Memory and mourning as Guinea marks 2009 Conakry stadium massacre

On the anniversary of Guinea’s 2009 stadium massacre, the quest for justice and accountability continues amid the daily realities of military rule and fresh tensions over a controversial referendum.


Issued on: 28/09/2025 - RFI
A protester is arrested at Conakry’s main stadium on 28 September 2009, when security forces crushed an opposition rally. A UN inquiry later found at least 156 people were killed and more than 100 women raped. © AFP/Seyllou

By:RFIFollow
Advertising


Sixteen years after the Conakry stadium massacre, Guineans are reminded of one of the darkest chapters in their recent history.

On 28 September 2009, security forces stormed a peaceful opposition rally at the capital’s main stadium.

By the time the violence subsided, at least 156 people had been killed and more than a hundred women had been subjected to brutal sexual violence, according to a UN investigation.

For the survivors, the long road to justice has finally begun to show some results.

10 defendants stand before magistrates during the reading of the trial verdict on the 2009 Conakry stadium massacre, on 31 July 2024 in Dixinn, Guinea. © Matthias Raynal/RFI

Human rights activists want answers to Conakry stadium massacre

Reparation for survivors

This year’s anniversary comes just months after the Guinean government opened the first phase of reparations for victims.

At a ceremony in May inside the Court of Appeal in Conakry – where the long-awaited trial unfolded – survivors wept as they were handed cheques in compensation from the state.

“We are gathered to put into execution the content of this decree and give the victims cheques corresponding to the amount fixed by the judicial decision,” said Justice Minister Yaya Kairaba Kaba.

For Asmaou Diallo, president of the Avipa victims association, the moment marked a rare glimpse of closure after years of waiting.

“Today, I can breathe a sigh of relief,” she told RFI, recalling the years of doubt over whether the state would ever pay up.

Since the ruling, more than 300 victims are to receive reparations, with funds drawn directly from the national budget after the convicted perpetrators were deemed unable to cover the damages themselves.

Outcry in Guinea as ex-military leader Camara pardoned by junta chief

Camara's release condemned

Former junta leader Moussa Dadis Camara – who ruled the country between 2008 and 2009 – was sentenced in July 2024 to 20 years in prison for crimes against humanity.

Judges found him guilty on the basis of command responsibility and for his intention to repress the rally.

But in March this year, Colonel Mamadi Doumbouya – the current head of Guinea’s transitional military government – announced Camara’s release, citing “health reasons”.

The pardon stunned victims’ families and drew sharp criticism from international observers.

On Thursday, UN human rights chief Volker Türk explicitly warned that international law forbids pardons for crimes as grave as those committed on 28 September.

He also called on Conakry’s rulers to free political detainees, end arbitrary arrests and lift restrictions on opposition parties and the press. “The Guinean authorities must, above all, lift the unacceptable bans targeting political parties and the media,” Türk insisted.

Residents watch television as the General Directorate of Elections (DGE) Director Djenabou Toure announces provisional official referendum results in Conakry, 23 September 2025. © Patrick Meinhardt / AFP

That appeal resonates strongly in the current climate. This week, Guinea’s opposition denounced as a “masquerade” the 21 September referendum that paved the way for Colonel Doumbouya’s potential candidacy in upcoming presidential elections.

While the transitional government has hailed the vote as a step towards restoring constitutional order, civil society groups warn that freedoms remain tightly curtailed, with journalists and activists facing harassment or even disappearance.

Guinea voters back new constitution clearing path for junta leader

Four years after the military seized power, voters in a Guinea referendum have resoundingly chosen to implement a new constitution, with 89 percent supporting the charter. This paves the way for elections in the West African country, but also permits General Mamady Doumbouya, its junta leader, to run for president.


Issued on: 25/09/2025 - RFI

A voter marks her ballot behind a voting booth at Hamdallaye Primary School polling station in Conakry on 21 September, 2025 as Guinea votes in the constitutional referendum. AFP - PATRICK MEINHARDT

The "yes" vote won with 89.4 percent of ballots, according to the official provisional results announced by Ibrahima Kalil Conde, minister of territorial administration and decentralisation.

According to Conde, total election turnout stood at 86.4 percent. Final results will be announced by the Supreme Court at an unspecified date.

The opposition, many of whose leaders are based abroad, had called for a boycott, describing the vote as a power grab with predetermined results.

Despite their plea, Guineans flooded to the polls, with the majority interviewed by French news agency AFP stating they had voted to move forward with a new constitution.

Guinea votes on new constitution as junta leader eyes presidency

Some 6.7 million Guineans out of a population of approximately 14.5 million people were eligible to cast a ballot.

Campaigning had been strong in the referendum's "yes" camp: rallies, marching bands and posters depicting 40-year-old Doumbouya were prevalent throughout the country.

Doumbouya, at the head of a military junta ousted long-serving president Alpha Condé in September 2021 and dissolved the government and constitution.

The "no" campaign was virtually non-existent, mainly carried out on social media and often led by the junta's critics in exile.

Exiled former prime minister and fierce junta critic Cellou Dalein Diallo on Tuesday called the vote a "masquerade" that was aimed at "whitewashing" the 2021 coup that brought the junta to power.

Diallo and other members of the opposition had called for a boycott of the vote.

