Labour must drop challenge over Netanyahu arrest warrant, says human rights chief

Geneva Abdul
Thu, 25 July 2024


The first pro-Palestine March in London after the election of the Labour government under Keir Starmer, 6 July.Photograph: Antonio Olmos/The Observer

The new UK government must withdraw Rishi Sunak’s legal challenge to the international criminal court’s jurisdiction over alleged war crimes committed by Israel in Gaza, the UK director of Human Rights Watch (HRW) has said.

Yasmine Ahmed said that it is “absolutely critical” that the UK does not continue to challenge the right of the ICC to seek arrest warrants for the Israeli prime minster, Benjamin Netanyahu, and defence minister, Yoav Gallant, who the court’s chief prosecutor, Karim Khan, believes could bear responsibility for crimes against humanity.

In May, Sunak criticised the ICC for seeking arrest warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant alongside Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar and other Hamas operatives, stating there was no moral equivalence between the opposing sides.

Two weeks ago, the Guardian reported that the Labour government was expected to drop the legal challenge against the ICC, but this was later disputed by British diplomats who said the matter remained under review. The ICC has given the new Labour government until 26 July to decide whether to pursue the legal challenge.

“Will the UK government be principled and mature enough and adhere to its own statements of complying with and acting consistently with international law and supporting the rules-based order by withdrawing its application to intervene in the case of the ICC?” said Ahmed.

“It will be now for us to see where the rubber will hit the road.”

Ahmed said the new Labour government had come into power at a time of huge global crisis and uncertainty, with conflicts raging in Gaza, Sudan and Ukraine.

After what she described as years of hostile policies by a Conservative administration that sought to undermine international human rights laws and institutions, she said the government must now actively pursue what the new foreign secretary David Lammy has called Labour’s “progressive realism” approach to human rights.

Ahmed said: “It is an incredibly complex world that they are addressing. We’re seeing a number of crises on a level I don’t know we’ve seen in decades.”

Related: Living in a tent with premature triplets: how fear and anxiety haunt Gaza’s new mothers

Ahmed said she welcomed the government’s decisions to resume funding to the UN Palestine relief agency Unrwa, and to scrap the controversial Rwandan deportation scheme. She also said there was a need to prioritise ending arms licences with Israel and called for urgent action to be taken to respond to the humanitarian crisis in Sudan.

Domestically, she said there needed to be a legislative commitment to the protection of refugees and asylum seekers, and practical measures such as reinserting the duty to comply with international law in the ministerial code.

“We cannot promote and be seen to be, or in fact be, promoting a rules-based order in international law if we’re not also replicating that domestically,” said Ahmed. “We need to give [the government] an opportunity to live up to their rhetoric.”


Government ‘looking at’ Tories’ challenge to ICC over Netanyahu arrest warrant

Sophie Wingate, PA Deputy Political Editor
Thu, 25 July 2024 

Labour is “looking at” the previous Tory government’s objection to the International Criminal Court’s (ICC) application for an arrest warrant against Benjamin Netanyahu, Downing Street has said.

No 10 did not confirm or deny reports that Sir Keir Starmer is expected to drop any legal challenge to the ICC’s pursuit of an arrest warrant against the Israeli premier for alleged war crimes against Palestinians by the end of the week.

But a No 10 spokeswoman reiterated the party’s emphasis on the independence of the Hague-based war crimes court and its chief prosecutor.

She also said “we reject the overall characterisation” in a New York Times article noting the UK would be edging away from its close ally the US on the conflict were it to ditch an appeal contesting the court’s jurisdiction over Israeli citizens.

The spokeswoman told reporters: “We reject the overall characterisation in that piece. The Government has been clear about Israel’s right to self-defence and its right to respond to a terror attack in line with international humanitarian law.

“We’ve been in lockstep with the US on this matter and also in our efforts with the US and other allies in terms of promoting regional stability.”

The newspaper’s report is titled “UK’s Policy on Israel, Long Aligned With America’s, Veers Away”, after the ICC’s efforts to seek arrest warrants against top Israeli leaders have been widely denounced in Washington.

Former MP Jonathan Ashworth was one of several Labour candidates defeated by Independents who made Gaza a major part of their General Election campaign (Lucy North/PA)

The Downing Street spokeswoman continued: “On the ICC, we’ve also spoken consistently about the importance of the independence of both the prosecutor and the court. It is for the prosecutor and the court to make a decision.

“Now, with regard to the previous government’s proposals around a submission, we are looking at that but I don’t have any further updates.”

ICC prosecutor Karim Khan in May requested arrest warrants for Israeli prime minister Mr Netanyahu and defence minister Yoav Gallant over Israel’s war in Gaza.

Rishi Sunak’s government had told the ICC it intended to submit arguments questioning whether the ICC had the right to order the arrest of Israeli nationals.

The ICC has given the Labour Government until Friday to decide whether to pursue the legal bid.

The conflict in Gaza has been a thorn in the Labour leader’s side, with his initial refusal to call for an immediate ceasefire costing the party votes and seats in the General Election despite its landslide.

Former MP Jonathan Ashworth was one of several Labour candidates defeated by Independents who made Gaza a major part of their campaign.

Since entering Government, Labour has restored funding to the United Nations’ Palestine relief agency UNRWA, in a major shift from the stance of the previous government which had suspended funding in January.

Sir Keir has also stressed that a Palestinian state has an “undeniable right” to be recognised as part of a Middle East peace process.

Nine-months into the Israel-Hamas conflict, which has left more than 39,000 dead in Gaza while dozens of Israeli hostages remain in Hamas captivity, Mr Netanyahu vowed to press on with the war until “total victory” in a speech in Washington on Wednesday.

Sacha Deshmukh, Amnesty International UK’s chief executive, said: “Instead of trying to thwart the ICC’s much-needed Palestine investigation, the UK should be backing efforts to bring all perpetrators of war crimes and possible genocide to justice.

“The UK should support the ICC in its role to investigate and then hold all perpetrators of war crimes and possible genocide to account.”


