An All-American Retort To Israel’s Bombing Of Lebanon – OpEd

Mother and daughter at Lebanese-American protest in DC against bombing of Lebanon in 2006.

 Photo Credit: James Bovard

May 5, 2026 
By James Bovard

Israel’s bombing of Lebanon has reportedly killed more than a thousand civilians this year. Israel also drove out more than a half million civilians from southern Lebanon as part of an effort to confiscate or ravage that territory. The New York Times reports that Israel is “applying the Gaza model in Lebanon,” destroying entire towns and villages and leaving the rubble uninhabitable. Israel’s bombing has been so indiscriminate that even President Trump pretended to object. On Truth Social, Trump announced: “Israel will not be bombing Lebanon any longer. They are PROHIBITED from doing so by the U.S.A. Enough is enough!!!”

Trump’s assertion had as much effect as his boasts about how he already won the war against Iran. The Israeli military continues assailing Lebanon and Trump’s attention long since wandered back to his ballroom.

The latest attacks are reminiscent of Israel’s 2006 invasion of Lebanon, which also killed roughly a thousand civilians, as well as a few hundred Hezbollah fighters. With the Bush White House cheerleading all the way, Israel assailed Lebanon in response to Hezbollah’s seizure of two Israeli soldiers. Israel and Hezbollah had been exchanging bombs and missiles for years prior to Israel’s launching a bombing campaign that soon expanded to include much of Lebanon. The carnage was wildly popular on Capitol Hill, where the House of Representatives voted 410-8 in favor of a resolution endorsing Israeli military action. But the Israeli military didn’t do as well in south Lebanon as they did in the halls of Congress. Hezbollah thwarted the invasion in one of the biggest defeats for the Israeli military since the start of the Yom Kippur War in 1973.

On August 12, 2006, thousands of people gathered near the White House to protest U.S. support for the Israeli attacks on Lebanon. At that time, some American pundits were portraying Arabs as would-be terrorists waiting to wreak havoc on the United States.

But I saw plenty of demonstrators that day who looked more wholesome than your average political zealot of any persuasion. This photo I snapped of a mother and daughter marching along captured the all-American reality of many supporters of Lebanon. The mother is wearing traditional Lebanese garb and carrying both a U.S. flag and a Lebanese flag. The daughter is soaking up the scene while chomping on a popsicle. This is a pair that would have fit in with practically any American Fourth of July celebration. Perhaps they were typical of the nearly 700,000 Lebanese-Americans tabulated in the 2020 census.

There were plenty of Arab Americans at the protest who were confounded to see the U.S. government supporting the attacks on their kinfolks. One protestor held up a sign by the White House: “President Bush: You Can Stop Israeli Crimes in Gaza and Lebanon.” But it was impossible to exaggerate the president’s spinelessness. After an Israeli airstrike on an apartment building in Qana, Lebanon killed 28 civilians two weeks earlier, the New York Times reported: “Facing one of the most awkward moments in recent relations with Israel, Bush described the current Middle East crisis as part of a larger struggle between the forces of freedom and the forces of terror.” Bush refused to call for a ceasefire regardless of how many Lebanese children the Israelis killed in the name of anti-terrorism. And the U.S. government continued rushing more armaments to Israel to enable the carnage to continue.

The U.S. government has been perennially dragged into Lebanese quagmires since the Reagan era. In June 1982, a terrorist organization headed by Abu Nidal (the Osama bin Laden of the 1980s) attempted to assassinate the Israeli ambassador in London. Nidal’s forces had previously killed many Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) officials in numerous bomb and shooting attacks, since they considered Yasir Arafat a traitor for his stated willingness to negotiate with Israel. Prime Minister Menachem Begin of Israel exploited the shooting in London to send the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) into Lebanon to crush the PLO. Yet, as Thomas Friedman noted in his book From Beirut to Jerusalem, “The number of Israeli casualties the PLO guerrillas in Lebanon actually inflicted [was] minuscule (one death in the 12 months before the invasion).”