Authorities deployed 45,000 members of the security forces across the country Sunday for the vote, along with 1,000 light and armoured vehicles and combat helicopters, the National Gendarmerie said.

The military had initially pledged to return power to civilians before the end of 2024.

What we know about Guinea coup leader and war master Mamady Doumbouya

Crackdown on media

Although its authorities are now promising presidential and legislative elections before the end of the year, the junta has not yet set a date.

The new constitution will replace the country's "transitional charter", introduced by the military government, that had prohibited any junta member from running for election.

There is no such restriction in the new constitution, however, paving the way for Doumbouya's candidacy.

This photograph taken on September 18, 2025, shows a general view of a billboard depicting Guinea President Mamady Doumbouya during an event in favor of the "yes" vote at the Palais du Peuple in Conakry, ahead of the constitutional referendum on 21 September, 2025. AFP - PATRICK MEINHARDT

Guineans AFP spoke with were divided between hoping for the return of civilian rule under a new constitution and supporting the junta leader and his potential candidacy in a future presidential election.

Since 2022, the junta has banned demonstrations and has arrested, prosecuted or pushed into exile several opposition leaders, some of whom were victims of forced disappearances.

On 23 August, the junta suspended two of the country's main opposition parties for three months.

Several media outlets have also been suspended and journalists arrested.

Interviewed by AFP on Sunday, the secretary-general of the presidency, General Amara Camara, stated that "this constitution is the profound expression of the aspirations of the people of Guinea".

"Many had expressed doubts about the organisation of this vote, and we have allayed them; we hope that we will also be able to organise the legislative and presidential elections" when the time comes, he said.

(with AFP)

'Predators': how reality TV explains Epstein obsession

Los Angeles (United States) (AFP) – As demands to release the so-called Epstein files rage on, a new documentary asks why America is so fascinated with child sex abusers by reflecting on the salacious 2000s reality TV series "To Catch A Predator."


Issued on: 29/09/2025 -FRANCE24

David Osit's documentary 'Predators' makes extensive use of unaired, behind-the-scenes footage from 'To Catch A Predator' © Maya Dehlin Spach / GETTY IMAGES NORTH AMERICA/AFP/File

The infamous NBC show lured pedophiles to homes equipped with hidden cameras, where they expected to have sex with minors but were instead confronted by the program's host -- and then arrested by cops.

"It was this incredible mix of schadenfreude and horror. No one had ever seen anything like it before," film director David Osit told AFP.

Framed as investigative journalism but presented as darkly humorous entertainment, "To Catch A Predator" ran for just 20 episodes. It was cancelled in 2008, soon after one target killed himself as police and cameras entered his home.

Few criminal charges ever resulted, due to the legally dubious entrapment involved.

But its enduring popularity on online forums -- and the YouTube industry of copycat "predator hunters" it spawned -- led Osit to ponder why the heinous crime of child sex abuse is so readily and widely consumed as entertainment.

Disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein was convicted of sex offenses and found dead in his jail cell while awaiting trial for sex trafficking of underage girls © HO / New York State Sex Offender Registry/AFP/File


Osit's film "Predators" is released in US theaters Friday. The movie makes extensive use of unaired, behind-the-scenes footage from "To Catch A Predator," including from police interrogation rooms.

While the broadcast episodes were "cut like a dark comedy," with the raw footage "you're watching 70, 80 minutes of someone's life fall apart in slow motion," said Osit.

"I would find myself watching and feeling this emotional ping-pong of feeling devastated for them, and then disgusted at them, and then really questioning my own feelings of whether what I was looking at was right or wrong," said the director.

He set out to make a film about "how the show made us feel."
'Pornographic'

It is a question that is timelier than ever, given pedophilia's centrality to the Jeffrey Epstein controversy, as well as many pervasive conspiracy theories like the QAnon movement

.

Chris Hansen presented 'To Catch A Predator,' which ran for just 20 episodes

 © Rob Loud / Getty Images North America/Getty Images/AFP/File


Disgraced financier Epstein was convicted of sex offenses and found dead in his jail cell while awaiting trial on allegations of sex trafficking underage girls. Much of the criminal investigation into Epstein has not been made public.

US President Donald Trump, once a friend of Epstein, has tried to quell the calls to release the Epstein files -- despite attacking opponents with them in the past.

The national obsession has not abated, even among Trump's supporters and some Republican legislators.

According to Osit, there can be "almost a pornographic element" to poring over the details of these crimes from afar -- which also explains the huge popularity of "true crime" podcasts.

"If you want to identify with the more salacious elements, you can do it in the privacy of your own home, and no-one has to know what you're taking pleasure in," he said.

US President Donald Trump, once a friend of Jeffrey Epstein, has tried to quell the same calls to 'release the Epstein Files' that he himself previously stirred up to attack his opponents © - / Everone Hates Elon/AFP/File

The "fantasy of justice" also appeals to fans of "predator hunting" shows, particularly those who have been abuse victims themselves, Osit added.

Yet the biggest root of our obsession may be the seemingly clear-cut morality these shows serve up.

"In a world of people being told they're good or evil, or right and wrong, for certain people it's quite appealing to stand on the side of good unequivocally against the idea of child predation... the ultimate evil," said Osit.

"It is an excellent wedge to say that there's an 'us' and there's a 'them', and there's the people who would do that and the people who wouldn't."

© 2025 AFP

Oregon sues Trump administration over deployment of US military to Portland

Oregon sued on Sunday to block President Donald Trump’s order to deploy US troops to Portland, a day after the directive was issued. The move mirrors earlier deployments to Los Angeles and Washington, DC, opposed by local Democratic leaders, highlighting tensions over federal intervention in cities.


Issued on: 29/09/2025 - 
By: FRANCE 24

A police officer stands guard as protesters gather

State authorities in Oregon on Sunday sued to halt the deployment of US troops to the northwestern city of Portland, a day after President Donald Trump ordered the move.

The deployment would follow similar moves by the Republican president to mobilise troops against the wishes of local Democratic leadership in Los Angeles and Washington DC.

Trump says the deployments are necessary to crack down on crime and protests against his contentious and wideranging mass deportation drive.

The suit filed by Oregon and Portland authorities on Sunday accused Trump of overreach, saying the move "was motivated by his desire to normalise the use of military troops for ordinary domestic law enforcement activity," particularly in jurisdictions run by his political opponents.

Since returning to power in January, Trump has delivered on campaign promises to go after undocumented migrants in a drive that lawyers and NGOs say has led to frequent violations of people's rights.

In recent weeks, the Republican has also vowed to take on violence he alleges is being carried out by an alleged left-wing "domestic terrorist" network -- moves his critics say are designed to silence dissent.

In its suit, Oregon authorities said there was no need for a National Guard deployment to Portland as -- contrary to Trump's claims -- the protests there against Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) have been small-scale and peaceful.

The suit said the protests typically involve less than 30 people and have not required arrests since mid-June.

"But (Trump's) heavyhanded deployment of troops threatens to escalate tensions and stokes new unrest," the suit said.

Protesters in Portland and other cities have intermittently blocked entrances to ICE facilities in recent weeks, prompting some clashes as agents try to clear the area.

Earlier, responding to Trump's Saturday announcement, Oregon Governor Tina Kotek said she had been given no details or timeframe regarding the troop deployment.

"There is no insurrection, there is no threat to national security, and there is no need for military troops in our own major city," she told reporters.

Portland Mayor Keith Wilson called the deployment "unwanted, unneeded and un-American."

Officials in Portland are wary of a repeat of summer 2020, during Trump's first term, when the city saw a surge of violent clashes amid racial justice protests following the police killing of unarmed Black man George Floyd.

Trump first deployed troops in Los Angeles in June, overriding the state's Democratic governor and prompting an ongoing legal dispute over the limits of presidential authority.

That was followed by a surge of troops and federal agents to the US capital, and threats to go into other major cities, including Chicago.

(FRANCE 24 with AFP)

‘An Egregious Abuse of Power’: Trump Orders Troops to Portland, Ore; OKs ‘Full Force’

“This unilateral action represents an abuse of executive authority, seeks to incite violence, and undermines the constitutional balance of power between the federal government and states,” Oregon lawmakers wrote.



People carrying banners march to protest over the death of George Floyd, an unarmed black man who died after being pinned down by a white police officer, on May 31, 2020 in Portland, Oregon.
(Photo by John Rudoff/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images)

Olivia Rosane
Sep 27, 2025

COMMON DREAMS

In his latest attempt to turn the US military on an American city, President Donald Trump said on Saturday that he was sending troops to Portland, Oregon and had authorized them to use “Full Force, if necessary.”

“At the request of Secretary of Homeland Security, Kristi Noem, I am directing Secretary of War, Pete Hegseth, to provide all necessary Troops to protect War ravaged Portland, and any of our ICE Facilities under siege from attack by Antifa, and other domestic terrorists,” Trump wrote on Truth Social.

RECOMMENDED...



‘No Trump! No Troops!’ Thousands March in Chicago as President Threatens ‘War’



DC Sues Over Trump Troop Deployment as National Guard Members Say They’re Being Used as ‘Toy Soldiers’

Trump’s announcement follows his deployment of the National Guard in Los Angeles and Washington, DC, as well as his threats to send the military to Chicago and Memphis. These deployments have been widely condemned and legally challenged as a massive overreach of executive authority.

Portland and Oregon leaders were no less vehement in their opposition to Trump’s order for their city.

“Trump is plunging further into authoritarianism every single day.”

“President Trump has directed ‘all necessary Troops’ to Portland, Oregon. The number of necessary troops is zero, in Portland and any other American city,” Portland Mayor Keith Wilson said in a statement on Saturday. “Our nation has a long memory for acts of oppression, and the president will not find lawlessness or violence here unless he plans to perpetrate it.”

Democratic Oregon Gov. Tina Kotek said that she had not been informed ahead of time of any reason for the deployment of federal troops.

“In my conversations directly with President Trump and Secretary Noem, I have been abundantly clear that Portland and the State of Oregon believe in the rule of law and can manage our own local public safety needs,” she wrote on social media. “There is no insurrection. There is no threat to national security.”

Rep. Maxine Dexter (D-Ore.) said in a statement: “The President of the United States is directing his self-proclaimed ‘Secretary of War’ to unleash militarized federal forces in an American city he disagrees with. This is an egregious abuse of power and a betrayal of our most basic American values.”

“Authoritarians rely on fear to divide us,” she continued. “Portland will not give them that. We will not be intimidated. We have prepared for this moment since Trump first took office, and we will meet it with every tool available to us: litigation, legislation, and the power of peaceful public pressure.”

