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
u.s. congress
45 House Dems Help GOP Pass ICC Sanctions Bill to 'Protect Genocidal Maniac'
"As fires rage across Los Angeles, the priority of American officials is to sanction the ICC," said one critic.
Jan 09, 2025
Forty-five congressional Democrats on Thursday voted with the U.S. House of Representatives' Republican majority in favor of legislation to sanction International Criminal Court officials following the tribunal's issuance of arrest warrants for Israel's prime minister and his former defense chief for alleged crimes against humanity in Gaza.
House lawmakers voted 243-140 in favor of H.R. 23, the Illegitimate Court Counteraction Act. Introduced by Reps. Chip Roy (R-Texas) and Brian Mast (R-Fla.), the bill would "impose sanctions with respect to the International Criminal Court (ICC) engaged in any effort to investigate, arrest, detain, or prosecute any protected person of the United States and its allies."
In November, the ICC issued warrants for the arrest of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant, his former defense minister, "for crimes against humanity and war crimes" in Gaza. According to Gaza officials, Israel's 15-month assault and "complete siege" of the embattled coastal enclave have left more than 165,000 Palestinians dead, wounded, or missing, and over 2 million others forcibly displaced, starved, or sickened.
The ICC also ordered the arrest of Hamas leader Mohammed Diab Ibrahim Al-Masri for crimes against humanity and war crimes allegedly committed during the October 7, 2023 attack on Israel and subsequent kidnapping and imprisonment of more than 250 people.
Rep. Ritchie Torres (D-N.Y.)—who according to AIPAC Tracker is the top congressional recipient of campaign contributions from pro-Israel lobbyists including the American Israel Public Affairs Committee—said on social media ahead of Thursday's vote that "the ICC's decision to issue arrest warrants against the leadership of Israel represents the weaponization of international law at its most egregious."
Mast, the new chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, accused the ICC of "legitimizing the false accusations of Israeli war crimes... in order to stop the overwhelming success of Israeli military operations."
However, Congresswoman Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), one of 140 Democrats who voted against the bill, said on social media that "human rights lawyers and others documenting the worst atrocities committed on this planet are heroes who should be celebrated—not punished when the war criminals they pursue are allies of the United States."
"The way this bill is written, Israeli survivors of the Hamas massacres on October 7th who gave testimony about the crimes they endured could be sanctioned for cooperating with the ICC," she continued. "This bill would also be a significant blow to efforts to secure justice for [Russian President Vladimir] Putin's victims in Ukraine, and for the victims of both genocides in Darfur,
including the one that is ongoing."
"However my colleagues feel about the ICC or how they feel about Netanyahu's atrocities in Gaza, the passage of this bill is a profound mistake," Omar added. "For those reasons, I opposed this bill."
Amnesty International USA called the vote "deeply disappointing."
"The ICC is part of a global system of international justice of which the U.S. was a chief architect at Nuremberg and beyond," added Amnesty—whose main international organization recently accused Israel of genocide and suspended its Israeli branch for alleged anti-Palestinian bigotry. "If the Senate follows suit, it will do grave harm to the interests of all victims globally and to the U.S. government's ability to champion human rights and the cause of justice."
The United States—which supports Israel with tens of billions of dollars in armed aid and diplomatic cover—reportedly worked with Israel to thwart the ICC's effort to arrest Israeli leaders. The U.S. also opposes the South African-led genocide case against Israel currently before the International Court of Justice.
Outgoing U.S. President Joe Biden has condemned the ICC's effort to arrest Netanyahu and Gallant—who despite being a fugitive from justice was warmly welcomed at the White House last month.
During his first term, Republican U.S. President-elect Donald Trump sanctioned top ICC officials and banned them from entering the United States.
Rep. Mike Waltz (R-Fla.), Trump's pick for national security adviser, has threatened a "strong response" to the ICC in retaliation for seeking to arrest the Israeli leaders.
Keep ReadingShow Less
GOP Attack on Medicaid Puts 'Millions of People at Risk of Losing Benefits': Analysis
"In short, recent proposals for a per capita cap or block grant would cause people to lose health coverage and benefits, shift costs and risks to states, and destabilize healthcare providers."
Jan 07, 2025
Republican proposals to impose a per person cap on federal Medicaid funding or turn the government health insurance program for lower-income Americans into a block grant would leave millions of people without coverage or care, according to an analysis published Tuesday.
The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP), a progressive think tank, examined GOP policy proposals including the per capita funding cap and making Medicaid a block grant and found that such policies "would dramatically change Medicaid's funding structure, deeply cut federal funding, and shift costs and financial risks to states."
