US Authoritarianism

The United States has asked the Lebanese authorities to return an undetonated GBU-39 small-diameter bomb (SDB) that was launched by an Israeli fighter jet during the operation that killed Hezbollah commander Ali Tabtabai earlier this week, according to Lebanese media and a report by The Jerusalem Post.

It was nice knowing you all, they will watch the lemmings as well.

cross-posted from: https://infosec.pub/post/35430786

Music:

Look And Listen
Mister Rogers
It's Such A Good Feeling: The Best Of Mister Rogers

Full videos:

1. American Gestapo Pointing Guns
2. American Gestapo Blowing Up Doors
3. ICE agent points gun at witnesses during violent arrest in Hyattsville, MD (9_24_25) - Marisa Kabas
4. American Gestapo Hosing off Detainees with a Firehose
5. American Gestapo Brandishing Weapons for Taking Pictures
6. American Gestapo Disappearing People
7. Resist the American Gestapo
8. Brave Woman Prevents the American Gestapo from Disappearing People
9. American Gestapo Snatches Dad at Preschool Drop-off
10. ICE agent pushes woman to the ground
11. ICE throws Congressional candidate Kat
12. ICE Agent Shoots and Kills Man Near Chicago

cross-posted from: https://slrpnk.net/post/28149341

Petro, who has previously clashed with the Trump administration on migration and drug trafficking issues, repeated his call for an armed force to “free Palestine” while addressing a group of pro-Palestine supporters outside the United Nations headquarters on Friday.

“It (the global force) has to be bigger than that of the United States. That’s why from here, from New York, I ask all the soldiers of the army of the US not to point their rifles at humanity,” Petro is heard saying in a video posted to social media. “Disobey the orders of Trump. Obey the orders of humanity,” he added

In response, Petro said the United States’ decision “breaks all the norms of immunity on which the functioning of the United Nations and its General Assembly is based.”

“The fact that the Palestinian Authority was not allowed entry and that my visa was revoked for asking the US and Israeli armies not to support a genocide, which is a crime against all humanity, demonstrates that the US government no longer complies with international law,” he posted on X.

404 Media has filed a lawsuit against ICE for access to its contract with Paragon, a company that sells powerful spyware for breaking into phones and accessing encrypted messaging apps.

On Monday 404 Media filed a lawsuit against Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) demanding the agency publish its $2 million contract with Paragon, a company that makes powerful spyware that can remotely break into mobile phones without the target even clicking a link. The sale of the spyware to ICE has activists and lawmakers deeply concerned about what the agency, which continues to push the Trump administration’s mass deportation effort, may use the technology for. The contract and related documents 404 Media is suing for may provide more information on what ICE intends to do with the spyware.

“404 Media has asked ICE to disclose agency records relating to its contract with a company known for its powerful spyware tool whose potential use in the agency’s ongoing mass-deportation campaign has prompted lawmakers, civil liberties organizations, and immigration groups to express deep concerns over potential civil rights abuses,” the lawsuit says.

404 Media first filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request with ICE for documents related to its Paragon purchase in September 2024. Under the law, agencies are required to provide a response within 20 days, or provide an explanation of why they need more time. ICE acknowledged receipt of the request in September 2024, but has not since replied to any follow up inquiries. 404 Media then filed the lawsuit.

cross-posted from: https://lemmings.world/post/34239070

Archive link

cross-posted from: https://programming.dev/post/37530015

Comments

• Hacker News;
• Reddit;
• X/Twitter.

Source: Reddit- Private front-end.

(Eastern District of Michigan - Detroit)

My husband, Conrad Rockenhaus, is wrongly incarcerated in a county jail. I’m posting this here because you are one of the few communities that will understand the full technical and political reality of how he ended up there.

My husband is a former Tor operator, and at one point, he ran some of the fastest relays and exit nodes in the world.

This nightmare began when he refused to help the FBI decrypt traffic from his exit nodes.

Months later, the government arrested him. Their official reason? A minor, non-violent CFAA charge from an old workplace dispute that had nothing to do with Tor.

In fact, the statute of limitations was just a couple of months from expiring. It was a clear pretext to target him.

That minor charge was all they needed to get him into the system. To deny him bail, a U.S. Probation Officer in Texas lied under oath, telling a judge that Conrad had installed a "Linux OS called Spice" to "knock out their monitoring software" and access the "dark web."

Read the transcript

Here is the technical reality of their lie: The software was a standard SPICE graphics driver needed for his Ph.D. program. As many of you know, this is a basic utility for displaying graphics from a virtual machine. It is not an OS, has no connection to the dark web, and was technically incapable of interfering with their monitoring software.

The claim is a technical absurdity, equivalent to saying a mouse pad can hack a server.

Based on that lie alone, he was held in pre-trial detention for three years.

Now, the retaliation has escalated in Michigan. After I filed a formal complaint against his US probation officers for harassment, they used fraudulent warrants to jail my husband again.

During this violent arrest by US Marshals (who smashed in our windows and nearly shot my dog) he sustained a severe head injury that caused him to have a grand mal seizure in court. The jail’s “medical attention” was to ask him what year it was (he said 2023) and then send him back to his cell. He is being denied real medical care.

See videos:

• Feds threatening to sick dogs on us
• Feds beating by husband in the head
• Feds smashing in our windows
• Feds threaten to shoot my dog
• More threats to shoot my dog

To make matters worse, U.S. District Judge Stephen J. Murphy, III has created a procedural trap that has stripped my husband of his right to a lawyer to fight for his life, health, or innocence. He is trapped in a constitutional and medical crisis.

I am not asking for money. I am asking for your help to amplify this story. You understand the technical truth and why this fight is so important.

We have all the evidence: the court transcript of the false testimony, the fraudulent warrants, the proof of medical neglect. It’s documented on my website:

https://rockenhaus.com/

TL;DR: My husband, a former Tor operator, refused to help the FBI decrypt Tor traffic. They retaliated by using an old, unrelated CFAA offense to arrest him and then lied about him using a "graphics driver to access the dark web” to keep him in pre-trial detention for 3 years. Now he's been jailed again in Michigan on fraudulent violations, is being denied care for a head injury, and has no lawyer.

I need help getting the word out🙏

Adrienne Rockenhaus

For updates:

• Official Press.
• X/Twitter.

More Context from her comment:

Seeing a lot of questions and some misinformation in the comments, so I wanted to clarify a few key facts with sources:

• On the original case: My husband did not have a trial. He took a coerced guilty plea in Texas after being held for three years based on perjured testimony about a "SPICE graphics driver." We have the court transcript proving the perjury on our website.
• On the violent arrest: The claim that my husband was "combative" is a complete fabrication, likely being spread to justify the U.S. Marshals' actions. We have the unedited security camera footage of the entire raid, and it proves the opposite.
• On the relevance of Tor: The government's retaliation against our family began after my husband, a Tor exit node operator, refused to help the FBI decrypt traffic. They then used an unrelated workplace dispute as the pretext for the initial charge. The entire case stems from his support for online privacy.

Even More Context:

I'm seeing comments about a deeply offensive search term ("NAMBLA") that the prosecution brought up in my husband's 2020 hearing in Texas, and I want to address it directly so there is no confusion. The search was for an article my husband was writing for Encyclopedia Dramatica, a well-known (and very controversial) satirical wiki that parodies offensive topics. He was researching the topic to make fun of it, much like the show South Park did in a famous episode. The prosecution knew this search was irrelevant to the case, but they put it in front of the judge anyway . This is a classic "poison the well" tactic, using something shocking and out-of-context to prejudice a judge against a defendant. It's a hallmark of a malicious prosecution. While they want everyone distracted by this, the real issues are the ones they can't defend: the fraudulent warrants, the perjured testimony, the ongoing medical neglect, and the judge's documented conflict of interest.

cross-posted from: https://infosec.pub/post/34652626

I recently read New Bill Would Give Marco Rubio “Thought Police” Power to Revoke U.S. Passports and I wanted to read the actual amendment to the Passport Act of 1926 for myself and I thought some others might also.

I have reformatted it for markdown with hyperlinks from law.cornell.edu to laws that the amendment referenced. So that it is easier to read and cross-reference. Let me know if I made any formatting mistakes.

I want to hear everyone's thought on this.

Right now, the bill is still in committe which means that it will either be cancelled (tabled), amended further, or approved (reported). If approved, the bill will be voted on by the House and then the Senate.

Could something like this reclassify dissidents as terrorists? Maybe allow for any and all naturalized citizens to be sent to a concentration camp? Could anyone who sent political aid to the Democrats be considered a terrorist? Like what could the reprecussions be and how far might they go?

H.R. 5300, page 43

SEC. 226. NO PASSPORTS FOR TERRORISTS AND TRAFFICKERS.

The Act entitled "An Act to regulate the issue and validity of passports, and for other purposes’’, approved July 3, 1926 (22 U.S.C. 211a et seq.), commonly known as the "Passport Act of 1926’’, is amended by adding at the end the following:

"SEC. 4. AUTHORITY TO DENY OR REVOKE PASSPORT TO INDIVIDUALS PROVIDING MATERIAL SUPPORT FOR TERRORISM.

• "(a) INELIGIBILITY.—
  • "(1) ISSUANCE.—Subject to subsection (b), the Secretary of State shall refuse to issue a passport to any individual who—
    • "(A) has been charged with or convicted of a violation of section 2339A or 2339B of title 18, United States Code; or
    • "(B) the Secretary determines has knowingly aided, assisted, abetted, or otherwise provided material support to an organization the Secretary has designated as a foreign terrorist organization pursuant to section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1189).
  • "(2) REVOCATION.—The Secretary of State shall, except as provided in paragraph (3)(A), revoke a passport previously issued to any individual described in paragraph (1).
  • "(3) EXCEPTIONS.—
    • "(A) RETURN TO THE UNITED STATES.— In order to facilitate the return of an individual described in paragraph (1) to the United States, the Secretary of State may limit a previously issued passport or passport card only for return travel to the United States, or may issue a limited passport or passport card that only permits return travel to the United States, prior to revocation under paragraph (2).
    • "(B) HUMANITARIAN AND EMERGENCY WAIVER.—The Secretary of State may issue a passport to an individual otherwise ineligible for such passport or subject to revocation of such passport under this subsection if the Secretary determines that emergency circumstances or humanitarian needs apply.
• "(b) RIGHT OF REVIEW.—Any individual who, in accordance with this section, is denied issuance of a passport by the Secretary of State, or whose passport is revoked by the Secretary, may request a hearing to appeal such denial or revocation not later than 60 days after receiving notice of such denial or revocation.
• "(c) RIGHT OF RESTORATION.—In the event that an individual described in paragraph (1) demonstrates during a hearing described in subsection (b) that the individual has been acquitted of an act described in that paragraph, or the Secretary otherwise changes a determination described in subparagraph (B) of such paragraph, the Secretary may reissue a passport to such individual.
• "(d) REPORT.—
  • "(1) IN GENERAL.—If the Secretary of State refuses to issue or revokes a passport pursuant to subsection (a), or if, subsequent to a hearing pursuant to subsection (b), the Secretary issues or cancels a revocation of a passport that was the subject of such a hearing, the Secretary shall, not later than 30 days after such refusal or revocation, or such issuance or cancellation, submit to the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate a report on such refusal, revocation, issuance, or cancellation, as the case may be.
  • "(2) FORM.—The report submitted under paragraph (1) may be submitted in classified or unclassified form.
• "(e) DEFINITIONS.—In this section—
  • "(1) the term ‘passport’ includes a passport card; and
  • "(2) the term ‘material support’ means the provision of any property, tangible or intangible, or service—
    • "(A) including currency or monetary instruments or financial securities, financial services, lodging, training, expert advice or assistance, safehouses, false documentation or identification, communications equipment, facilities, weapons, lethal substances, explosives, personnel (one or more individuals who may be or include oneself), and transportation; and
    • "(B) excluding medicine or religious materials.
• "(f) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this section may be construed—
  • "(1) or applied so as to abridge the exercise of rights guaranteed under the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States; or
  • "(2) to limit the Secretary’s ability to revoke a passport.
• "(g) SEVERABILITY.—If any provision of this section or the application of such provision is held by a Federal court to be unconstitutional, the remainder of this section and the application of such provisions to any other person or circumstance shall not be affected.’’.

WASHINGTON, Sept 11 (Reuters) - U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio on Thursday said the United States would respond, without specifying how, after former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro was convicted of plotting a coup to remain in power after losing the 2022 election.

"The political persecutions by sanctioned human rights abuser Alexandre de Moraes continue, as he and others on Brazil's supreme court have unjustly ruled to imprison former President Jair Bolsonaro," Rubio wrote on X.

"The United States will respond accordingly to this witch hunt," he said. Brazil's Foreign Ministry called Rubio's comment a threat that "attacks Brazilian authority and ignores the facts and the compelling evidence in the records." The ministry said Brazilian democracy would not be intimidated by the United States.

SEOUL, Sept 5 (Reuters) - U.S. Navy SEALs shot and killed a number of North Korean civilians during a botched covert mission to plant a listening device in the nuclear-armed country during high-stakes diplomatic negotiations in 2019, the New York Times reported on Friday.

Citing unidentified sources, including current and former military officials with knowledge of the still-classified details, the newspaper said Donald Trump approved the operation during his first administration, as he was involved in historic talks with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un.

The civilians appeared to be diving for shellfish when they inadvertently came across the detachment of SEALs as they splashed ashore at night, the Times reported. The American forces opened fire, killing all those aboard the small fishing vessel, the report said, without specifying the number of casualties.

A classified Pentagon review later concluded the killings were justified under the rules of engagement, the report said.

I first wrote about Farahi’s case in 2009, when it was one of the earliest public examples of the FBI using immigration to recruit Muslim informants. At the time, the FBI denied the practice outright. As other journalists uncovered similar cases, the FBI continued to deny.

Farahi’s fight with the government began in November 2004. As he walked home from evening prayers in North Miami Beach, he saw two men waiting outside his apartment. They introduced themselves as FBI agents.

The country was still in the grip of post-9/11 panic, and the agents wanted information about two men who had attended Farahi’s mosque: José Padilla, the so-called “dirty bomber” accused of plotting to set off a crude radioactive device, and Adnan El Shukrijumah, a Saudi national who became a high-ranking member of Al Qaeda after leaving the U.S.

Farahi said he’d talk, but only in the open. He wanted his congregation to know why he was speaking to the FBI. The federal agents wanted something very different: secrecy. “I can’t,” he told them. To him, becoming an informant would have meant betraying his faith community. “People trust you as a religious figure, and you’re trying to kind of deceive them,” Farahi said to me years ago, when I first asked him about his encounter with the FBI. “That’s where the problem is.”

Years later, FBI agent Terry Albury leaked internal documents to The Intercept, confirming what Farahi’s case had suggested: using immigration as leverage wasn’t a rogue practice, but rather had been codified in the pages of the FBI’s internal policy manuals.

FBI agents were even tasked under official policy with helping deport informants who were “no longer suitable for use” — an acknowledgment that the policy goal wasn’t transactional so much as coercive.

The US has revoked visas for Palestinian officials, barring them from attending next month’s United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) in New York, a move that comes as several Western countries prepare to recognize a Palestinian state.

“In accordance with US law, Secretary of State Marco Rubio is denying and revoking visas from members of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and the  Palestinian Authority (PA) ahead of the upcoming United Nations General Assembly,” the State Department said in a statement on Friday.

It said that the PA Mission to the UN will receive waivers per the UN Headquarters Agreement.

The agency accused PLO and PA of failing to repudiate terrorism, inciting violence, and pursuing “international lawfare campaigns” through the International Criminal Court (ICC) and International Court of Justice (ICJ)

The new sanctions target Kimberly Prost of Canada, Nicolas Guillou of France, Nazhat Shameem Khan of Fiji and Mame Mandiaye Niang of Senegal.

Guillou is an ICC judge who oversaw a pre-trial panel that issued the arrest warrant for Netanyahu, while Khan and Niang are the court’s two deputy prosecutors. The US Department of State cites the role all three played in issuing and upholding the Israeli arrest warrants.

The ICC is also probing possible war crimes by US forces in Afghanistan, although it said it will prioritise abuses by the Taliban and ISIL (ISIS) in that investigation after fierce US pushback.

A senior official in Libya's internationally recognised government has held talks with Israeli officials over a proposal to resettle hundreds of thousands of Palestinians expelled from Gaza, multiple sources have told Middle East Eye.

The source said that Ibrahim Dbeibah had already received guarantees that the US Department of Treasury would release some $30bn in frozen state assets.

In May, separate sources had told MEE that Massad Boulos, an adviser to Trump and father-in-law to his daughter Tiffany, had held discussions with Ibrahim Dbeibah about unlocking billions of dollars in sanctioned frozen wealth funds.

The assets were frozen in early 2011 by former US President Barack Obama, several months before the Nato-backed ouster of longtime leader Muammar Gaddafi.

US President Donald Trump has quietly authorized the Pentagon to carry out military operations against what his administration calls “narco-terrorist” networks in Latin America. The directive allows the US to target groups unilaterally labeled as both criminal and terrorist. Once that designation is made, the military can operate without the consent of the targeted country, a move that violates international law. In a region with a long history of US-backed coups, covert wars, and destabilization campaigns, the risk of abuse isn’t hypothetical; it’s inevitable.

While the order applies across Latin America, Venezuela stands at the top of the list. The Trump administration has accused President Nicolás Maduro’s government of working with transnational cartels, and has doubled the bounty on him to $50 million (double the bounty for Osama bin Laden). It’s a lawfare tactic designed to criminalize a head of state and invite mercenaries and covert operatives to participate in regime change.

The core premise of the accusation is that Maduro is involved in a cocaine trafficking network of Venezuelan military and political figures called Cartel de los Soles. The Venezuelan government denies the cartel’s existence, calling it a fabrication to justify sanctions and regime change efforts. Multiple independent investigations have shown no hard evidence exists and that this narrative thrives in a media-intelligence echo chamber. Reports from outlets like Insight Crime cite anonymous US sources; those media stories are then cited by policymakers and think tanks, and the cycle repeats until speculation becomes policy.

A New Zealand woman who is being held at a US immigration centre with her six-year-old son after they were detained crossing the Canada-US border, is being wrongly “treated like a criminal”, according to her friend and advocate.

Sarah Shaw, 33, a New Zealander who has lived in Washington state for just over three years, dropped her two eldest children to Vancouver airport on 24 July, so they could take a direct flight back to New Zealand for a holiday with their grandparents.

When Shaw attempted to re-enter the US, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (Ice) detained her and her youngest son, in what was a “terrifying” ordeal, said Victoria Besancon, Shaw’s friend who is helping to raise money for her legal fight.

“Sarah thought she was being kidnapped,” she said. “They didn’t really explain anything to her at first, they just kind of quietly took her and her son and immediately put them in like an unmarked white van.”

On Thursday, New York congresswoman Claudia Tenney, along with 15 other lawmakers, wrote to US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent asking that he investigate whether Ireland’s proposed law violates US anti-boycott law.

The letter urges the Department of the Treasury to conduct a formal review under Section 999 of the Internal Revenue Code and consider adding Ireland to the list of countries that require or may require participation in international boycotts against the US or its allies. If added to the list, there is the potential that American citizens or businesses in Ireland would be subject to additional tax reporting rules.

In a statement, Ms Tenney said that the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement was “anti-Israel” and would “economically isolate America’s closest ally in the Middle East”. She said the Irish legislation “aligns with the global BDS movement, which seeks to delegitimise Israel and create legal uncertainty for US companies operating abroad”. “This proposed boycott is discriminatory, dangerous, and would violate US law.”

The order provides an official basis for the possibility of direct military operations at sea and on foreign soil against cartels.

You Can Just Do That

Here You Can Borrow Some of Mine. They All Read Horrifically