Defense Minister Ariel Sharon told the Israeli cabinet that his 1982 “Operation Peace for Galilee” would extend only 40 kilometers into Lebanon. However, Sharon sent his tanks to Beirut, determined to destroy the PLO once and for all. As David Martin and John Walcott noted in their 1988 book, Best Laid Plans: The Inside Story of America’s War against Terrorism, the U.S. embassy in Beirut “sent cable after cable to Washington, warning that an Israeli invasion would provoke terrorism and undermine America’s standing in the Arab world, but not a word came back.”

The Palestinian Red Crescent estimated that 14,000 people, most of them civilians, were killed or wounded in the first month of the operation. When Palestinians fought back tenaciously, the IDF responded with indiscriminate bombing, killing hundreds of civilians. The Israelis cut off Beirut’s water and electricity supply and imposed a blockade. The IDF bombed the buildings housing the local bureaus of the Los Angeles Times, United Press International, and Newsweek. U.S. publications gave far more coverage to Israeli carnage against civilians back then than they have allotted in the current conflict.

U.S. troops were sent to Beirut to help buffer a cease-fire. After the U.S. military intervened against Muslims in the Lebanese Civil War, a Muslim truck bomber killed hundreds of U.S. Marines in October 1983. On the 20th anniversary of that attack in 2003, I wrote a Counterpunch article headlined, “The Reagan Roadmap for an Antiterrorism Disaster.” Reagan responded to the Marine barracks bombing by pulling U.S. troops out of Lebanon, one of the few bright spots in U.S. policy in that part of the world in the last half century.

It would be foolish to expect the Trump White House to show wisdom or courage in its Middle East policy. I have the same recommendation now that I had in a 1987 USA Today piece opposing deploying U.S. Navy to the Persian Gulf: “This is not our war, and there is no profit in U.S. intervention.” GTFO remains the best Middle East policy for America.

An earlier version of this article was published by the Libertarian Institute.

Remembering The Costs Of War – OpEd

May 6, 2026 
 MISES
By Dr. Wanjiru Njoya
Playlist advancing in 5 seconds
Ad ends in 57

April marks the time when the guns of war began to fall silent across the South in 1865, after four years of war. On April 9, General Robert E. Lee surrendered the Army of Northern Virginia. General Nathan Bedford Forrest stood down his cavalry on May 9. By June 23, General Stand Watie had surrendered the last of the Confederate soldiers still fighting, the First Indian Brigade which included his own Cherokee Braves.

When the guns fall silent, it does not suffice simply to forget about the war and move on. It is necessary to pause and reflect on what we can do to promote lasting peace.

As John V. Denson argues in The Costs of War: America’s Pyrrhic Victories, war is ever the greatest enemy of liberty. Denson reminds us that, “We need to understand the ‘total’ costs of war in order to appreciate the true dangers that war in general, and the New World Order in particular, pose to individual liberty.” The New World Order—whose dangers he highlights—is one in which “the United States is to become a permanent garrison state and also the world policeman…”

There are growing signs that the lessons of history are not being heeded. The USA is introducing automatic military draft registration. Under Germany’s new Military Service Modernisation Act, military service is being reintroduced:

The [German] law that came into force in January brings back conscription in principle, though it will be implemented only if not enough people sign up for the army voluntarily.

Germany’s Chancellor Friedrich Merz has said he wants to create Europe’s strongest conventional army.

As of January this year, all 18-year-olds in Germany are being sent a questionnaire asking if they are interested and willing to join the armed forces.

The questionnaire is mandatory for men and voluntary for women.

Denson does not argue in favor of pacifism or isolationism. He recognizes that war may be just when fought in defense of home and hearth. The point he emphasizes is that no matter how just a war may be, we must remember that it is inevitably deleterious to liberty. For example, Murray Rothbard regarded the Southern cause as just, but even so, we must recognize that when the South lay in ashes much more had been lost than the Southern bid for independence.

Lord Acton, in his letter to Robert E. Lee, wrote that, “I deemed that you were fighting the battles of our liberty, our progress, and our civilization; and I mourn for the stake which was lost at Richmond more deeply than I rejoice over that which was saved at Waterloo.” As Jefferson Davis, the Confederate President, put it, the cause that was lost was “not that of the South only, but the cause of constitutional government, of the supremacy of law, of the natural rights of man.”

