Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Romanian right-wing leader barred from presidential election

RT | March 15, 2025

Romania’s electoral authority has rejected right-wing politician Diana Iovanovici-Sosoaca’s bid to run in the country’s upcoming presidential election. The decision, announced Saturday, marks the second time the politician has been barred from the race.

Sosoaca, a former lawyer and MEP for the nationalist S.O.S. Romania party, was disqualified from last year’s annulled election after the country’s Constitutional Court ruled that her anti-Western rhetoric and support for closer ties with Russia violated Romania’s democratic framework. The politician, however, filed a new bid with the Central Electoral Bureau on Thursday, arriving at the headquarters wearing boxing gloves and vowing to “fight the system,” which she has long accused of being undemocratic and dictatorial.

According to local media, the election bureau cited the Constitutional Court’s 2024 ruling in its decision to reject Sosoaca’s new bid, with ten members voting against her candidacy and only three in favor. Following the decision, Sosoaca declared that she had once again proven Romania “doesn’t have democracy” and vowed to continue her political fight.

Speaking to RT on Thursday, Sosoaca accused the European Commission and its president, Ursula von der Leyen, of orchestrating her previous removal from the race. “Ursula von der Leyen has Romanian politicians in her hand and orders them what decisions to make,” she stated, slamming the commission president as “the main opponent of sovereignty in Romania, as well as all other countries in Europe.”

Sosoaca, who calls herself a “souvereignist” fighting for Romania’s future, blames the economic problems in the country on Brussels’ policies, especially with regard to Russia, and calls the EU a “dictatorship.”

“Romania needs a negotiator who will take our country out of the EU’s losing logic,” she said, adding that EU policies, including sanctions against Russia, had “bankrupted its own economy” and caused unnecessary conflict, with “all European countries paying for this stupidity.”

Sosoaca has until midnight on Saturday to appeal the decision. The first round of the election, a rerun after last November’s vote was annulled, is scheduled for May 4. So far, 14 candidates have applied to run, four of whom – including the first-round winner in the annulled vote and another staunch NATO and EU critic, Calin Georgescu – have been rejected.

Georgescu won the first round of last November’s election, but the Constitutional Court overturned the result amid allegations of electoral violations and claims that Russia had run an online campaign to promote him. Moscow denied any involvement in Romania’s electoral process. An investigation earlier this year revealed that the irregularities may have stemmed from a consulting firm linked to the pro-Western National Liberal Party, which allegedly sought to derail another candidate but inadvertently boosted Georgescu instead.

March 15, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Russophobia | , | Leave a comment

University crackdown on Palestine solidarity encampments a grievous violation of Charter freedoms

By Laurie Adkin | Canadian Dimention | March 9, 2025

If the repression of Palestine solidarity protests on Canadian campuses is permitted to go unchallenged, we risk a serious erosion of Charter-protected rights and freedoms. The cases of the Universities of Calgary and Alberta highlight what is at stake.

In May 2024, the University of Calgary executive[1] called in the police to forcibly remove the Palestine solidarity encampment on that campus within hours of its appearance. The University of Alberta executive quickly followed suit, deploying riot police to drive members of the People’s University for Palestine (PU4P) from the campus. The executives thus revealed the vacuity of their institutional slogans and their unwillingness to defend university autonomy from political direction. University records[2] and media reports show that United Conservative Party government officials were urging the deployment of police against the universities’ students, faculty, staff, alumni, and community supporters.

Since October 2023, university executives have been implementing security regimes that put their students, staff, and faculty under continual surveillance and subject them to policing that not long ago would have been unthinkable. The Kent report confirms that the University of Alberta Protective Services and the Edmonton Police Service collaborate in surveillance of the conversations, social media posts, and activities of students, staff, and faculty on campus (using patrols, video cameras, and facial recognition technology). Police presence on campus has become routine. Operating procedures for protests were amended unilaterally by executives on both campuses in May 2024 in anticipation of the Palestine solidarity encampments. The result is that the environment for freedom of expression on campuses has been significantly degraded. However, the failure of university executives to stand up for constitutional freedoms is a grievous abdication of democratic duty to all citizens. Given what is at stake, it is urgent that court challenges to their actions be initiated, and that those responsible be required to apologize and make reparation to those who were traumatized and whose freedoms of political expression and assembly were unreasonably denied.

The UCalgary’s executive has tried to establish the legality of its actions by commissioning a consultancy report described by legal experts as “superficial.” The UAlberta executive no doubt hopes that the Report on the Encampment they commissioned from retired Alberta Court of King’s Bench Justice, Adèle Kent, will close the book on its decision to deploy police against the PU4P. The Kent report concluded that “the administration’s ability to have the police dismantle the encampment was reasonable and justifiable under the Charter” (78). This opinion—which is not a judicial ruling—is unsubstantiated by evidence and hinges on an incomplete (and often contradictory) review of the legal tests required to arrive at such a conclusion.

UAlberta President Bill Flanagan issued a cluster of statements in May 2024 attempting to justify the forcible removal of the PU4P by police on the grounds that it posed “serious and potentially life-threatening risks” to “university community members and members of the public,” and that its removal was intended to “ensure public safety and security.” The evidence—including highly credible first-hand testimony—effectively eviscerated these claims; even Justice Kent and campus security agreed the PU4P presented no threats to anyone’s safety at the time the police were sent in.

What the executive and the justice turned to, then, to justify the camp’s removal was the possibility of future threats that could be (and were) imagined by the president’s executive council and the police. One fear they raised was that counter-protestors might show up on campus and altercations between the groups might ensue. There was no indication at the time that such events were likely, but even if they had been, we should question the logic of the argument that is being made here for the denial of Charter freedoms of expression and assembly. If the possibility of a future counter-protest that might be violent is considered grounds to ban otherwise peaceful political expression and assembly, then effectively, these Charter freedoms are null and void.