Benjamin Netanyahu arrest warrant row: 'Everyone accountable under law,' says UK Cabinet minister

Nicholas Cecil
Fri, 26 July 2024 


Benjamin Netanyahu arrest warrant row: 'Everyone accountable under law,' says UK Cabinet minister

Cabinet minister Wes Streeting said that “everyone has got to be held accountable under the law” as the new Government considers its stance on the International Criminal Court’s application for an arrest warrant against Benjamin Netanyahu.

The Health Secretary stressed that the new administration in the UK “believe very strongly in the rule of law”.

His comments came after Downing Street confirmed that ministers are “looking at” the previous Tory government’s objection to the International Criminal Court’s (ICC) application for an arrest warrant against Israel’s Prime Minister.

No 10 did not confirm or deny reports that Sir Keir Starmer is expected to drop any legal challenge to the ICC’s pursuit of an arrest warrant against the Israeli premier for alleged war crimes against Palestinians by the end of the week.

Mr Streeting told Sky News: “We believe very strongly in the rule of law, that’s not just domestically but internationally, and the separation of powers between judges and politicians.

“Everyone has got to be held accountable under the law”

“The second thing I would say in terms of this devastating conflict in Gaza, we have been very clear, we need an immediate ceasefire, the return of all hostages and a serious process to deliver lasting peace for the Israelis and the Palestinians, the two-state solution is the only solution.”

Mr Netanyahu met US president Joe Biden in Washington on Thursday, as well as vice president Kamala Harris, as America piles pressure on him to end the Gaza war.

Earlier, a No10 spokeswoman reiterated the Government’s emphasis on the independence of the Hague-based war crimes court and its chief prosecutor.

She also said “we reject the overall characterisation” in a New York Times article noting the UK would be edging away from its close ally the US on the conflict were it to ditch an appeal contesting the court’s jurisdiction over Israeli citizens.

The spokeswoman said: “We reject the overall characterisation in that piece. The Government has been clear about Israel’s right to self-defence and its right to respond to a terror attack in line with international humanitarian law.

“We’ve been in lockstep with the US on this matter and also in our efforts with the US and other allies in terms of promoting regional stability.”

The newspaper’s report is titled “UK’s Policy on Israel, Long Aligned With America’s, Veers Away”, after the ICC’s efforts to seek arrest warrants have been widely denounced in Washington.

The Downing Street spokeswoman continued: “On the ICC, we’ve also spoken consistently about the importance of the independence of both the prosecutor and the court. It is for the prosecutor and the court to make a decision.

“Now, with regard to the previous government’s proposals around a submission, we are looking at that but I don’t have any further updates.”

ICC prosecutor Karim Khan in May requested arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Mr Netanyahu and Hamas's leader in Gaza, Yahya Sinwar, over the latest conflict.

Israeli defence minister Yoav Gallant and Hamas's political leader Ismail Haniyeh, along with the group's military chief Mohammed Deif, are also wanted for arrest.

Rishi Sunak’s government had told the ICC it intended to submit arguments questioning whether the ICC had the right to order the arrests it was seeking.

The ICC has given the Labour Government until Friday to decide whether to pursue the legal bid.

 

UK expected to drop opposition to ICC Netanyahu arrest warrant case

Keir Starmer government set to announce it believes

International Criminal Court does have the power to make

decisions and judgements

By LEE HARPIN JEWISH NEWSJuly 25, 2024, 

Building of the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague in 2019. (Wikipedia/Author OSeveno/ Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported (CC BY-SA 3.0))

The government is expected to announce it has dropped the previous government’s objections to the International Criminal Court’s arrest warrant proceedings against Benjamin Netanyahu.

Reports indicated that a  No 10 spokeswoman confirmed that the government was “looking” at the previous government’s stance after The New York Times reported that Britain would drop its objections by the end of the week.

The move, likley to be confirmed on Friday, on the advice of new attorney general Richard Hermer KC, will signal the Labour government’s view that the ICC should have the power to make decisions and judgements.

But it is unlikely to speed up any war crime case against Netanyahu, as other countries file arguments in the case from both pro-Palestinian and pro-Israeli perspectives.

It will though signify a tougher stance by the government against Israeli diplomatic efforts to secure support from the UK.

It also is likely to anger some of the main communal organisations in the UK.

David Lammy meets Benjamin Netanyahu

Keir Starmer has made it clear he wants the UK to play its part at the highest level in forging new peace efforts in the Middle East, but he and foreign secretary David Lammy believe the country’s image as an “honest broker” needs strengthening.

In May, Karim Khan, the ICC’s chief prosecutor, announced he was applying for arrest warrant  targeting Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant, the Israeli defence minister over the war in Gaza, along with Hamas leaders Yahya Sinwar, Mohammed Deif and Ismail Haniyeh for the October 7 terrorist attacks.

The previous prime minister Rishi Sunak  issued a legal challenge questioning the ICC’s jurisdiction over Israeli citizens – a move that was supported by Israeli diplomats here.

But the deadline for the government to challenge the ICC case ends on Friday.And after seeeking the advice of Lord Hermer KC, the new attorney-general, Keir Starmer is expected to withdraw the UK’s objection.

The New York Times reported this was the expected decision citing”two people briefed on the government’s deliberations.”

New Attorney General Richard Hermer KC

Jewish News was told by a seperate source on Thursday that a decision had been taken to move away from the previous government’s stance.

But the source added:”Withdrawing the previous government’s objection to the ICC prosecutor’s request for an arrest warrant against Benjamin Netanyahu over the war in Gaza is not a judgement on case for or against the Israeli PM. 

“It’s a sign the UK government recognises the Court’s power to make legal decisions”

A spokesperson for the Jewish Leadership Council told The Times: “The longstanding position of the UK is that the ICC does not have jurisdiction in this case. It would be a disappointing and regressive step if reports that the government is deciding to abandon the appeal come to fruition.”

In a column for the Jewish Chronicle, the Tory peer Danny Finklestein noted that a Starmer government could well take positions on Israel that do not meet the approval of all mainstream Jews.