One of the residual threats to liberty highlighted by Denson is the “abuse of the presidential powers regarding wars.” The convention seems to have arisen that the president has power to do whatever he deems necessary to police the world’s criminals and tyrants. Denson explains:

We have now reached a point in our history where it is strongly asserted that the president of the United States claims the power to declare a crisis and then send troops wherever he pleases without Congressional authority or approval. Shakespeare dramatized this same point with Mark Antony in Julius Caesar where he states: “Cry ‘Havoc!’ and let slip the dogs of war.”

Denson also highlights the danger posed by war propaganda, reminding us—in the words of US Senator Hiram Johnson—that, “When war is declared, truth is the first casualty.”

First comes the spin. For example, the Trump administration insists that their attack on Iran is not a war requiring congressional approval, but merely a “military operation.” Then follows the slander against any who dissent. In recent weeks the neo-conservative radio host, Mark Levin, has been calling anyone who disagrees with President Trump’s latest war a “traitor” to America. He believes any opinions that differ from his own are “anti-American.” Do people who warn against the dangers of war thereby become traitors to their country?

What is meant by love of country? In his book Capitalism and Freedom, the economist Milton Friedman offered some remarks that may shed some light on this issue. Readers will be aware that Murray Rothbard was no admirer of Friedman. He described Friedman as “a favorite of the Establishment,” a “Court Libertarian,” and a “statist.” But statist though he was, Friedman deserves some credit for reminding his statist followers that love of country and loyalty to a common heritage do not entail worship of government. Friedman rejected the notion that “free men in a free society” should view their government as synonymous with their country. He observed:

To the free man, the country is the collection of individuals who compose it, not something over and above them. He is proud of a common heritage and loyal to common traditions. But he regards government as a means, an instrumentality, neither a grantor of favors and gifts, nor a master or god to be blindly worshipped and served.

Although Friedman did not agree with the libertarian view of the state as inherently criminal and tyrannical, he argued that “the scope of government must be limited” and that “government power must be dispersed.” He favored decentralizing political power. He drew Rothbard’s ire for viewing the government as essentially well-intentioned, but he did at least recognize that good intentions do not mitigate harm. He wrote:

The power to do good is also the power to do harm; those who control the power today may not tomorrow; and, more important, what one man regards as good, another may regard as harm. The great tragedy of the drive to centralization, as of the drive to extend the scope of government in general, is that it is mostly led by men of good will who will be the first to rue its consequences.

That being the case, disagreeing with government policy certainly does not make one a traitor to his country. The historian Clyde Wilson argued, in Defending Dixie: Essays in Southern History and Culture, that even the Pledge of Allegiance, which is popularly seen as a way to express love of country, may be viewed as superfluous because “the virtuous do not need a Pledge and the rest will not honor it anyway.” Wilson argues that in that light, the pledge ironically amounts in reality to “a pledge of allegiance not to the country or people but to the federal government.” He remarked that:

Such pledges did not mark the early years of the United States. They were unknown until they were employed as coercive devices in the South during the War Between the States and Reconstruction.… The present Pledge was written in 1892 by Francis Bellamy, a defrocked Boston minister and Marxist… It was taken up and promoted by the National Education Association as a way to enforce conformity to “Americanism” among its captive students, especially the first and second generation immigrants.

Wilson, like Denson, is no pacifist. He remarked in his Defending Dixie essays that his direct forefathers on both sides of his family fought in every major war since America was founded, including the American Revolutionary War, the War for Southern Independence, and both World Wars. With that ancestry, Wilson is as good an authority as any on what counts as loyalty to America. His comment on the recent attack on Iran, in his essay “Marching to Persepolis,” is that it “fails every rule of Christian ‘just war’ theory. It trashes what little is left of the Constitution. And possibly worst of all, it is stupid.”

About the author: 

Dr. Wanjiru Njoya is the Walter E. Williams Research Fellow for the Mises Institute. She is the author of Economic Freedom and Social Justice (Palgrave Macmillan, 2021), Redressing Historical Injustice (Palgrave Macmillan, 2023, with David Gordon), “You Stole Our Land: Common Law, Private Property, and Rothbardian Principles of Justice” (Journal of Libertarian Studies, 28 (1): 91–119 (2024) and “Individual Liberty, Formal Equality, and the Rule of Law” (Palgrave Handbook of Classical Liberalism, forthcoming, 2026).

