It’s not enough to be outraged. We must fight back.
What we’re seeing right now is an all-out attack on democracy taken straight out of the same authoritarian playbook used by rising autocrats throughout history. We’ve seen it all before, and we know where it all leads – unless enough people of goodwill stand up and speak out.
Our journalism is committed to cataloging Trump’s outrages and connecting the dots to show people how everything fits together and what they can do to fight back.
Everything we care about is in danger, and Common Dreams is fighting back by exposing their lies and corruption and lifting up the voices of those working to stop them. If you believe in our work, we need you now more than ever. Your gift of any amount helps support our independent and fiercely unafraid journalism.
It’s not enough to be outraged. We must fight back.
Our journalism is committed to cataloging Trump’s outrages and connecting the dots to show people how everything fits together and what they can do to fight back.
Somalia: Zero accountability as civilian deaths mount from US air strikes
Civilian casualties continue to mount from the US military's secret air war in Somalia, with no justice or reparation for the victims of possible violations of international humanitarian law, Amnesty International warned as it released details of two more deadly air strikes so far this year.
LONDON
Civilian casualties continue to mount from the US military's secret air war in Somalia, with no justice or reparation for the victims of possible violations of international humanitarian law, Amnesty International warned as it released details of two more deadly air strikes so far this year.
US Africa Command (AFRICOM) has conducted hundreds of air strikes in the decade-long fight against the armed group Al-Shabaab, but has only admitted to killing civilians in a single strike that took place exactly two years ago today. This lone admission was prompted by Amnesty International's research and advocacy.
"The evidence is stacking up and it's pretty damning. Not only does AFRICOM utterly fail at its mission to report civilian casualties in Somalia, but it doesn't seem to care about the fate of the numerous families it has completely torn apart," said Deprose Muchena, Amnesty International's Director for East and Southern Africa.
"We've documented case after case in the USA's escalating air war on Somalia, where the AFRICOM thinks it can simply smear its civilian victims as 'terrorists,' no questions asked. This is unconscionable; the US military must change course and pursue truth and accountability in these cases, in line with its obligations under international humanitarian law (the laws of war)."
Two new cases in February alone
Amnesty International unearthed evidence that AFRICOM killed two civilians, and injured three more, in two air strikes in February 2020.
After both strikes, AFRICOM issued press releases claiming it had killed an Al-Shabaab "terrorist," without offering a shred of evidence of the victims' alleged links to the armed group.
By contrast, Amnesty International found no evidence that the individuals killed or injured were members of Al-Shabaab or otherwise directly participating in hostilities. The organization interviewed the victims' relatives, community members and colleagues; analysed satellite images, photo and video evidence from the scene of the strikes; and identified the US munitions used.
On 2 February, at around 8pm, a family of five was sitting down to dinner in the city of Jilib, in Somalia's Middle Juba region, when an air-dropped weapon - likely a US GBU-69/B Small Glide Munition with a 16-kilogramme warhead - struck their home. Nurto Kusow Omar Abukar, an 18-year-old woman, was struck in the head by a heavy metal fragment from the munition and killed instantly. The strike also injured her two younger sisters, Fatuma and Adey, aged 12 and seven, and their grandmother, Khadija Mohamed Gedow, aged around 70.
The girls' father, Kusow Omar Abukar, a 50-year-old farmer who was in the house during the strike, described the attack to Amnesty International: "I never imagined it was going to hit us. I suddenly heard a huge sound. It felt like our house had collapsed. ... The sand and the smoke filled my eyes."
In the middle of the afternoon on 24 February 2020, a Hellfire missile from another US air strike hit the Masalanja farm near the village of Kumbareere, 10 kilometres north of Jilib, killing 53-year-old Mohamud Salad Mohamud. He was a banana farmer and Jilib office manager for Hormuud Telecom, and he left behind a wife and eight children.
A senior Hormuud official expressed disbelief that Mohamud Salad Mohamud had been targeted, since he had previously worked for international humanitarian organizations and had been arrested several times by Al-Shabaab: "When I heard the news of his death, I thought he was killed by Al-Shabaab. I have never imagined he would be killed by [the] US or by the Somali government. This was very strange. I don't know how to explain it."
These two air strikes were among a string of 20 retaliatory attacks US forces carried out in Somalia after an Al-Shabaab assault on a US airbase in Manda Bay, Kenya, in early January. AFRICOM's commander, US General Stephen Townsend, vowed to "relentlessly pursue those responsible" for the attack, which killed a US soldier and two contractors, and destroyed five aircraft, including two rare and valuable spy planes.
