US strikes vessel in Caribbean killing three, death toll reaches 180
Al Mayadeen | April 20, 2026
The United States military announced the killing of three individuals in a strike targeting an alleged drug-trafficking vessel in the Caribbean, marking the latest escalation in Washington’s expanding operations across the region.
According to the United States Southern Command, the strike was carried out on Sunday against what it described as a vessel “operated by Designated Terrorist Organizations.”
SOUTHCOM alleged that “intelligence confirmed the vessel was transiting along known narco-trafficking routes in the Caribbean and was engaged in narco-trafficking operations,” adding that “three male narco-terrorists were killed during this action.”
Washington frames operations as war
US President Donald Trump’s administration has framed these operations within the context of a broader confrontation, asserting that the United States is effectively “at war” with what it labels as “narco-terrorists” in Latin America.
Despite repeated claims by US officials, the administration has not presented definitive public evidence demonstrating that the targeted vessels were actively engaged in drug trafficking.
This lack of transparency has fueled skepticism and intensified scrutiny over the criteria used to authorize strikes, particularly in cases where those targeted are not independently verified as combatants.
Three major US rights groups filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration in December of last year, stating that there is a total lack of legal justification for the US strikes in the Caribbean.
Lawmakers also raised questions about the validity of strikes, stating that the decision to use lethal force may run contrary to international law, as well as US statutes prohibiting murder or assassination.
The latest strike brings the number of reported fatalities from these operations to at least 180, based on available data. US military officials have acknowledged conducting at least six such strikes in April alone, indicating a sharp increase in operational tempo.
The growing frequency of these attacks reflects a sustained escalation, with Washington relying on military force as a primary tool in its anti-drug campaign across Caribbean waters.
International legal experts and human rights organizations have also raised serious concerns regarding the legality of the strikes. Critics argue that the operations likely constitute extrajudicial killings, as they appear to target individuals who do not pose an immediate threat to the United States.
The absence of due process, combined with the classification of suspects as “narco-terrorists,” has further complicated legal assessments, raising broader questions about the use of military force in law enforcement contexts.
The prospect of an expanded and far more violent war
By Kurt Nimmo | Another Day in the Empire | April 18, 2026
… Earlier this month, Israeli minister Bezalel Smotrich declared an official start to the Greater Israel project. He included Syria, Lebanon, and Palestine in the project. Since the establishment of Israel in 1948, Zionists have strived to weaken neighboring states, dismantle their military capacity, and worked to reshape the balance of power in West Asia. The original plan called for occupying and ethnically cleansing the entirety of Palestine, all of Jordan, south Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq, the Sinai Peninsula in Egypt, and northern Saudi Arabia.
The Nazis had a similar plan during their occupation of Europe in the Second World War. It was called the “Greater Germanic Reich” (Großgermanisches Reich). In the autumn of 1933, Adolf Hitler made plans to annex territories including Bohemia, parts of western Poland, and Austria to Germany. He also aimed to create satellite or puppet states that would lack independent economies or policies. Nazi racial theories classified the Germanic peoples of Europe as part of a racially superior Nordic subset within the broader Aryan race, which they considered to be the sole true bearers of civilized culture.
In Deuteronomy, the Jewish God chooses Israel to be his holy (kadosh) and treasured (segulah) people. Deuteronomy 14:2 states God has chosen the Jews “to be a people for Himself, a special treasure above all the peoples who are on the face of the earth.” According to the Torah, “Eretz Israel” (“Land of Israel” in Hebrew), now defined as “Greater Israel,” was “given” to the “children of Abraham” and serves as the basis for “a merger of religious fundamentalism and modern political ethno-nationalism, whereby ancient texts are used to justify a modern military expansionist state.” In regard to Lebanon, the Zionists believe Greater Israel extends up to the Sidon and Litani rivers.
According to Amichai Friedman, a rabbi in the Israeli Army, “This land is ours, the whole land, including Gaza, including Lebanon,” while Daniella Weiss, a Jewish ethnonationalist and former mayor of Kedumim, called for the “invasion of Lebanon” immediately after the war in Gaza. Lebanon-born Israeli journalist Edy Cohen posted to social media that areas of Lebanon, including Faraya and Kesrouan, will also suffer the fate of Gaza, that is to say ethnic cleansing, massacres, and wholesale theft of land, homes (those not demolished), and infrastructure. … Full article
Canada’s Carney Revives Online Censorship Bill
The bill that died with Trudeau’s election call is back, and so is the advisory panel that wrote it.
By Christina Maas | Reclaim The Net | April 18, 2026
Canada’s Liberal government is preparing to revive legislation that would hand the state new powers over what Canadians can say online, with Prime Minister Mark Carney’s team signaling that a rebooted “online harms” law is coming.
A report submitted to the Senate social affairs committee confirms the direction.
The Department of Industry told senators that Ottawa is working toward a “future online safety regime” aimed at reducing online “harms,” a category the government itself gets to define. To shape the proposal, officials have brought back the Expert Advisory Group on Online Safety, the same body that helped design the previous censorship attempt.
“To advise on this proposal, the government has recently reconvened the Expert Advisory Group on Online Safety, whose members previously contributed to the development of online harms legislation, to engage on new and emerging issues related to online harms,” the department said.
“Any future legislative proposal would be subject to parliamentary scrutiny, and details will be made public at the appropriate time.”
One of the members back at the table is Bernie Farber of the Canadian Anti-Hate Network. The advisory group helps shape what the government will treat as hateful, harmful, or dangerous.
That definition, once written into law, determines which posts get deleted, which accounts get silenced, and which Canadians face fines or house arrest for saying the wrong thing online.
Canadian Culture Minister Marc Miller telegraphed the timing this week, suggesting a new law targeting “online harms” is needed and likely coming soon. With the Liberals now holding a majority after three byelection wins and the defection of five MPs from the Conservatives and NDP, the procedural obstacles that killed previous attempts have largely disappeared. A social media ban for children is also on the table.
The last attempt, Bill C-63, known as the Online Harms Act, was introduced under the familiar justification of protecting children from online exploitation.
The bill died when former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau called the 2025 federal election. Its actual reach went well beyond child safety. It targeted lawful internet content that authorities deemed “likely to foment detestation or vilification of an individual or group,” wording broad enough to sweep up political argument, satire, religious commentary, and journalism, depending on who was reading it. Breaking the rule carried fines of up to $70,000 or house arrest.
Before C-63 there was Bill C-36, a 2021 effort to amend the Criminal Code along similar lines. Neither bill made it through. Both kept returning in slightly different forms.
The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms, Canada’s leading constitutional freedom organization, has launched a national campaign urging the Carney government to abandon the project entirely.
The JCCF warned that the Online Harms Act would “dramatically expand government censorship powers, punish lawful expression online, and authorize preemptive restrictions on individual liberty.”
“In doing so, it would represent a fundamental departure from Canada’s long-standing commitment to freedom of expression and due process,” the organization said.
Preemptive restrictions, the legal mechanism the previous bill contained, mean punishing or silencing someone before they have said anything unlawful. Canadian courts have historically treated prior restraint as the most serious form of speech suppression. The revived framework appears to contemplate it as a feature.
The chilling effect is already setting in. Writers, commentators, and small publishers in Canada began adjusting what they posted during the C-63 debate, well before any law took effect. The threat alone was enough to quiet a portion of online political speech.
A reintroduced bill, backed by a majority government and an advisory panel stacked with people who see the internet as a venue that needs controlling, makes that quieting louder.
The Liberal government has said repeatedly that some version of Bill C-63 is coming back. What it has not said, in any substantive form, is who decides what counts as hate, what counts as harm, and what counts as the kind of speech a democracy is supposed to tolerate even when it finds it ugly. Those definitions will sit with the same government promising the law, and the same advisory group promising to help write it.
Israeli soldiers kill UNICEF truck drivers delivering water to Gaza families
The Cradle | April 18, 2026
Israeli soldiers killed two Palestinian truck drivers hired by UNICEF and injured two others during routine water delivery operations at a filling point in northern Gaza on 17 April.
“UNICEF is outraged by the killing of two drivers of trucks contracted by UNICEF to provide clean water to families in the Gaza Strip,” a statement from the UN agency reads.
UNICEF added the victims were “killed by Israeli fire in an incident that took place early this morning at the Mansoura water filling point in northern Gaza.”
The attack occurred during normal operations, with no changes in the convoy’s movements or procedures that morning.
UNICEF has since told its contractors to stand down at the site until conditions are safe enough to return.
“The Mansoura water filling point is currently the only operational truck filling point for the Mekorot water supply line serving Gaza City,” UNICEF said, highlighting the significance of the disruption.
“UNICEF and humanitarian partners use it multiple times a day to sustain critical water trucking operations for hundreds of thousands of people, including children.”
UNICEF called on Israeli authorities to “investigate this incident, and ensure full accountability,” adding that “Humanitarian workers, essential service providers, and civilian infrastructure, including critical water facilities, must never be targeted.”
In March, Israel slashed already restricted aid flows into Gaza, allowing just 640 trucks to enter out of 6,000 expected under existing arrangements – around 10 percent of the required amount.
Palestinian officials warn that the cuts have intensified shortages and pushed the strip closer to famine, with fuel, food, and basic goods increasingly scarce.
UNICEF said prices for essential items had surged by 200 to 300 percent, placing more than 1.5 million people at risk of severe food insecurity.
At the same time, Israeli attacks on the besieged Strip have continued despite the so-called ceasefire.
Earlier this month, Israeli forces shot and killed nine-year-old Palestinian schoolgirl Ritaj Reihan inside a tent classroom in northern Gaza, around two kilometers from the so-called ‘Yellow Line,’ in front of dozens of her classmates.
Trump taps military-grade flu pandemic architect to lead CDC amid simultaneous gain-of-function and vax development
Nominee authored US military pandemic influenza policy and directed surveillance, vaccination, and compliance systems.
By Jon Fleetwood | April 17, 2026
President Donald Trump has tapped Dr. Erica Schwartz—a military-trained architect of influenza pandemic surveillance, vaccination, and compliance systems—to lead the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), elevating a systems-level influenza operator to the top of the nation’s public health apparatus.
The nomination comes as the Trump administration continues funding influenza gain-of-function research, advances influenza vaccine development under its “Gold Standard” framework, signs into law a multi-billion-dollar influenza pandemic preparedness omnibus directing federal funding toward outbreak response systems, and maintains coordination with the World Health Organization’s global influenza network despite formally withdrawing.
The U.S. government is advancing the influenza pathogen side, the vaccine response, and the deployment system—and now seeks to put a military-grade influenza pandemic architect in charge of the CDC.
Just as he did in 2018 with Dr. Robert Redfield—the career U.S. Army Colonel and virologist who led the CDC when COVID erupted—President Trump is once again installing a battle-tested military physician with deep expertise in influenza pandemic systems to head the agency.
The move raises questions about whether this level of consolidation leaves open the possibility that the same system could influence both the emergence of a pandemic and the response to it.
Dr. Schwartz also received a nod from HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
See also:
Israeli General: War with Iran does not serve Israel as global standing erodes over Gaza
MEMO | April 17, 2026
A former Israeli General close to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has warned of the strategic and political consequences of the ongoing conflict, saying a military confrontation with Iran is not in Israel’s interest.
Major General (res.) Giora Eiland, former head of Israel’s National Security Council, said in remarks reported by Israeli media platform Walla that Israel’s international standing has sharply declined over the past three years, adding that the war in Gaza is the main driver of this deterioration.
He said the prevailing view among political circles in Europe and the United States is that Netanyahu has drawn Washington into an unnecessary confrontation.
Eiland added that these tensions have caused tangible harm to the global economy and threatened its stability, fuelling international public opinion against Israeli policies.
He stressed that the erosion of Israel’s standing is no longer limited to international institutions, but has become “clear and evident” within the United States, Israel’s closest ally.
Another Trump Flip Flop: From ‘Kill FISA’ to ‘Clean Renewal’
By Alan Mosley | The Libertarian Institute | April 15, 2026
With its April 20 deadline for congressional renewal looming, Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) is back in the spotlight. The provision, first adopted in 2008 as a part of the FISA Amendments Act as an update to the original 1978 Act, allows U.S. intelligence agencies to target “non-US persons located outside the United States to acquire foreign intelligence information” as a response to perceived technology gaps exposed in the years after 9/11. It achieves this by compelling American telecom companies to collect intelligence on foreign targets and turning over data to federal officials.
Many aspects of Section 702 are concerning to civil libertarians. The provision includes a “backdoor search” loophole that allows agencies like the Federal Bureau of Investigation to search the database for communications belonging to U.S. citizens without a warrant. On the topic of warrants, individual warrants for each target are not required by Section 702. Instead, the government gets annual approval via the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) to conduct broad spying operations with little to no oversight, with no requirement that the government proves to the court that a specific target is even suspected of being an agent of a foreign power.
Recently, President Donald Trump asked Republicans to unify to extend the program with no changes in oversight or accountability. Trump posted on Truth Social, “When used properly, FISA is an effective tool to keep Americans safe. For these reasons, I have called for a clean 18-month extension.” The adjective “clean” is not politically neutral: it implies that attempts to reform the program are partisan clutter, and that re-evaluating the practical or constitutional application of such a tool is a waste of time.
But this isn’t the position shared by those who have been wrongly targeted by the intelligence community, including President Trump himself. In May 2020, Trump urged Republicans to vote “NO” on FISA, explicitly tying the law to fears of abuse, including against his own re-election campaign. Four years later, he told lawmakers to “KILL FISA,” claiming it had been “illegally used” against him and that officials had “spied on my campaign.” On Monday, Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-CO) wrote to National Security Agency Director Joshua Rudd to address “deeply troubling abuses of power” by NSA analysts, alleging the agency has used Section 702 to search the private communications of individuals ranging from dating apps to rental agreements. In his latest departure with the administration, Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) said, “I vote with GOP 91% of the time, but that’s about to go to 90%. I won’t vote to let feds spy on you without a warrant. FISA 702 allows the government to search for your information in vast databases compiled with targeting foreigners.”
That charge of “vast databases” of Americans’ private data is precisely the overreach that Edward Snowden blew the whistle on in 2013 when he revealed that the NSA was using its authority to collect telephone records in bulk. But the Fourth Amendment’s logic does not dissolve in the presence of large databases. According to the Supreme Court, a search that intrudes on a reasonable expectation of privacy requires a warrant supported by probate cause. In Carpenter v. United States, SCOTUS held that the government’s acquisition of historical cell-site location information was a Fourth Amendment search, emphasizing how modern technology can transform ordinary records into comprehensive tracking. Intelligence gathering at such a sheer scale, while politically attractive to those who crave power, is constitutionally dubious for all the ways it could be used to target individuals, even if the initial data collection is impersonal.
