Belarus to deport US national accused of entering country illegally on an empty train
TALLINN, Estonia (AP) — Belarus said Tuesday it will deport an American who is alleged to have illegally traveled into the tightly controlled country in an empty railway car from neighboring Lithuania.
Belarus' Customs Committee said that the unidentified 27-year-old male was found Monday during an inspection of the train in Maladzyechna, 80 kilometers (49 miles) northwest of the capital, Minsk.
Customs inspectors handed him over to the Border Guards Committee, which said in Tuesday's statement that the man had previously tried to cross into Belarus on two occasions on March 24, but had been denied entry because he couldn't prove he had enough cash to cover his travel expenses.
While illegal crossing of the border could carry criminal charges punishable by a prison term in Belarus, the committee said the man will be deported back to Lithuania.
The U.S. State Department has warned Americans against traveling to Belarus, citing 'Belarusian authorities' arbitrary enforcement of local laws and the risk of detention, continued facilitation of Russia's war against Ukraine, and the heightened volatility and unpredictable nature of the regional security environment.'
Belarus' authoritarian President Alexander Lukashenko, who was sworn in for a seventh term earlier this month, has ruled for more than three decades, stifling dissent and free speech. Authorities responded to massive protests triggered by the 2020 presidential vote with a crackdown that saw over 65,000 people arrested, thousands beaten by police and independent media outlets and nongovernmental organizations closed and outlawed, bringing condemnation and sanctions from the West.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
an hour ago
A teenager with a job making burritos became a powerful Minnesota lawmaker who trained service dogs
MINNEAPOLIS -- MINNEAPOLIS (AP) — Melissa Hortman' s influence at the Minnesota Capitol and her power as a Democratic leader to shape the course of a deeply divided Legislature were a far cry from her job as a teenager making chili-cheese burritos and overshadowed her volunteer work training service dogs for veterans. She was a lifelong Minneapolis-area resident who went to college in Boston and then returned home for law school and, with degree fresh in hand, worked as a volunteer lawyer for a group fighting housing discrimination. Elected to the Minnesota House in 2004, she helped pass liberal initiatives like free lunches for public school students in 2023 as the chamber's speaker. With the House split 67-67 between Democrats and Republicans this year, she helped break a budget impasse threatening to shut down state government. Tributes from friends and colleagues in both parties poured in after Hortman and her husband were shot to death early Saturday in their suburban Brooklyn Park home in what authorities called an act of targeted political violence. Helping Paws, which trains service dogs, posted a message on its Facebook page, along with a 2022 photo of a smiling Hortman with her arm around Gilbert, a friendly-looking golden retriever trained to be a service dog and adopted by her family. 'Melissa Hortman was a woman that I wish everyone around the country knew,' U.S. Sen. Amy Klobuchar, a longtime friend and Democratic ally, said Sunday on ABC's 'This Week.' Klobuchar added: 'She was a true leader and loved her work, but was always so grounded and such a decent person. I think that's probably the best word to describe her. You look at her pictures and you know what she was about.' The killings of Hortman and her husband early Saturday followed the shootings and wounding of another prominent Minnesota lawmaker, state Sen. John Hoffman, and his wife, at their home in Champlin, another Minneapolis suburb. Hoffman is chair of the Senate committee overseeing human resources spending. A nephew posted Sunday on Facebook that the Hoffmans were out of surgery and recovering from multiple gunshot wounds. The Hortmans, the Hoffmans and other top Democrats had gathered at a downtown Minneapolis hotel Friday night for their party's annual Humphrey-Mondale dinner. It's named for two Minnesota liberal icons who served both as U.S. senators and vice presidents, Hubert Humphrey and Walter Mondale. Minnesota Democrat and U.S. Sen. Tina Smith said she saw both lawmakers at the dinner. 'So it feels so personal, because we're all very good friends, of course, to have that have happened so shortly after we were all together,' Smith said on CNN's 'Inside Politics Sunday.' Outside the state Capitol in St. Paul, a memorial to Hortman and her husband included flowers, candles, small American flags and a photo of the couple. Visitors left messages on Post-It notes commending Hortman's legislative work, including, 'You changed countless lives." Legislative colleagues described Hortman as funny, savvy and fiercely committed to liberal causes. When lawmakers convened in January with a vacancy in a Democratic seat in the House giving the GOP a temporary advantage, Hortman led a boycott of daily sessions for more than three weeks to force Republicans into a power-sharing arrangement. Republicans were intent this year on ending state health coverage for adult immigrants who entered the U.S. illegally, authorized in 2023 as part of a sweeping liberal program. Democrats wanted to keep it, and lawmakers began June — the last month of the 2025 budget year — without having passed a 2026-27 spending blueprint. Hortman helped negotiate a package that included a bill ending the state health coverage for adult immigrants on Jan. 1, 2026. She was the only House Democrat to vote for it last week— the 68th vote it needed to pass the chamber. She told reporters afterward that Republicans insisted on the bill, and Minnesota voters who gave the House an even partisan split expect the parties to compromise. But she acknowledged she worries about people who will lose their health insurance. 'I know that people will be hurt by that vote,' she said, choking up briefly before regaining her composure. 'We worked very hard to try to get a budget deal that wouldn't include that provision.' Hortman's earliest jobs didn't suggest that she'd become a power in Minnesota politics. The earliest job listed on her profile, when she was 16, was as a cook and cashier at a restaurant, where she made tacos and, 'most importantly, chili cheese burritos.' She also worked for caterers and was a runner at an auto parts store, putting inventory away and retrieving items for customers. Her husband, Mark, earned a physics degree from the University of North Carolina and later, a master's of business administration. He was the chief operating officer of an auto parts company for 10 years before co-founding a business consulting firm. He was active in Helping Paws and worked with homebuilding nonprofit Habitat for Humanity. They have an adult son and an adult daughter. Melissa Hortman earned a degree in philosophy and political science from Boston University, where she also worked as a residence assistant in one of its dormitories. She earned her law degree from the University of Minnesota, but also a master's of public administration from Harvard University. She served a decade on the board of a local nonprofit providing transportation and car repairs for low-income residents. She also was part of a committee in 2005 considering whether Minneapolis should submit a bid to host the Summer Olympics. 'We remember Melissa for her kindness, compassion, and unwavering commitment to making the world better,' Helping Paws said in its Facebook message.
Boston Globe
an hour ago
- Boston Globe
The peril of government by soldiers
Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up Now Trump and his Cabinet advisers are making things even worse by repeating a tragic mistake: calling in the military, a force ill-suited to the job of ordinary policing, to suppress the expression of dissent against unpopular and unwarranted government actions. We have seen this before. It did not end well for those who deployed the troops against the American people. Advertisement In 1766, Benjamin Franklin testified before the British Parliament in opposition to the newly instated Stamp Act. Colonists had protested the act — in part because the burdensome tax on printed materials like newspapers, pamphlets, and almanacs — came at a moment of economic distress, but mainly because the act violated a right deeply rooted in British history: the right of the people to consent to taxation. Advertisement The colonists had no representatives in Parliament, and their colonial legislatures had not been consulted on the Stamp Act. Protests were mostly peaceful but turned violent in Boston, where crowds destroyed the home of Lieutenant Governor Thomas Hutchinson, believed (wrongly) to be a supporter of the tax. A member of Parliament asked Franklin whether soldiers could enforce the Stamp Act. Franklin tried to disabuse Parliament of this terrible idea which was, in any event, a violation of England's Bill of Rights of 1689, which declared that keeping a standing army in peacetime without the people's consent was against the law. If Britain sends a military force to America, Franklin said, 'they will find nobody in arms; what are they then to do? They cannot force a man to take stamps who chooses to do without them. They will not find a rebellion; they may indeed make one.' Franklin's advice was ignored. The crown sent troops to enforce constitutionally dubious laws such as the Townshend Duties, which levied import taxes on tea, glass, paper, and paint, among other daily goods. As Franklin anticipated, protesters were inflamed. The two thousand soldiers who occupied Boston in 1768 provoked the infamous Boston Massacre of 1770; five townsmen were gunned down on King Street in front of the Old State House. Four years later, after the Boston Tea Party, Parliament stripped Massachusetts of the self-government guaranteed by its charter and placed the Colony under martial law. The military governor, General Thomas Gage, once more used soldiers to suppress dissent. On April 18, 1775, he sent a thousand regulars out into the countryside, aiming to arrest resistance leaders and capture stockpiled weapons. This time they did find Americans in arms — the rebellion was sparked, and the Colonies were lost. Advertisement In Boston, this pattern of resistance was deeply etched in the consciousness of its fiercely independent population. Nearly a century before the Battles of Lexington and Concord, townsmen in Boston had arrested Edmund Andros, a soldier sent by King James II to seize the Colony's original charter and create an authoritarian government. Nearly 80 years after Lexington and Concord, President Franklin Pierce dispatched US Marines to Boston to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850. Anthony Burns, who had escaped from slavery in Virginia and fled to Boston, was captured by US marshals in May 1854. Boston abolitionists organized massive protests to prevent his deportation. They were unsuccessful. The protests turned into an assault on the courthouse where Burns was held, and a deputy marshal was killed in the fray. Fifteen hundred state militia and several hundred marines, supported by horse-drawn artillery, escorted Burns down State Street to a federal ship waiting to bring him back to Virginia. Massive force prevented further violence in Boston on that day, but it also spurred a transformational movement. Moderate and even pro-slavery Bostonians whose fortunes were built on New England's textile economy and its ties to the Cotton Kingdom were shocked by the scene of federal troops trampling the freedom of their city and Commonwealth. In the words of Amos Lawrence, son of the founder of the Lawrence textile mills, 'We went to bed one night old fashioned, conservative, Compromise Union Whigs, and waked up stark mad Abolitionists.' Advertisement Boston had known abolitionists for decades — a small minority of its citizens, generally unpopular for their strident views. But the Burns incident triggered a change of heart among moderates, conservatives, and compromisers, people who tolerated the seemingly distant evil of slavery because it served their self-interest. The sight of marines with bayonets enforcing the law of slavery on the site where the Boston Massacre occurred, where colonists had arrested Andros and rejected a government of soldiers, crystallized what was at stake in appeasing the Slave Power — the planter oligarchs of the Southern states who wielded disproportionate influence in the US government. This change of heart explains the surge of support for a new antislavery party in the elections of 1856 and 1860. Thousands of New England men, not just a handful of abolitionists, turned out to enlist when, after the election of 1860, the Slave Power launched a violent rebellion against the Union. There are echoes of the Fugitive Slave Law in Trump's campaign to arrest and deport immigrants. Hard-working people who perform vital labor for the nation are being persecuted for seeking a better life and the human dignity America claims to stand for. The tactics of masked ICE agents who snatch people off the streets, terrorize their communities, and deny them due process is eerily reminiscent of the actions of the slave-catchers of the 1850s. Of course, today's issues are different from those of earlier centuries. Nevertheless, certain fundamental principles are essential and eternal if we claim to believe in self-government. Government should operate by deliberation and consent, not force or fiat. All people should be secure in their persons and properties, and government can intrude on this security only with due process and legitimate warrants. All people have the right to assemble and express their views, including criticism of the government, without fear of molestation. Advertisement Trump has undermined these principles and now turns to the military to enforce his will in the face of justified resistance. Wittingly or not, Trump seems to be betting that Americans have forgotten this history, that these constitutional traditions are dead. That leaves it up to the American people, in another moment of peril, to prove otherwise.
Boston Globe
an hour ago
- Boston Globe
Trump has come after me, and he may come after you
Advertisement To be clear, much of this was foreseeable. Trump pledged 'retribution' during his campaign. Many of us who worked for him came forward to warn it would be the all-consuming priority of his second term. More than a year before his reelection, I compiled a comprehensive overview of the revenge actions he would take if he won a second term and documented them. In ' Advertisement Those fears are materializing in real time. Since taking office, the president has launched a full-frontal assault on institutions he views as personal adversaries. This includes wielding presidential power to punish law firms, universities, and even businesses he deems as being threats to his agenda. What's more, media outlets have been targeted, nonprofit watchdogs maligned, and civil servants sacked en masse or sidelined. He's also pursuing individual opponents directly. Legal scholars have noted that the executive order naming me is But more alarming is how quickly the scope of Trump's revenge campaign is expanding beyond these targets to entire swaths of the country. The White House has ordered troops into Los Angeles, ostensibly to quell riots in response to immigration arrests. But those of us who worked under Trump know better. He's been looking for the opportunity to use the military to advance his agenda, especially in Democratic-leaning states and localities. The situation in California is a manufactured pretext to make that happen. What once seemed unimaginable — a militarized presidency enforcing the dictates of an increasingly authoritarian state — is beginning to take form. Even if the actions in California fall short of a formal invocation of the president's most extreme emergency powers, such as the Insurrection Act, the precedent is perilous. Advertisement Deploying the military in service of a political message is the crossing of a Rubicon. Americans must be clear-eyed about what may come next. The president could take the next step and invoke the Insurrection Act to deploy the military into other cities that defy his directives. He could declare a national emergency to seize control of communications infrastructure or justify mass arrests of protestors. He could weaponize surveillance tools designed for foreign threats against domestic critics. These hypotheticals may seem outlandish, but so are the actions we have already seen from the White House. Indeed, these are powers that exist under federal statute, and in the hands of a man obsessed with revenge, they become tools of repression. The danger is not just that presidential authority could be abused. It already is — in sweeping and unprecedented fashion. The real danger is that Americans may come to accept it or to see it as merely politics. The slow normalization of authoritarian tactics is how democracies erode: not with one dramatic moment, but with a series of escalating actions that become routine. Such a dark outcome is not inevitable. There are still ways to pull back from the brink. Federal institutions, such as inspectors general, courts, and state governments, must be willing to act. Whistleblowers and public servants must speak out, even at great personal risk. And most importantly, the American people must reject the idea that a president can use the powers of the state to settle personal scores. Advertisement If we fail to oppose a president implementing a 'revenge agenda' — any president, of any political party — we may soon find ourselves in a country where dissent is treated as a crime, where loyalty is rewarded above lawfulness, and where the line between democracy and autocracy is all but erased. That's the question we now face: not whether the revenge agenda is real — but whether we're prepared to stop it, before it's too late.
