pourtant le chemin pris par la présidence finissante de M. Emmanuel Macron.
Pierre Rimbert
Il aura fallu les journées des 17 et 18 octobre pour que Bernard-Henri Lévy s'attaque, après cinquante ans d'essayisme, à la question des éboueurs dans une chronique titrée « Chagrin français » (Le Point, 22 octobre) : « Je pense aux éboueurs auxquels les émeutiers, au petit matin, quand ils ont été fatigués de casser et sont rentrés cuver leur nuit, repus de vacarme et de destruction, ont laissé le soin de déblayer les débris de leur saccage et de nettoyer les rues qu'ils avaient salopées. (…) Mais je pense aussi aux esprits faibles que les salauds articulés de La France insoumise ont convaincus, écharpe tricolore en bandoulière, que la violence est “légitime”. »
Over the past week, the public has learned of three efforts by the Department of Justice to charge perceived enemies of President Donald Trump with federal crimes. One of those efforts, an attempt to indict former White House aide turned Jan. 6 committee star witness Cassidy Hutchinson, failed on Tuesday after a Washington, D.C., grand jury did not have the votes to return what’s known as a “true bill.”
The other two have resulted in the opening of criminal cases: one against former FBI Director James Comey, the third such effort against him in just over a year, and the other against two former FBI employees alleged to have lied to a congressional committee about what they knew about Hunter Biden’s laptop.
And with the midterm elections literally days away, despite this seeming escalation in prosecutions, the Justice Department has maintained that political considerations had nothing to do with the timing or existence of these criminal matters.
As a DOJ spokesperson told The New York Times, “The standard is purpose, not proximity to Election Day. Department policy does not require the department to stop ongoing work during an election season.”
Yet even assuming that Justice Department prosecutors are acting in good faith, that description of DOJ policy is incomplete.
A memo issued in 2024 by then-Attorney General Merrick Garland mandated that prosecutors not time “criminal charges or any other action in any matter or case for the purpose of affecting any election.” The memo went on to say, “Such a purpose, or the appearance of such a purpose, is inconsistent with the Department’s mission and with the Principles of Federal Prosecution” (emphasis added).
The Justice Department did not immediately respond to MS NOW’s request to confirm whether the memo was still in effect. MS NOW is unaware of any evidence that it has been rescinded.
Moreover, the Justice Manual — sometimes called the bible of federal prosecution by current and former DOJ personnel — provides that any issue or even “the perception of an issue” concerning an investigative or prosecutorial action during an election season demands consultation with the Public Integrity Section, the deputy attorney general and/or the attorney general themselves. In other words, Trump political appointees, up to and including Attorney General Todd Blanche, are the final arbiters of whether a prosecutor’s purpose is legitimate.
Given that, some or all of them must have signed off on these recent prosecutorial developments. But the mistakes made by DOJ lawyers in each of these cases suggest both a rush to the courthouse and a desire to stretch the law, criminal procedural rules or both in ways that might fail or have already faltered.
Take the most recent criminal charges against Comey, unsealed earlier this week. Those charges center on the purported disclosure of allegedly classified information by an FBI employee to a New York Times reporter who published an article hours later. According to the DOJ, Comey intentionally caused that disclosure on Oct. 5, 2016, knowing the information was classified.
But the case against Comey, filed 10 years later to the date, was not initiated through an indictment, which requires a vote of at least 12 grand jurors in a federal court. The Justice Department charged Comey via an information, which does not require grand jury involvement and therefore typically can be filed much more quickly than an indictment.
Because the statute of limitations for each of the charges against Comey is 10 years, the DOJ seems to have assumed it could charge Comey by information within that window and then later obtain an indictment, which (barring a defendant’s waiver) is necessary to prosecute felonies.
But now the department is instead defending Comey’s near-immediate motion to dismiss. And his legal team’s argument has nothing to do with the substance of the charges or claims of selective or vindictive prosecution, which it supported with extensive documentation in the two prior cases against Comey.
Instead, Comey’s attorneys argue that the plain language of the statute of limitations pertains only to indictments, not informations or criminal complaints, the third way federal criminal cases can begin. A Washington, D.C., federal judge will hold a hearing on that motion Friday.
The case against former FBI analyst Nikki Floris and former agent Bradley Benavides seems to show signs of a similar rush to the courthouse. That case was instigated on Oct. 20 through a criminal complaint, which typically contains a written statement of “the essential facts” of the offense charged, usually submitted by a federal law enforcement agent under oath and then approved and signed by a federal magistrate judge.
But within days — and literally in the middle of the night before a preliminary hearing — the Justice Department filed what it characterized as a “superseding” criminal complaint. The new complaint lacked a signature from either the agent, swearing to its veracity, or the judge himself. It also was filed under the name of a different FBI agent, without any explanation.
The magistrate judge, Zia Faruqui, was furious, asking the DOJ lawyer whether he was aware of any prior federal case in which a magistrate judge had allowed a superseding criminal complaint without a judge’s sign-off. The lawyer acknowledged that he was not — and ultimately, the judge refused to sign the new complaint, telling the prosecutors, “I am concerned about what your view of the law is.”
The hearing was further derailed when Bryan Witt, the agent who replaced the original affiant, took the witness stand to defend the government’s finding of probable cause to charge Floris and Benavides.
On questioning by Floris’ lawyer, Witt testified that the day after Trump complained during a national address that some FBI intelligence officials had downplayed a report that China had tried to interfere in the 2020 election in order to defeat him, FBI Director Kash Patel directed the U.S. attorney’s office in Kansas City, Missouri, to investigate some of those same officials, including Floris. Witt further testified that the letter arrived “right in the middle of a major public corruption case,” that the new investigation was “a huge distraction” and that he had concerns from the outset that “this would be viewed as political.”
He also admitted that he never interviewed Floris, though he said it would have been “incredibly useful” and normally would have been something agents did, and that the initial complaint contained factual inaccuracies. As of Wednesday afternoon, Faruqui was still weighing whether prosecutors had probable cause to charge Floris and Benavides.
In light of the challenges the DOJ has encountered in that case, one may wonder if it would have been more effective to slow down and present an indictment to a grand jury. Yet the department’s failed attempt to secure an indictment against Hutchinson — its third potential own goal in recent days in D.C. federal court — might explain why it didn’t.
Because grand jury proceedings are secret, it is unclear why the grand jury did not indict Hutchinson. But according to public reporting, including from MS NOW, lawyers from the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division proposed charging her with false statements to Congress, crimes not usually within that unit’s ambit.
The Justice Department’s inability to indict her comes after an unusual number of similar losses in other cases in Washington that have involved known targets of Trump’s ire, including an attempt to indict six members of Congress who, through a video, encouraged military service members to refuse to follow unlawful orders.
And with days to go before the midterm elections and with a president who is openly taking credit for the DOJ’s litigation strategy, it could be that no matter what charging instrument the department chooses, it is working too fast — and with too conspicuous a veneer of partisanship — to succeed.
The post DOJ says recent charges against Trump foes aren’t rushed or improper. But it keeps hitting roadblocks. appeared first on MS NOW.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents slashed the tires of a couple who were recording the agents in an incident near Portland, Oregon, earlier this month. The agents then drove away without arresting or talking to the couple, video footage shows.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which released the footage today, says it is yet another example of ICE agents retaliating against people for protected First Amendment activity. In an administrative complaint on behalf of the anonymous couple, the ACLU and the ACLU of Oregon are demanding an investigation and answers from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) about why agents tailed, boxed in, and "vandalized" the vehicle of a U.S. citizen.
The stunning video does not resemble any sort of normal law enforcement:
"What happened to us is not unique, and that is what is so terrifying," A.P. and M.P., the unnamed husband and wife, said in a statement provided by the ACLU. "We observe and record public ICE activity in order to shine a light on their abusive behavior and to create a record of what our government is up to. Because of that, they are terrorizing us and anyone else who dares to exercise their First Amendment right to hold our government accountable. We hope that sharing our story will bring attention to their reckless and unconstitutional attacks on our communities."