“We will have to have a nuanced public debate within the community and with the government in which not all mainstream Jews take the same position and in which we accept that the government will criticise, or even act against, Israel without being opposed to its existence,” he wrote.

Watch out for sharks: The bizarre history of internet outages

Thomas Germain
BBC

JULY 26, 2024

(Credit: Getty Images)


In a world where a single point of failure can throw our machines into chaos, everything from sharks to authoritarian governments to old ladies have brought the web to its knees.


On Friday 19 July, 2024, the world woke up to what many have called the worst digital crisis of all time. A botched software update from cybersecurity giant CrowdStrike crashed some 8.5 million computers, smearing Microsoft's dreaded "blue screen of death" across the globe. Airlines cancelled over 46,000 flights in a single day, according to the FlightAware. Hospitals called off surgeries. 911 emergency services faced disruptions in the US. Film Forum, an arthouse cinema in New York, switched to cash payments as its credit card system went down. Microsoft and CrowdStrike issued a solution, but the outages continue almost a week later. It's a reminder, frustrated IT experts said, to never push updates out on a Friday.


As our infrastructure becomes ever more tangled with the internet, this won't be the last catastrophic online outage. But CrowdStrike wasn't the first, either. The history of computing is littered with examples of our digital fragility, and crashes of the past offer a glimpse of what it will feel like on the day the internet turns off.


"There's a price to pay for the convenience we enjoy," says Ritesh Kotak, a cybersecurity and technology analyst. "It will happen again, and from a technical standpoint, the fix for CrowdStrike was relatively easy. Next time, we might not be so lucky."

A glitch in the matrix


One of the earliest major outages came in 1997 thanks to a glitch at the company Network Solutions Inc., one of the main registrars that issues domain names for websites. According to the New York Times, a misconfigured database crashed every single website ending in .com or .net. It took down around one million sites, which at that point in history was a huge portion of the web. Some people didn't get their email. An untold number of web searches ended in frustration. Some businesses who couldn't reach clients and customers lost business around the 1997 crash, but overall, the problems were minimal.



Yet with the internet now touching nearly every part of our daily lives, anything close to the Network Solutions outage has far greater consequences. Twenty-one years later, for example, a malware attack on the Alaskan community of Matanuska-Susitna took an array of digital services offline. The internet blackout sent 100,000 people back in time.
On some level, the internet really is just a series of tubes


"The cyber-attack, God help us, just about stopped everything, you know," local Helen Munoz told the BBC in 2019. "In fact, the borough still [hasn't sorted out] their computers."


Employees were locked out of their workstations. Local libraries were ordered to turn off all their devices. In one government office, workers had to switch to typewriters to do their jobs. It was 10 weeks before the majority of the Matanuska-Susitna's systems came back online.

We're going to need a bigger cable


Sometimes the problems start in the physical world. For a while, the entire nation of Armenia's internet connectivity depended on a single fibre-optic cable running through Georgia. If that sounds precarious, you're right. In 2011, a 75-year-old woman took all 2.9 million Armenians offline when she sliced through that cable with a spade near the Georgian village of Ksani. The woman, who was scavenging for copper at the time, was arrested but reportedly let go soon after because of her advanced age. She later told reporters: "I have no idea what the internet is."


Forget human error: engineers have to take measures to protect undersea cables from shark attacks (Credit: Getty Images)


Others felt its absence more keenly. "You can feel it when you don't have access to the internet. You start going crazy," says Vahan Hovsepyan, senior community and public policy advisor at RIPE NCC, the regional internet registry for Europe, the Middle East and Central Asia, who lives in Armenia. "There's no way to ensure stability when you have a cable that's thousands of kilometres long," Hovsepyan says, which highlights the importance of building redundancies into digital infrastructure.


It's proof positive that, on some level, the internet really is just a series of tubes. Pensioners aren't the only threat to those tubes, either. In 2017, all of Zimbabwe lost its internet access for half a day. Local newspapers reported that a tractor had torn through a cable in South Africa.


The fibre-optic cables in our backyards need protection from human beings, but the thousands of kilometres worth of cables draped across the ocean floor face their own dangers. Sharks have a mysterious fondness for biting undersea cables, which has caused outages in the past. There's a long history of teeth marks on these ocean cables, not just from sharks but other fish and barracudas. A tooth can penetrate the insulation and mix sea water to ground the power conductors. It's been causing problems for phone and telegraph cables since at least 1964, according to a report from the United Nations Environment Programme. Today, Google reportedly wraps its underwater cables in a Kevlar-like material, in part to stop sharks and other ocean dwellers from biting through the internet. Videos posted online have captured the web-hating sharks in action.

Digital fallout


A quarter of Canada's internet and phone service was knocked out in 2022 because of a failure at Rogers Communications, one of the country's biggest telecom providers. It gave 11 million people a preview of last week's CrowdStrike debacle. Emergency services couldn't accept phone calls, hospitals cancelled appointments and businesses across the country couldn't accept debit card transactions. Canadian R&B star the Weeknd was forced to postpone a concert.



Kotak, who lives in Toronto, says the Rogers outage didn't have a major impact on his life, but others weren't so lucky. "A friend of mine literally missed the bar exam," he says. "Her whole family were Rogers customers, and she couldn't get the exact address and room number for the test because she only had it written down in her email."


Legislators can prevent these kinds of problems by mandating safety measures in the technology and telecom industries, Kotak says. But sometimes, governments are responsible for internet shutdowns in the first place.

Singer the Weeknd had to cancel a concert after a failure at Rogers Communication left 11 million Canadians without phone or Internet service (Credit: Alamy)


Disabling the internet is also a go-to method for government censorship, both for authoritarian governments and stable democracies. "It's a pretty massive problem," says Zach Rosson, a data analyst at Access Now, a digital rights advocacy group. "By our definition, there have been over 1,500 internet shutdowns since 2016", by governments, militaries and police forces.


In fact, the CrowdStrike disaster shadowed an example that began the same day. For the last week, Bangladesh has faced near total internet blackout after a government shutdown in response to violent clashes between protesting students and police. The online cutoff has been accompanied by a curfew and reporters say the lack of internet access makes accurate information harder to come by. At least 150 people have been killed in the clashes, with some local media putting the figure much higher.



There's a growing push to understand internet access as a human right. "Think about all the things it gives you access to: employment, healthcare, education, communication, business and just understanding the world around you. We've found that internet shutdowns actually impede humanitarian delivery and prevent the documentation of atrocities," Rosson says.


India is probably the world leader in using internet shutdowns to quell unrest, but it's a widespread tactic that's been deployed in at least 83 countries including Iran, Russia, Algeria, Senegal, Tanzania, Cameroon and Venezuela, according to Access Now.

The big one


In places where the internet connection depends on one fibre-optic cable, it makes for a glaring Achilles heel. After decades of the internet worming its way into every corner of our lives through wires and WiFi connections, you might think there would be more built-in fail-safes to keep the world churning. But largely the opposite is true, according to Casey Oppenheim, chief executive at Disconnect, a cybersecurity company.


"To me this is the real lesson of the CrowdStrike event," Oppenheim says. CrowdStrike holds a massive market share in its corner of the security business, serving more than half the companies on the Fortune 500 list. "The less diversity you have in any ecosystem, the more vulnerable you become, and there's zero diversity at the top of the internet supply chain. You can pick any core area of the internet and you'll find a very short list of companies in control."


In other words, Oppenheim says, the potential for catastrophic internet failures is yet another consequence of "monopolistic forces" in the tech business. When so much depends on a single company, one wrong move can bring it all tumbling down. "As governments take on antitrust issues, it's something we may want to think about," he says.



More like this:


• The cyber-attack that sent an Alaskan community back in time

• Google just updated its algorithm. The internet will never be the same

• Why your internet habits are not as clean as you think


The most famous internet failure in history is one that didn't really happen. Twenty-five years ago, the public went into a frenzy over the Y2K Bug. Many predicted that the dawn of the new millennium in the year 2000 would come with a global computer failure. Thanks to short-sighted engineers, many computer programmes relied on calendars that used two digits for the year instead of four. That meant 2000 would be indistinguishable from 1900 on New Year's Day. Forecasts about the resulting computer crashes were nothing short of apocalyptic, with stories about failing governments, riots in the streets and total societal collapse. The world was just starting to comprehend the power of the tech industry, and for many, the Y2K bug was as terrifying as it was obscure. Some people stocked up on food, water and weapons.

The CrowdStrike Internet catastrophe affected millions of people. Experts say it's just the beginning (Credit: Getty Images)


There were indeed widespread glitches when the clock struck midnight on 31 December 1999. Most were trivial, such as train delays in Norway or misprinted jury summons in Oregon, US. Some reports were serious, but compared to the forecasts, the supposed Y2K disaster never materialised.



Elevators didn't stop running, as some building managers were reported to fear. Years of warnings about a collapse of the global financial system were for naught. Prison doors did not fling open and let convicts free, despite some warnings. And unlike the early days of the Covid-19 pandemic, the recommended toilet paper stock piles weren't necessary. The problems could have been far more severe, though the most dramatic prophecies were always overblown.


CrowdStrike is the closest we've come to a full-blown internet shutdown. Even with its unprecedented scale, however, the consequences lasted just a few days. CrowdStrike was a taste of what's possible. Security experts are still bracing for the big one.


--


For timely, trusted tech news from global correspondents to your inbox, sign up to the Tech Decoded newsletter, while The Essential List delivers a handpicked selection of features and insights twice a week.


For more science, technology, environment and health stories from the BBC, follow us on Facebook and X.

AMERIKA

"It's not just about abortion": How the Chevron ruling could unravel reproductive rights

Experts weigh in on our destabilized Supreme Court and how more than environmental regulation is being threatened

By NICOLE KARLIS

Senior Writer

SALON
PUBLISHED JULY 26, 2024 

Reproductive rights activists demonstrate in front of the Supreme Court in Washington, DC, on June 24, 2024.

 (JIM WATSON/AFP via Getty Images)


In April the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) finalized its Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA) regulations, after being criticized by conservative lawmakers and religious organizations. Part of the update included a clarification that accommodations, like a leave of absence, applied to abortion care. But now since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the Chevron deference, which made it possible for Congress to rely on federal expertise when implementing a wide range of policy measures, conservative judges in lower courts can seek to reverse expert policies for ideological reasons — and that applies to policies regarding reproductive care.


"They are making these grand, sweeping decisions, overturning precedent and then not providing the rules of engagement."
Advertisement:


As reported by Bloomberg Law this week, a coalition of 17 Republican attorneys general told a federal appeals court that the recent decision to overturn the Chevron deference should bring back their challenge to the EEOC’s pregnancy regulation. In other words, they’re trying to leverage the Chevron ruling to remove the EEOC’s approved leave of absence for abortion care. The move appears to be part of a more comprehensive anti-abortion plan to lean on the Chevron ruling to dismantle reproductive rights further.

“A Chevron ruling says that government regulations, or when the agency passes a rule, if it is not strictly required by the statute that Congress passed, then a court may invalidate the rule,” David S. Cohen, a professor of law at Drexel Kline's School of Law, explained to Salon. Previously, it was up to the agency to determine clarity in cases where there was “vague language from Congress.” But the ruling in the Chevron case says now it's up to the judges to answer that question. Depending on the judge, the decision could be made through an ideological lens.

Related
Trump vows to "NEVER" take away birth control — except he spent four years doing just that

That's not the only possible threat to reproductive health care. Cohen provided Salon with another example: under Obamacare, preventative medicine must be covered, which includes birth control.

“Now, the conservative federal judiciary might say birth control, under our reading of the statute is not preventive medicine, so the agency went too far in requiring birth control,” Cohen said. “It used to be that the agency got a lot of deference. Preventive medicine is broad, it’s vague, so it's up to the agency to determine what the rule is when you've got vague language from Congress.”

But now it’s up to the judges.

In late June, the U.S. Supreme Court voted along party lines in a historic decision against the government in a pair of cases — Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce. The ruling set a precedent of gutting the power of regulatory agencies to protect the environment and consumers. Gautham Rao, a professor of legal history at American University, told Salon at the time that the case had "historic implications" as an attack "on what we call the administrative state." Reproductive rights advocates worry that the implications will extend beyond environmental protections.
Advertisement:

Leila Abolfazli, director of National Abortion Strategy at the National Women's Law Center Action Fund, told Salon she fully expects conservative justices to now start making claims that due to the decision in the Loper Bright case, some regulations related to reproductive rights can be revisited by the lower courts instead of federal agencies.

“But I will say that, with or without Loper Bright, the parties were making these claims, and some courts were open to them,” Abolfazli said. “But Loper Bright certainly gives them sights and saying, ‘No we get to decide what the law is, and it's XYZ, not what the administration said.’”

The Alliance Defending Freedom, the conservative Christian legal advocacy group that argued against the FDA’s approval of mifepristone and lost, filed an amicus brief for the Loper Bright case that outlined how a ruling to overturn the Chevron deference could unravel access to abortion care. In the amicus brief, ADF argues that “agencies are weaponizing federal healthcare laws to violate the right to life.” It specifically called out Title X, EMTALA covering life-saving abortion care, and the mail delivery of mifepristone. It also called out a range of agencies like the EEOC, for “forcing employers to pay for puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones and amputating healthy organs.”

“ADF definitely has a full, comprehensive plan on how it wants to take down abortion and other reproductive health care,” Abolfazli said.

In regards to the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, that litigation will likely continue, Abolfazli said.

“But I think there's an overarching comment here on how destabilizing the Supreme Court is right now. They are making these grand, sweeping decisions, overturning precedent and then not providing the rules of engagement,” Abolfazli said.

Cohen said that leveraging the Chevron case to unravel reproductive rights is yet another example that the “anti-abortion movement is not stopping at abortion.”

“They are looking to do anything to restrict family planning, sexual health, reproductive health. It's not just about abortion,” Cohen said. “This is about anything related to sexual reproductive health and women's health too.”

Ministry of Health Confirms 2 Deaths from Oropouche Fever in Brazil, the First in the World

The cases involved two women, aged 22 and 24, without comorbidities



Jul.26.2024

• Luana Lisboa

SÃO PAULO

The Ministry of Health confirmed two deaths from Oropouche fever in Bahia. Until now, there had been no reports in the scientific literature worldwide of fatalities from the disease. The investigation of the cases was conducted by the Bahia State Health Department, which had already recorded the deaths but was awaiting confirmation from the Ministry of Health. The cases involved two women, aged 22 and 24, without comorbidities, in the cities of Camamu and Valença, respectively.

Culicoides paraenses Foto:Reproduçao - Reproduçao/Reproduçao

According to the ministry, the detection of cases was expanded nationwide in 2023, after the Ministry of Health provided diagnostic tests for the first time to the entire national network of Central Public Health Laboratories (Lacen). Until then, cases had been concentrated in the Northern region of Brazil. This year, 7,236 cases of Oropouche fever have been recorded in 20 Brazilian states. Most of them were reported in Amazonas and Rondônia.

An article signed by 20 specialists, in an initial version for review posted on July 16, analyzes the two deaths in Bahia and emphasizes the need for an active and efficient surveillance system to control the spread of the virus. According to the publication, the first death occurred on March 27 in Valença. The patient began experiencing symptoms such as fever, headache, muscle pain, intense abdominal pain, diarrhea, nausea, retro-orbital pain, and vomiting on March 23.

The second patient developed symptoms such as fever, myalgia, headache, retro-orbital pain, lower limb pain, asthenia, and joint pain on June 5. Four days later, she developed a red rash and purple spots on her body, as well as bleeding from the nose, gums, and vagina.

 

Olympic 'sabotage' claims as British Dressage chiefs question motives behind Charlotte Dujardin video leak

26 July 2024, 07:43

Row grows over Charlotte Dujardin whipping a horse. Picture: Getty/GMB

By StephenRigley

@srigley

British Dressage chiefs declared that the video of Charlotte Dujardin whipping a horse 24 times "like a circus elephant" was released "to cause maximum damage" to the star's Olympic bid.

Less than 72 hours before the Opening Ceremony of Paris 2024, the controversial leaked footage of Team GB's dressage star caused the triple gold medalist to pull out of the games.

In a letter to members, the boss of British Dressage Jason Brautigam, said that Dujardin's actions were "completely unacceptable" but went on to pour fuel onto the suggestion that dirty tricks might be at play.

Brautigam questioned the accuser's claim of attempting to "save dressage", labelling the comments "somewhat disingenuous".

Earlier Madeline Hall, a former dressage correspondent at Horse & Hound magazine, who told The Daily Mail: "The timing of this video days before the Olympics smells of sabotage. To me it is suspect."

Footage has emerged showing Charlotte Dujardin shipping a horse. Picture: GMB

Read More: ‘We universally condemn her’: Charlotte Dujardin’s ‘mentor’ and Team GB teammate speaks out after whipping video

Read More: Katie Price's dressage teacher to replace Charlotte Dujardin in Olympic team

Dutch lawyer Stephan Wensing refused to divulge his female client's identity when he released the video to the world earlier in the week.

The Netherlands has always been a strong rival of Great Britain in equestrian sports. Yesterday Team NL batted away any suggestion that the leak of Dujardin, who had hoped to become Britain's most decorated female Olympian this year, had come from them insisting that they "only just saw the video after it was published".

The video in question shows the dressage star allegedly lashing a horse at stables in Gloucestershire was made public by a Dutch lawyer on behalf of an anonymous client, who filmed it several years ago but has chosen to release it only now.

In the email to members, Brautigam said the the vision of Dujardin was indefensible but also urged people to be "kind" to the Olympian.

"Charlotte Dujardin has done the right thing by accepting responsibility and expressing remorse,' he said.

"While we do not condone her behaviour, we must remember that there is also a human element to this – and, regardless of what has happened, she still deserves our understanding.

"Please be kind and bear in mind that we have a duty of care in our interactions with one another."He added: "I do find claims that this was done to 'save dressage' somewhat disingenuous, given that it was timed to cause maximum damage to our sport.

"However, what will save dressage is how we all respond to this crisis by demonstrating our love and care for horses."

Dujardin was viewed as a certainty for damehood if she won a medal in Paris, which was all she needed to become Britain's most successful female Olympian ever.

US, allies say North Korean hackers have waged global cyberespionage campaign to steal military secrets

The United Kingdom, the United States, and South Korea have warned of a global cyberespionage campaign backed by North Korea to advance its nuclear ambitions

Deutsche Welle Published 26.07.24, 

North Korea-backed hackers use software vulnerabilities to launch cyberattacks, including malware and phishing

Deutsche Welle

North Korean hackers have waged a global cyberespionage campaign to steal classified military secrets in support of Pyongyang's banned nuclear weapons program, the United States, Britain and South Korea said in a joint advisory on Thursday.

It was co-authored by the US Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the US National Security Agency (NSA) and cyber agencies, the UK's National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC) and South Korea's National Intelligence Service (NIS).

The North Korea-backed hackers, known as Anadriel or APT45 by cybersecurity researchers, have targeted or breached computer systems at a wide range of defense or engineering companies, including the makers of tanks, submarines, naval ships, fighter jets, missiles and radar systems, according to the joint advisory.

Andariel has been identified as an arm of Pyongyang's spy agency.

"The authoring agencies believe the group and the cyber techniques remain an ongoing threat to various industry sectors worldwide, including but not limited to entities in their respective countries, as well as in Japan and India," the advisory said.

"The global cyber espionage operation that we have exposed today shows the lengths that [North Korean] state-sponsored actors are willing to go to pursue their military and nuclear programs," said Paul Chichester at the NCSC, a part of Britain's GCHQ spy agency.

According to the FBI, Andariel has used software vulnerabilities to launch cyberattacks, including malware and phishing, to access sensitive data and information.

The FBI urged companies involved in defense, aerospace, nuclear and engineering sectors "to remain vigilant in defending their networks from North Korea-state-sponsored cyber operations."

The FBI said Andariel had been trying to obtain information such as specifications and design drawings for uranium processing and enrichment as well as missiles and missile defense systems.

Kamala Harris' Press Release About Donald Trump's Fox News Appearance Is Going Viral

BuzzFeed
Thu, 25 July 2024


Well, let's start off by stating the obvious: The last week/month/year has been wild.

Kamala Harris has spent the past week campaigning as the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee.

Montinique Monroe / Getty Images


Donald Trump has also been on the campaign trail.


WXII/ Twitter: @DaVonteMcKenith

He caught up on President Biden's speech on his plane last night.


Twitter: @margommartin

This morning, he called into Fox News.


Fox/ Twitter: @atrupar

Kamala released a press release about Trump's Fox News interview, and it's going viral:

Twitter: @alex_abads

In it, she calls Trump "old and quite weird?"


Twitter: @Nagler

People can't believe it's real.

Twitter: @JoyceWhiteVance

"Something about the question mark after 'old and quite weird' is taking me out," this person said.


Twitter: @charlotteirene8

"This campaign is gonna be fun again," another person commented.



Twitter: @ElieNYC

It will surely be a long four months, but I'm enjoying this messiness.

the bullet point of "Trump is old and quite weird?" is killing me https://t.co/HaKW3McSRS

— edie olmsted (@edieocre) July 25, 2024

Twitter: @edieocre

Let's see what happens next!

How Trump is referring to Harris now that she's the presumptive Democratic nominee — and how her campaign is hitting back

Dylan Stableford
·Senior Writer
Thu, 25 July 2024 

Scroll back up to restore default view.

Donald Trump said Thursday that he expected Vice President Kamala Harris would eventually become the Democratic nominee after President Biden’s halting performance in last month’s debate.

"I knew there was a palace coup going on, and I assumed that she'd be probably getting it," Trump said in a phone interview on "Fox & Friends." "She had the advantage."
This was the Harris campaign’s rapid response

Following the interview, the Harris campaign sent out a statement on what it called “a 78-year-old criminal’s Fox News appearance.”

“After watching Fox News this morning we only have one question, is Donald Trump OK?” the statement said before listing its takeaways. Among them: “Trump is old and quite weird” and “This guy shouldn’t be president ever again.”

Trump is workshopping his nicknames

Trump at a rally in Charlotte, N.C., on Wednesday. (Marco Bello/Reuters)

At a rally last Saturday, a day before Biden announced his decision to drop out of the race and endorse Harris, Trump riffed on Harris’s laugh.

“I call her 'Laughing Kamala,'" Trump said. "You ever watch her laugh? She's crazy. You can tell a lot by a laugh. No, she's crazy. She's nuts."

In the days since, Trump has trotted out other various disparaging nicknames for her — “Lyin’” and “Crooked,” to name two — and tried painting her as an “ultra-liberal.”

“Kamala Harris has been the ultra-liberal driving force behind every single Biden catastrophe,” he said at a rally in Charlotte, N.C., on Wednesday. “So now we have a new victim to defeat: Lyin’ Kamala Harris.”

But Trump — whose use of nicknames for his political opponents is well documented — has yet to land on a consistent one for Harris, who on Monday said she had secured enough delegate support to be the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee.

In a fundraising email sent this week by the Trump campaign, the former president referred to Harris as “COMMIE-LA” and falsely claimed the vice president is “serving as the FAKE Commander-in-Chief.”

Then there’s the debate over the debate

Harris at a campaign event in Indianapolis on Wednesday. (Jon Cherry/Reuters)

In a separate email blast, Sen. JD Vance, the Republican vice presidential nominee, insisted he is “furious” that he won’t get to debate Harris, who he called the “WORST Vice President in this country’s history.”

“Instead, I’ll go up against whomever the Democrat elitists anoint in their smoke-filled back room,” Vance said. “But no matter which far-left radical they trot out to take me on … I will WIPE THE FLOOR with them.”

On Truth Social earlier this week, Trump said he is willing to debate Harris, but suggested the event be hosted by Fox News instead of ABC.

“ABC Fake News is such a joke, among the absolute WORST in the business,” Trump wrote in a post that was filled with disparaging nicknames. “They try to make Crooked Joe into a brave warrior because he didn’t have the ‘guts’ to fight it out — He quit! They then tried to make ‘Sleepy’ look like a great President - he was the WORST, and Lyin’ Kamala into a competent person, which she is not. ABC, the home of George Slopadopolus, is not worthy of holding a Debate, of which I hope there will be many! MAGA2024.

Fact check: Trump made at least 10 false claims about Kamala Harris in a single rally speech

Daniel Dale, CNN
Thu, 25 July 2024 



Former President Donald Trump made at least 10 false claims about Vice President Kamala Harris in his first campaign rally since she became the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee.

Trump, speaking in North Carolina, attacked Harris at length with a flurry of assertions about her personal and political past, her record as vice president and her policy stances. We’re still looking into some of his claims, but at least 10 were wrong.

Here is a fact check.

Harris and the retirement age

Discussing Social Security, Trump claimed of President Joe Biden and Harris: “They’re talking about, he was talking, she’s talking about – lifting the retirement age.”

Facts First: This claim is false about Harris. She has not spoken in favor of raising the age for receiving Social Security retirement benefits. (Biden did, as a US senator in the 2000s and prior, express support for or openness to raising the retirement age, but he has been a vocal opponent of the idea as president.)

Harris has supported increasing, not reducing, Social Security benefits. In 2019, about two years before she became vice president, she co-sponsored a bill from Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, called the Social Security Expansion Act, that would boost Social Security benefits by raising payroll taxes on high earners.

Harris and abortion

Trump said, “She wants abortions in the eighth and ninth month of pregnancy, that’s fine with her, right up until birth, and even after birth – the execution of a baby.”

Facts First: Trump’s claim that Harris supports the execution of babies after birth is false. She has never said anything to endorse post-birth murder, which is illegal everywhere in the country; Trump has frequently claimed that some Democratic states allow such post-birth executions, but that claim is false, too.

Harris, a vocal supporter of abortion rights, has declined to endorse specific limits on how late in a pregnancy an abortion should be permitted to occur. According to data published by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, just 0.9% of reported abortions in 2020 occurred at 21 weeks gestation or later. Many of these abortions occur because of serious health risks or lethal fetal anomalies.

Harris has called for legislation restoring the protections of the Roe v. Wade decision that was overturned by the Supreme Court in 2022; Roe allowed states to restrict abortion after the point of fetal viability, often considered to be around 23 to 24 weeks gestation, with exceptions for abortions necessary to protect the patient’s life or health. As a senator and vice president, Harris has supported a bill that would, like Roe, ensure abortion was available at least until fetal viability – and would also prohibit various state policies that make the process of providing or obtaining an abortion more onerous.

Asked about Trump’s comments, the Trump campaign provided various examples of Harris taking liberal positions on abortion policy and declining to endorse specific limits - but nothing to substantiate the claim that she supports “the execution of a baby” after birth.

Harris and red meat

Trump claimed, “Kamala even wants to pass laws to outlaw red meat to stop climate change.”

Facts First: This is false. Harris has never expressed support for passing laws to outlaw red meat. At a CNN climate change town hall in 2019, when she was running in the Democratic presidential primary, she expressed support for changing dietary guidelines to try to encourage Americans to reduce their consumption of red meat, but she also said “I love cheeseburgers from time to time” and that she favored using “incentives” and education to encourage healthy eating.

After mentioning sodas and foods with copious sugar, Harris said in this same town hall answer that “the balance that we have to strike here, frankly, is about what government can and should do around creating incentives and then banning certain behaviors.” The phrase “banning certain behaviors” opened the door to claims that she wants to ban red meat. But she immediately proceeded to her comments about how she enjoys cheeseburgers and favors incentives to prod changes in behavior – making clear in context that she was expressing support for incentives rather than bans.

Asked about Trump’s claim about Harris wanting to outlaw red meat, the Trump campaign provided two citations that did not substantiate it: a YouTube video of Harris’ comments that was correctly titled “Kamala Harris Wants The Government To Create ‘Incentives’ For Americans to Eat Less Meat” and an article headlined, “Flashback: Kamala Harris said she would support eating less meat if elected president.”

Harris and Trump’s legal cases

Trump has claimed for months that Biden secretly orchestrated his criminal and civil legal cases. This time, he directed the claim at Harris. He said, “But it was all headed up by her. Because she’s a prosecutor.”

Facts First: This is false. There is simply no basis for claiming that Harris “headed up” the legal cases against him. Trump has never presented any evidence for this claim that Biden was the hidden hand behind his cases, let alone for suddenly switching the claim to make it about the vice president after months of saying it about the president.

There is no sign that Harris had any role in bringing charges against Trump in Manhattan, New York (where he was convicted of 34 felony counts of falsifying business records) or Fulton County, Georgia (where an election subversion case against Trump is on hold); those prosecutions have been led by elected local district attorneys. Trump’s two federal cases, one dismissed by a judge earlier this month, were brought by a special counsel, Jack Smith. Smith was appointed by Attorney General Merrick Garland, a Biden appointee, but that is not proof that Biden orchestrated the prosecutions – and certainly not proof that Harris did.

Harris’ immigration role

Trump claimed of Harris: “She was the border czar, but she never went to the border.”

Facts First: Trump made two false claims here. First, Harris did go to the border as vice president, in Texas in mid-2021; many Republicans had criticized Harris prior to the visit for not having gone, and some later argued that she didn’t go frequently enough, but the claim that she “never” went has not been true for more than three years. Second, Harris was never made Biden’s “border czar,” a label the White House has always emphasized is inaccurate. In reality, Biden gave Harris a more limited immigration-related assignment in 2021, asking her to lead diplomacy with El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras in an attempt to address the conditions that prompted their citizens to try to migrate to the United States.

Some Republicans have scoffed this week at assertions that Harris was never the “border czar,” noting on social media that news articles sometimes described Harris as such. But those articles were wrong. Various news outlets, including CNN, reported as early as the first half of 2021 that the White House emphasized that Harris had not been put in charge of border security as a whole, as “border czar” strongly suggests, and had instead been handed a diplomatic task related to Central American countries.

A White House “fact sheet” in July 2021 said: “On February 2, 2021, President Biden signed an Executive Order that called for the development of a Root Causes Strategy. Since March, Vice President Kamala Harris has been leading the Administration’s diplomatic efforts to address the root causes of migration from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras.”

Biden’s own comments at a March 2021 event announcing the assignment were slightly more muddled, but he said he had asked Harris to lead “our diplomatic effort” to address factors causing migration in the three “Northern Triangle” countries (he also mentioned Mexico that day). Biden listed factors in these countries he thought had led to migration and said that “if you deal with the problems in-country, it benefits everyone.” And Harris’ comments that day were focused squarely on “root causes.”

Republicans can fairly say that even “root causes” work is a border-related task. But calling her “border czar” goes too far.

Harris and the number of migrants

Trump claimed that Harris “allowed 20 million illegal aliens to stampede into our country from all over the world.”

Facts First: Leaving aside Trump’s claim about Harris’ own responsibility for migration levels, the“20 million” figure is false, a major exaggeration. The total number of “encounters” at the northern and southern border from February 2021 through June 2024, at both legal ports of entry and in between those ports, was about 10 million – and an “encounter” does not mean a person was let into the country; some people encountered are promptly sent away.

Even if you added the estimated number of Biden-era “gotaways” (people who evaded the Border Patrol to enter illegally), which House Republicans said in May was nearly two million, “the totals would still be vastly smaller than 15, 16 or 18 million,” Michelle Mittelstadt, spokesperson for the Migration Policy Institute think tank, said in late June after Trump used those figures.

The “encounters” figures can’t be described as figures on people successfully entering the US. Some encounters involve people who are deemed inadmissible at legal ports and are refused permission to enter. Also, the same person can be “encountered” multiple times if they keep returning to the border to try again – which is what happened in many cases under Biden when the Title 42 rapid-expulsion authority invoked by Trump during the Covid-19 pandemic was in place into May 2023.

Harris and fentanyl deaths

Shortly after claiming there is a “Kamala Harris invasion” of the border, Trump said, “We’re losing 300,000 people a year through fentanyl that comes through our border.”

Facts First: Trump’s “300,000” claim is false. The number of US overdose deaths in 2023 involving synthetic opioids, including fentanyl, was approximately 75,000, according to estimated and provisional data published by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The CDC said in May that roughly 107,500 people in the US died from a drug overdose involving any kind of drug in 2023; even that larger number is nowhere close to Trump’s “300,000.”

When Trump made similar “300,000” claims earlier this year, Dr. Andrew Kolodny, medical director of the Opioid Policy Research Collaborative at Brandeis University, said “I have no idea where Trump is getting ‘300,000’ from and called it “a made-up number.”

While Kolodny said it’s likely that the number of US overdose deaths is undercounted, there is no apparent basis for Trump’s insistence that the real number is nearly triple the reported number. And Kolodny said the undercount issue is centered not on overdoses from illicit fentanyl smuggled across the southern border but on seniors’ overdoses from accidentally taking too much of their legal prescription medications.

It is also worth noting that fentanyl is largely smuggled by US citizens through legal ports of entry rather than by migrants sneaking into the country.

CNN’s Jen Christensen contributed to this item.

Harris and the Jewish community

Trump criticized Harris for not attending Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s Wednesday speech to Congress (though Trump’s running mate, Sen. JD Vance of Ohio, also did not attend); Harris, who is planning to hold a meeting with Netanyahu on Thursday, traveled to Indianapolis on Wednesday to give a previously scheduled speech to a historically Black sorority.

That’s fair game for criticism. But Trump said after criticizing Harris’ absence: “Even if you’re against Israel or you’re against the Jewish people, show up and listen to the concept. But she’s totally against the Jewish people.”

Facts First: Trump’s claim that Harris is “totally against the Jewish people” is nonsense. Harris has been married to a Jewish man, Doug Emhoff, for nearly 10 years – and she has repeatedly denounced antisemitism, expressed fondness for the Jewish community and its traditions, complimented Israel at length, and endorsed “America’s ironclad commitment to the security of Israel.” Though she has sometimes been pointedly critical of the actions of Israel’s government during the war in Gaza, drawing criticism from conservative Jews and others, there is no evidence she has a general antipathy toward “the Jewish people” as Trump claimed.

The Jewish Telegraphic Agency news service reported this week: “Over the course of her life and career, she has been surrounded by Jews, from her schoolmates to her colleagues to her closest family members. That background has given Harris, 59, an easy familiarity with Jewish spaces, say those who have interacted with her. She has also encouraged Emhoff to embrace his Jewish identity as the second gentleman; for the first time, mezuzahs have been installed at the vice presidential residence, and Emhoff has taken a leading role in the administration’s efforts to fight antisemitism.”

Harris and the bar exam

Trump claimed that Harris, a lawyer who was elected as San Francisco’s district attorney and then as California’s attorney general, “failed her law exams.” Then he continued, “You know that? She couldn’t pass her bar. She couldn’t pass her bar exams…Does anyone know that? … But she’s gonna be a great president, right? No, she couldn’t pass her bar exams. She couldn’t pass anything. Couldn’t pass everything. She couldn’t pass anything.”

Facts First: It’s not true that Harris “couldn’t pass anything.” She did fail on her first attempt to pass the bar exam, according to The New York Times, but then succeeded. She was admitted to the California bar in 1990, the year after she graduated from law school.

Trump could fairly say that Harris couldn’t initially pass the bar exam, but his rally comments made it sound like she never passed at all.

For more CNN news and newsletters create an account at CNN.com