Trial starts for Salvadoran officers accused of killing Dutch journalists in 1982
SAN SALVADOR, El Salvador — The trial of three retired Salvadoran military officers for the 1982 killings of four Dutch journalists during the Central American country's civil war began Tuesday in the northern city of Chalatenango.
The three men could face prison sentences of up to 30 years if convicted in the jury trial, which was scheduled to start and conclude on the same day.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Bloomberg
9 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Trump Faces New Lawsuit Over Migrants Sent to Salvadoran Prison
The Trump administration is facing a new legal challenge to its arrangement with El Salvador to send migrants — and potentially US citizens — to a mega-prison infamous for its dangerous and unsanitary conditions. The case, filed in federal court in Washington, is the first to directly target the State Department's agreement to pay millions of dollars to house people arrested in the United States in El Salvador's prison system, including the Centro de Confinamiento del Terrorismo, known as CECOT.
CBS News
an hour ago
- CBS News
Detainees seen signalling "SOS" at Krome Detention Center, as allegations grows over overcrowding, inhumane conditions
A group of detainees at the Krome Detention Center in western Miami-Dade County were seen signalling "SOS" outside on Thursday, as controversy surrounding overcrowding and inhumane conditions continues to grow. Chopper 4 flew over the detention facility on Thursday morning, where detainees were seen gathering outside on a basketball court and arranging themselves to spell out "SOS" to be viewed from the air. Controversy surrounding Krome The Krome Detention Center has been in the headlines after several reports concerning the facility's conditions and overcrowding. In March, USA Today reported on allegations of the mistreatment of female detainees at the facility, which raised a lot of questions from local leaders and immigration activists, including Miami-Dade County Mayor Daniella Levine Cava, since Krome is meant to house male detainees. In a previous statement, a spokesperson with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) said that the agency is committed "to promoting safe, secure, humane environments for those in our custody very seriously." "These allegations are not in keeping with ICE policies, practices and standards of care," the spokesperson added. Other reports revealed that there had been an increase in the number of detainees being sent to Krome, overcrowding the facility and creating inhumane conditions for those at the processing center. U.S. Rep. Frederica Wilson toured Krome back in April, where she raised concerns about the facility's appearance during her visit. She said that Krome may soon house more immigrant detainees under tent structures, and was alarmed by the presence of a tent with a 200-person capacity already on site. She also said immigration officials confirmed to her that more tents were being prepared, including one that could hold up to 800 people. Wilson said she was also concerned about Krome's appearance during her visit, saying it looked freshly painted and prepared for inspection. However, ICE told CBS News Miami in a statement that it denied that the facility was staged for the congresswoman's visit. ICE also acknowledged that some of its facilities are experiencing temporary overcrowding and said it is working to manage capacity while maintaining federal standards. U.S. Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz made a surprise visit to the Krome Detention Center last week, saying she was concerned about the reported overcrowding and conditions at the facility. She said it was wall-to-wall people when she visited.
Time Magazine
an hour ago
- Time Magazine
Supreme Court Unanimously Sides With Straight Woman In ‘Reverse Discrimination' Case
Lawsuits for 'reverse discrimination' will face an easier path after the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously sided on Thursday with a woman who argued that she was passed over for a promotion and later demoted because she is straight. The court's ruling is a departure from previous court decisions that have set a higher bar in cases where people who are part of a majority group, such as those who are white and straight, filed lawsuits alleging discrimination under federal civil rights law. But the Supreme Court said in its ruling that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employment discrimination based on race and sexual orientation, among other characteristics, 'draws no distinctions between majority-group plaintiffs and minority-group plaintiffs. Rather, the provision makes it unlawful 'to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.'' 'By establishing the same protections for every 'individual'—without regard to that individual's membership in a minority or majority group—Congress left no room for courts to impose special requirements on majority-group plaintiffs alone,' Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote for the court. The case was brought by Marlean Ames against the Ohio Department of Youth Services, where she started working in 2004. In 2019, she applied for a promotion, but was turned down and a colleague with less seniority—who was a lesbian woman—received the promotion instead. Ames was later demoted and her previous role was given to another colleague who had less seniority, a gay man. She sued under Title VII, alleging in her lawsuit that she was denied the promotion and then demoted due to her sexual orientation. Her supervisors, however, said Ames was passed over for the promotion because she didn't have the vision and leadership skills needed for the role and demoted because they had concerns about her leadership skills. Lower courts had previously ruled against Ames, saying her lawsuit failed to demonstrate 'background circumstances to support the suspicion that the defendant is that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.' But the Supreme Court ruled that requirement was 'not consistent with Title VII's text or our case law construing the statute.'