The “community safety” pretext offered by President Flanagan further lacks credibility because alternatives were available to ensure the safety of the PU4P participants that entailed far less risk of harm than the option that was chosen (sending in riot police at the crack of dawn). In this regard, the executive’s decision clearly fails the Charter tests of “least impairment” and “rationality” in relation to its supposed objective. Members of the executive chose not to meet with the PU4P, instead spending hours in “crisis management” meetings among themselves and with government officials and the police, grasping at pretexts to simply get rid of the protestors without having to answer their demands. They misled students and the public about their intentions, concealing their decision to deploy the police from student leaders and implying that negotiations were in progress when this was not true. This is the kind of bad faith treatment to which pro-Palestinian student activists have become accustomed.

We cannot overlook the likelihood that these Palestinian solidarity encampments were labelled security threats because of the relentless pressures on university administrators exerted by Zionist politicians and pro-Zionist government officials to characterize any criticism of Israel as threatening to the “safety” of Jewish students and faculty. Such pressures have been well-documented in the cases of the Universities of Alberta and Calgary, and are exhibited in many of the submissions to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights’ investigation of “antisemitism” on Canadian campuses (May 2024). Notably, the committee’s December 2024 report recommended, among other measures, that universities adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism which encompasses anti-Zionism or criticism of the state of Israel.

In contrast, we see clearly how little the safety of “community members” from racialized Muslim backgrounds (and non-Zionist Jews) has mattered for university executives—how quickly their safety was sacrificed to achieve higher-ranked priorities. The repression of pro-Palestinian protest on university campuses is consistent with the denial of rights and the violence being inflicted upon Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank on a massive scale by Israel and its military and diplomatic allies.

It can have escaped no one’s notice that we live in times of rising authoritarianism. If Canadians accept the flimsy, speculative pretexts offered by university authorities to crush peaceful protest—if we do not subject them to rigorous Charter tests—we risk the further erosion of our political rights and freedoms. If these rights may be trampled underfoot on university campuses without legal challenge, where are they protected? Constitutional lawyers, don your armour.

Laurie E. Adkin is a professor emerita in the Department of Political Science at the University of Alberta.

References

1. By “executive” I refer to the president, the president’s executive team, or council, and the Board of Governors. While responsibility for the decisions falls ultimately on the shoulders of the university presidents, the reviews have been vague in identifying who authorized what and when. Some members of the executive team at UCalgary were away from the university when the decision to call in the police was taken; none, however, have subsequently resigned their positions. In the UAlberta case, we know that the Chair of the Board was closely involved in the decision-making about the PU4P, but we do not know if other governors on the Board were consulted; none have publicly expressed their agreement or disagreement with the action that was taken. This is typical of the lack of meaningful accountability of these board members to both internal constituencies and the broader public.↩

2. Its flaws notwithstanding, the UAlberta-commissioned Kent report provides very useful information in its excerpts from interviews with executive decision-makers and the appended (though redacted) “Rolling Update” on meetings, decisions, etc., maintained by the Crisis Management Team. Additional records were obtained by journalist Jeremy Appel through a FOIPP application to the UAlberta.↩

March 14, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , | Leave a comment

Remove Hamas and the other Resistance groups from the Home Office list of proscribed organisations

By David Miller | Al Mayadeen | March 14, 2025

The British government should de-proscribe all of the Palestinian and Lebanese Resistance groups currently listed on the anachronistic list maintained by the Home Office. The first and most obvious reason for this is that banning these groups does not in any way prevent or disrupt political violence in the UK. This sounds like a dramatic claim. So, let’s take a close look.

After a year and a half of genocide by the illegitimate Zionist entity, voices are beginning to be raised calling for the removal of Palestinian resistance groups from the government list of proscribed organisations. But what is the list and what offences are attached to it?

When I was detained by officers of SO15 or the Counter Terrorism Command (formerly the Special Branch) under Schedule 7 the other day, I was given a piece of paper with the legal basis of the detention which I was required to sign and was given a copy to keep. It states that the detention is to enable whether I appeared ‘to be a person who is or has been concerned in the commission of instigation of acts of terrorism.’

And yet, they asked me no questions about commissioning or instigating acts of “terrorism”. Not a single one.

Instead, they asked about extremism, the Western way of life, and asked me to characterise specific views on political violence. If the Trades Description Act applied to the Terrorism Act 2000 and to the activities of SO15, I would be making a complaint to the Heathrow Trading Standards Officer.

But the reason for this is that Schedule 7 is not really intended to disrupt actual terrorism, but to surveill and repress political views and political speech which is critical of UK foreign policy, including of course support for the Palestinians’ legitimate right to resist the Zionist occupation. Don’t believe me? Let’s look closely at the Home Office list of offences related to proscribed organisations.

As one can see from the offences below, none of them have anything to do with actual acts of violence. Let’s take each in turn.