According to the ACLU complaint, the unnamed married couple was driving in Hillsboro, Oregon, on the morning of October 7 when they spotted an ICE SUV. The couple followed the SUV to a supermarket parking lot, where there were also two other ICE vehicles. The couple lowered their windows and began yelling "This is ICE! This is ICE!" as well as blowing whistles and honking the car's horn.
One ICE agent grabbed a shopping cart and began approaching the couple's car. The complaint states that the couple heard the agent say something to the effect of, "Let's block them in with the cart." As the couple began driving away, several ICE agents began chasing after them on foot.
The three ICE vehicles chased the couple after they left the parking lot, "driving aggressively and nearly colliding into" their car, according to the complaint. Additional video shows the ICE vehicles swerving aggressively in front of the couple's car and later unsuccessfully attempting to box in their car. "None of the ICE vehicles had their flashing lights or sirens on during this entire sequence of events," the complaint states.
The couple cut through an empty parking lot, and the chase continued down several more streets before the ICE vehicles turned on their emergency lights and sirens. According to the complaint, the couple continued driving for roughly a minute, fearing to pull over on an empty road with no bystanders.
Video shows that when they stopped at a traffic light, a masked ICE agent exited his vehicle, walked up to the couple's car, stabbed one of its rear tires with a knife, and then walked back to his car. The couple's car moved slowly forward and into a turn lane before stopping again. Then the same agent got back out of his vehicle and stabbed the tire a second time before returning to his vehicle without attempting to speak to the couple.
"All three ICE vehicles turned off their flashing lights and sirens and drove off," the ACLU complaint states.
The complaint notes that the couple "experienced retaliatory action similar to that experienced by many other individuals across the country engaged in these same First Amendment protected activities."
"In particular, individuals around the country have reported being similarly tailed, boxed in, and threatened with or subjected to violence after observing, gathering information about, and recording ICE agents performing their duties in public," the complaint states.
Last October, ICE agents in the Portland area busted out the car windows of a U.S. citizen who had been filming them, dragged her out of her vehicle, and detained her for roughly seven hours before releasing her without charges.
The ACLU of Tennessee filed a class-action lawsuit in May against a federal law enforcement task force in Memphis for harassing legal observers. Memphis residents allege in declarations that they have been violently arrested, surveilled at their houses, pulled over under false pretenses, and jailed for trying to film the task force. In September, the ACLU of Tennessee published videos showing federal agents arresting the lead plaintiff in its lawsuit while he was attempting to film task force operations.
DHS and immigration officers have repeatedly accused videographers and legal observers of obstruction of justice and "doxxing," but civil liberties advocates say the DHS is flat wrong about the law: Every federal appeals court that has considered the issue—nine so far—has firmly upheld the right to record law enforcement in public.
The Supreme Court has also unequivocally upheld the First Amendment right to criticize or oppose police activity, whether verbally or through other expressive activity.
"The right to record publicly visible law enforcement activity is fundamental to our democracy," Scarlet Kim, senior staff attorney with the ACLU's Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project, said in a press release. "Like many people across the country, our clients have been observing and recording ICE activity in their community. These videos have proven critical to exposing ICE's abuses. If we cannot see and document what our own government is doing on our streets, we cannot hold it accountable for running roughshod over our rights."
The ACLU complaint to the DHS Office of Inspector General and two other DHS oversight offices demands that the agents involved in the incident be identified, investigated, and disciplined. The ACLU is also requesting a "comprehensive investigation of a disturbing pattern of ICE agents retaliating against individuals who observe, gather information about, and record ICE activity."
The DHS did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The post Video Shows ICE Agents Slashing Portland Couple's Car Tire Then Driving Off appeared first on Reason Magazine.
Login