The secrecy and structure of the reviewing court compound the problem. Inspector General Michael E. Horowitz described FISA proceedings as “ex parte,” with only the government appearing, which deprives the process of “adversarial testing.” In ordinary constitutional practice, laws that burden speech, association, and privacy are tested by said adversarial litigation to force factual development, limiting principles, and public reasoning. This leaves the FISC’s decisions and operations shrouded in secrecy. Annual statistics help to explain why civil liberty advocates criticize the FISC as a compliance venue rather than a constitutional barrier. The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts reports that in 2024 the FISC granted or modified the overwhelming majority of items before it, with no applications denied in full. In 2025, it only denied four applications in full while continuing to grant or modify most of the remainder. While these numbers do not necessarily prove bad faith by the judges involved, they do underscore the institutional asymmetry: a secret court hearing only one party (the state) is predisposed to side with it without due courtesy to the target of the government’s ire.
A surveillance state that cannot be meaningfully challenged in court is not merely powerful, it is structurally insulated. In another SCOTUS ruling, Clapper v. Amnesty International, the court ruled that the plaintiffs, including lawyers, journalists, and human-rights advocates, lacked the standing to challenge FISA Section 702 because they could not prove their alleged injuries. In other words, since potential government surveillance of their activities is done in secret, they can’t be sure that such surveillance took place, even if possible or even likely. The practical result is a legal regime in which the people most likely to become targets of the surveillance state are told, in effect, that they must wait until the government admits to its own wrongdoing, if it ever does. Such doctrine rewards opacity, discourages accountability, and converts constitutional limits into after-the-fact internal policy debates. A free society does not need to prove it is being watched before it can object to the creation of institutions engineered to snoop first and justify later.
Another perspective to judge such unconstitutional surveillance is the imposed cost, even when not aimed at a particular citizen. In Clapper, the plaintiffs described costly precautions taken to protect confidential communications, precautions the Court treated as self-inflicted for standing purposes. Yet those precautions are better understood as the rational price of uncertainty: when citizens cannot know whether their interactions with foreign sources, clients, colleagues, or family are subject to state capture, prudence demands self-censorship, detours, and silence. This burden falls especially hard on professions that depend on confidentiality, such as investigative journalists, advocacy groups, and legal counsel. The effect is fewer inquiries, fewer candid conversations, and fewer whistleblowers that might be identified by an algorithm or an analyst. As a result, the same surveillance state that should be met with a multitude of challenges from civil rights advocates chills its opposition into less resistance.
Americans should oppose Section 702 because it builds a durable exception to the Fourth Amendment. It vests immense surveillance discretion in the executive branch and invites political abuse, as the president knows from personal experience. It conscripts private companies as unwilling deputies to the intelligence community and treats the public like criminals-in-waiting. Predictably, citizens trim speech and associations when they suspect the state can catalog their correspondence. “If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear” has never been an acceptable argument for the curtailment of privacy. A free people should not live by such a gross exception to liberty.
The new assault of the Zionist lobby in Brazil
By Raphael Machado | Strategic Culture Foundation | April 14, 2026
The role of the Zionist lobby in the U.S. is so notorious that it has practically become contemporary folklore. Some European authors also emphasize the great influence that the Zionist lobby enjoys, primarily in France, and secondarily in the United Kingdom and Germany. Nowadays, there is also increasing talk of its influence over Argentina, especially in the context of the Andinia Plan.
But Brazil is almost always left out of this equation. To some extent, it is as if the image of a tropical “paradise” in perfect balance between Catholic faith and Dionysian spirit does not quite align with Zionist manipulations. But this perception is misleading.
In the past, we have commented on the overwhelming neo-Pentecostal growth in Brazil. Today, they make up approximately 30% of the Brazilian population, and with their theological specificities, they bring with them an obsession with the State of Israel. Moreover, there are plenty of theses claiming that neo-Pentecostal penetration in Latin America was a successful operation orchestrated by the CIA to subvert hegemonic Catholic spirituality and pave the way for Zionism.
In parallel, however, the Brazilian Jewish community itself has gradually built a modestly influential lobby, well-connected in politics, the media, and the judiciary, though far less aggressive than the Zionist lobby in other countries.
The test to verify, however, the degree of Zionist influence in Brazil and how much neo-Pentecostal expansion will serve to guarantee Zionist designs is unfolding now.
After the Gaza War, in which the State of Israel clearly attempted to carry out a Palestinian genocide, Israel’s reputation was completely shattered. All the credit accumulated because of the Holocaust was entirely exhausted by the scenes of mass extermination of innocent women and children. The lies and hypocrisy were so great that many people even began to question more easily whether Israel might have been behind 9/11 and the Kennedy assassination.
In recent years, Israel’s influence schemes became famous, including paying virtual activists to make pro-Israel comments in online discussions. This has been given the name “Hasbara.” It is nothing other than propaganda.
We could say, therefore, that Gaza made decades of “Hasbara” disappear.
Naturally, however, Israel could not give up such an important asset. As much as Israel seems to disdain international opinion, this opinion plays an important role in pressuring governments to maintain friendly relations with Israel despite its atrocities.
Hence, it was predictable since the Gaza ceasefire that Israel would seek to react; but since it is impossible to regain the goodwill of world public opinion, the Zionist lobby would simply set out to try to censor anti-Zionist opinions, without worrying about winning over that public opinion.
Recently, we came across something that proves this.
At the end of March 2026, a bill (PL 1424/26) was introduced in Brazil aimed at criminalizing antisemitism. Antisemitism is already a crime in Brazil, as a form of racism, but it is not defined, so the interpretation of what constitutes antisemitism is left to the judge.
The bill in question, however, aims to define antisemitism according to the definition of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA). Among the various conduct categorized as antisemitism, the IHRA includes, nonetheless, advocating for the end of the State of Israel as a specifically Jewish state. In other words, even advocating for the transformation of the State of Israel into a free, open Palestinian state where Jews can live is considered antisemitism.
This bill is authored by Tábata Amaral, a federal deputy for the PSB, and it received a total of 44 signatures upon its introduction, from federal deputies belonging to the governing Workers’ Party (PT), the Bolsonarist opposition PL, and various centrist parties.
But where did this bill come from, and who is behind it?
Starting with the purported author of the bill, Deputy Tabata Amaral — known for promoting every globalist agenda in Brazil — belongs to that category of “prodigy students” who are awarded scholarships to Western universities, in her case Harvard. Her stay there was funded mainly by the Lemann Foundation, created by Swiss-Brazilian billionaire Jorge Paulo Lemann.
Lemann, one of the richest men in Brazil, is a friend of George Soros and recently hired the Rothschild Bank to represent him before his creditors in the bankruptcy case of “Americanas,” a company he owns. But unlike Soros, who has a different focus, Lemann in his “philanthropic” activities has the more specific goal of renewing the Brazilian political class. Deputy Tabata Amaral is an example of what Lemann intends.
Furthermore, in the last elections, Amaral’s campaigns received funding from various figures in the Brazilian financial market — such as bankers Armínio Fraga and Cândido Bracher — and from the Zionist lobby — such as speculators Marcos Lederman and Luís Stuhlberger. Lederman, Stuhlberger, and Bracher, along with other oligarchs who fund Tabata Amaral’s electoral campaigns, such as Nizan Guanaes and Elie Horn, are figures who frequently appear at events and initiatives promoted by CONIB (the Israeli Confederation of Brazil), the Brazil-Israel Institute, and FIERJ (the Jewish Federation of Rio de Janeiro), important institutions of the Brazilian Zionist lobby.
And as for the bill itself, who convinced Tabata Amaral to promote it?
According to exclusive information from sources in Brasília, the bill was drafted within the NGO Stand With Us Brazil, a Zionist institution with extensive and notorious links to the Mossad, chaired by André Lajst, with Argentine Bruno Bimbi as its strategy and policy manager. Bimbi is said to have been the main architect of the bill and went door to door in Congress to pressure parliamentarians into putting their signatures on it.
Bimbi is a notorious activist for LGBT causes and was one of the main organizers of the pressure campaign for the legalization of same-sex marriage in Argentina and Brazil. Now, however, his focus is more on Zionist activism.
To show that this is a broad-spectrum coordinated initiative, aimed at involving the right, left, and center simultaneously with this bill, the Lula government itself, through its Ministry of Human Rights and Citizenship, will hold an event on “antisemitism” this April, coordinated by Clara Ant.
The event will put on its agenda the definition of antisemitism, relying precisely on the same International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance that defines criticism of the State of Israel as a possible expression of antisemitism. Among the speakers at the event will also be the presidents of the aforementioned CONIB, Claudio and Fernando Lottenberg.
And who is Clara Ant, the event coordinator? Born in Bolivia but raised in Israel, she has been Lula’s right-hand woman since the 1970s and was one of the founders of the CUT, the main trade union institution of the Workers’ Party. Ant is also a constant presence at CONIB events.
Another link between the PT and the Zionist lobby is Senator Jaques Wagner, who in his youth was an activist in the Labor Zionist movement Habonim Dror, where he received his intellectual formation. Both as governor and as senator, Wagner — who was one of those who signed in support of Tabata Amaral’s bill — worked specifically to bring Brazil and Israel closer, especially in the areas of security and intelligence, even serving as rapporteur for an agreement that ceded confidential Brazilian intelligence information to the Mossad.
It does not seem likely that, at the present moment, given all the controversy the case has generated, this bill will be approved in Brazil. Nevertheless, the case serves to exemplify the tentacular and multifaceted character of the Zionist lobby’s activities in Brazil.
US Strikes Kill Five in Alleged Pacific Anti-drug Campaign
teleSUR – April 13, 2026
United States military forces killed five men after striking two boats in the Pacific Ocean suspected of links to drug trafficking, according to the US Southern Command (Southcom).
Southcom said the vessels were intercepted along known routes in the Eastern Pacific and targeted on the grounds that they were associated with organizations designated as terrorist groups. In the first boat, three crew members were onboard; two were killed and one survived. Authorities notified the US Coast Guard to initiate search and rescue protocols for the survivor. In the second vessel, all three occupants died in the strike.
The command released a 34-second video showing explosions on both boats while at sea, describing the actions as part of a strategy of “applying total systemic friction on the cartels.” The strikes are part of Operation Southern Spear, launched in September across Central America, South America, and the Caribbean.
Despite having the operational capacity to intercept vessels, seize alleged illicit cargo, and detain those onboard, US forces have continued to carry out bombardments in similar scenarios.
Since the start of the campaign, U.S forces have killed at least 168 people and destroyed 50 vessels, according to official records and analyses of search and rescue data. Reports indicate that at least 15 individuals have survived such operations, with two briefly detained by the US Navy before being repatriated. Another 11 people are presumed dead after not being located during rescue efforts.
Washington has framed the campaign as part of its efforts to curb drug trafficking flows in the region.
EU Defense Agency head says compulsory military service could be necessary
RT | April 13, 2026
Compulsory military service could be reinstated in the EU, Andre Denk, the head of the European Defense Agency (EDA), has said, citing a lack of volunteers.
Several EU countries have reintroduced the draft since the escalation of the Ukraine conflict in 2022, citing the perceived ‘Russian threat’.
President Vladimir Putin has dismissed claims that Russia harbors aggressive intentions against its Western neighbors.
In an interview with Spain’s El Pais published on Monday, Denk said, “we have a human resources problem, and one of the ways to solve it will be through mandatory military service” – adding that his home country of Germany will likely go down this path eventually.
Denk also urged EU nations to invest more in domestic arms production, with a particular focus on drones and anti-drone systems.
Last year, Finland announced plans to raise the upper age limit for rank-and-file military reservists by 15 years, from 50 to 65, starting in 2026.
The country, which shares a 1,340-km (830-mile) land border with Russia, abandoned its long-standing policy of military neutrality and joined NATO in April 2023.
Around the same time, Lithuania unveiled an expanded conscription plan that would run year-round from 2026 on. It reinstated compulsory military service in 2015 after a seven-year suspension.
In neighboring Latvia, Defense Minister Andris Spruds stated last September that his party, the Progressives, would seek mandatory military service not only for men, but also for women, starting from 2028.
Several months earlier, Denmark announced that it would begin drafting women this year.
In Germany, a new law that took effect on January 1 and introduces a voluntary model has sparked protests, with critics warning that it could open the door to reinstating conscription, which was suspended in 2011.
France To Vote On Bill That Would Criminalize Criticism Of Israel
France Is About To Outlaw Criticism Of Israel
Protesters hold a banner reading “Supporting Palestine is not a crime” and “Stop genocide in Gaza” at a rally against the Yadan bill, in Paris on 12 April 2026.
The Dissident | April 13, 2026
A bill that the French National Assembly will vote on, on April 16th and 17th, effectively outlaws criticism of Israel, making it a criminal offence to question Israel’s “right” to exist as a Jewish supremacist apartheid state on occupied Palestinian land, compare Israel’s conduct to the Nazis, or support armed resistance against Israeli occupation and aggression.
The bill writes, “Today, anti-Jew hatred in our country feeds on obsessive hatred towards Israel, regularly delegitimized in its existence and criminalized. This phenomenon is exacerbated by extreme spirits who, under the pretext of expressing their hatred towards a State, are the instigators of a reinvented anti-Semitism, which could be described as ‘geopolitics’.”
The bill seeks to criminalize critics of Israel and paint them as terrorists, writing that the “call for the destruction of Israel and its comparison to a Nazi regime – are rooted in consciences with impunity, taking up the rhetoric of movements recognized as terrorist such as Hamas or Hezbollah.”
The bill seeks to criminalize:
- “Public remarks presenting acts of terrorism as legitimate resistance” (ie support for armed resistance against the Israeli genocide in Gaza or occupation of Lebanon).
- “Causing the destruction or denial of a State or publicly advocating its destruction or denial” (i.e., questioning Israel as a Jewish apartheid state, including calls for a single democratic state in historic Palestine with equal rights).
- “to clarify and extend the crime of challenging the Shoah, by enshrining several essential contributions of case law” adding “the comparison of the State of Israel to the Nazi regime would therefore be sanctioned as an outrageous trivialization of the Shoah” (i.e. factually pointing out that the state of Israel is behaving like the Nazis, including by committing Genocide in Gaza, as the UN independent international commission found in September of last year, and by calling for an expansionist greater Israel and ethnic cleansing to establish Jewish settlements ,similar to the Nazi concept of Lebensraum, an idea that has been openly endorsed by Benjamin Netanyahu and his main political opponent Yair Lapid).
Analyst Arnaud Bertrand documented that the bill attempts to make the criminalization of speech as broad as possible.
He noted that “Article 1 introduces the concept of ‘implicit’ provocation to terrorism and punishes it with five years imprisonment and a fine of €75,000,” adding, “What does ‘implicit provocation to terrorism’ mean? Nobody knows. And that’s the point. It means whatever a prosecutor wants it to mean: a perfectly good case could be made that, for instance, quoting international law on the right of occupied peoples to resist with respect to Hamas is, in fact, ‘implicit provocation to terrorism.’”
He added that “The same article also expands the terrorism apology offense to include ‘minimizing or trivializing acts of terrorism in an outrageous manner’” adding that “a judge could decide that providing context, explaining root causes, or insufficiently condemning an act amounts to ‘trivializing’ terrorism”, “for instance, a history teacher explaining the origins of Hamas or Hezbollah is providing context – but a prosecutor could argue that contextualization is trivialization. The same reasoning could apply to a journalist, a researcher, or anyone on social media who says ‘yes, it was terrible, but here’s why it happened.’ The ‘but’ becomes a crime, as it is trivialization.”
He also noted that, “ if you advocate for a one-state solution where Israelis and Palestinians live as equals, you are de-facto calling for the ‘destruction’ of the state of Israel. Well, that would now be punishable by 5 years in prison”.
The bill is called “the Yadan Law” because its creation was headed by National Assembly deputy Caroline Yadan, who represents the “French legislative constituency for citizens abroad” where “Israel has the largest number of voters in the constituency, with over 50,000 registered French voters”.
JNS noted that, “Yadan was elected to parliament as a representative of Renaissance but downgraded her ties to the party, switching to an independent affiliated lawmaker in September following the Macron administration’s decision to recognize a Palestinian state.”
In other words, the bill was brought by a Zionist French politician whose main constituency are Israelis.
Arnaud Bertrand noted, “The U.S. has congressmen paid by AIPAC: France has cut out the middleman entirely, we have MPs whose constituency is literally in Israel.”
Caroline Yadan is a genocide denier who has written, “The term genocide corresponds neither to the rights nor to the facts, nor to the intentions of the war in Gaza.”
Referring to the bill, the former French anti-terrorism judge Marc Trevidic said, “I’d never seen anything like it, the notion of implicit incitement to terrorism. Can you imagine what that means? A censor of other people’s thoughts, trying to figure out what a person meant”.
There is no doubt that this bill is designed to silence criticism of Israel, and that the lawmaker behind it is pushing it forward on behalf of her Israeli constituents.
Trump’s desperate bombasts amount to war crimes
By William J. Watkins Jr. | The Libertarian Institute | April 13, 2026
President Donald Trump owes the Pakistanis for securing a fourteen-day ceasefire with Iran. He now has a chance to extricate the United States from the biggest blunder of his second term. Tensions, however, remain high. “It is emphasized that this does not signify the termination of the war,” the Iranian government said in a formal statement. “Our hands remain upon the trigger, and should the slightest error be committed by the enemy, it shall be met with full force.”
One must worry that Trump does not appreciate the ceasefire off-ramp as good luck or an unmerited gift; instead, he likely will credit his threats to destroy “a whole civilization…never to be brought back again.” If the ceasefire breaks down, Trump could fulfill his commitment to “rain Hell” on Iran.
While typing away on Truth Social, Trump is oblivious that he is giving an anticipatory confession to war crimes. In addition to the posts quoted above, the president has threatened to destroy Iran’s power plants, oil wells, and desalinization facilities if certain demands are rejected. Civilizational devastation, Trump raved, “will be in retribution for our many soldiers, and others, that Iran has butchered and killed over the old Regime’s 47 year ‘Reign of Terror.’”
Trump’s promises violate fundamental tenets of the laws and customs of armed conflict (also known as international humanitarian law, “IHL”) which yields individual criminal responsibility under international law. This area of IHL is clear and not subject to different spins.
As an initial matter, Trump’s war plans violate protocols to the Geneva Convention codifying the principle of distinction. According to Article 48 of the relevant protocol, “the Parties to the conflict shall at all times distinguish between the civilian population and combatants and between civilian objects and military objectives and accordingly shall direct their operations only against military objectives.” [Emphasis added] Article 51 further prohibits “[a]cts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population.”
Trump’s possible targets enumerated on Truth Social are integral to provision of basic services to civilians. The president is not threatening military bases, missile silos, or drone manufacturing facilities. Instead, he proposes to bring suffering on Iran’s civilian population simply because he can. IHL prohibits such methods of war as uncivilized.
Trump and his war hawk apologists will likely counter that destruction of certain infrastructure could produce a military benefit and thus is allowed. This is not true. Article 51 sets forth the principle of proportionality which prohibits military attacks expected to cause harm to civilians that is excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated. Just because soldiers use electricity and drink water does not mean that the United States is justified in destroying all of Iran’s power plants and desalinization facilities.
Further damning to the president’s case is his stated reason for attacking civilian targets and infrastructure: “retribution” for the conduct of a regime he alleges no longer holds power. IHL strictly prohibits reprisals against the civilian population. A reprisal is an action typically illegal that is taken to force the enemy to stop its own violations of IHL. For example, if Iran executed American prisoners of war (“POWs”), the United States could execute Iranian POWs to persuade Iran to comply with the Geneva Convention. In the present conflict, Trump has not identified Iranian IHL violations and even if he had done so, the United States could not institute reprisals against civilian targets or persons.
At best, Trump’s statements on Truth Social are desperate bombast from a leader who regrets taking advice from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC). At worst, they are an outline for barbarism unfit for the leader of a federal republic.
If the ceasefire does not result in a permanent settlement and Trump follows through on his threats to civilians and civilian infrastructure, IHL is squarely against him. He should not be surprised if the International Criminal Court (“ICC”), which is charged with investigating war crimes and similar matters, issues a warrant for his arrest. Such a warrant would prevent Trump from traveling outside of the United States because of the risk of arrest. No more golf trips to Ireland for the Donald.
While Trump has just complaints about the lawfare waged against him by the likes of Alvin Bragg, Letitia James, and Fani Willis, an ICC matter would be different. Trump’s own words convict him and are counter to the established laws and customs of armed conflict.
Featured Video
The Iran War has destroyed fertilizer markets and farmers everywhere, almost
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
Truth, History and Integrity
By Gilad Atzmon | March 13, 2010
… As devastating as it may be, at a certain moment in time, a horrible chapter was given an exceptionally meta-historical status. Its ‘factuality’ was sealed by draconian laws and its reasoning was secured by social and political settings. The Holocaust became the new Western religion. Unfortunately, it is the most sinister religion known to man. It is a license to kill, to flatten, no nuke, to wipe, to rape, to loot and to ethnically cleanse. … Read full article
Blog Roll
Aletho News- Iran moved to change the US-Iran equation yesterday
- Former Israeli soldier: I left the Gaza war with shame and regret
- The UK Government Will Persecute Those Vocal about Israel, But Not War Criminals
- Is Hungary about to give Ukraine the EU green light?
- EU pushing Armenia to expel Russian Orthodox Church – intel service
- From Evo Morales to Rodrigo Paz: Bolivia’s Dramatic Shift Toward Israel
- Iran rejects US assassination claim, says Washington trying to whitewash its own crimes against Iranians
- The Iran War has destroyed fertilizer markets and farmers everywhere, almost
- Capitulate or Die: The Gaza ‘peace process’ and Western propaganda
- FSB Blows Lid on Western Plot to Hack Russian Officials’ Phones — But Here’s the Shocker
- If Americans Knew
- The Faustian Bargain of Journalists Embedding with the Israeli Military in Gaza
- AIPAC: Defending the Indefensible
- “You Either Leave Right Now or You Die”—Israel’s Ethnic Cleansing of a Village in Lebanon
- Selling American dead bodies to the US Navy for Israeli military training?
- AIPAC affiliate has funded lavish trips to Israel for dozens of Congress members since 7 October, filings reveal
- Trump called Netanyahu crazy, stopped Israel attack on Beirut: three articles
- ISRAELI MEDIA: Israel’s Education System Isn’t Broken. It’s Doing Exactly What It Was Built to Do
- UN experts alarmed by escalating settler terror and displacement in West Bank
- Israeli soldiers halt Catholic festival preparations in West Bank Christian village
- Congress Is Quietly Making Israel a Permanent Pillar of U.S. Military Modernization
- No Tricks Zone
- Germany’s Die Welt: “Too Much Is Too Much” … Green Energies Are Cannabalizing Each Other!
- Germany’s Ecological Holocaust… Once Fairy Tale Forests Getting Cleared For Wind Turbines
- A Grand Solar Minimum Has Arrived…Global Cooling Of At Least 1°C Is Expected By The 2030s, 2040s
- European “Expert Commission” Urges COVID-19-Like Global Climate State Of Energency!
- Real-World Observations Do Not Support The Position That Climate Change Is Human-Caused
- Germany’s AfD Party Calls Debunked Climate Scenarios “Greatest Fraud In Human History”
- Researchers Find Rapid Global Warming Phase At End Of Last Ice Age (Ca.18,000 Years Ago)
- Even The DNA Of Single-Celled Plankton Can Upend Alarmist Arctic Sea Ice Melt Claims
- Scandal: Although Climate Panic Is Canceled By IPCC, Europe’s Policymakers Continue With Their Crushing Policies
- How Once Hardcore Climate Alarmist Lucy Biggers Realized It Was All A Scam, Brainwashing
Aletho News 