  1. Obviously being a member of a proscribed group might have some relevance, but membership is not itself an act of terror. And certainly, professing to be a member of Hezbollah is not, in itself, an act of terror.
  2. Inviting support for a proscribed group is an offence. How does one ‘invite’ support for a ‘terrorist’ organisation? The language is of course similar to the ‘notice’ issued to UK broadcasters on 19 October 1988. Otherwise known as the Broadcasting Ban, this was an attempt to suppress support for the Irish Republican movement and in particular its political wing Sinn Fein, which throughout the period remained a legal political party with many elected councillors in the north of Ireland. It made, as I argued at the time, no appreciable difference to the Irish Republican Army, the wing of the movement engaged in armed struggle. But what does it mean to ‘invite’ support? It’s not altogether clear and it is pretty plain that this particular provision has been of little use to the British state, resulting, as it has, in precious few convictions. As a result, the government added a wider and more vague clause to the act via the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act 2019, to which we turn next.
  3. Express an ‘opinion’ or ‘belief’ that is supportive of a proscribed organisation. What does that mean? It obviously has the potential to be stretched quite far into opinions and beliefs that are shared by most people, even in the UK. Is saying that Seyed Hassan Nasrallah, the assassinated leader of Hezbollah, was widely respected and admired an opinion which is ‘supportive’ of a banned group?  Notice the language is ‘will be’ encouraged not ‘is’ encouraged. So, at best this is a conjectural crime which does not require that anyone is actually encouraged, only that the hypothetical ‘reasonable person’ might think that. Again, nothing here that relates to involvement in planning any ‘act’ of violence.
  4. Arranging or managing a meeting is, manifestly, not an act of violence, whether or not it involves giving ‘support’ for a proscribed organisation and whether or not a representative of the organisation speaks, or whether the purpose of the address is to encourage support. In fact, the more we hear the voices of those (in proscribed organisations and legal ones alike) who are involved in resisting the menace of Zionism and genocide, the better it will be for the possibility of ending the genocide.
  5. Next is Clothing: It is an offence to ‘wear clothing or carry or display articles in public in such a way or in such circumstances as to arouse reasonable suspicion that the individual is a member or supporter of a proscribed organisation’. Articles of clothing are also not in themselves acts of terror, no matter how they are displayed. Obviously, what they have in mind here is branding relating to specific organisations, such as a Hezbollah flag, a Qassam Brigades head band, or other perhaps less directly connected imagery or items.  Obviously, given the attemtps of the Zionists and their craven allies in the British security state, there is a push to widen the parameters so they can scoop up more and more supporters of the Palestinians. Thus the case of the young women found guilty under these powers of sporting parachute patches (below).

Or, the case of the young man found guilty of supporting Hamas for wearing a green headband with the Shahada (the Muslim profession of faith) on it (first below). This is of course not a ‘Hamas headband’. Al-Qassam Brigades, the military wing of Hamas, do have a specific headband with a gun on it! As can be seen, it is not at all similar (right below).

6.        It is an offence to “publish an image of an item of clothing or other article, such as a flag or logo, in the                          same circumstances.” This is obviously intended to cover social media posts, which are manifestly not                           ‘acts’  or terrorism. This provision was inserted (12.4.2019) by Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act                        2019.

Overall, then, as we see these ‘proscription’ powers have nothing at all to do with interfering with material acts of political violence or armed struggle.

The proscription offences are not terrorism offences. It is an absurd nonsense, not to mention a colossal waste of resources, that SO15 are required to attempt to police thoughts, beliefs and speech as the vast majority of their activities at ports.

When the leading journalist Asa Winstanley was recently raided (but not arrested), he was told that it related to his alleged support for proscribed groups. A letter addressed to him ‘from the “Counter Terrorism Command” … indicates that the authorities are “aware of your profession” as a journalist but that “notwithstanding, police are investigating possible offenses” under sections 1 and 2 of the Terrorism Act (2006). These provisions set out the purported offense of “encouragement of terrorism.”’

And yet, if you look at the passage at the beginning of this article about commission or instigation of acts of terror, the implication is that to be of interest one would have to be involved in setting up a branch of Qassam Brigades in North London, or a version of Hezbllah’s Radwan Force in Reading.  There is nobody in the entire counter-terrorism apparatus who believes that that is what Asa, me, or anybody else, is doing.

And when you put it like that, it’s also manifestly the case that neither Hamas, Hezbollah, the PFLP-GC or Palestinian Islamic Jihad are planning to set up branches in the UK, or – indeed – to carry out attacks here. Given the UK’s role in directly participating in the genocide, that is generous of them, but it appears to be a fact.

But more than that, free speech about armed groups fighting an almost universally acknowledged genocide should not be criminalised and proscribed.

And the case for proscribing their welfare, health, education and other manifest functions of Hezbollah and Hamas is even weaker.

They should be de-proscribed now.

March 14, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , , , | Leave a comment

Kremlin comments on ECHR Odessa massacre ruling

RT | March 14, 2025

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruling holding Ukraine accountable for the massacre in the city of Odessa in 2014 appears to be a “glimpse of common sense,” Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov told TASS on Friday. However, a single ruling is not enough to draw broader conclusions, he added.

The ECHR found the Ukrainian authorities guilty of the deaths of the so-called anti-Maidan activists who burned to death after taking refuge in the Odessa trade union building, which was subsequently set on fire by radical nationalists. The court ruled on Thursday that Ukraine failed to take all reasonable steps to prevent the violence, halt it once it began, or rescue those trapped in the building.

“A very belated decision, but it seems like a glimpse of common sense,” Peskov remarked. “To confirm this, we need to see other similar actions. Which, of course, we would like to witness.”

On May 2, 2014, clashes erupted in Odessa between Ukrainian nationalists, who supported the armed coup in Kiev that had occurred several weeks before, and those who opposed it. The pro-Maidan activists attacked a tent where local residents were gathering signatures for a referendum on the federalization of Ukraine and recognition of Russian as a state language.

Outnumbered by the far-right radicals, the anti-coup activists took refuge inside the city’s trade union building. However, the nationalists surrounded the building, lobbed Molotov cocktails at it and eventually set it on fire, resulting in 48 deaths and over 200 people injured.

More than a decade later, Kiev has neither identified nor prosecuted any of the perpetrators. Instead, it has shifted the blame to Moscow, alleging that the events in Odessa were “a pre-planned and well-financed operation” by the Russian security services. Moscow has repeatedly called for an investigation into the massacre, even advocating for a special tribunal to be convened.

Relatives of 25 victims, along with three survivors of the fire, filed complaints against Ukraine with the ECHR. The court ruled that the Ukrainian police had “had ignored the available intelligence and the relevant warning signs” and made no “meaningful attempt to prevent the clashes” that led to the fire. While the ECHR acknowledged that “propaganda from Russia had had its part” in tensions being escalated, it admitted that this did not absolve Kiev of responsibility for the massacre.

March 14, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , | Leave a comment

Western media suggests Zelensky will be replaced

By Lucas Leiroz | March 14, 2025

Western media are apparently already announcing the “end” of Zelensky’s rule in Ukraine. Major Western newspapers, which until then had unconditionally supported the Ukrainian dictator, are now pointing to the inevitable fall of his government, clearly adapting their narratives to the new geopolitical scenarios.

Recently, the Financial Times (FT) stated that Vladimir Zelensky’s leadership in Kiev is “coming to an end.” Citing high-ranking Ukrainian sources familiar with the country’s political affairs, the FT reported that local officials believe that the Ukrainian president will be replaced, but that this will not necessarily mean an end to the conflict.

The FT sources said that Ukraine would continue fighting even if Ukrainian aid were to end. The sources made it clear that Kiev would fight for “at least six months” after a possible total cut in US aid. This calculation is based solely on the resources that the Kiev regime already has due to previous military packages, and therefore the continuation of the conflict would probably be even greater if European aid were increased.

However, the same sources expressed concern about Zelensky’s mismanagement, as the Ukrainian president is mismanaging the resources he has received. Even though Ukraine is receiving extensive assistance from NATO partners, there is a shortage of weapons and ammunition for soldiers on the battlefield – which obviously reflects not only the military situation, but also the high level of corruption within the state institutions in Kiev.

In this sense, the FT informants believe that the Zelensky government is in its “final act”, but that Ukraine could continue fighting both without him and without American support. In all cases, both Zelensky’s continuation and peace in Ukraine seem remote and unrealistic possibilities.

Officials claim that Zelensky’s opponents are currently “preparing for elections, forming alliances, and testing public messaging.” There is a combination of factors favoring this scenario. Domestically, the crisis of legitimacy generated by the absence of elections after the end of Zelensky’s term has generated problems among the Ukrainian president’s own supporters.

Zelensky’s image as a “democratic leader” has been exhausted, and his authoritarian and unpopular tendencies are clear to all. Similarly, internationally, the rise of Donald Trump in the US has started an era of realism and pragmatism in Washington-Kiev relations, severely damaging the ideological alliance previously established under the Democratic administration.

Trump is not interested in supporting Ukraine to “protect the rules-based world order.” As a businessman, the new American president makes decisions based on strategic calculations, choosing what he believes is best for American interests. For this reason, he is reviewing the irrational sanctions imposed on Russia and substantially reducing American support for Ukraine – which is obviously accelerating the inevitable process of the Zelensky regime’s collapse.

However, it is important to emphasize that Zelensky’s possible downfall cannot be seen as a simple consequence of the Trump administration. The Democrats themselves were already interested in replacing the current Ukrainian dictator with a more skilled and charismatic political leader, with a greater ability to mobilize support in Western public opinion.

Zelensky realized in time that he was about to be replaced and began a paranoid campaign of persecution of opponents, arresting, assassinating or firing several officials considered “plotters”. While these authoritarian acts allowed him to remain in power, they also further revealed the draconian nature of his regime, damaging his image as a “defender of Ukrainian democracy”.

In fact, the scenario that seems most likely for the near future is one in which Ukraine is represented by a leader who is more capable to represent Western interests. Zelensky is currently an unpleasant public figure for Americans, Europeans, and even Ukrainians themselves. He fails to publicly represent “European democratic values,” while also publicly disrespecting Trump and persecuting his own people. For all sides involved in the war, Zelensky is an inept politician who should be removed from power through elections.

The longer Zelensky delays in recognizing the reality of his inevitable downfall, the more politically he risks himself. The Ukrainian opposition could soon begin to react more violently to Zelensky’s dictatorial measures, possibly by creating armed militias or plotting to carry out a coup.

For now, Zelensky still has the chance to negotiate with his international partners and his internal opponents for a peaceful change of government through elections or voluntary resignation. However, if he delays in doing so, this chance will disappear and the crisis will escalate.

Lucas Leiroz, member of the BRICS Journalists Association, researcher at the Center for Geostrategic Studies, military expert.

You can follow Lucas on X (formerly Twitter) and Telegram.

March 14, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Corruption, Militarism | , | 1 Comment

Yale suspends Iranian scholar after AI site said she supports a pro-Palestine group

Press TV – March 13, 2025

Yale Law School has suspended an Iranian scholar following accusations stemming from an Israeli AI-powered website article that highlights her advocacy for Palestine and Iran, as well as her outspoken criticism of Israeli genocide during the Gaza war.

Helyeh Doutaghi, who serves as the Deputy Director of the Law and Political Economy (LPE) Project at Yale, in a public statement on Wednesday, denounced her suspension as a retaliatory action against her pro-Palestinian stance and a violation of her constitutional rights to free speech and academic freedom.