Dexter also posted a photograph of a tranquil park on social media, mocking the idea that Portland was a war zone.

Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) adopted a similar strategy, posting videos of downtown Portland and of an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facility that has been the site of protests Trump has characterized as out-of-control.

Dexter and Wyden were among the seven members of Oregon’s congressional delegation who sent a letter to Trump, Noem, and Hegseth on Saturday urging them to reconsider.

“Portland is a vibrant and peaceful city, and does not require any deployment of federal troops or additional federal agents to keep our community safe,” the lawmakers wrote. “This unilateral action represents an abuse of executive authority, seeks to incite violence, and undermines the constitutional balance of power between the federal government and states. We urge you to rescind this decision, and withdraw any military personnel and federal agents you have recently sought to deploy.”

As of Saturday, Oregon National Guard spokesperson Lt. Col. Stephen Bomar told The Associated Press in an email that “no official requests have been received at this time.” However, Oregon officials noted an uptick in the presence of federal agents and armored vehicles in Portland on Friday.

In a press conference Friday evening, Mayor Wilson suggested that the deployment was a “distraction” from the looming GOP-driven government shutdown.

“Imagine if the federal government sent instead 100 teachers or 100 engineers or 100 addiction specialists,” Wilson said.

Earlier in the week, Trump also smeered Portland protesters as “professional agitators and anarchists,” according to the Portland Tribune.

“We’re going to get out there and we’re going to do a pretty big number on those people in Portland,” Trump said.

The federal deployment threatens to reopen wounds from 2020, when Portland was the site of massive protests sparked by the police killing of George Floyd and the first Trump administration sent federal and border agents to the city.

As the Oregon lawmakers wrote:
Portland residents experienced the consequences of an unnecessary and outrageous federal deployment five years ago. In summer of 2020, the White House unleashed federal agents on Portland like an occupying army, complete with military-grade equipment and violent tactics that were utterly unacceptable on American soil. A federal agent shot a peaceful protester in the head with a crowd-control munition, sending the man to the hospital with a fractured skull. Federal agents were captured on video jumping out of unmarked vans and grabbing people off the streets without explanation. A county commissioner was tear gassed along with other non-violent protestors. A Navy veteran was filmed being beaten by federal agents after he questioned them about their actions. These examples, and many more that occurred in Portland, demonstrate that the federal agents who were parachuted into Portland incited violence and trampled over the constitutional rights of Americans. There is no question that another deployment by your administration will result in similar abuses.

However, the risks of abuses are perhaps even higher as the second Trump administration has designated “antifa,” which is not an actual, coherent group, as a domestic terrorist organization, a dubious legal move that experts warn is an attempt to restrict the First Amendment rights of leftists and others critical of the administration.

“If ever there was a time not to normalize Trump’s authoritarian fever dreams, this is it,” said journalist Mehdi Hasan on social media. “This should be impeachable. ‘War ravaged’ Portland? He’s insane—& insanely power hungry. The script is set—call an imaginary group a terror group and then send in the troops.”

Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) urged his constituents not to give Trump the confrontation he is clearly seeking.

“Trump is sending troops to Portland with the goal of ‘doing a number’ on the city. We know what this means. He wants to stoke fear and chaos and trigger violent interactions and riots to justify expanded authoritarian control,” he said in a video posted on social media. “Let’s not take the bait! Portland is peaceful and strong and we will take care of each other.”

Other advocates and lawmakers also took issue with Trump’s characterization of Portland.

Human Rights lawyer Qasim Rashid pointed out that Portland had actually experienced the most dramatic drop in homicides among all US cities during the first half of 2025.


Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) said the description of Portland as “war ravaged” was “delusional and dangerous.”

“Sending troops into American cities doesn’t make our communities safer—it just stokes fear and stirs up chaos,” she wrote on social media. “Trump is plunging further into authoritarianism every single day.”

Civil rights lawyer and author Alec Karakatsanis said that the mainstream media needed to reflect on how its reporting had enabled Trump’s false narrative about Portland.

“This kind of outrageous misinformation would not be possible without the culture of fear spread for years by the mainstream media,” Karakatsanis wrote on social media. “He is playing on the prodigious ignorance and irrational fear cultivated by the way the news media distorts our sense of safety.”

“Portland, needless to say, is nothing remotely like what Trump describes,” he continued. “But the mass media has created an entirely delusional public perception of what threats we face and from whom.”

Trump to deploy troops to Portland, Oregon in crackdown on immigration protests

Copyright Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

By Jerry Fisayo-Bambi with AP

Published on 27/09/2025 - 

The decision, according to Trump, was necessary to protect US Immigration and Customs Enforcement facilities, which he described as “under siege from attack by Antifa, and other domestic terrorists.”

US President Donald Trump said Saturday he will send troops to Portland, Oregon, "authorising Full Force, if necessary” to handle “domestic terrorists” as he expands his controversial deployments to more American cities. 

Trump announced this on social media, writing that he was directing the Department of Defence to “provide all necessary troops to protect war-ravaged Portland.”

The decision, according to Trump, was necessary to protect US Immigration and Customs Enforcement facilities, which he described as “under siege from attack by Antifa, and other domestic terrorists.” 

Details on the timeline for the deployment in Portland, or what troops would be involved, have yet to be given, and the White House has not issued any statement regarding this.

Since conservative activist Charlie Kirk was killed, Trump has stepped up efforts to target the so-called "radical left," which he claims is to blame for the nation's political violence issues.

He deployed the National Guard and active-duty Marines to Los Angeles over the summer, as part of his law enforcement takeover in the District of Columbia. 

Portland protesters target ICE facilities

The ICE facility in Portland has been the target of frequent demonstrations, sometimes leading to violent clashes. Some federal agents have been injured, and several protesters have been charged with assault.

Earlier this month, when protesters erected a guillotine, the Department of Homeland Security described it as “unhinged behaviour.”

Speaking at the Oval Office on Thursday, Trump suggested some kind of operation was in the works. “We’re going to get out there, and we’re going to do a pretty big number on those people in Portland,” he said, describing them as “professional agitators and anarchists.”

U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents detain a man outside the U.S. Immigration and Customs building during a protest in Portland, Ore., June 14, 2025. (AP Photo/Je Jenny Kane/Copyright 2025 The AP. All rights reserved.

He once described living in Portland “like living in hell” and said he was considering sending in federal troops, as he has recently threatened to do to combat crime in other cities, including Chicago and Baltimore. 

Reacting to Trump's threat, Portland's mayor, Keith Wilson, said in a statement. “Like other mayors across the country, I have not asked for—and do not need—federal intervention.”

Related

Wilson said his city had protected freedom of expression while “addressing occasional violence and property destruction."

In Tennessee, Memphis has been bracing for an influx of some 150 National Guard troops, and on Friday, Republican Gov. Bill Lee said they will be part of a surge of resources to fight crime in the city. 

Trump previously threatened to send the National Guard into Chicago without following through.

'This should be impeachable': Trump buried over 'war-ravaged Portland' claim

SKIPPING CHICAGO CAUSE THEY SHOWED CHUTZPAH

Alexander Willis
September 27, 2025 
RAW STORY

President Donald Trump faced a wave of scrutiny Saturday after dubbing Portland, Oregon as “war-ravaged,” a characterization he cited to justify ordering a new military deployment to the city.

"Oh, okay, I get it now. YOU took a lot of Tylenol, didn’t you?” wrote X user “Nickie B,” a self-described critic of Trump and the MAGA movement, mocking Trump’s recent announcement linking, with disputed evidence, autism to Tylenol. “Now I get why we should stay away from it. Thanks for your attention to this matter!”

Trump has already deployed the military to patrol the streets of Washington, D.C., and has threatened on numerous occasions to do the same to Chicago, Illinois, and doing so in an ominous manner alongside an artificial intelligence-made image depicting the U.S. military invading the Illinois capital.

Trump’s announcement came in the wake of threats from Portland city officials threatening to evict federal immigration officials from a facility over alleged permit violations, which itself was followed by a sudden, unexplained “influx of federal agents” in the city.

Now that Trump has actually pulled the trigger and announced a military deployment to Portland, while also declaring the city to be “war-ravaged,” critics quickly pounced on the president’s rhetoric.

“Portland saw 17 homicides in the first half of 2025, a decline of 51%,” wrote Jay Bookman, journalist and author, in a post on X to his more than 20,000 followers.

“Yet Trump and the ‘secretary of war’ are sending the U.S. military into the city, authorizing American troops to use ‘Full Force’ against American civilians. What are we doing here, people?”

Some even argued that Trump’s characterization of Portland as “war-ravaged” was an impeachable offense, including Mehdi Hasan, journalist and former MSNBC host.

“If ever there was a time not to normalize Trump’s authoritarian fever dreams, this is it,” Hasan wrote to his more than 1.8 followers on X.

“This should be impeachable. ‘War ravaged’ Portland? He’s insane – and insanely power hungry. The script is set – call an imaginary group a terror group and then send in the troops.”

The city of Portland has violent crime rates higher than the national average, though the figures have declined dramatically in recent years.Homicides generally declined in Portland from 2000 to 2019 before spiking during the COVID-19 pandemic. Following the spike in homicides, rates began to fall again starting in 2023, then further dropping by 8% between 2023 and 2024, and further still during the first half of 2025, where homicides dropped by 51% when compared to the same time period the previous year.\\

Trump 'authorizing Full Force, if necessary' as military deploys to another US city

GENERAL BONESPURS DECLARES WAR ON PORTLAND

CHICAGO STOOD UP TO BONESPURS SO ITS OFF THE AGENDA 

Alexander Willis
September 27, 2025 
RAW STORY


President Donald Trump announced Saturday that he would be directing Department of Defense Secretary Pete Hegeseth to “provide all necessary troops” to protect “war-ravaged Portland,” Oregon, and in an effort to protect Immigration Customs and Enforcement facilities in the city.

“At the request of Secretary of Homeland Security [Secretary] Kristi Noem, I am directing Secretary of War, Pete Hegseth, to provide all necessary Troops to protect War ravaged Portland, and any of our ICE Facilities under siege from attack by Antifa, and other domestic terrorists,” Trump wrote on his social media platform Truth Social Saturday. “I am also authorizing Full Force, if necessary. Thank you for your attention to this matter!”

Trump’s announcement comes shortly after Portland city officials threatened to evict ICE from its facility over alleged permit violations.

On Friday, Portland city officials held an emergency press conference after observing “a sudden influx of federal agents” in the city.

“We did not ask for them to come,” said Portland Mayor Keith Wilson during the press conference, according to a report from KOIN, a CBS affiliated station.


“If the federal government isn’t here to lend us a hand, take a hike…it’s just a big show. The president has sent agents here to create chaos and riots in Portland. [Trump] wants to induce a violent exchange. Let’s not grant him that wish…Say no to an authoritarian president.”

Portland police official worries Trump just made things worse: 'Will increase protesters'

David McAfee
September 27, 2025 

RAW STORY





People protest after U.S. President Donald Trump announced he would deploy the National Guard to the nation's capital and place D.C.'s Metropolitan Police Department under federal control, in Washington, D.C., U.S., August 11, 2025. REUTERS/Ken Cedeno


Donald Trump has announced his intentions to send troops to Portland, Oregon, and one local senior police official is worried the president will just be making matters worse.

Politico on Saturday published an article called Why Donald Trump is obsessed with Portland, in which the outlet attempts to explain the president's "fixation" on the city.

"Five years ago, rioters in Portland set fire to government buildings, epitomizing for many on the right the lawlessness and chaos that swirled around the George Floyd protests," according to the report. "President Donald Trump never forgot."

After elaborating on Trump's motives, Politico shares pieces of an interview with a senior police official in Oregon. The official was not allowed to speak about the issue, so was left with anonymity.

"But a senior police official at the Portland Police Department, who was granted anonymity because he was not authorized to talk about police operations, said sending in additional federal forces would escalate the situation," according to the report. "'It will increase the number of protesters,' he said. When asked what the PPD would do if that happens, he added: 'I truly don’t know.'"

The report goes on the shed some more light on the current ICE protests.

"The senior police official said the situation continues to escalate as federal officers are doxxed, threatened or physically hurt — and then in turn take a more adversarial approach to the late-night protesters," the report states.

“It is a political nightmare,” he said, according to Politico.

Read the article here.

‘An Egregious Abuse of Power’: Trump Orders Troops to Portland, Ore; OKs ‘Full Force’

“This unilateral action represents an abuse of executive authority, seeks to incite violence, and undermines the constitutional balance of power between the federal government and states,” Oregon lawmakers wrote.


People carrying banners march to protest over the death of George Floyd, an unarmed black man who died after being pinned down by a white police officer, on May 31, 2020 in Portland, Oregon.
(Photo by John Rudoff/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images)

Olivia Rosane
Sep 27, 2025
COMMON DREAMS


In his latest attempt to turn the US military on an American city, President Donald Trump said on Saturday that he was sending troops to Portland, Oregon and had authorized them to use “Full Force, if necessary.”

“At the request of Secretary of Homeland Security, Kristi Noem, I am directing Secretary of War, Pete Hegseth, to provide all necessary Troops to protect War ravaged Portland, and any of our ICE Facilities under siege from attack by Antifa, and other domestic terrorists,” Trump wrote on Truth Social.

‘No Trump! No Troops!’ Thousands March in Chicago as President Threatens ‘War’



DC Sues Over Trump Troop Deployment as National Guard Members Say They’re Being Used as ‘Toy Soldiers’

Trump’s announcement follows his deployment of the National Guard in Los Angeles and Washington, DC, as well as his threats to send the military to Chicago and Memphis. These deployments have been widely condemned and legally challenged as a massive overreach of executive authority.

Portland and Oregon leaders were no less vehement in their opposition to Trump’s order for their city.

“Trump is plunging further into authoritarianism every single day.”


“President Trump has directed ‘all necessary Troops’ to Portland, Oregon. The number of necessary troops is zero, in Portland and any other American city,” Portland Mayor Keith Wilson said in a statement on Saturday. “Our nation has a long memory for acts of oppression, and the president will not find lawlessness or violence here unless he plans to perpetrate it.”

Democratic Oregon Gov. Tina Kotek said that she had not been informed ahead of time of any reason for the deployment of federal troops.

“In my conversations directly with President Trump and Secretary Noem, I have been abundantly clear that Portland and the State of Oregon believe in the rule of law and can manage our own local public safety needs,” she wrote on social media. “There is no insurrection. There is no threat to national security.”

Rep. Maxine Dexter (D-Ore.) said in a statement: “The President of the United States is directing his self-proclaimed ‘Secretary of War’ to unleash militarized federal forces in an American city he disagrees with. This is an egregious abuse of power and a betrayal of our most basic American values.”

“Authoritarians rely on fear to divide us,” she continued. “Portland will not give them that. We will not be intimidated. We have prepared for this moment since Trump first took office, and we will meet it with every tool available to us: litigation, legislation, and the power of peaceful public pressure.”

Dexter also posted a photograph of a tranquil park on social media, mocking the idea that Portland was a war zone.

Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) adopted a similar strategy, posting videos of downtown Portland and of an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facility that has been the site of protests Trump has characterized as out-of-control.

Dexter and Wyden were among the seven members of Oregon’s congressional delegation who sent a letter to Trump, Noem, and Hegseth on Saturday urging them to reconsider.

“Portland is a vibrant and peaceful city, and does not require any deployment of federal troops or additional federal agents to keep our community safe,” the lawmakers wrote. “This unilateral action represents an abuse of executive authority, seeks to incite violence, and undermines the constitutional balance of power between the federal government and states. We urge you to rescind this decision, and withdraw any military personnel and federal agents you have recently sought to deploy.”

As of Saturday, Oregon National Guard spokesperson Lt. Col. Stephen Bomar told The Associated Press in an email that “no official requests have been received at this time.” However, Oregon officials noted an uptick in the presence of federal agents and armored vehicles in Portland on Friday.

In a press conference Friday evening, Mayor Wilson suggested that the deployment was a “distraction” from the looming GOP-driven government shutdown.

“Imagine if the federal government sent instead 100 teachers or 100 engineers or 100 addiction specialists,” Wilson said.

Earlier in the week, Trump also smeered Portland protesters as “professional agitators and anarchists,” according to the Portland Tribune.

“We’re going to get out there and we’re going to do a pretty big number on those people in Portland,” Trump said.

The federal deployment threatens to reopen wounds from 2020, when Portland was the site of massive protests sparked by the police killing of George Floyd and the first Trump administration sent federal and border agents to the city.

As the Oregon lawmakers wrote:
Portland residents experienced the consequences of an unnecessary and outrageous federal deployment five years ago. In summer of 2020, the White House unleashed federal agents on Portland like an occupying army, complete with military-grade equipment and violent tactics that were utterly unacceptable on American soil. A federal agent shot a peaceful protester in the head with a crowd-control munition, sending the man to the hospital with a fractured skull. Federal agents were captured on video jumping out of unmarked vans and grabbing people off the streets without explanation. A county commissioner was tear gassed along with other non-violent protestors. A Navy veteran was filmed being beaten by federal agents after he questioned them about their actions. These examples, and many more that occurred in Portland, demonstrate that the federal agents who were parachuted into Portland incited violence and trampled over the constitutional rights of Americans. There is no question that another deployment by your administration will result in similar abuses.

However, the risks of abuses are perhaps even higher as the second Trump administration has designated “antifa,” which is not an actual, coherent group, as a domestic terrorist organization, a dubious legal move that experts warn is an attempt to restrict the First Amendment rights of leftists and others critical of the administration.

“If ever there was a time not to normalize Trump’s authoritarian fever dreams, this is it,” said journalist Mehdi Hasan on social media. “This should be impeachable. ‘War ravaged’ Portland? He’s insane—& insanely power hungry. The script is set—call an imaginary group a terror group and then send in the troops.”

Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) urged his constituents not to give Trump the confrontation he is clearly seeking.

“Trump is sending troops to Portland with the goal of ‘doing a number’ on the city. We know what this means. He wants to stoke fear and chaos and trigger violent interactions and riots to justify expanded authoritarian control,” he said in a video posted on social media. “Let’s not take the bait! Portland is peaceful and strong and we will take care of each other.

Other advocates and lawmakers also took issue with Trump’s characterization of Portland.

Human Rights lawyer Qasim Rashid pointed out that Portland had actually experienced the most dramatic drop in homicides among all US cities during the first half of 2025.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) said the description of Portland as “war ravaged” was “delusional and dangerous.”

“Sending troops into American cities doesn’t make our communities safer—it just stokes fear and stirs up chaos,” she wrote on social media. “Trump is plunging further into authoritarianism every single day.”

Civil rights lawyer and author Alec Karakatsanis said that the mainstream media needed to reflect on how its reporting had enabled Trump’s false narrative about Portland.

“This kind of outrageous misinformation would not be possible without the culture of fear spread for years by the mainstream media,” Karakatsanis wrote on social media. “He is playing on the prodigious ignorance and irrational fear cultivated by the way the news media distorts our sense of safety.”

“Portland, needless to say, is nothing remotely like what Trump describes,” he continued. “But the mass media has created an entirely delusional public perception of what threats we face and from whom.”

Rio-Paris 2009 crash: appeal trial against Air France and Airbus begins

An appeals trial of Air France and Airbus opened Monday over the 2009 crash of Rio-Paris flight AF447 that killed 228 people. The Airbus A330 plunged into the Atlantic after pilots lost control, in the French carrier’s worst disaster. Victims included 72 French nationals and 58 Brazilians.


Issued on: 29/09/2025 - 
By: FRANCE 24

Alain Bouillard, investigator-in-charge of flight Air France 447 safety investigation from French agency Bureau of Enquiry speaks on the AF447 Rio-Paris plane flight black boxes on May 12, 2011. © MEHDI FEDOUACH, AFP

An appeals trial of Air France and Airbus opens Monday over the 2009 crash of a Rio-Paris flight that killed 228 people, the worst disaster in the French flag carrier's history.

On June 1, 2009, Air France flight AF447 from Rio de Janeiro to Paris was cruising over the Atlantic when the pilots lost control of the aircraft and plunged into the ocean.

There were no survivors among the 216 passengers and 12 crew on board the Airbus-built A330 aircraft, who included 72 French nationals and 58 Brazilians.

Both the airline and aircraft maker were acquitted of involuntary manslaughter two years ago when a court found that the companies had made mistakes but could not be proven to have caused the crash.

The verdict was a blow to the victims' families, who said they were outraged by the court's decision to clear the companies of the charges.

Airbus, Air France acquitted of manslaughter charges in trial over 2009 Rio-Paris crash

Although the prosecution in the 2023 trial had themselves asked for the charges to be dropped, it subsequently lodged the appeal to allow "the full potential of the legal appeals procedure" to play out.

If convicted, the two companies may face a fine of 225,000 euros ($264,000) as well as significant reputational damage.

The hearings in the first trial centred on the role of defective "pitot tubes", which are used to measure flight speed.

The court heard how a malfunction with the tubes, which became blocked with ice crystals during a mid-Atlantic storm, caused alarms to sound in the plane's cockpit and the autopilot system to switch off.

Technical experts highlighted how, after the instrument failed, the pilots put the plane into a climb that caused the aircraft to stall and then crash into the ocean.

Air France and Airbus blamed pilot error as the main cause, denying any criminal liability.

French prosecutors will not seek Airbus, Air France convictions over 2009 Rio-Paris crash

But lawyers for the families argued both companies were aware of the pitot tube problem before the crash, and that the pilots were not trained to deal with such a high-altitude emergency.

The court said Airbus committed "four acts of imprudence or negligence", including not replacing certain models of the pitot tubes that seemed to freeze more often on its A330-A340 fleet, and "withholding information" from flight operators.

It said Air France had committed two "acts of imprudence" in the way it disseminated an information note on the faulty tubes to its pilots.

But the court also found there was not a strong enough causal link between these failings and the accident to show an offence had been committed.

Daniele Lamy, president of the association representing the victims, said she and others were "disgusted" by the decision, with the families of Brazilian victims also highly critical of the French acquittal.

It took nearly two years after the crash to recover the "black box" flight recorders, which were found almost 4,000 metres (13,000 feet) below sea level.

The appeals trial is set to close on November 27.

(FRANCE 24 with AFP)

EU climate watchdog urges Europe to step up environmental protections

Europe remains a leader in tackling climate change but must step up efforts to protect the environment and adapt to warming, the EU’s environment agency warned on Monday. The warning follows member states’ failure at a UN summit to agree a 2035 emissions-cutting plan amid internal divisions.

Issued on: 29/09/2025 
By: FRANCE 24

The sun rises by the Eiffel Tower and the Sacre Coeur Basilica ontop of the Montmartre hill in Paris on July 1, 2025. © Thibaud Moritz, AFP

Europe is a world leader in the fight against climate change but must do more to protect its environment and improve its resilience against global warming, the European Union's environment agency warned on Monday.

"Significant progress has been made in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution, but the overall state of Europe's environment is not good," the European Environment Agency (EEA) said in a statement as it presented its latest report on the issue.

The climate assessment comes after EU member states at a UN climate summit last week were unable to present a formal 2035 plan to further slash greenhouse gases due to disagreements among its 27 member states.

The bloc is also unable to agree on an ambitious proposal from the European Commission to reduce emissions by 90 percent by 2040 from 1990 levels.

The Bright Side: UNESCO designates 26 new biosphere reserves including France's Lake Bourget

EU greenhouse gas emissions have dropped by 37 percent since 1990, well ahead of other major polluters like China and the United States, thanks to the reduced use of fossil fuels and the doubling of renewable energy since 2005.

But EU countries must "step up implementation of policies and longer-term sustainability-enabling actions already agreed to under the European Green Deal", which was adopted during the European Commission's previous mandate, the EEA said.

The continent's nature "continues to face degradation, overexploitation and biodiversity loss", noted the EEA, which compiled data from 38 countries across the continent for its report.

Water in particular is an increasingly scarce resource, and land is over-exploited.

Some 81 percent of protected habitats are in poor or bad condition, 60 to 70 percent of soils are degraded, and 62 percent of water bodies are not in good ecological condition, the report said.

Climate change exacerbates water scarcity, but the EEA said it was possible to save up to 40 percent of water in agriculture, water supply and energy through better governance, technological innovation, water reuse and public awareness.

The impacts of climate change represent a growing challenge, it stressed.

From climate collapse to the end of NATO: Finland outlines scenarios for the world in 2045

Many of the effects are indirect, causing damage to infrastructure and ecosystems or leading to price increases, among other things.

Most buildings in Europe were not designed to withstand heat, the EEA said, noting that 19 percent of Europeans are not able to maintain a comfortable temperature in their homes.

The frequency of extreme heatwaves is increasing, yet only 21 of the EEA's 38 member countries have health action plans for heatwaves, the agency noted.
Financial toll rising

In general, extreme weather and climate events -- such as heatwaves, floods, landslides and wildfires -- have caused over 240,000 deaths between 1980 and 2023 in the 27 EU countries.

The financial toll of these events continues to mount.

Average annual economic losses were 2.5 times higher between 2020 and 2023 than during the 2010-2019 period.

In 2023, the financial toll of floods in Slovenia amounted to 16 percent of the country's GDP.

DOWN TO EARTH © FRANCE 24
07:37

The agency called on Europe to adapt its societies and economy.

"Human survival depends on high quality nature, particularly when it comes to adaptation to climate change," Catherine Ganzleben, head of the EEA's Sustainable and Fair Transitions unit, told reporters at a briefing.

"So, sustainability is not a choice, it's a question of when we do it. Do we do it in the short term and start now, or do we park it, in which case it's going to be harder and the costs of inaction will be higher?," she added.

Preventing pollution reduces the number of deaths and illnesses and their harmful consequences.

When it comes to air pollution, the number of deaths linked to fine particulate matter exposure has significantly decreased, dropping by 45 percent between 2005 and 2022.

(FRANCE 24 with AFP)