"Nothing can excuse flouting the laws of war. Any US or Somalia government response to Al-Shabaab attacks must distinguish between fighters and civilians and take all feasible precautions to avoid harm to civilians," said Abdullahi Hassan, Amnesty International's Somalia Researcher.
No reparation for family in El Buur
The recently bereaved civilian families in Middle Juba region join many more Somali civilians who have lost loved ones to US air strikes but have seen no accountability or reparation to date.
In one key example, on 1 April 2018, a US air strike hit a vehicle driving from El Buur, north of Mogadishu.
Just over a year later, AFRICOM publicly admitted that the strike had killed a woman and young child. It was its sole admission of civilian casualties in an air war in Somalia that has lasted over a decade. Despite the family of the victims of this strike contacting the US Mission to Somalia in April last year, at the time of writing, neither US diplomatic staff nor AFRICOM had reached out to them to offer reparation.
US ramps up air strikes
In the first three months of 2020 alone, US forces have conducted a total of 32 air strikes in Somalia, according to the monitoring group Airwars. This is double the pace of 2019, when AFRICOM conducted a record 63 strikes in the country.
Since Amnesty International's ground-breaking March 2019 report The Hidden US War in Somalia, the organization has carried out in-depth investigations into eight US air strikes that killed civilians in Somalia's Lower Shabelle and Middle Juba regions. Along with the El Buur strike, they killed a total of 21 civilians and wounded 11. In every case AFRICOM has failed to contact the families of the deceased.
"The US military should not be allowed to continue to paint its civilian victims as 'terrorists' while leaving grieving families in the lurch. Much more must be done to reveal the truth and bring justice and accountability for US attacks which killed so many Somali civilians, some of which amount to apparent violations of international humanitarian law," said Abdullahi Hassan.
Amnesty International is a worldwide movement of people who campaign for internationally recognized human rights for all. Our supporters are outraged by human rights abuses but inspired by hope for a better world - so we work to improve human rights through campaigning and international solidarity. We have more than 2.2 million members and subscribers in more than 150 countries and regions and we coordinate this support to act for justice on a wide range of issues.
The "incredible" decision was written by an appointee of former President Ronald Reagan, described by one law professor as "one of the most deferential-to-government-power judges in the country."
A federal appellate court on Thursday forcefully rejected the Trump administration's request to suspend orders from U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis, who has directed the government to "facilitate" the release of Maryland resident Kilmar Abrego Garcia from prison in El Salvador and launched a two-week process of "expedited discovery" set to include depositions from officials.
The U.S. Department of Justice filed a lengthy request for relief from the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals late Wednesday. The three-judge panel then issued a sharply worded seven-page
order—written by Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson, an appointee of former President Ronald Reagan—that, as The Hillnoted, "came without waiting for Abrego Garcia's lawyers to file their response."
Wilkinson wrote Thursday that "the relief the government is requesting is both extraordinary and premature. While we fully respect the executive's robust assertion of its Article II powers, we shall not micromanage the efforts of a fine district judge attempting to implement the Supreme Court's recent decision."
Abrego Garcia was supposed to be protected from deportation to his native El Salvador by an immigration judge's 2019 decision. Xinis' order for the Trump administration to facilitate his return to the United States as soon as possible has already gone through the 4th Circuit and the U.S. Supreme Court, whose majority
affirmed her directive last week.
Despite the Trump administration's admission in court that Abrego Garcia's deportation was an "error," he remains in El Salvador's Terrorism Confinement Center (CECOT). Meanwhile, U.S. President Donald Trump on Monday welcomed Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele to the White House, and both have suggested they lack the ability to return the 29-year-old to the United States.
The Trump administration has also continued to claim—including in its Wednesday filing to the 4th Circuit—that "Abrego Garcia is a member of the designated foreign terrorist organization MS-13," which he and his family have
denied. His wife and 5-year-old son are U.S. citizens.
This is indeed incredible. “Conservative judge” doesn’t quite cut it as a description of Wilkinson. He is one of the most deferential-to-government-power judges in the country. When he writes like Justice Sotomayor it’s signs-and-wonders level.
"It is difficult in some cases to get to the very heart of the matter. But in this case, it is not hard at all. The government is asserting a right to stash away residents of this country in foreign prisons without the semblance of due process that is the foundation of our constitutional order," Wilkinson wrote. "Further, it claims in essence that because it has rid itself of custody that there is nothing that can be done. This should be shocking not only to judges, but to the intuitive sense of liberty that Americans far removed from courthouses still hold dear."
"The Supreme Court's decision remains, as always, our guidepost," he stressed. Wilkinson—joined by U.S. Circuit Judges Robert King and Stephanie Thacker, who were respectively appointed by former Presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama—continued:
The Supreme Court's decision does not... allow the government to do essentially nothing. It requires the government "to 'facilitate' Abrego Garcia's release from custody in El Salvador and to ensure that his case is handled as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador."
[...]
"Facilitation" does not permit the admittedly erroneous deportation of an individual to the one country's prisons that the withholding order forbids and, further, to do so in disregard of a court order that the government not so subtly spurns. "Facilitation" does not sanction the abrogation of habeas corpus through the transfer of custody to foreign detention centers in the manner attempted here. Allowing all this would "facilitate" foreign detention more than it would domestic return. It would reduce the rule of law to lawlessness and tarnish the very values for which Americans of diverse views and persuasions have always stood.
The judge recognized a broader concern raised across the country as this case has garnered widespread attention: "If today the executive claims the right to deport without due process and in disregard of court orders, what assurance will there be tomorrow that it will not deport American citizens and then disclaim responsibility to bring them home? And what assurance shall there be that the executive will not train its broad discretionary powers upon its political enemies?"
Already, at least one U.S. citizen already has been detained at the request of Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The
Florida Phoenix on Thursday reported the story of Juan Carlos Lopez-Gomez, a 20-year-old held in the Leon County Jail.
Protest happening at the Leon County jail where Juan Carlos Lopez-Gomez, who was born in the U.S. , is being held after his arrest for illegally entering Florida as an “unauthorized alien.”
In the appellate panel's order, the Reagan appointee also called out the Trump adminstration's recent
attacks on the federal judiciary, writing: "The respect that courts must accord the executive must be reciprocated by the executive's respect for the courts. Too often today this has not been the case, as calls for impeachment of judges for decisions the executive disfavors and exhortations to disregard court orders sadly illustrate."
"It is, as we have noted, all too possible to see in this case an incipient crisis, but it may present an opportunity as well," he concluded. "We yet cling to the hope that it is not naïve to believe our good brethren in the executive branch perceive the rule of law as vital to the American ethos. This case presents their unique chance to vindicate that value and to summon the best that is within us while there is still time."
Xinis has asked the administration for regular updates on Abrego Garcia. Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, senior fellow at the American Immigration Council, on Thursday
noted a brief new submission from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security's acting general counsel.
"Meanwhile, in the district court, the Trump administration continues to refuse to provide any information to Judge Xinis," Reichlin-Melnick said. "For the last two days, they've even refused to provide the required daily updates confirming Mr. Abrego is in El Salvador."
Others—including Maryland attorney Joe Dudek, who has
filed a friend-of-the-court brief—also flagged the filing on social media:
‘We are doing nothing to get Abrego Garcia back, and you can kick rocks for asking.’
- Acting General Counsel
The appellate panel's decision, which can now be appealed to the Supreme Court, came as U.S. Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) was in El Salvador attempting to meet with Abrego Garcia to check on his health condition. In a video
posted on social media Thursday afternoon, the senator said that he and an attorney were denied entry into CECOT.
The Associated Pressreported that "while Van Hollen was denied entry, several House Republicans have visited the notorious gang prison in support of the Trump administration's efforts. Rep. Riley Moore, a West Virginia Republican, posted Tuesday evening that he'd visited the prison where Abrego Garcia is being held. He did not mention Abrego Garcia but said the facility 'houses the country's most brutal criminals.'"
"All persons born on U.S. soil are U.S. citizens, that is what our Constitution dictates and is something President Trump cannot undo by waving a pen," one Democratic congresswoman said.
The U.S. Supreme Court said Thursday that it will hear oral arguments related to President Donald Trump's effort to enforce an executive order that would end more than a century of constitutionally enshrined birthright citizenship, while deferring a Trump administration request to allow immediate implementation of the edict, which has been blocked by multiple federal judges.
The justices issued an
order scheduling oral arguments on May 15 to consider the Trump administration's request to limit the scope of nationwide preliminary injunctions against Trump's day one
executive order aimed at denying citizenship to people born in the U.S. if neither of their parents are citizens.
Breaking: SCOTUS sets May 15 arguments in Trump birthright citizenship order request.
Technically over the administration's "partial stay" request, a ruling could allow the admin to start implementing the unconstitutional order. Also: More on DOJ Civil Rights.
New, at Law Dork —>
The citizenship clause of the Constitution's
14th Amendment explicitly states that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States" are citizens.
However, Trump argues in his executive order that the 14th Amendment "has never been interpreted to extend citizenship universally to everyone born within the United States," and "has always excluded from birthright citizenship persons who were born in the United States but not 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof.'"
Trump's order sparked outrage and lawsuits by
more than 20 states and numerous advocacy groups. Federal district courts in Washington, Maryland, New Hampshire, and Massachusetts blocked the administration from enforcing the president's order by issuing nationwide preliminary injunctions. Federal appellate courts in San Francisco, Boston, and Richmond, Virginia subsequently rejected Trump administration requests to partially block the injunctions.
Trump has
argued that the 14th Amendment is "all about slavery." While the amendment was adopted in 1868 during Reconstruction to grant citizenship to emancipated Black slaves, the Supreme Court ruled in United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) that the amendment confers citizenship to children born in the country regardless of their parents' status.
Briefs—including
one by the immigrant advocacy groups CASA and the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project, and danother filed on behalf of Arizona, Illinois, Oregon, and Washington—urged the Supreme Court to reject the government's argument against the nationwide injunctions.
— (@)
"Being directed to follow the law as it has been universally understood for over 125 years is not an emergency warranting the extraordinary remedy of a stay," asserts the brief filed by the states—which calls the Trump administration's focus on the nature of the injunctions "myopic."
CASA and Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project argued that nationwide consistency is imperative for immigration policy and that "the executive branch has been complying with the settled interpretation of the citizenship clause for 125 years, and the government has demonstrated no urgent need to change now."
"Whether a child is a citizen of our nation should not depend on the state where she is born or the associations her parents have joined," the groups added.
Earlier this month, more than 200 Democratic lawmakers in the U.S. House of Representatives filed an
amicus brief opposing Trump's order.
— (@)
"Birthright citizenship is a core piece of our Constitution. Ending it through executive order is simply unconstitutional and a dangerous overreach of executive power," Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), the ranking member of the House Subcommittee on Immigration Integrity, Security, and Enforcement, said in a
statement announcing the brief.
"All persons born on U.S. soil are U.S. citizens, that is what our Constitution dictates and is something President Trump cannot undo by waving a pen," Jayapal added.
"Lawmakers must urgently move to thwart these horrific events that result in terrifying and tragic real-world consequences," said the head of the American Federation of Teachers.
Following a deadly shooting at Florida State University on Thursday, the president of the American Federation of Teachers, Randi Weingarten, vowed to redouble the union's efforts to push for gun safety reform.
"Campuses and classrooms must be safe and welcoming places, but they can become unsafe in an instant because of the ever-present threat of gun violence," said Weingarten, who noted that the shooting at FSU comes on the heels of a shooting at a Dallas, Texas high school on Wednesday and a shooting near a school campus in San Antonio, Texas also on Wednesday.
"We are the only country in the world that regularly deals with this—but we don't have to live this way," Weingarten said. "We should remove weapons of war from our streets and communities, fund community violence intervention programs, enforce background checks and safe-storage laws, ban high-capacity magazines, and pass more risk-protection laws."
"Lawmakers must urgently move to thwart these horrific events that result in terrifying and tragic real-world consequences," Weingarten concluded.
In a press conference Thursday afternoon, FSU Chief of Police Jason Trumbower said that two people are dead following the shooting—though they were not students. Six others were wounded. The gunman was also shot and is at the hospital.
CNNreported that the shooting suspect has been identified as 20-year-old Phoenix Ikner, who is the son of a Leon County sheriff deputy.
Fred Guttenberg, whose daughter was killed during the mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida in 2018, said he is not surprised by the shooting at FSU and that some of his daughter's friends are currently attending FSU.
"My daughter Jaime was murdered in the Parkland school shooting. Many of her friends who were lucky enough to survive that shooting went on to attend FSU. Incredibly, some of them were just a part of their 2nd school shooting and some were in the student union today," he wrote on X.
— (@)
The Tallahassee Democrat also reported that a survivor of the Parkland school shooting was at the FSU campus Thursday.
The gun violence prevention group Giffords reacted to the news of the shooting, writing on X: "What Florida doesn't have: Universal background checks, assault weapon restrictions, large-capacity magazine bans. What Florida does have: The latest school shooting in America."