“AI is being weaponized to target students, faculty, and organizers who dare to speak out against genocide, systemic starvation, and the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians,” she warned, highlighting the broader implications of the misuse of artificial intelligence in academic and public discourse.

Doutaghi, an expert in international law who held the position of Associate Research Scholar at Yale Law School, was informed of an article published by an obscure AI-powered right-wing Zionist platform, Jewish Onliner, on March 3, which falsely labeled her a “terrorist.”

Doutaghi, who has been vocal about the implications of US military operations, imperialism and the US-Zionist genocide and the ongoing humanitarian crisis in Palestine, reported that the accusations from the article have led to online harassment and even death threats against her.

Less than 24 hours after the article’s release, Yale Law School administration placed Doutaghi on leave.

She criticized the administration for conducting an interrogation based on AI-generated allegations without due process or providing her with sufficient time to attend an interrogation.

Doutaghi also expressed concerns about Yale’s choice of attorney for her interrogation, David Ring from the firm Wiggin and Dana, whose public profile indicates a focus on services related to Israel.

She questioned his neutrality in a case involving a pro-Palestinian academic.

“The actions of YLS constitute a blatant act of retaliation against Palestinian solidarity,” Doutaghi remarked, asserting that the administration prioritized the approval of its Zionist donors over a fair investigation.

Doutaghi pointed out that Yale’s asset managers include firms linked to General Dynamics and Lockheed Martin, which produce components for the F-35 fighter jets used by Israel in committing genocide, asserting that the move creates a conflict of interest that undermines academic integrity.

“This crackdown is a dangerous escalation in state repression, fostering an atmosphere of fear on campus,” said Doutaghi. “We are witnessing a new era of Zionist McCarthyism, where dissent is met with violence, and solidarity with Palestine is rendered a punishable offense.”

“Yale is bending the knee to Trump’s effort to suppress free speech, crush academic freedom, and establish a dictatorship,” Eric Lee, Doutaghi’s lawyer wrote on social media in light of her suspension.

Meanwhile, the US State Department is reportedly considering the use of AI to potentially revoke visas for international students accused of supporting Hamas, raising further concerns about the consequences of such technology on civil liberties.

On Saturday, Mahmoud Khalil, a recent Columbia University graduate who helped lead last year’s solidarity protests in support of the Gaza Strip, was detained by Immigration Customs Enforcement (ICE) and said to be deported despite having a green card.

Following the detention of Khalil, US President Donald Trump declared it was “the first of many to come,” labeling Khalil a “radical foreign pro-Hamas student” and emphasizing that his administration would adopt a strict stance against any pro-Palestinian activities within American universities.

March 13, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , | 2 Comments

Maybe the reason the Trump administration wants to deport Mahmoud Khalil is because there’s no good reason

By Adam Dick | Peace and Prosperity Blog | March 13, 2025

The Donald Trump administration is offering no good reason to deport Mahmoud Khalil, who was involved in protests at Columbia University in New York City related to the Israel government and to United States government support for that government. He is not charged with a crime of violence or fraud. He is just singled out for advancing communication that challenged US foreign policy — exercising rights listed in the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

Why, many people ask, is the US government so intent on deporting Khalil? Wouldn’t it instead make more sense to go after other noncitizens, making at least arguably credible accusations they committed crimes?

Answers to these questions are suggested by considering the fact that, because Khalil’s accused offense is just speaking up, his arrest, detention, and deportation can have maximum impact in discouraging people from taking a stand the US executive branch may oppose. Speech, assembly, or petition alone, the Trump administration is making clear, is sufficient to bring upon one the wrath of the US government. A Tuesday post at the website of the free speech advocacy organization The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) titled “Trump administration’s reasons for detaining Mahmoud Khalil threaten free speech provides elaboration:

There are millions of people lawfully present in the United States without citizenship. The administration’s actions will cause them to self-censor rather than risk government retaliation. Lawful permanent residents and students on visas will fear a knock on the door simply for speaking their minds.

If constitutionally protected speech may render someone deportable by the secretary of state, the administration has free rein to arrest and detain any non-citizen whose speech the government dislikes. The inherent vagueness of the “adversarial to the foreign policy and national security interests” standard does not provide notice as to what speech is or is not prohibited. The administration’s use of it will foster a culture of self-censorship and fear.

Khalil is being put forward as an example by the US government. The message to potential critics of the Israel government or US policy related to it is as simple and direct as it is sinister: Shut up or the US government will destroy your life.

March 13, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , , , | Leave a comment

Professor at Center of Columbia University Deportation Scandal is Former Israeli Spy

Keren Yarhi-Milo poses with Hillary Clinton during Clinton’s 2023 guest teaching stint at Columbia. Photo | Facebook | Hillary Clinton
By Alan MacLeod | MintPress News | March 11, 2025

The professor at the center of the Columbia University deportation scandal is a former Israeli intelligence official, MintPress News can reveal.

Mahmoud Khalil, a recent graduate of the university’s School of International and Public Affairs (SIPA), was abducted by Immigration Customs Enforcement (ICE) Saturday for his role in organizing protests last year against Israel’s attack on Gaza. Khalil’s dean, Dr. Keren Yarhi-Milo, head of the School of International and Public Affairs, is a former Israeli military intelligence officer and official at Israel’s Mission to the United Nations. Yarhi-Milo played a significant role in drumming up public concern about a supposed wave of intolerable anti-Semitism sweeping over the campus, thereby laying the groundwork for the extensive crackdown on civil liberties that has followed the protests.

Spooks in Our Midst

Before entering academia, Dr. Yarhi-Milo served as an officer and an intelligence analyst with the Israeli Defense Forces. Given that she was recruited into the intelligence services because of her ability to speak Arabic fluently, her job likely entailed surveilling the Arab population.

After leaving the world of intelligence, she worked for Israel’s Permanent Mission to the United Nations in New York. While there, she met and married her husband, Israel’s official United Nations spokesperson.

Although she is now an academic, she has never left the world of international security, making the subject her area of expertise. She has made a point of trying to lift women’s voices in the field. One of these was the then-U.S. Director of National Security, Avril Haines, whom she spoke with in 2023. But even though Khalil was a student in her school, she had nothing to say about his arrest. Indeed, rather than speak out on the issue (as activists have demanded), she instead chose this week to invite Naftali Bennett, prime minister of Israel from 2021 to 2022, to speak at Columbia. Students protesting Tuesday’s event were condemned by university authorities for “harassing” Yarhi-Milo.

Unprecedented Protests, Unprecedented Repression

Columbia was the epicenter of a massive protest movement across university campuses nationwide last year. It is estimated that at least eight percent of all American college students participated in demonstrations denouncing the genocidal attack on Gaza and calling on educational institutions to divest from Israel. The response was equally vast in its scale. Well over 3,000 protestors were arrested, including faculty members themselves.

The nationwide movement began at Columbia on April 17, when a modest Gaza solidarity encampment was established. Protestors were shocked when university president Minouche Shafik immediately called in the New York Police Department – the first time the university had allowed police to suppress dissent on campus since the famous 1968 demonstrations against the Vietnam War.

Mahmoud Khalil was among the leaders of the movement. The Syrian-born Palestinian refugee was willing to speak calmly and cogently to the press about the protest’s goals. A permanent resident of the United States, he was abducted by ICE on Saturday.

“ICE proudly apprehended and detained Mahmoud Khalil, a radical foreign pro-Hamas student on the campus of Columbia University. This is the first arrest of many to come,” President Trump stated. Secretary of State Marco Rubio echoed Trump’s ominous threat, announcing, “We will be revoking the visas and/or green cards of Hamas supporters in America so they can be deported.” In another clear threat, the Trump administration moved to cancel $400 million in funding to Columbia University, citing the institution’s failure to sufficiently crack down on “antisemitic” incidents on campus.

Khalil’s eight-month pregnant wife was initially told that he had been taken to a facility in Elizabeth, New Jersey. In fact, he had been moved halfway across the country to a center in Jena, Louisiana. Journalist Pablo Manríquez of Migrant Insider explained that ICE often goes “immigration ‘judge shopping’ by putting detainees in detention centers under jurisdictions of courts that very rarely decide in favor of migrants.”

The very high-profile attempt to deport the holder of a Green Card because of political speech criticizing a foreign government has left many civil rights lawyers deeply worried. Alec Karakatsanis, for example, stated that “I’ve never seen a more clear-cut First Amendment violation, or a more flagrant government declaration of intent to violate blackletter law.” “The government does not claim he committed a crime, just that he held views that the government doesn’t like about Israel. Bone chilling,” he added.

Columbia’s Billionaire Pro-Israel Backers

Much of Columbia’s funding comes from donations from billionaire benefactors. But those gifts come with strings attached. This became apparent in the wake of the protest movement, as many pro-Israel patrons demanded the university take action. Manufacturing magnate Robert Kraft, for example, publicly announced he was cutting his alma mater off from his lavish funding over its failure to effectively suppress the demonstrations.

Hedge fund manager Leon Cooperman did the same, demanding that Columbia’s “crazy kids” “have to be controlled.” These “kids” evidently also included 61-year-old Jordanian professor Joseph Massad, whose views on the Middle East Cooperman found intolerable, and called for his firing. Soviet-born oligarch Len Blavatnik, meanwhile, urged police to hold the protestors to account.

Between them, Kraft, Cooperman and Blavatnik are believed to have donated nearly $100 million to Columbia, giving them considerable influence over the political direction of the university.

There were also voices from within the university clamoring for the violent suppression of the student movement. Assistant Professor of Business Management Shai Davidai, for example, denounced the protestors as “Nazis” and “terrorists” and called for the National Guard to be set upon the encampment, obliquely referencing the Kent State University Massacre while doing so. Davidai, an Israeli-American, served in the IDF and has publicly expressed his pride in doing so.

Given its most recent addition, it appears unlikely that the School of International and Public Affairs will moderate its pro-Israel positions. In January, the school announced that Jacob Lew would join the faculty. Lew had just left his job as the U.S. Ambassador to Israel under the Biden administration, a role in which he facilitated American complicity in genocide, supplying Israel with weapons and providing it with diplomatic support for its efforts.

Defending Israel, Destroying Free Speech

Longtime readers of MintPress News will be less surprised than many to hear that Israeli military intelligence officials hold such important positions in American public life. Previous MintPress investigations have uncovered giant networks of former Israeli spies working in top jobs in big tech and social media companies, including Microsoft, Google, Meta, and Amazon. Even TikTok, often labeled a Chinese spying app, has hired former Israeli spies to run its affairs. And in October, we revealed that former Israeli spooks are writing America’s news, with multiple former agents working at top U.S. outlets, including CNN, Axios, and the New York Times.

Perhaps, then, the fact that the dean of the very school at the center of a worldwide media storm is a former Israeli military intelligence officer should not be such a shock. But it remains a stark reminder of the level of extraordinary institutional bias in favor of Israel displayed across the United States.

March 13, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Romanian nationalist MPs begin parliamentary strike over Georgescu’s election expulsion

By Thomas Brooke | Remix News | March 12, 2025

Nationalist MPs in Romania have launched a parliamentary strike in protest against the disqualification of frontrunner Călin Georgescu from the upcoming May presidential elections.

The move, led by the Alliance for the Union of Romanians (AUR), comes amid growing political unrest and public outcry over what critics are calling an attack on democracy.

George Simion, President of AUR, announced the strike on social media, declaring that all AUR MPs would cease attending parliamentary meetings.

“Starting today, all AUR MPs will go on parliamentary strike. They will no longer attend plenary or committee meetings. State institutions have committed an unimaginable abuse against Călin Georgescu. We stand by his side!” Simion wrote.

The Central Electoral Bureau (BEC) rejected Georgescu’s candidacy on Sunday evening with a 10-4 vote. The decision, met with immediate backlash, triggered widespread protests and sharp international criticism.

Following the announcement, demonstrators gathered outside BEC headquarters in Bucharest, waving national flags and chanting for a “revolution.” Some protesters clashed with police, leading to the use of tear gas as authorities attempted to disperse the crowd.

Georgescu appealed the BEC ruling to the Romanian Constitutional Court (CCR), but the court upheld the decision on Tuesday, barring him from running in the election. The ruling is final and binding, eliminating the frontrunner from the race.

Simion, who also serves as vice president of the European Conservatives and Reformist group in the European Parliament, denounced the decision as politically motivated.

“It was rejected without any reason. All the papers were in good order. We live in a dictatorship. Please help us. Please be on our side to restore democracy in Romania,” Simion pleaded.

“The Deep State wants to ban real opposition, rig the elections, and stay in power at any cost. But we are not afraid! We will fight until our country is free from corruption, censorship and political persecution,” he added on Tuesday.

Following the court ruling, Georgescu lamented the demise of democracy in his country.

“Today, the masters have decided: no equality, no liberty, no fraternity for Romanians,” Georgescu wrote on X. “Long live France and Brussels, long live their colony named Romania.

“While America is becoming great again, Europe and Romania have become petty, corrupt and under dictatorship,” he added.

Nationalists are now understood to be preparing a replacement candidate for the presidential elections and have until March 19 to file papers.

The first round re-run is scheduled for May 4, with a run-off set for May 18.

March 12, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties | , | 1 Comment

Maine Lawmaker Censored: The Facebook Post That Sparked a Free Speech Showdown

By Regina Morrison | Reclaim The Net | March 11, 2025

You’re an elected official. You show up at the state house, ready to do what politicians do: discuss budgets and debate policy. But instead, you find yourself in the middle of a firestorm over a Facebook post. Not because it contains state secrets or classified intel, but because it features photos from a high school track meet.

This is exactly what happened to Maine Representative Laurel Libby, who now finds herself at the center of a storm that is less about sports and more about who gets to decide what speech is acceptable in a democracy.

A Championship, A Facebook Post, and a Political Crisis

It all started with a pole vaulting competition. Libby, a mother of five and a fierce advocate for women’s sports, posted photos from Maine’s Class B state championship in girls’ pole vaulting. The athlete who won had previously competed in the boys’ division, where they finished in fifth place. Now competing in the girls’ category, the athlete cleared 10 feet 6 inches, winning by a wide margin.

Libby’s post ignited a national conversation — the media ran with it, the White House took notice, and suddenly, a Maine high school sports event became ground zero for the larger battle over transgender athletes in women’s sports.

The Censure Vote and the Ultimatum

Democratic leaders in the Maine legislature quickly stepped in. They demanded she take the post down. Libby refused. The response was a censure vote, which passed 75-70 along party lines.

But that wasn’t enough. The House speaker then took things a step further: Libby would not be allowed to speak or vote on legislation until she deleted the post. In other words, her constituents would now go unheard in state government, all because their representative refused to edit her social media. Normally, removing a legislator would require a two-thirds vote or a recall election, but those formalities were apparently unnecessary when a majority party had other tools at its disposal.

Libby’s critics argue that she could have made her point without sharing the athlete’s photo. “Sharing images of kids online without their consent is a clear violation of the bond of trust and respect between citizens and their legislators,” said Majority Leader Ryan Fecteau. He accused Libby of using a minor to score political points and insisted that serious policy debates should not be waged through viral social media posts.

Libby, however, sees it differently. “Words don’t have the same impact. People need to see what’s happening to understand why it’s unfair,” she explained. Her stance is simple: if an athlete competes in a public championship, they should expect public attention. “If you don’t want attention, don’t put yourself in a public position to receive it.”

Libby’s post, whether you agree with it or not, falls squarely under the First Amendment. She wasn’t revealing state secrets or inciting a riot — she was commenting on a policy set by the Maine High School Principals Association, which allows student-athletes to compete in the gender category with which they identify.

In other words, she was doing exactly what elected officials are supposed to do: debate policies that affect the people they represent. The fact that her speech was met not with counter arguments but with an outright ban from legislative participation raises an uncomfortable question; if lawmakers can be silenced for discussing controversial policies, what does that mean for the rest of us?

March 11, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , | 1 Comment

Brussels ‘must take position’ on Romanian presidential election controversy one way or another: Slovak PM Fico

By Thomas Brooke | Remix News | March 11, 2025

The European Commission is under increasing pressure to address the unfolding political crisis in Romania after Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico called for clarity on the rejection of Calin Georgescu’s presidential candidacy.

Fico’s remarks, shared on social media, warn that the Commission’s silence would further undermine trust in the European Union.

Fico emphasized that the European Commission “must take a position” on the situation one way or another, asserting that either Georgescu, a nationalist and NATO-skeptic, is right, or the Romanian authorities’ decision to bar him from running is justified.

“The European Commission (EC) must take a position on the presidential elections in Romania — and take responsibility for it. If Mr. Georgescu is being wronged simply because he has a different opinion, he must be given European protection. If the EC is convinced that the Romanian authorities are doing the right thing, it must stand up for them. The only thing the EC cannot do is to remain silent,” Fico declared.

The controversy erupted after Romania’s Central Electoral Bureau (BEC) rejected Georgescu’s candidacy for the upcoming presidential elections on Sunday evening. The decision, taken with 10 votes in favor out of the 14-member committee, sparked protests in Bucharest, where demonstrators clashed with police, waving national flags and chanting slogans calling for “revolution.” Riot police used tear gas to disperse the crowd, and multiple arrests were made.

The BEC cited a missing signature on an annex of Georgescu’s declaration of wealth as the reason for his disqualification. Former Constitutional Court judge Tudorel Toader clarified that the annexes are a mandatory component of the documentation and that both substantive and procedural requirements must be met.

Georgescu, who had previously won the first round of the presidential elections before they were annulled, condemned the decision as a political maneuver. “A direct blow to the heart of democracy worldwide! I have one message left! If democracy in Romania falls, the entire democratic world will fall! This is just the beginning. It’s that simple! Europe is now a dictatorship, Romania is under tyranny!” he wrote on social media.

Fico drew parallels between Georgescu’s case and his own experiences in Slovakia, where he claims he faced politically motivated efforts to imprison him as an opposition leader between 2020 and 2023. He accused the European Commission, particularly then-justice commissioner Didier Reynders, of turning a blind eye to alleged democratic backsliding in Slovakia because the country’s government at the time was aligned with Brussels.

“The EC at that time did not give a damn about Slovakia. They had an obedient government, and nobody cared about the rights of the leader of the opposition and the nature of democracy in Slovakia,” Fico wrote.

The rejection of Georgescu’s candidacy has drawn sharp criticism from several political figures and observers, including Italian Deputy Prime Minister Matteo Salvini, leader of Spain’s Vox party Santiago Abascal, and U.S. billionaire Elon Musk.

George Simion, president of Romania’s right-wing Alliance for the Union of Romanians (AUR) party, insisted the decision was overtly political. “It was rejected without any reason. All the papers were in good order. We live in a dictatorship. Please help us. Please be on our side to restore democracy in Romania,” Simion stated.

Fico warned that the EU’s credibility is on the line, warning that if it does not take a view, “a dangerous precedent is being set where, in a free democratic election, it will be possible to remove a successful candidate simply because he does not hold a favorable opinion.”

March 11, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Progressive Hypocrite | , , , | Leave a comment

USAID funded Ukraine group that smeared Vance

Protesters gather outside USAID headquarters, February 3, 2025 © Bill Clark / CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images
RT | March 10, 2025

The US Agency for International Development (USAID) has been implicated in funding a Ukrainian organization, Molfar, which labeled Vice President J.D. Vance and other US officials and public figures as “foreign propagandists” aligned with Russia, according to an investigation by The Grayzone.

Molfar, established in 2019, describes itself as an open-source intelligence community platform which “collects lists of Ukrainian enemies to bring war criminals to justice.” The group’s website identifies USAID and the US Civil Research and Development Fund (CRDF) as partners, indicating financial and operational support from US government agencies.

The group’s online blacklist not only targeted Vice President Vance for his statements opposing continued US financial support for Kiev and his stance against Ukraine’s NATO membership, but also targeted other American figures, including US Counterterrorism Director Joe Kent and Representative Thomas Massie. Molfar’s website advocated for their “removal from public positions, the introduction of sanctions, and investigations into personal involvement in crimes.”

In addition to political figures, Molfar has targeted American journalists, including Max Blumenthal, editor-in-chief of The Grayzone. The organization accused Blumenthal of disseminating Russian narratives and threatened to expose his personal information, including home addresses and family details.

Other notable figures targeted by Molfar include billionaire tech entrepreneur Elon Musk, journalists Glenn Greenwald and Tucker Carlson, and award-winning American economist and public policy analyst Jeffrey Sachs.

A report published by Ukraine’s National Coordination Cybersecurity Center (NCSCC), bearing USAID’s logo, highlighted that Molfar assisted in training thousands of Ukrainian government employees in cyber warfare techniques and psychological operations. The report stated that over 2,000 public workers participated in practical assignments covering topics such as open-source searches, contact search, using Telegram bots, psyop as a method of information warfare, human intelligence and social engineering.

According to The Grayzone, Molfar’s activities are part of a broader network of Ukrainian organizations involved in Kiev’s information war efforts at the expense of US taxpayer money.

Another self-styled “fact-checking” outfit, VoxUkraine, has received substantial funding from the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and USAID. Its VoxCheck project has been involved in censoring Americans’ social media posts deemed pro-Russian. Similarly, the Center for Countering Disinformation (CCD), an official body under Ukraine’s National Security and Defense Council, has collaborated with both Molfar and VoxUkraine to combat “disinformation,” often labeling US public figures as promoters of Russian propaganda, including smearing now-Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard.

Immediately upon assuming office, President Donald Trump suspended most US foreign assistance pending a three-month review to determine whether programs should continue based on their alignment with the new administration’s “America First” goals.

USAID, Washington’s primary mechanism for funding political projects abroad, has seen tens of billions of dollars’ worth of approved grants frozen as a result. The NED’s government funding was also frozen. Officially a US State Department-funded nonprofit for distributing grants to pro-democracy causes abroad, the NED has long faced allegations of acting as a CIA cutout for toppling foreign governments.

March 11, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Deception, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , , | 2 Comments

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »