Belarus to deport US national accused of entering country illegally on an empty train
TALLINN, Estonia — 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.
Belarus recently released some political prisoners, including several U.S. citizens in what some observers saw as an attempt by Lukashenko to try to mend ties with the West.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time Magazine
30 minutes ago
- Time Magazine
How Involved Was the U.S. in Israel's Attack on Iran?
The U.S. has repeatedly denied involvement in Israel's initial attack against Iran —a position that Iran has disputed as missiles continue to fly between the two countries and the risk of further escalation looms should the world's biggest military be pulled into the fight, which has already killed hundreds and wounded more than a thousand since Friday in Iran and killed 19 and injured hundreds in Israel, as of Monday morning. A number of reports, however, suggest that the U.S. may have played a greater role than has officially been admitted. Unnamed U.S. officials told multiple news outlets on Sunday that President Donald Trump rejected an Israeli plan to assassinate Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. 'Have the Iranians killed an American yet? No. Until they do we're not even talking about going after the political leadership,' one official told Reuters. Israel has denied such a plan, but the reported rejection by Trump would indicate some amount of coordination between the U.S. and Israel. The attack on Iran came amid protracted talks between the U.S. and Iran centered around Iran's nuclear program. Trump has emphasized finding a diplomatic solution to the conflict, touting his self-professed ability to broker peace, but Iran and Israel have so far shrugged off international calls for deescalation as both sides launched new attacks early Monday. Iran has vowed to retaliate against the U.S., too, while Trump has warned: 'If we are attacked in any way, shape, or form by Iran, the full strength and might of the U.S. Armed Forces will come down on you at levels never seen before.' Here's what to know about U.S. involvement so far. 'Nothing to do with the attack' Israel launched its attacks, dubbed 'Operation Rising Lion,' early Friday, targeting Iran's nuclear facilities as well as military leaders and nuclear scientists and promising that strikes 'will continue for as many days as it takes to remove this threat' of Iran's nuclear program. Iran launched retaliatory strikes at Tel Aviv and Jerusalem on Friday evening and have continued to fire missiles at the country. Iran's Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said Iran has 'solid evidence' that the U.S. provided support for Israel's attacks. Iran's Foreign Ministry said in a statement that the attacks 'could not have been carried out without coordination with and approval of the United States,' adding that the U.S. will be 'held responsible for the dangerous consequences of Israel's adventurism.' The U.S. has denied any involvement in Israel's strikes, a position that the Trump Administration has repeated multiple times since Friday. 'We are not involved in strikes against Iran and our top priority is protecting American forces in the region,' Secretary of State Marco Rubio said in a statement released soon after the strikes started, describing the attack as 'unilateral action' by Israel. Rubio admitted Israel had informed the Trump Administration of the attack, which both Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu have also reiterated. The U.S. evacuated embassy staff from across the region the day before the attack last week. In a post on Truth Social urging Iran to 'make a deal,' Trump suggested Friday that he was also aware of 'the next already planned attacks,' which would be 'even more brutal.' Later that day, when asked by the Wall Street Journal if he was given a heads-up about the initial attacks by Israel, he suggested that description was an understatement, responding: 'Heads-up? It wasn't a heads-up. It was, we know what's going on.' But on Saturday night, following further strikes, Trump again posted: 'The U.S. had nothing to do with the attack on Iran, tonight.' 'Clear U.S. green light' Israel's attack had been months in the making. Reports in May of Israel's preparations to strike Iran suggested that the Trump Administration would not assist Israel in such an operation, especially as Washington was in the midst of negotiating a nuclear agreement with Tehran. But news outlet Axios reported Friday that Israeli officials said the strikes were in fact coordinated with the U.S., claiming that the Trump Administration publicly pretended to oppose an Israeli attack but gave Israel a 'clear U.S. green light' in private. According to the latest reports, the U.S. has even intervened to shape the attack. U.S. officials told Reuters, the Associated Press, CNN, and others that Israel had informed the Trump Administration of a credible plan to assassinate Khamenei and that the White House waved Israel off the plan. Netanyahu spokesperson Omer Dostri later denied those reports, calling them 'fake.' 'There's so many false reports of conversations that never happened, and I'm not going to get into that,' Netanyahu said when asked about it on Fox News on Sunday. 'But I can tell you,' he continued, 'we'll do what we need to do. And I think the United States knows what is good for the United States.' The unclear messaging about the extent of U.S. involvement, however, could reflect mixed priorities between the U.S. and Israel. Trita Parsi, executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft and an expert on U.S.-Iran relations, told NPR that 'clearly there had been coordination and some form of a green light' by the Trump Administration for the Israeli strikes. 'Trump is making a major gamble here, thinking that this actually will soften the Iranian position and make them capitulate,' Parsi added. 'If they don't, what are his options? And this is where I think the Israelis are hoping that the Iranians will not capitulate and that will force the United States into the war.'
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
2 hours 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.
