Latest news with #liberty
Yahoo
24-05-2025
- General
- Yahoo
EDITORIAL: Take the time to remember the fallen
May 23—This coming Monday is Memorial Day and for many it marks the beginning of summer, which comes complete with cookouts, parties and fun. While we tend to agree that the weekend will have a celebratory tone, it's important to continue to understand that come Monday, the celebration requires us to change gears to reverence and remembrance for those men and women who gave their lives for this country. There is plenty of room during the weekend for both activities, however, it must be sincerely recognized that without those lives given in the name of liberty and freedom, we may not have the opportunity to celebrate as we know it. It is not too heavy of a burden for us to draw on these sacrifices and pay tribute to those who have made our country what it is today. To that end, we urge you to put the burgers and brats aside for a time on Monday and take part in those local activities dedicated to our fallen soldiers. We owe these brave deceased the time and the effort to come to these ceremonies and properly honor the fallen for everything they have given and done for us — both in life and death. We recognize their acts, but we also need to recognize the deeds of those comrades that stand at each ceremony, each grave site and each memorial. They are living embodiments of those that have come before. Monday, May 26 — Memorial Day — is a day of remembrance and a day of saluting those who took up arms for the rest of us. Please take the time to be a part of this country's storied tradition of holding these memories and deeds sacred. It is a stark reminder of where we come from in our country's history.
Wall Street Journal
23-05-2025
- General
- Wall Street Journal
They Are Never Forgotten
Memorial Day brings a chance for Americans to reflect on the blessings of liberty, and to remember the people who secured these blessings for us. This weekend we won't be the only ones. The Journal's publisher Almar Latour writes this week:
Telegraph
21-05-2025
- Politics
- Telegraph
As a child I was taught to hate Israel, but it is the Middle East's best hope
In September 2024, I stood in Jerusalem, a city my Egyptian family once vowed to conquer and 'cleanse of Jews'. My great-uncle and uncles fought in the 1967 and 1973 wars. For decades, we were taught Israel was a rogue state – a lie etched into my childhood. Born in Cairo in 1990, I grew up in a Middle East where dissent meant prison, love was policed, and propaganda suffocated truth. Even after moving to the UK in 2016, returning to the Middle East meant self-censorship: 'Don't discuss politics,' I would remind myself, and 'think twice before holding hands with a loved one.' These were the unspoken rules of survival – until I visited Israel. There, amid the chaos of its democracy during a seven-front war, I saw Muslims and Jews debating their government in cafés, journalists mocking leaders, and couples embracing freely. It was the Middle East I'd longed for – one my prayers never named. Israel's commitment to liberty and rule of law – cornerstones of Western civilisation – stands in stark contrast to the dictatorships and terror regimes surrounding it. As a convert to Judaism, my journey from Cairo to Jerusalem was both spiritual and intellectual, and it taught me that Israel's survival isn't just a Jewish cause but a defence against global jihad and authoritarianism. As a national security researcher for 14 years, I've exposed the extremism, anti-Semitism, and disinformation poisoning the region. My work led to deporting radical Islamists from Britain, prosecuting terrorists in Europe, and shaping policies from Washington to London. Yet Hamas's October 7 atrocities laid bare the stakes: a regime using children as shields, diverting aid to tunnels, and vowing endless war. Israel, by contrast, debates military strategy openly, protects Arab citizens' rights, and shares innovations like water tech with the world. In Tel Aviv, I discussed foreign policy with senior Israeli officials – a surreal moment for a man whose family once cheered calls to 'wipe Israel off the map'. Today, as Israelis face murder in Egypt, Israel extends trust to 'the other'. Each time an Israeli embraced me upon hearing I was Egyptian, shame gripped me. I longed to welcome them in Cairo as they welcomed me in Jerusalem. Now, that shame deepens. As a British citizen, I watch a government reward those vowing to ethnically cleanse Jews with statehood – months after the worst Jewish massacre since the Holocaust. The Palestinian leadership, from Hamas to the PA, has rejected peace for hatred; yet Labour now seeks to recognise a Palestinian state. The Britain that prosecutes mothers for tweets eagerly shakes hands with those celebrating the Holocaust and October 7. To our rulers and judiciary, Lucy Connolly deserves years in prison over a tweet, but Palestinians who fund the murder of Jews, including British citizens, and parade the bodies of murdered Jewish babies are met with red carpets. This hypocrisy is grotesque. Our political class has lost its moral compass – if it ever had one. This isn't just misguided – it's catastrophic. Abandoning Israel gifts Tehran, Moscow, and Beijing a victory, emboldening their war on the rules-based order. When Hezbollah targets Haifa, they attack not just Jews but the idea that free societies can thrive in the Middle East. Supporting Israel isn't about endorsing every policy; it's about defending sovereignty, pluralism, and human dignity – values Britain claims to champion. Generations of my family saw Israel as the enemy; most still do. I, the sole member to visit, see it as the Middle East's best hope – a nation embodying freedoms we claim to cherish. If Britain rewards its destroyers, we surrender not just the Jewish state but the free world's future. My path from Cairo to Judaism taught me identity is a choice – rooted in reason, not dogma. I chose a tradition of debate, justice, and hope. The West must choose: stand with the Middle East's sole democracy, or let extremism prevail. The answer will define our civilisation's survival.
The Guardian
15-05-2025
- Politics
- The Guardian
Stephen Miller is wrong: the president can't just suspend habeas corpus
The writ of habeas corpus is much older than the American constitution. That writ, which enables people detained by the government to challenge their detention in court, has been regarded as an essential bulwark of liberty in the English-speaking world since the 15th century. In this country, Alexander Hamilton said the writ of habeas corpus provides 'greater security to liberty and republicanism' than any other provision in the constitution. And in his first inaugural address, President Thomas Jefferson called the protections provided by habeas corpus one of the 'essential principles of our Government'. But you would never know that from what Stephen Miller, Trump's deputy chief of staff, said on Friday. Talking to reporters outside the White House, Miller reported that the administration was 'actively looking at' the possibility of suspending the writ of habeas corpus for people who are in the country illegally. What Miller said suggests he is either ignorant about the constitution or he just doesn't care. Either way, the authority to suspend the writ of habeas corpus is vested in Congress, not the president. Miller's comments should be a wake-up call for Mike Johnson, the speaker of the House of Representatives, and John Thune, the Republican majority leader in the Senate. By defending Congress's prerogatives, the Republican leaders could defuse another brewing constitutional crisis – and act in line with what the founders of the American republic would want. Miller's remarks come after a string of defeats in federal courts over the arbitrary way Trump and his colleagues have handled what they see as the crisis of illegal immigration. And now Miller seems to think that the president can unilaterally strip those people of a right guaranteed to everyone in the government's custody, regardless of their citizenship status. 'Well,' he observed, 'the constitution is clear – and that, of course, is the supreme law of the land – that the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus can be suspended in a time of invasion.' Yesterday, the homeland security secretary, Kristi Noem, joined Miller in claiming that the level of illegal border crossings under Joe Biden counted as a constitutional reason to suspend the right. They are right that the writ can be suspended. But, whatever one thinks about what Biden did when he was in office, there is no invasion. The Department of Homeland Security itself says that the first 100 days of the Trump administration have produced 'The Most Secure Border in American History.' And even if there was, the constitution's text suggests that the president cannot suspend what Miller called the 'privilege' of habeas corpus. The suspension clause is in Article I of the constitution, where the powers of Congress are enumerated, not in Article II, which deals with the Executive Branch. The language of the constitution also makes clear that the writ of habeas corpus may be suspended only if Congress determines that there is a 'Rebellion or Invasion' and that 'the public Safety may require it.' Looking back at the constitutional convention is also instructive. The convention considered but did not adopt the following language: 'The privileges and benefits of the writ of habeas corpus … shall not be suspended by the Legislature except upon the most urgent and pressing occasions, and for a limited time …' Instead, the convention adopted the language of Article I, Section 9, that 'The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.' And in 1807, Chief Justice John Marshall cleared up any doubt about which branch of government could suspend habeas corpus. He wrote: 'If at any time the public safety should require the suspension of the powers vested by this act in the courts of the United States, it is for the legislature to say so.' Joseph Story, a prominent early commentator on the constitution and the convention that proposed it, also confirmed that 'the power is given to Congress to suspend the writ of habeas corpus in cases of rebellion or invasion.' In fact, the writ of habeas corpus has only been suspended four times in American history. The first time was in 1861 when President Lincoln, acting without congressional authority, suspended it in Maryland, a border state, to address potential threats to the capital. Habeas corpus was also suspended in South Carolina in places that were overrun by the Ku Klux Klan during Reconstruction; in the Philippines during an insurrection against US rule in 1905; and in Hawaii following the bombing of Pearl Harbor. With respect to Lincoln's unilateral action, Chief Justice Roger Taney ruled it was unconstitutional, saying about the suspension clause: 'Congress is of necessity the judge of whether the public safety does or does not require it; and its judgment is conclusive.' Since then, the supreme court has consistently reiterated Taney's view. For example, in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, when suspected terrorists were held without trial in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, Justices Antonin Scalia and John Paul Stevens wrote, '(T)he Constitution's Suspension Clause … allows Congress to relax the usual protections temporarily.' It is time for Republican congressional leaders to look in the mirror. Five years ago, Senator Thune claimed that 'Republicans believe in … the Constitution, and that's what dictates what happens.' Similarly, Speaker Johnson's website proudly proclaims, 'Each branch of government must adhere to the Constitution, and… Congress must faithfully perform its constitutional responsibility …' They should live up to those pronouncements and heed Story's admonition that 'the practice of arbitrary imprisonments has been, in all ages, the favorite and most formidable instruments of tyranny.' Now would be a good time for them to tell the president that they will not allow him to ignore the constitution and usurp a power that it assigns exclusively to Congress. Austin Sarat, William Nelson Cromwell professor of jurisprudence and political science at Amherst College, is the author or editor of more than 100 hundred books, including Gruesome Spectacles: Botched Executions and America's Death Penalty
News.com.au
15-05-2025
- Entertainment
- News.com.au
Bruce Springsteen dubs Trump administration ‘corrupt, incompetent'
"The mighty E Street Band is here tonight to call upon the righteous power of art, of music, of rock and roll, in dangerous times," he told the crowd after walking onto the stage on Wednesday night in Manchester. "My home, the America I love, the America I've written about, and has been a beacon of hope and liberty for 250 years, is currently in the hands of a corrupt, incompetent and treasonous administration. Tonight, we ask all who believe in democracy and the best of our American experience to rise with us,..."