 
Source: This article was published by the Mises Institute

Can US law stop Trump from withdrawing troops from Europe?

By Tamsin Paternoster

Published on 05/05/2026 - EURONEWS

A 2026 US defence law does not prevent troop withdrawals from Europe, but imposes consultations and justifications for major cuts that make such a move more difficult.

The US is set to withdraw around 5,000 troops from Germany, according to the Pentagon — a move that has raised concerns about a broader reduction of US forces across Europe

There are around 36,000 US troops currently in Germany alongside several key military hubs, including Ramstein Air Base, command headquarters and a medical centre that treated casualties from wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

An estimated 80,000 to 100,000 US service members are stationed across Europe, depending on rotations.

Such bases consolidate NATO's presence in Europe, hosting US forces and supporting joint training and operations with allies.00:01

The planned reduction of 5,000 troops amounts to around 14% of the total number of service members stationed in Germany. Those set to withdraw include a brigade combat team and a long-range fires battalion that the Biden administration planned to deploy when it was in power. They will now not be stationed in Europe.

Sean Parnell, spokesperson for the Pentagon, which houses the US Department of Defense, said that the decision follows a "thorough review of the Department's force posture in Europe and is in recognition of theatre requirements and conditions on the ground."

The announcement to withdraw troops — which came after German leader Friedrich Merz issued a rebuke of the Trump administration's actions in Iran — is in line with threats US President Donald Trump has made in the past.

At the end of his first term in 2020, the president announced plans to withdraw around 9,500 US troops from Germany. The idea faced backlash from Congress before it was ultimately halted by the Biden administration, which took power in 2021.

Despite criticism from Republican and Democratic lawmakers of his recent proposal to pull troops, Trump doubled down on Saturday, telling reporters in Florida that his administration would be "cutting a lot further" than the 5,000 already mentioned.

Is Trump able to wind down large numbers of US troops in Europe?

Several analysts and commentators have pointed out that a piece of US defence legislation, which became law this year, places restrictions on the Pentagon from making significant cuts to the number of troops deployed in Europe.

Under Section 1249 of the National Defense Authorisation Act for 2026, administrations are limited in how they can use Pentagon funds to cut troop numbers.

According to the law, the Pentagon cannot use its budget to reduce troop levels in Europe to below 76,000 for more than 45 days unless it meets certain conditions.

These include certifying that the cuts are in the interests of US national security, consulting NATO allies on the move beforehand and submitting a detailed report to Congress.

There is also a waiting period, meaning large reductions in troop numbers cannot take place immediately.

Beyond legal limits, analysts note that withdrawing troops from Europe is complex and expensive.

Analysis by Liana Fix from independent US think tank the Council on Foreign Relations, notes that US forces in Germany are embedded in global command structures, meaning that relocating them is logistically complex, costly and could weaken military readiness.

On the German side, officials have so far downplayed the immediate impact of losing 5,000 troops, with Defence Minister Boris Pistorius describing the move as "foreseeable", and pushing for Europe to take more responsibility for its own safety.

German Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul and Chancellor Friedrich Merz equally projected calm in the wake of the news, with Merz telling a television interview on Sunday: "They are constantly redeploying their troop units worldwide, and we are affected by that too."

Critics and politicians pointed out that the threat of not stationing Tomahawk missiles on German soil poses a bigger risk than troop withdrawal, as it leaves Berlin with a missile gap that it could not replace on its own accord.

US Troop Withdrawal Dominates European Leaders’ Meeting

 May 5, 2026 

By EurActiv

By Pietro Guastamacchia

(EurActiv) — The announcement of US troop withdrawals from Germany overshadowed the start of the European Political Community (EPC) meeting on Monday, shifting the focus from a broad discussion on regional cooperation to the more urgent debate over Europe’s security dependence on the United States.

The meeting in Armenia’s capital marks the first occasion for European leaders to meet face-to-face following the White House’s sudden announcement.

Kaja Kallas, the EU High Representative, said the timing of the announcement came as a “surprise,” though she said that the debate over the US presence in Europe was not new.

“It shows that we really need to strengthen the European pillar of NATO and that we need to do more,” she said, noting however that “the American troops are not in Europe only for protecting the European interests but also American interests.”

European Commission chief Ursula von der Leyen did not mention the US troops’ withdrawal but also called for greater European independence when it comes to defence.

“We have to step up our military capabilities to be able to defend ourselves,” she said, pointing to available funding and urging faster production of military capabilities.

NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte told reporters that “Europeans have now received the message” that there was “disappointment from the United States” over their response to the US-Israeli war on Iran.

Rutte also said that “the allies are now making sure that all bilateral agreements on bases are implemented.”

During the weekend, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz sought to play down the American announcement, telling ARD that “not everything we’ve been hearing over the last few days is actually new.”

“It might be a bit more exaggerated, but it’s nothing new,” he said.

The Italian government also sought to downplay concerns, stating that it sees “no immediate consequences” from the announcement. US Secretary of State Marco Rubio will on Thursday visit Rome for a series of meetings at the Vatican. He is also expected also to meet Defence Minister Guido Crosetto.

The EPC summit also became an opportunity for key European and allied leaders to coordinate on Ukraine. Antonio Costa, European Council President, convened a meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, French President Emmanuel Macron and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer on the sidelines of the gathering.

South Africa Cracks Down On IUU Fishing By Foreign Trawlers

May 5, 2026 
By Africa Defense Forum


Four Chinese fishing vessels in late February were found operating illegally inside South Africa’s exclusive economic zone (EEZ) and territorial waters without the required permits. The vessels repeatedly switched off their automatic identification system (AIS) transponders, a common practice among illegal fishing offenders.
Playlist advancing in 5 seconds

Owned by Shenzhen Shuiwan Pelagic Fisheries, the vessels were tracked 12 nautical miles from the KwaZulu-Natal coast and along the Eastern Cape coastline. The captains of the Zhong Yang 231, Zhong Yang 232, Zhong Yang 233 and Zhong Yang 239 each were fined about $24,118 before leaving the country.

“South Africa will not tolerate the unlawful use of its maritime zones,” Willie Aucamp, South Africa’s minister of forestry, fisheries and the environment, said in a report by the Business Insider Africa website. “We remain resolute in safeguarding our marine resources and ensuring that our ports are not perceived as ports of convenience. Compliance with our laws is non-negotiable.”

A similar situation unfolded in Japan in early February, when authorities seized a Chinese fishing vessel that was operating in Japan’s EEZ off Nagasaki Prefecture. The vessel tried to flee when ordered to stop for an inspection but was intercepted. There were 11 people aboard, including the Chinese captain, who was arrested, Tokyo’s fisheries agency said. The incident marked the first time since 2022 that the agency had seized a Chinese fishing boat.

“We will continue to take resolute action in our enforcement activities to prevent and deter illegal fishing operations by foreign vessels,” Japan’s Chief Cabinet Secretary Minoru Kihara said in a BBC report.

Chinese vessels have operated illegally in African waters for decades, and Beijing’s distant-water fishing fleet, the world’s largest, is the world’s worst illegal fishing offender, according to the IUU Fishing Risk Index. Due mainly to illegal Chinese overfishing, West Africa up to an estimated $9.4 billion to illegal fishing annually and is considered the world’s hot spot for IUU fishing.

Between 2015 and 2021, Kenya, Madagascar, Mozambique, South Africa and Tanzania lost up to $142.8 million annually due to illegal shrimp and tuna fishing, according to the World Wildlife Fund. Other catch taken from these waters include at least 56 species of sharks and rays and a variety of reef fish. According to TRAFFIC, a wildlife trade-monitoring organization, South Africa loses at least $60 million annually to abalone poaching alone. A type of marine snail, abalone is considered a delicacy in China, where criminal gangs regulate its trade.

In KwaZulu-Natal, residents of Kosi Bay have decried the presence of foreign trawlers, particularly those from China, that allegedly anchor in international waters by day and move closer to shore at night. The bay consists of four interlinking lakes that flow into an estuary before meeting the Indian Ocean.

The illegal trawlers commonly engage in bottom trawling, which involves dragging a net along the sea floor, indiscriminately scooping up all manner of marine life. This kills juvenile fish, leading to declining fish stocks, and destroys ecosystems. Locals complain that they have been excluded from stakeholder engagements, but there is hope that more collaboration between local fishermen and the government can resolve their issues.

“If we work together, we can’t stop because together we solve issues,” a community member told The Pulitzer Center. “When you look all around there in the sea, you [see] Chinese writing. … ”

Despite limited maritime surveillance capacity, South Africa’s government has taken steps to address IUU fishing. According to The Pew Charitable Trusts, the country is a global leader in adopting international agreements that target IUU fishing and vessel and labor safety. The agreements require inspections of fishing vessels in port that can help national authorities monitor and control IUU-related issues.

These agreements include:

1. The Port State Measures Agreement, the only binding international treaty specifically designed to eradicate IUU fishing. The agreement outlines best practices for port controls.

2. The Cape Town Agreement, which outlines standards for design, construction, maintenance and equipment for fishing vessels 24 meters or longer to ensure that ships are well built.

3. The Work in Fishing Convention No. 188, which addresses the occupational safety, health and medical care needs of workers on fishing vessels.


South Africa is working to develop standard operating procedures to enhance inter-agency information-sharing to notify relevant authorities of potential noncompliance with each treaty. The government also is encouraging safety and labor officials to wear body cameras during inspections to bolster real-time information-sharing between agencies. Fisheries inspectors are urged to ensure that a vessel’s markings or flag are consistent with its documented or certified information.

 

Digital twin can reveal alcohol consumption in crime cases

Linköping University

Facebook

XLinkedInWeChatBlueskyMessageWhatsAppEmail

 

image: 

Henrik Podéus Derelöv, PhD student at LiU.

view more 

Credit: Marcus Pettersson

Using a so-called digital twin, it is possible to predict with greater precision than at present how much alcohol a person has consumed and at what time. The study was conducted by researchers at Linköping University and the Swedish National Board of Forensic Medicine. The findings, published in Scientific Reports, pave the way for more reliable investigations into crimes where alcohol is believed to have been involved. 

In criminal investigations, it can be crucial to know when a person last consumed alcohol in order to determine responsibility with certainty. However, according to Robert Kronstrand, chief toxicologist at the Swedish National Board of Forensic Medicine and adjunct professor at Linköping University, current techniques, where alcohol levels are measured in exhaled breath and blood samples, are too imprecise:

“One thing we do is assess when a person last drank alcohol, for example in a drink-driving case. The person has crashed, been unobserved for a period before the police arrive, and when tested is positive for alcohol. The person then says that all intake occurred after the journey, and that the blood test therefore doesn’t reflect the situation while they were driving,” he says.

This argument is known as post-incident drinking, or hip flask defence, and can be difficult to disprove using current techniques. Another situation where alcohol consumption is an important piece of the puzzle in investigations is in various types of violent crime or accidents.  

“Then we want to be able to extrapolate backwards from an analytical result that may have been obtained three, five or ten hours after the event, and estimate the alcohol level at the time of the offence and perhaps also when the person stopped drinking,” says Robert Kronstrand.

To achieve this, the research group at Linköping University, together with the Swedish National Board of Forensic Medicine, has developed a computational model for a so-called digital twin. Digital twin technology can, in simplified terms, be described as a virtual model of a person where individual differences such as sex, age, height, weight and medical conditions are taken into account when calculating alcohol levels in the body.

In the LiU researchers’ model, data from a person’s exhaled breath, blood and urine samples are analysed. These data consist of various metabolites from alcohol metabolism, found in blood and urine. All this information is then used together with the digital twin to generate individualised results on drinking patterns.

According to the researchers, the digital twin could also take into account gastric emptying rates and alcohol absorption, which depend on food intake or the type of alcoholic beverage consumed.

“We want to explore alcohol intake and how it breaks down in the body. This involves measurements of both alcohol directly in blood and urine, and secondary  metabolites that arise during the breakdown of alcohol,” says Henrik Podéus Derelöv, doctoral student at the Department of Biomedical Engineering at Linköping University (LiU).

The aim is to develop a user-friendly tool for forensic investigations where sample data are entered, and the model provides probable answers as to when a person last drank and how much. According to Henrik Podéus Derelöv, the results are intended as a support in assessments and do not replace the overall forensic medicine evaluation.

“The model will always involve inherent uncertainty, but that also applies to current methods, and the ambition is to create a more flexible tool.”

---

Journal

Scientific Reports

DOI

10.1038/s41598-026-44093-4 

Article Title

A digital twin framework for forensic reconstruction of alcohol intake via fast and slow metabolite kinetics

Mainz University and the German Police University launch joint research project on qualified language mediation for efficient forensic communication surveillance

German Federal Ministry of Research, Technology, and Space is funding the project with around EUR 880,000 through its Validation of the Technological and Social Innovation Potential of Scientific Research (VIP+) program

Johannes Gutenberg Universitaet Mainz

Facebook

WeChatBlueskyMessageWhatsAppEmail

 

image: 

An intercept interpreter / translator (IIT) at work

view more 

Credit: photo/©: Katja Preusse / German Police University

In cases involving serious criminal offenses, the police are permitted to conduct acoustic surveillance of telephones, private premises, or vehicles to record conversations of suspected offenders or to analyze chat communications. When criminal groups communicate in languages other than German, language mediators or so-called intercept interpreters-translators (IITs) are tasked with rendering the content into German. Their role extends beyond mere linguistic transfer to include the communication of additional information relevant to the investigation. The results of their work also serve as evidence in court proceedings. To ensure effective crime prevention and prosecution, the police, the prosecuting attorneys, and courts depend on precise intercept interpreting and translation.

This is the very topic of the new research project on "Qualified language mediation for efficient forensic communication surveillance", QSEK for short. The interdisciplinary research consortium – involving academics from translation studies, law, and criminology – aims to raise awareness of the specific challenges and importance of intercept interpreting and translation among law enforcement, the judiciary, and the language services sector. It seeks to develop general standards for the legally sound use of language-mediated evidence and to provide targeted training for both language professionals and police personnel.

For the police and the judiciary, the professionalization of IITs is expected to yield significant cost savings as high-quality translation enhances investigative efficiency and reduces the risk of misinterpretation. At the same time, standardized procedures facilitate the work of prosecuting authorities, enable the assessment of AI-based applications, and strengthen the legal reliability of evidence derived from intercept interpreting and translation.

For IITs themselves, the introduction of a standardized qualification profile creates opportunities to acquire both specialized translation and forensic competencies, as well as to prepare themselves for the professional use of AI technologies. Ultimately, these innovations contribute to fair and transparent criminal proceedings and uphold the right of defendants to be heard, thereby reinforcing public trust in law enforcement and judicial processes.

The practical implementation of the project results is of central importance. In the framework of the Validation of the Technological and Social Innovation Potential of Scientific Research (VIP+) program, this transfer will be supported by the Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf as innovation mentor. In addition, the project is supported by an advisory board comprising the German Federal Public Prosecutor at the Federal Court of Justice and representatives from the German Federal Criminal Police Office, the Baden-Württemberg State Criminal Police Office, the German Federal Association of Interpreters and Translators (BDÜ), the German Institute for Human Rights, and criminal defense attorney Dr. Alexander Paradissis (WisteV). This broad backing underscores that QSEK addresses an urgent and widely recognized need.

The project supervisors, namely Professor Cornelia Griebel of the Faculty of Translation Studies, Linguistics, and Cultural Studies of Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz (JGU), Chief of the Criminal Division Joachim Faßbender, and Professor Lars Berster of the German Police University (DHPol), welcome this strong support from key stakeholders. They are confident that QSEK will provide a comprehensive solution to current challenges in intercept interpreting and translation. By integrating academic research, practice-oriented training, and support for technological innovation, the project is intended to make a sustainable contribution to high-quality and efficient language mediation in this field.

The German Federal Ministry of Research, Technology, and Space (BMFTR) is providing financial support of EUR 878,799 to the QSEK project through its VIP+ validation funding program.


Related links:

• https://www.validierungsfoerderung.de/validierungsprojekte/qsek – Validation project "Qualified language mediation for efficient forensic communication surveillance" (QSEK) [in German]