"Faced with large and growing reductions in federal funding, states would cut eligibility and benefits, leaving millions of people without health coverage and access to needed care," CBPP added.
Policymakers should protect #Medicaid’s federal-state funding to avoid harming millions of people. Caps or block grants would force deep cuts, shift costs to states, destabilize providers, and threaten access to care. www.cbpp.org/research/hea...
[image or embed]
— Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (@centeronbudget.bsky.social) January 7, 2025 at 9:41 AM
According to the analysis:
Many of those losing Medicaid coverage would be left unable to afford lifesaving medications, treatment to manage chronic conditions like cardiovascular disease and liver disease, and care for acute illnesses. People with cancer would be diagnosed at later stages and face a higher likelihood of death, and families would have more medical debt and less financial security. A large body of research shows that Medicaid improves health outcomes, prevents premature deaths, and reduces medical debt and the likelihood of catastrophic medical costs.
"Before resurrecting harmful per capita cap proposals, policymakers should consider how similar past proposals would have impacted states' budgets and thus their ability to support Medicaid enrollees," CBPP advised.
The analysis comes as Republicans—who control both houses of Congress and, starting on January 20, the White House as President-elect Donald Trump takes office—pursue a massive tax cut that would be funded in part by cutting social programs including Medicaid. GOP lawmakers are also considering work requirements for Medicaid recipients in order to help pay for the tax cut, which critics argue would primarily benefit rich people and corporations.
According to a 2024 report by the National Association of State Budget Offices, Medicaid—which, along with the related Children's Health Insurance Program, serves nearly 80 million U.S. adults and minors with limited income and resources—makes up more than half of all federal funding for states.
Total Medicaid spending was approximately $860 billion for fiscal year 2023, with the federal government contributing around 70% of the funds. The CBPP analysis notes that "under a per capita cap, states would get additional funding as the number of enrollees increased, but if the caps were set at an insufficient level, the state's funding shortfall would grow as more people enrolled."
The report also says that "the design of per capita caps can expose states to cuts even if spending falls below caps for some eligibility groups, and even if spending growth falls below the cap on average over time. And as the caps would be permanent, the size of the cuts and the number of states affected would continue growing over time. These losses in federal support would impose significant strain on states and put millions of people at risk of losing benefits and coverage."
Under a block grant, "the funding shortfall would be even worse since federal funding wouldn't change in response to enrollment increases," the analysis states.
"In short, recent proposals for a per capita cap or block grant would cause people to lose health coverage and benefits, shift costs and risks to states, and destabilize healthcare providers," the publication concludes. "The federal funding cuts to states would be large and unpredictable. Restructuring Medicaid's financing would also make the program highly vulnerable to future cuts, as it would impose a funding formula that could be easily ratcheted down further—for example, by setting the cap or its growth rate even lower. Policymakers should reject proposals for per capita caps and block grants and instead retain the current federal-state financial partnership."
Keep ReadingShow Less
What Has Happened to Our Grand Experiment, the Internet?
With AI threatening to diminish everything that’s been good and useful about online life while creating unprecedented levels of geopolitical chaos, Congress needs to reinstate the Office of Technology Policy.
Jan 07, 2025
By virtue of luck or just being in the right place at the right time, I was the first journalist to report on the advent of the public internet.
In the early 1990s, I was editor-in-chief of a trade magazine called Telecommunications. Vinton Cerf, widely considered to be “father of the internet,” was on our editorial advisory board. Once Sunday afternoon, Vint contacted me to let me know that the federal government was going to make its military communication system, ARPANET, available to the general public. After reading his email, I more or less shrugged it off. I didn’t think much of it until I started investigating what that would really mean. After weeks of research and further discussions, I finally realized the import of what Vint had told me with its deeper implications for politics, society, culture, and commerce.
As the internet grew in size and scope, I started having some serious concerns. And there was a cadre of other researchers and writers who, like myself, wrote books and articles offering warnings about how this powerful and incredible new tool for human communications might go off the rails. These included Sven Birkerts, Clifford Stoll, and others. My own book Digital Mythologies was dedicated to such explorations.
By default, and without due process of democratic participation or consent, these services are rapidly becoming a de facto necessity for participation in modern life.
While we all saw the tremendous potential that this new communications breakthrough had for academia, science, culture, and many other fields of endeavor, many of us were concerned about its future direction. One concern was how the internet could conceivably be used as a mechanism of social control—an issue closely tied to the possibility that corporate entities might actually come to “own” the internet, unable to resist the temptation to shape it for their own advantage.
The beginning of the “free service” model augured a long slow downward slide in personal privacy—a kind of Faustian bargain that involved yielding personal control and autonomy to Big Tech in exchange for these services. Over time, this model also opened the door to Big Tech sharing information with the NSA and many businesses mining and selling our very personal data. The temptation to use free services became the flypaper that would trap unsuspecting end users into a kind of lifelong dependency. But as the old adage goes: “There is no free lunch.”
Since that time, the internet and the related technology it spawned such as search engines, texting, and social media, have become all-pervasive, creeping into every corner of our lives. By default, and without due process of democratic participation or consent, these services are rapidly becoming a de facto necessity for participation in modern life. Smartphones have become essential tools that mediate these amazing capabilities and are now often essential tools for navigating both government services and commercial transactions.
Besides the giveaway of our personal privacy, the problems with technology dependence are now becoming all too apparent. Placing our financial assets and deeply personal information online creates significant stress and insecurity about being hacked or tricked. Tech-based problems then require more tech-based solutions in a kind of endless cycle. Clever scams are increasing and becoming more sophisticated. Further, given the global CrowdStrike outage, it sometimes seems like we’re building this new world of AI-driven digital-first infrastructure on a foundation of sand. And then there’s the internet’s role in aggravating income and social inequality. Unfortunately, this technology is inherently discriminatory, leaving seniors and many middle- and lower-income citizens in the dust. To offer a minor example, in some of the wealthier towns in Massachusetts, you can’t park your car in public lots without a smartphone.
Will AI Wreck the Internet?
Ironically, the Big Tech companies working on AI seem oblivious to the notion that this technology has the potential to be a wrecking ball. Conceivably, it could diminish everything that’s been good and useful about the internet while creating unprecedented levels of geopolitical chaos and destabilization. Recent trends with search engines offer a good example. Not terribly long ago, search results yielded a variety of opinions and useful content on any given topic. The searcher could then decide for her or himself what was true or not true by making an informed judgment.
With the advent of AI, this has now changed dramatically. Some widely used search engines are herding us toward specific “truths” as if every complex question had a simple multiple-choice answer. Google, for example, now offers an AI-assisted summary when a search is made. This becomes tempting to use because manual search now yields an annoying truckload of sponsored ad results. These items then need to be systematically ploughed through rendering the search process difficult and unpleasant.
We need to radically reassess the role of the internet and associated technologies going forward and not abandon this responsibility to the corporations that provide these services.
This shift in the search process appears to be by design in order to steer users towards habitually using AI for search. The implicit assumption that AI will provide the “correct” answer however nullifies the whole point of a having a user-empowered search experience. It also radically reverses the original proposition of the internet i.e. to become a freewheeling tool for inquiry and personal empowerment, threatening to turn the internet into little more than a high-level interactive online encyclopedia.
Ordinary citizens and users of the internet will be powerless to resist the AI onslaught. The four largest internet and software companies Amazon, Meta, Microsoft, and Google are projected to invest well over $200 billion this year on AI development. Then there’s the possibility that AI might become a kind of “chaos agent” mucking around with our sense of what’s true and what’s not true—an inherently dangerous situation for any society to be in. Hannah Arendt, who wrote extensively about the dangers of authoritarian thinking, gave us this warning: “The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the convinced Communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction (i.e., the reality of experience) and the distinction between true and false (i.e., the standards of thought) no longer exist.”
Summing up, we need to radically reassess the role of the internet and associated technologies going forward and not abandon this responsibility to the corporations that provide these services. If not, we risk ending up with a world we won’t recognize—a landscape of dehumanizing interaction, even more isolated human relationships, and jobs that have been blithely handed over to AI and robotics with no democratic or regulatory oversight.
In 1961, then FCC Chairman Newton Minow spoke at a meeting of the National Association of Broadcasters. He observed that television had a lot of work to do to better uphold public interest and famously described it as a “vast wasteland.” While that description is hardly apt for the current status of the internet and social media, its future status may come to resemble a “black forest” of chaos, confusion, misinformation, and disinformation with AI only aggravating, not solving, this problem.
What then are some possible solutions? And what can our legislators do to ameliorate these problems and take control of the runaway freight train of technological dependence? One of the more obvious actions would be to reinstate funding for the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment. This agency was established in 1974 to provide Congress with reasonably objective analysis of complex technological trends. Inexplicably, the office was defunded in 1995 just as the internet was gaining strong momentum. Providing this kind of high-level research to educate and inform members of Congress about key technology issues has never been more important than it is now.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular