

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.

In what human rights groups call an appalling decision, the ICC Pre-Trial Chamber II decided not to grant the Prosecutor's request to open an investigation into alleged crimes committed in Afghanistan and on the territory of other States Parties implicated in the U.S. torture program. Tens of thousands of victims in Afghanistan, along with victims of U.S. torture, had urged the ICC to authorize the investigation.
Despite finding that requirements were met as regards both jurisdiction and admissibility, the Pre-Trial judges decided that authorizing an investigation would not serve "the interests of justice", due to "subsequent changes within the relevant political landscape both in Afghanistan and in key States (both parties and non-parties to the [ICC] Statute)," "the complexity and volatility of the political climate...mak[ing] it extremely difficult to gauge the prospects of securing meaningful cooperation from relevant authorities", along with a lack of possibility of preserving evidence for crimes committed in the early 2000s. The three judges added that, "in light of the limited amount of... resources, [authorizing the investigation] will go to the detriment of other scenarios (be it preliminary examinations, investigations or cases) which appear to have a more realistic prospects to lead to trials."[1] The Pre-Trial statements are clear references to the harsh campaign waged by the Trump administration against the Court as well as to the lack of support - including financial - given to the Court to carry out its mission to combat impunity.
"With its decision today, the International Criminal Court sends a dangerous message: that bullying wins and that the powerful won't be held to account. In bowing to the pressure campaign of the Trump administration, the Pre-Trial Chamber - and the States Parties who have failed to adequately resource and support the Court - accepts impunity. But the victims of the powerful will not stop in their efforts to make true the adage that no one is above the law," declared Katherine Gallagher, Senior Staff Attorney at the U.S.-based Center for Constitutional Rights, who filed victims-representations with the Pre-Trial Chamber in support of the investigation.
"We condemn the ICC's shocking decision, which is based on a deeply flawed reasoning. The ICC was created precisely to overcome the very challenges that made national investigations impossible - it is unacceptable that these challenges are now invoked by the Court to deny justice to the victims. It is a dark day for justice," said Karine Bonneau, Director of the FIDH International Justice Desk.
"After 11 years of preliminary examination by the Office of the Prosecutor, the judges took more than a year to consider the gravity of the crimes and the Court's jurisdiction. After this unusually long period, the ICC decided today to reject Fatou Bensouda's request. Not because the crimes were not committed, but for practical and political reasons", says Guissou Jahangiri, FIDH Vice-President and Armanshahr/OPEN ASIA Executive Director. "The thousands of victims, of violent extremists and of both national and international forces, who participated in this process and who were overwhelmingly in favour of an investigation, are not being acknowledged. The ICC has turned its back on them."
Background
On November 20, 2017, ICC Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda submitted her request to the ICC Pre-Trial Chamber III to open an investigation into the situation in Afghanistan on the following charges.
The Office of the Prosecutor ("OTP") requested the authorization of the ICC Pre-trial Chamber judges to open an investigation into three sets of crimes on the territory of Afghanistan:
(1) crimes against humanity and war crimes, including murder, imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty, persecution on political and gender grounds, and intentionally directing attacks at civilians, humanitarian personnel and/or protected objects, and conscription of children under the age of 15 by the Taliban and affiliated armed groups;
(2) war crimes, including torture, cruel treatment, outrages upon personal dignity, and sexual violence by Afghan government forces, namely members of the ANSF; and
(3) war crimes committed by U.S. armed forces and members of the CIA not only on the territory of Afghanistan, but also by U.S. actors operating in secret detention facilities operated by the CIA in Poland, Romania, and Lithuania since 1 July 2002, principally focusing on the period of 2003-2004.
Tens of thousands of victims had participated in the proceedings to support the Prosecutor's request to open an investigation on the situation in Afghanistan, as serving the interest of justice in Afghanistan.
The United States is not a State Party to the ICC Statute. On 10 September 2018, John Bolton, the U.S. national security adviser, threatened the ICC with sanctions if an investigation was opened into alleged war crimes committed by American nationals in Afghanistan, declaring "the United States will use any means necessary to protect our citizens and those of our allies from unjust prosecution by this illegitimate court." He added that the Trump administration would "fight back" and impose sanctions if the Court formally proceeded with opening an investigation into alleged war crimes committed by U.S. military and intelligence staff during the war in Afghanistan or pursued any investigation into Israel or other U.S. allies.
As a first concrete step, on March 15, 2019, U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced the U.S. will revoke or deny visas to members of the International Criminal Court involved in investigating the actions of U.S. troops in Afghanistan or other countries, and was prepared to take further steps, including economic sanctions. On April 4, 2019, the United States revoked the visa of the ICC Prosecutor.
The Center for Constitutional Rights is dedicated to advancing and protecting the rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. CCR is committed to the creative use of law as a positive force for social change.
(212) 614-6464Data released by the University of Michigan and Gallup this week showed US consumer sentiment cratering even as stock markets hit record highs.
Multiple polls and surveys released in recent days have shown US consumer sentiment cratering—and all the while, the US stock market keeps hitting record highs.
The Kobeissi Letter, a financial newsletter, posted a graphic Saturday that matched consumer sentiment as measured by the University of Michigan's Surveys of Consumers with the performance of the S&P 500 stock index over a 30-year span.
The graphic shows that, up until around 2020, consumer sentiment matched stock market performance closely, although there was a large divergence between the two leading up to the 2008 financial crisis, where stocks briefly outperformed consumer sentiment before crashing downward as the housing bubble burst.
But throughout the last six years, the graphic shows, the S&P 500 has produced an almost continuous upward surge even as consumer sentiment spirals downward.
Absolutely incredible:
Over the last 6 years, the S&P 500 has risen +130% while US Consumer Sentiment has collapsed by -55%, to its lowest since data began in 1952.
We are witnessing the formation of the biggest wealth divide in modern history. https://t.co/XGMR6DfuNc pic.twitter.com/2w7cRvn7ok
— The Kobeissi Letter (@KobeissiLetter) May 23, 2026
"Absolutely incredible," commented Kobeissi Letter. "Over the last six years, the S&P 500 has risen +130% while US Consumer Sentiment has collapsed by -55%, to its lowest since data began in 1952. We are witnessing the formation of the biggest wealth divide in modern history."
Kobeissi Letter produced the graphic one day after the University of Michigan's latest survey found consumer sentiment hitting the lowest level on record.
Joanne Hsu, director of the survey, observed that "the cost of living continues to be a first-order concern, with 57% of consumers spontaneously mentioning that high prices were eroding their personal finances, up from 50% last month."
On the same day, Gallup published new data showing that Americans' economic confidence has fallen to its lowest level since October 2022, with just 16% of Americans rating the economy as excellent or good, and nearly half describing it as poor.
Axios reported on Saturday that even Republicans have been growing sour on the US economy, citing a recent poll from The Associated Press showing GOP approval of President Donald Trump on the economy to be at around 60%, down from 80% just three months ago.
"The growing GOP gloom could hardly come at a worse time for Trump and the party," Axios noted, "less than six months out from a midterm election that's likely to turn on the economy."
The gap between overall consumer sentiment and stock market performance also lines up with recent consumer spending trends. Data published by The Financial Times earlier this year showed that the top 10% of earners in the US now account for nearly half of all consumer spending, while the bottom 80% of earners now account for less than 40% of all consumer spending.
A February report from TD Economics economist Ksenia Bushmeneva noted that “the economic divide between America’s households at the top of the income spectrum and everyone else continued to widen last year,” as “upper-income households benefited from the still-robust wage growth, strong gains in equity markets, and better access to consumer credit.”
"Private equity is destroying our favorite baseball team, stripping them for parts," Democratic US Senate candidate Platner said in an ad that aired on the New England Sports Network.
Maine Democratic US Senate candidate Graham Platner on Saturday said that a campaign ad that aired during a Boston Red Sox game was "taken down" after it took aim at the team's ownership.
The ad in question features Platner discussing the role that private equity firms play in the US economy, including sports teams.
"Private equity is destroying our favorite baseball team, stripping them for parts," Platner says at the start of the ad. "Private equity is buying up our homes, our sports, and our lives. I will reverse the private equity curse."
Private equity is taking our homes. It's taking our hospitals. It's taking beloved local businesses and stripping them for parts.
And now private equity is running the Red Sox into the ground.
Our new ad ⬇️ pic.twitter.com/w7LapElpdA
— Graham Platner for Senate (@grahamformaine) May 22, 2026
Platner concludes the ad by saying that he approves this message "because I miss Mookie Betts," the star player whom the Red Sox traded to the Los Angeles Dodgers in 2020 in a deal that was widely decried by local fans as a salary dump.
According to Platner, his campaign began airing the ad Friday on the New England Sports Network (NESN), the cable TV station owned partially by Fenway Sports Group, the conglomerate that owns the Red Sox.
However, he said that "midway through the game the ad was taken down" by NESN, after which the Red Sox proceeded to blow a 4-0 lead, losing to the Minnesota Twins by a final score of 8-6.
Platner, an oyster farmer and upstart candidate who has never before held political office, became the Democratic Party's presumptive nominee for the 2026 US Senate race in Maine last month after his top rival, Democratic Maine Gov. Janet Mills, dropped out of the race.
In recent weeks, Platner has pivoted to challenging incumbent Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), who has held the seat since 1996 and is now running for her sixth term in office.
The policy change means "we could have families separated for months or years," said one expert.
Critics are slamming the Trump administration for implementing a new rule that foreigners who apply for green cards must do so from abroad.
US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) on Friday announced that foreigners currently in the US who want to establish permanent legal residency must first return to their countries of origin to apply for a green card.
This announcement broke with decades of US immigration policy, which made it possible for immigrants in the US to obtain green cards without having to leave the country.
Doug Rand, a former senior advisor at USCIS under President Joe Biden, said in an interview with The Associated Press that "the goal of this policy is very explicit," which is to block a path to citizenship "for as many people as possible."
Sarah Pierce, a former USCIS policy analyst, told The New York Times that the rule change could have particularly dire consequences to foreigners who are married to US citizens and will now have to apply for permanent residency from overseas.
"Our consular processing system through which they would have to apply is already overburdened," Pierce explained. "So that means we could have families separated for months or years."
Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, senior fellow at the American Immigration Council, similarly noted that the new policy "could force people to leave their jobs, homes, and families for weeks or months, all at their own expense" just to stay in a country where they have already established roots.
Reichlin-Melnick said that the full scope of the policy isn't yet clear because there are several unknown details about how broadly it will be applied, but added that "in the meantime, hundreds of thousands of immigrants now have to worry about upending their lives to get a legal status that they are entitled to under our laws."
Drop Site News reporter Ryan Grim argued that the new policy rips the mask off Trump administration claims that they aren't opposed to all immigration, they simply want to reduce undocumented immigration.
"The talking point that we do want legal immigration, we just want people to get in line and follow the rules, is BS," Grim commented. "This is an attempt to blow up the line, blow up the rules, and make it insanely difficult to immigrate legally."
Rep. Chuy García (D-Ill.) echoed Grim's comments by pointing out that the new policy shows the Trump administration's disdain for immigration overall.
"This new policy will force thousands of LEGAL immigrants, including spouses of US citizens, to leave their homes, families, and jobs for weeks or even months to get their green card outside the US," said García. "This is an absurd and cruel policy."
Rep. Adriano Espaillat (D-NY), chairman of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, condemned the new policy for targeting "students, scientists, entrepreneurs, spouses of US citizens, and other individuals following legal immigration processes."
"Aspiring lawful permanent residents are valued members of our communities, workforce, and economy," Espaillat emphasized. "I will continue fighting to protect the rights of aspiring green card holders and immigrant families."