SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
For Immediate Release
May, 27 2015, 09:45am EDT
Wednesday May, 27 2015, 09:45am EDT
Contact:
Reprieve's London office can be contacted on: communications [at] reprieve.org.uk / +44 (0) 207 553 8140.,Reprieve US,, based in New York City, can be contacted on Katherine [dot] oshea [at] reprieve.org
Yemeni Man Granted Permission to Continue Case Against German Government over Role in US Drone Strikes
A German court has granted 'immediate permission to appeal' to a Yemeni man in his case seeking to expose and put an end to the German government's role in the U.S. covert drone programme in Yemen.
WASHINGTON
WASHINGTON - A German court has granted 'immediate permission to appeal' to a Yemeni man in his case seeking to expose and put an end to the German government's role in the U.S. covert drone programme in Yemen.
Faisal bin Ali Jaber, an environmental engineer from Sana'a who had two relatives killed in a 2012 drone strike, had his evidence heard in a Cologne court today. Mr bin Ali Jaber - represented by international human rights charity Reprieve and its local partner the European Center for Human Rights (ECCHR) brought the case against Germany, following revelations that Ramstein air base is crucial to facilitating American covert drone strikes in Yemen.
Although the court ruled against Mr bin Ali Jaber in today's hearing, it gave him immediate permission to appeal the decision, while the judges agreed with his assertion that it is 'plausible' Ramstein air base plays a key role in facilitating drone strikes in Yemen.
Mr Jaber lost his brother-in-law Salim, a preacher, and his nephew Waleed, a local police officer, to a US drone strike which hit the village of Khashamir on 29 August 2012. Salim often spoke out against extremism, and had used a sermon just days before he was killed to urge those present to reject Al Qaeda.
Faisal bin Ali Jaber said: "I had hoped that today the Court would restore Yemen's faith in the West's commitment to the rule of law, and that the German government would put a stop to its role in these illegal and immoral operations. It is shameful that they won't even admit to the part they play in killing innocent civilians and terrorising entire communities. But we will not give up: it is - quite simply - a matter of life or death for us. I am of course disappointed by the outcome today, but remain grateful to the court for hearing my case and am pleased that they have encouraged me to appeal. This is just the beginning of our efforts and I will continue to place my faith in the justice system and the rule of law, to find a peaceful and sustainable way to keep myself and my family safe, and end the devastation brought to my country by drones."
Kat Craig, Reprieve legal director which represents Mr bin Ali Jaber said: "Without Germany - and other Western allies - the U.S. could not fly the drones that kill innocent civilians like my client Faisal's family in Yemen. For too long, the drone programme has been allowed to operate in the shadows - away from judicial and public scrutiny. Whilst we may have lost today, this hearing was an important step in the direction of greater transparency and accountability for the US and its allies in its illegal and immoral drone programme. We may not yet have achieved the end to Germany's role in the illegal U.S. drone war in Yemen, but this simply means that we must redouble our efforts to support our clients in their attempts to end the death and suffering that drones bring in Yemen."
Reprieve is a UK-based human rights organization that uses the law to enforce the human rights of prisoners, from death row to Guantanamo Bay.
LATEST NEWS
'Unconstitutional Animus': Federal Judge Blocks Trump Mass Deportation Effort
"The government," said the judge, "has failed to identify any real countervailing harm in continuing [temporary protected status] for Venezuelan beneficiaries."
Apr 01, 2025
An effort by the Trump administration to unilaterally strip the temporary protected status (TPS) of approximately 350,000 Venezuelan refugees living in the United States was blocked Monday night by a federal court judge who described the order by Secretary of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem as being "motivated by unconstitutional animus."
In a 78-page ruling, U.S. District Judge Edward Chen in San Francisco said Noem's rescinding of an order made under the Biden administration "threatens to: inflict irreparable harm on hundreds of thousands of persons whose lives, families, and livelihoods will be severely disrupted, cost the United States billions in economic activity, and injure public health and safety in communities throughout the United States. At the same time, the government has failed to identify any real countervailing harm in continuing TPS for Venezuelan beneficiaries."
The ruling puts a pause on the Trump administration's action, which would have stripped the humanitarian protections next week and opened the door for immediate deportations of those previously granted the right to live in the U.S. due to the economic and political instability in their home country.
Plaintiffs in the lawsuit argued that Trump's Department of Homeland Security (DHS) violated the Administrative Procedure Act by failing to follow necessary rules set by Congress in reaching its decision to end the protections. "Until now, no administration had ever moved to rescind a grant of TPS protection," said the Haitian Bridge Alliance (HBA), among the groups that helped bring the challenge in court.
Chen said the TPS holders who acted as plaintiffs in the case—represented by the National Day Laborer Organizing Network (NDLON), the ACLU Foundations of Northern California and Southern California, the Center for Immigration Law and Policy (CILP) at UCLA School of Law, and HBA—were likely to prevail on the merits, showing that Noem's order was "unauthorized by law, arbitrary and capricious, and motivated by unconstitutional animus."
Jose Palma, coordinator of the National TPS Alliance, welcomed the decision.
"In the face of adversity, we stand united," Palma said in a statement after the ruling.
"This is not just a legal win," Palma continued, "but a testament to the strength of the TPS community and all who fight alongside us. We will continue this fight with unwavering resolve, not only to protect the future of 350,000 Venezuelans but to defend all TPS holders in this country. Together, we will ensure that the voices of those who seek safety and opportunity are heard and that no one is unjustly torn from their families."
Jessica Bansal, an attorney with NDLON, said, "the Venezuelan TPS holders, like all TPS holders, are living and working lawfully in this country pursuant to a humanitarian program created by Congress 30 years ago. Today's decision to pause the Trump administration's unlawful attempt to strip them of protection provides them and their families with much-needed relief."
One of the plaintiffs, identified by the initials M.H. and due to lose her status within days, also expressed relief.
"My daughter and I rely on TPS to live here," she said. "Without TPS, I would risk being separated from my husband and young son, both of whom are U.S. citizens. I am beyond elated to know that the judge has granted protection while we continue this fight to protect my family and hundreds of thousands of others."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Pro-Voter Coalition Sues Over Trump Trying to 'Declare Election Rules by Executive Fiat'
"This executive order, based on nothing but years of disinformation, is blatantly unlawful and a naked attempt to suppress the votes of targeted communities," said LULAC's national president.
Mar 31, 2025
A pro-voter coalition on Monday sued to block U.S. President Donald Trump's recent executive order that critics warn would make it harder for tens of millions of eligible citizens to cast their ballots in state and federal elections.
The Campaign Legal Center (CLC) and State Democracy Defenders Fund (SDDF) sued the executive office of the president and members of Trump's administration in a Washington, D.C. federal court on behalf of three advocacy groups: the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), Secure Families Initiative (SFI), and Arizona Students' Association (ASA).
"The president's executive order is an unlawful action that threatens to uproot our tried-and-tested election systems and silence potentially millions of Americans. It is simply not within the president's authority to set election rules by executive decree, especially when they would restrict access to voting in this way," said Danielle Lang, senior director of voting rights at CLC.
"Donald Trump is attempting to wrongfully impede voting by millions of Americans with this latest unlawful executive order."
As the complaint puts it: "Under our Constitution, the president does not dictate election rules. States and Congress do... Through the order, the president attempts to exercise powers that the Constitution withholds from him and instead assigns to the states and to Congress. The order violates and subverts the separation of powers by lawlessly arrogating to the president authority to declare election rules by executive fiat."
Trump's order includes provisions enabling the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) and Department of Homeland Security to subpoena voting records for "list maintenance," restricting mail-in voting, and requiring the Election Assistance Commission to include documentary proof of citizenship on the federal voting form.
"Donald Trump is attempting to wrongfully impede voting by millions of Americans with this latest unlawful executive order. But it will not work. In America voters get to pick their president—presidents don't get to pick their voters, declared SDDF co-founder and executive chair Norm Eisen. "We are proud to stand up for the ability of every American voter to cast their ballots freely and fairly through this litigation."
Advocacy group leaders detailed how provisions in Trump's order would impact various communities if the directive isn't struck down.
"Military families, veterans, caregivers, and overseas voters deserve secure access to the very democracy we serve to protect—no matter where we're stationed or how we serve," said SFI executive director Sarah Streyder. "This new order would mean that the veteran who is a full-time caretaker at home, who has done everything right, may now be shut out of the ballot box due to outdated paperwork."
"This new order would mean that the military family stationed on the other side of the world from home, who crossed every t and dotted every i—their military ID will no longer suffice, and due to mail delays outside of their control, their ballot will never count," Streyder warned.
Roman Palomares, LULAC's national president, declared that "this executive order, based on nothing but years of disinformation, is blatantly unlawful and a naked attempt to suppress the votes of targeted communities—disproportionately impacting the Latino community."
"We are proud to join this coalition seeking to stop the effort to silence the voice and votes of the U.S. electorate—and particularly of voters of color," Palomares continued. "Our democracy depends on all voters feeling confident that they can vote freely and that their vote will be counted accurately."
Trump orders states to open voter files to Musk. Exec Order will cost 21 million their vote. ▶️ Get the full story: www.gregpalast.com/trump-execut...
[image or embed]
— Greg Palast (@gregpalast.bsky.social) March 30, 2025 at 1:19 PM
Kyle Nitschke, co-executive director of Arizona Students' Association, highlighted that some states have imposed voter suppression laws similar to Trump's executive order (EO).
"The Arizona Students' Association has seen firsthand what these egregious citizenship requirements really are, an attempt to suppress the vote. In Arizona we have a dual-track federal registration system, and the voters being affected by citizenship requirements are college students registering to vote for the first time, unsheltered voters, and Native voters, Nitschke said. "There are already extensive citizenship checks in place when registering to vote, Trump's EO is a clear attack on our voting rights. Our student members believe we should live in a country where it's accessible and convenient to be a part of democracy."
The Associated Pressnoted that "Monday's lawsuit against Trump's elections order could be just the first of many challenges. Other voting rights advocates have said they're considering legal action, including the American Civil Liberties Union and Democratic attorney Marc Elias. Several Democratic state attorneys general have said they are looking closely at the order and suspect it is illegal."
Monday evening, the Democratic National Committee, Democratic Governors Association, Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) announced that they also filed a suit against the order in the D.C. court. They are represented by Elias Law Group.
"This executive order is an unconstitutional power grab from Donald Trump that attacks vote by mail, gives DOGE sensitive personal information, and makes it harder for states to run their own free and fair elections," they said in a joint statement. "It will even make it harder for military members serving overseas and married women who have changed their name to have their votes count."
"Donald Trump and DOGE are doing this as an attempt to rationalize their repeatedly debunked conspiracy theories and set the groundwork to throw out legal votes and ignore election outcomes they do not like," they added. "It's anti-American and Democrats are using every tool at our disposal—including taking Trump to court—to stop this illegal overreach that undermines our democracy."
The pro-voter lawsuits are also among several legal challenges to Trump's long list of executive actions since January 20. As Common Dreamsreported earlier Monday, the National Treasury Employees Union filed a federal suit in the same D.C. court over Trump's recent order that aims to strip collective bargaining rights from hundreds of thousands of government workers.
It's not just the Trump administration that's working to make it more difficult for Americans to participate in democracy. Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives are also planning to hold a vote on the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act this week.
"If the bill passes, more than 21 million Americans could be blocked from voting," the Brennan Center for Justice warned on social media Monday. "The SAVE Act would be the first voter suppression bill ever passed by Congress. Lawmakers should be protecting the freedom to vote—not restricting it. We urge Congress to reject the SAVE Act."
This article has been updated to include the Democratic lawsuit.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Arkansas Faith Leaders Urge Lawmakers to Reject Bill Forcing Schools to Display Ten Commandments
"We do not need to—and indeed should not—turn public schools into Sunday schools."
Mar 31, 2025
A group of 42 Arkansas faith leaders on Monday called on the General Assembly to reject Republican-led legislation that would force every classroom in the state to display the Ten Commandments and the national motto, "In God We Trust."
"We are faith leaders from across Arkansas who value religious freedom for all. We urge you to vote against S.B. 433, which would require the display of a government-selected version of the Ten Commandments in every classroom of all elementary, secondary, and postsecondary schools and in every other public building or facility maintained with taxpayer funds," a letter to lawmakers signed by the 42 clerics states. The bill was passed by the state Senate on March 19 by a vote of 27-4.
"A government mandate that the Ten Commandments be displayed in all government buildings demeans religious freedom."
State Sen. Jim Dotson (R-34), one of the bill's primary sponsors, called the Ten Commandments "a historical reference point... that has basic things like you shall not kill, steal, commit adultery, those basic foundations of life that is good for everybody to keep front of mind so that we are hopefully living good lives."
However, the faith leaders—41 Christians and one Jew—said that "S.B. 433 is a misguided effort that undermines the faith and freedom we cherish."
"A government mandate that the Ten Commandments be displayed in all government buildings demeans religious freedom," their letter asserts. "The government oversteps its authority when it dictates an official state-approved version of any religious text. The government must respect the rights of individuals and faith communities to make decisions about the sacred texts that inform our religious understandings and practices."
"We do not need to—and indeed should not—turn public schools into Sunday schools," the signers continued. "We remain steadfast and united in affirming the values of religious freedom that are foundational to our democracy and will continue to push back against attempts to impose a singular religious viewpoint into our public institutions."
"Finally, we recognize that the Ten Commandments hold no religious meaning for thousands of Arkansans," the letter acknowledges. "The Ten Commandments are held in a different light for Arkansans who are Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh, Unitarian Universalist, or who practice other religions or no religion at all."
Rev. Brittany Stillwell, associate pastor with students and families at Second Baptist Church in Little Rock, said in a statement that "as a Christian, I understand the Ten Commandments as holy and worthy of contemplation and I take them very seriously."
"They do not, however, belong in schools and other public spaces as a kitschy symbol of a shallow faith," she added. "I don't want the students I pastor to become desensitized to the holiness and reverence they are due. Religious liberty protects scripture from the whims of the government so that it might remain the elevated word from God we hold so dear."
Cooperative Baptist Fellowship director of advocacy Rev. Jennifer Hawks said that "growing up, I spent Easter weekends at my family's homestead in Bearden. My Arkansas aunts, uncles, and cousins played a crucial role in my spiritual formation and never needed the government to define for them Christian teachings or practices."
"When the state writes a CliffsNotes version of a religious text and mandates its use, we all lose," Hawks added, referring to the once-ubiquitous series of student study guides. "The state should not waste time trying to usurp our families and religious institutions. Leave religious instruction to us and don't turn public schools into Sunday schools."
Other Republican-controlled state legislatures have passed or introduced bills requiring the posting of the Ten Commandments in schools or other government buildings. Last year, Louisiana became the only state to fully enact such legislation. However, last November, a federal judge blocked the law, calling it "unconstitutional on its face and in all applications."
Groups including the ACLU and Freedom From Religion Foundation oppose such bills, and faith leaders in other states including Missouri and Texas have also urged lawmakers to reject bills similar to Arkansas' S.B. 433.
While campaigning last year, U.S. President Donald Trump—who critics say has violated at least half of the commandments—expressed support for mandatory classroom display of the divine dicta.
In June 2017, a Ten Commandments monument was installed on the grounds of the Arkansas State Capitol. A day later, Michael Tate Reed II drove his car into the granite slab, destroying it. The monument was rebuilt with concrete bollards added for protection. Reed—who hads previously wrecked a similar monument at Oklahoma's Capitol—was later acquitted on mental health grounds.
In response to the Arkansas monument, the Satanic Temple fought for and won the right to install a statue of Baphomet, a goat-headed, winged being, on the state Capitol grounds. The statue—which contains two children fawning over Baphomet—was unveiled in 2018.
"If you're going to have one religious monument up then it should be open to others," Satanic Arkansas co-founder Ivy Forrester
said at the time, "and if you don't agree with that then let's just not have any at all."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular