A new Council of Europe protocol is intended to strengthen cross-border investigations, confiscation and the recovery of criminal wealth. European authorities currently recover only a small proportion of the proceeds generated by organised and financial crime.

The European Union has signed an international agreement strengthening the recovery of criminal assets, as Brussels seeks to address the failure of national authorities to confiscate the overwhelming majority of wealth generated through organised crime, corruption and money laundering.

The agreement, opened for signature in Strasbourg on Wednesday, 14 October, introduces additional provisions governing the identification, freezing, confiscation and management of assets held across national borders.

It supplements the Council of Europe’s Warsaw Convention, which established an international framework for cooperation against money laundering and the financing of terrorism.

The Additional Protocol adopted by the Council of Europe extends existing asset-recovery mechanisms and strengthens the ability of national authorities to cooperate when criminal proceeds are transferred beyond the country where an offence occurred.

The financial foundations of organised crime

European authorities have long struggled to deprive criminal organisations of the profits generated by their activities.

An estimate frequently cited by European institutions suggests that only around one per cent of criminal proceeds are ultimately confiscated.

The figure highlights a persistent weakness in criminal enforcement. Police and prosecutors may identify offenders and secure convictions without recovering the money used to finance further criminal operations.

Organised crime networks can distribute their assets through bank accounts, companies, property holdings and intermediaries operating in different jurisdictions.

Investigators must establish the origin and ownership of those assets, obtain the necessary legal orders and secure cooperation from foreign authorities before funds or property can be transferred again.

The problem has become increasingly serious as criminal organisations operate across several countries while enforcement powers remain largely national.

In an earlier examination of Europe’s response to drug-trafficking networks, EU Today reported on the importance of confiscating criminal assets rather than concentrating exclusively on arrests and drug seizures.

The financial structures supporting trafficking organisations can survive the prosecution of individual members, allowing criminal enterprises to replace personnel and continue operations.

New powers for cross-border investigations

The protocol is intended to address practical obstacles encountered when authorities seek assistance from another country.

Its provisions cover international cooperation in asset recovery, the management of seized property and the execution of confiscation decisions.

They also address circumstances in which confiscation may be possible without a conventional criminal conviction, subject to the safeguards and legal requirements established by participating states.

Such arrangements can be particularly relevant when suspects have fled, proceedings cannot be completed or assets are held through structures designed to conceal their ownership.

The protocol also provides for improved cooperation between designated asset-recovery authorities.

These mechanisms are intended to reduce the delays that can arise when investigators must navigate different national procedures while attempting to secure property that may be rapidly moved or disposed of.

The Council of Europe’s treaty documentation explains that the protocol seeks to update the Warsaw Convention in accordance with developments in international anti-money laundering standards.

The revised framework has also been developed with reference to EU rules and the recommendations of the Financial Action Task Force.

Existing European legislation

The agreement builds on legislation already adopted within the European Union.

The 2024 Asset Recovery and Confiscation Directive established stronger provisions concerning the tracing, freezing, confiscation and management of assets associated with criminal activity.

That directive is intended to improve national asset-recovery systems and strengthen cooperation between authorities.

The EU has separately developed a new anti-money laundering framework, including the establishment of the Frankfurt-based Authority for Anti-Money Laundering and Countering the Financing of Terrorism.

The authority has responsibilities concerning the supervision of high-risk financial institutions and coordination between national bodies combating illicit financial activity.

The new Council of Europe protocol addresses a related but distinct problem: how authorities recover assets once suspected criminal proceeds have been identified, particularly when those assets are located in another jurisdiction.

An earlier EU Today report on criminal enforcement of sanctions violations illustrated the importance of asset confiscation in cases involving breaches of European restrictions.

Although sanctions enforcement and organised crime investigations operate under different legal arrangements, both can require authorities to identify property, obtain judicial orders and prevent assets from being moved beyond their reach.

Ratification and implementation

The protocol was adopted by the Council of Europe’s Committee of Ministers on 15 May 2026 and opened for signature on 14 October.

The European Union’s participation requires further legal procedures before the new provisions become binding.

The Commission had previously submitted proposals authorising the EU to sign the agreement, reflecting the division of responsibilities between the Union and its member states in criminal justice and financial regulation.

Individual governments must also determine how the international obligations interact with national procedures governing investigations, property rights and confiscation.

The effectiveness of the agreement will depend on the speed of its implementation and the resources available to investigators, prosecutors and financial intelligence authorities.

Criminal organisations can transfer funds internationally through transactions completed in minutes. Judicial cooperation and the enforcement of confiscation decisions frequently require considerably longer.

The protocol offers governments additional instruments for narrowing that gap, but cannot eliminate the administrative and legal obstacles without corresponding improvements in national enforcement.

For European authorities, the practical measure of success will be the amount of criminal wealth that can be identified and recovered.

The Strasbourg agreement provides a wider legal framework for that task at a time when the profits generated by organised crime continue to exceed the assets confiscated by enforcement agencies.

The U.S. Department of Justice has threatened California with possible legal action over what it says are noncitizens believed to have received mail ballots for next month's midterm elections.

Four in five new jobs created in Britain since 2014 were taken by migrants while the number of British people on out-of-work benefits increased by 2.3 million, according to a report from the Centre for Social Justice.

The post Migrants Taking Four in Five New Jobs appeared first on The Daily Sceptic.

Back in 1983, the Supreme Court declared that "a person traveling in an automobile on public thoroughfares has no reasonable expectation of privacy in his movements from one place to another." That increasingly doubtful proposition underpins a nationwide network of more than 144,000 AI-assisted cameras that track the travels of innocent motorists across the country billions of times each week.

So far, state and federal courts have almost uniformly rejected constitutional challenges to automated license plate readers (ALPRs) installed by companies such as Flock Safety. But in a decision that could signal a shift in the legal treatment of Flock cameras, a federal judge in Oklahoma recently recognized that they enable "a type of indiscriminate mass surveillance."

ALPRs are much more sophisticated than the technology that the Supreme Court considered in 1983, when it approved the warrantless use of a radio transmitter that helped police tail a suspected methamphetamine manufacturer's car. Three decades later, by contrast, the Court said police should have obtained a search warrant before attaching a GPS tracker to another drug suspect's car.

The majority opinion in the latter case emphasized the physical intrusion necessary to install the tracker. But five justices embraced an alternative rationale, saying GPS tracking impinges on reasonable expectations of privacy by revealing potentially sensitive information about the target's historical whereabouts.

That theory came to the fore in a 2018 case involving mobile-phone location data collected by cell sites, which the majority said implicated the Fourth Amendment because "individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the whole of their physical movements." The Supreme Court reiterated that principle this year, extending it to data collected by Google's Location History feature.

"An individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy in records about his cell phone's location," Justice Elena Kagan said in the majority opinion, "and police intrude on that constitutionally protected interest when they demand the information." By similar logic, U.S. District Judge Sara E. Hill concluded this month in the Oklahoma case, people have a reasonable expectation of privacy in ALPR records, and police therefore generally need a warrant to search them.

Those databases include "information about all vehicles that pass by any network-connected camera at all times," which police can peruse "on demand," Hill noted. "Freedom from persistent, dragnet-style surveillance while in public is not a foreign concept in our society, and it is a reasonable expectation that society already accepts," as reflected in the Supreme Court's cellphone decisions.

Like cars, cellphones "move in public places where people can see you in plain view," Hill wrote. "But it becomes constitutionally problematic when law enforcement can indiscriminately and passively catalog your whereabouts over an extended period of time and then use that information for any purpose whenever convenient."

At this point, Hill's decision is an outlier. "It appears that nearly every court examining the issue to date has determined that ALPR technology use is not a search under the Fourth Amendment because people have no reasonable expectation of privacy in their movements on public streets," she noted.

Last month, for instance, a federal judge in California held that ALPR database searches are "clearly distinguishable from and less extensive than the 'near perfect surveillance' achievable" with cell-site or Location History data. And the day after Hill's ruling, a state judge in California rejected a challenge to San Jose's Flock camera network, saying "there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in license plate data collected from cameras directed solely at public streets."

A federal lawsuit involving the same city's ALPR system, which the Institute for Justice filed last April, is still pending. So are challenges to Flock cameras in cities such as Wichita, Kansas, and Norfolk, Virginia.

Even when they reject such lawsuits, courts commonly acknowledge that the legal picture could change as the number and capabilities of ALPRs multiply. If so, it seems likely that Hill will eventually be joined by other judges who recognize the perils of "indiscriminate mass surveillance."

© Copyright 2026 by Creators Syndicate Inc.

The post Other Courts Should Heed a Federal Judge's Warning About Flock-Enabled Mass Surveillance appeared first on Reason Magazine.

Sahil Wakode’s death by suicide at IIT Bombay reignites the debate over caste discrimination in India’s higher education institutions and highlights the need for a systemic reboot rather than incremental fixes.

As student suicides rise faster than enrolment rates, data can reveal who is most affected and why. But India seems to count deaths more precisely than it can explain the patterns beneath them.

The persistence of caste in higher education cannot be addressed without tackling the greater inequality in schools, starting with universal, compulsory, free education in high-quality government schools. 

The settlement resolves a lawsuit brought in 2024 that accused the healthcare giant of providing massive amounts of opioids and other controlled substances "to fuel its own profits at the expense of public health and safety."

In the second half of this insightful conversation, former political prisoner Mansa Musa joins Black Panther Party archivist and photographer Billy X Jennings to examine the pivotal 1971 FBI office break-in by antiwar activists. The stolen documents exposed COINTELPRO—the federal government’s covert operation to surveil, infiltrate, and dismantle radical political movements. Despite state-sponsored efforts to suppress the organization, the Panthers’ legacy survives through modern social movements, culture, politics, and communal socialism. Oakland Mayor Barbara Lee, who worked closely alongside the Panthers on their early survival programs, brings deep personal insight into their lasting community impact. Published in conjunction with the 60th anniversary of the Black Panther Party, this feature continues our series on the BPP’s enduring role in social justice.

Related links:

• Celebrating 60th Anniversary of the Black Panther Party
• Billy X Jennings Facebook

Credits:

• Production/Post-production: Cameron Granadino

Transcript

The following is a rushed transcript and may contain errors. It will be updated.

Mansa Musa:

I was reading Huey’s dissertation for his doctoral called War Against the Black Panther Party: A Study in Oppression in America. And in that, he outlined one COINTELPRO and COINTELPRO systematic attack on the party to the point of Eddie Conway wrote the book called The Greatest Threat Ever, outlining how the federal government systematically targeted anybody, but more specifically members of the Black Panther Party to either isolate them or kill them or send them to prison where they served death of a thousand cuts and then they ultimately die. Talk about once that information came out about COINTELPRO and its involvement in destroying the party, how did that change your views or how did that impact the political landscape as you seen it when it come to organizing and revolutionary ideology?

Billy X Jennings:

It wasn’t till 1970 that people officially found out what COINTELPRO was. We always knew there was some kind of program out there that wiretapped us, how the FBI followed us and set us up for different charges like that. But on a personal basis, COINTELPRO helped me stay out of jail. Now, COINTELPRO is not something they invented for the Black Panther Party. It’s something they always had going on, but they ramped it up three degrees because of the party, how the party came out or how effective the party was. So in 1970, when these young anti-war people broke into this post office in Pennsylvania, it helped me out because at that time, Huey P. Newton was on Nixon’s enemy list. I am Huey P. Newton’s personal aid. So when FBI sees Huey, they see me.

And so I’m a much easier target than Huey. So they started using the draft to gift me, the selective service. Now, this is the same method they used against members of SNCC, another organization that preceded us. They would get the selective service to start sending them letters to have them drafted. And you only got three choices. Either you’re going to leave and go to Canada, you’re going to go underground, or you’re going to jail. Any one of them stopped you from being affected, and that’s what they wanted. They wanted to stop people from being affected so they would hold this selective service thing over their head. So what happened when they did the same thing to me, right? They arrested me when I was with Huey after coming to court. So I went to court for this draft evasion thing. The federal government had three of their attorneys on my case.

And so what happened was this, they wanted to charge me for draft evasion, but my attorney pointed out they wanted all the documents, film, phone, anything connected with Bill Jennings. And they immediately dropped my case on the spot because they were still trying to hide the fact that they had a program called COINTEL PRO and they didn’t want to reveal it because of me.

So they just dropped my case. So I walked away from that whole case because COINTEL PRO was discovered and they didn’t want to dispose all the footage they had of me and Huey together because that’s what they were doing, compiling stuff on Huey. I just happened to be there.

So that’s how COINTEL PRO affected me, but a lot of party members went to jail. Geronimo G Jaga did 27 years. They pulled him off the street. The FBI lied on him. They said he helped kill someone in the LA, but at the same time, the FBI was watching him while he was in Oakland attending meetings. They lied on the brother, just like they did. Maybe about 35 or 40 Panthers went to jail, maybe 35 Panthers were killed through COINTEL PRO. And many like Fred Hampton were victims, minding their own business. The next thing you know, law enforcement has them in their clutches one way or another. So it was not easy being a party member during those times.

Mansa Musa:

And they knew Eddie Conway was at work when this incident happened. They went to where he worked at in the post office and told the people to say that he wasn’t at work. And then they planted a snitch in his cell or they had one of them snitchers come up and say that Eddie said something. They had coerced people to lie against. So to your point, that was their methodology during that time. Like you say, they going to get you through selective service. They’re going to get you through income tax. They’re going to get you any way, shape, form or fashion. But talk about what do you think about this recent group in Philly that call themselves the Black Panther and then switch their name to the Black Lions and they’re doing some organizing. They got a large presence on social media. They can be seen, engaged in mutual and exercising their rights through confrontation with the police.

Basically, their strategy is being more confrontational. Are you familiar with them and what you think about

Billy X Jennings:

Them? Well, I am somewhat familiar with them. I get emails from them, messages. But just recently there was a meeting held in Philadelphia with Panthers, real Panthers, original Panther members and members of the Black Lions. We suggested then that they change their name because our legacy was built on positive direct action in the community. This is our legacy. We can’t have any young group. We don’t even know what you believe. Come and say you’re party members. The Black Panther Party stopped existing in 1982. So you should come up with a name for your own legacy so people can identify you because what you’re doing, we don’t know who you are. COINTELPRO and all that, you might be good at heart, but we don’t know you. Start your own legacy. Start from ground one, change your name because our name is built on our legacy of what we’ve done and we don’t know what you’re going to do.

The Black Panther Party had 14 different medical facilities. Two are still open to this very day, one in Seattle and one in Portland.

Mansa Musa:

You

Billy X Jennings:

Can see Black Party still alive in groups like the Gray Panthers. They took up where the Black Panther Party left off with the senior citizens. The Black Panther Party had a senior escort service. All these different services the party provided, free buses to prison program. And the main purpose for that program was to keep the family unit together

Mansa Musa:

Because

Billy X Jennings:

People have cars, but many of the state prisons are far, far away. You might have a car that’s good for getting around the city, but getting on the freeway, your car might not make it. So we provide these services to keep the family unit together. It’s good that the Black Lives change their name. It’s good they’re doing social work in the community, but they also have to understand that longevity. Dealing with the police is good to have people who deal with the police who the police know they can’t run and rub shot it in our community. I don’t have anything bad about that, but that shouldn’t be your main focus. That should not be what you’re all about. The party blossom out past that, that’s how we started getting community support, breakfast programs, liberation school, providing services for people. That’s how you get people to change their mind, their attitudes about you.

They see what you do through your social

Mansa Musa:

Practice. In that regard, Billy, talk about what would be your message to youth because you got a lot of young people that’s learning about the party. You got a lot of young people that’s through social media becoming informed about it. And what would you tell them when they come up and say, okay, to your point, no, you’re not original member of the Black Panther Party. No, you don’t have the right to say that in terms of and then saying that’s what you are. But what would you tell them when they come up and say, we want to change the condition, social conditions, we want to do it in the same light that the Black Panther Party did it. What would you tell them to do?

Billy X Jennings:

I would tell them the Black Panther Party were operating in the 1960s and we’re in the 2026 era right now. So we can’t go back and keep doing stuff in the past. We had to come up with new ways of doing things, a new attitude of doing things. We set the table for all these social programs to be embraced in the community, but they have to take it from there. They have to take where we started and bring it into their conditions now. And I would say to young people, get with another group that has your same ideology, your same philosophy. If they’re serving the community or working in the community, work with them because we need to unify all our efforts and come together. Educating young people, having political education classes, taking people outside of the community, outside of their environment so they can see the bigger world and see where they fit in.

All those things are things that are doable things, job training, telling people how to write a resume. Those are those small things, but those things that help because we have a lot of hardcore brothers who get out of jail who are not educated in the educational system. They need that kind of nourishment to bring them up. That’s what we should be doing, community service to bring our people up and not run away from the people. The Black Panther Party, when we had social programs, we invited people to come back to work. We provided a place for doctors and nurses to, if you wanted to give back to the community, we have a clinic here. You could donate four to six hours a week to have those facilities there or people in the community or have a community meeting around issues in the community. That’s how you bring interested people together, unifying people.

Mansa Musa:

Yeah, that’s a good point because they got what they call the Malcolm X Grassroots Collective. I’m in DC and what they do every second and fourth Wednesday of the month, they have political education class and their political education. They’re not calling themselves some other than what they are organizing, but what they do, they have political education class and then the materials that they use, they using materials that they learned about from the Black Panther Party. But talk about the 60th and what you got planned with some of the things that you’ll be organizing for the 60th.

Billy X Jennings:

Well, that’s a lot. Well, I would say the 60th is what my particular role is, is I’m sponsoring a couple workshops on chapter history. Black Panther Party had over 40 different offices of the Black Panther Party. And there’s a lot of history in these different cities and geographical areas that we don’t know about that only the local people there knew about. So we’re trying to bring that history together so that people in Chicago would know what the people in Portland, Oregon was doing or the people in Seattle will find out who were some of the people that started the party down in Houston, Texas. And some of the programs, Salem, some of the problems the Winston-Salem chapter deal with because they were a chapter of the Black Panther Party that was actually in the South because they had problems that a lot of us didn’t have in California,

So forth. But chapter history, I’m doing some tours of Oakland, like I said, to educate a lot of people who’ve never been there before. A lot of people come to the reunions, they bring their grandkids or their great-grands. They want to show them what they was involved in, how all this thing originated. I have doing tours. I got a couple exhibits at the main library in Oakland about Black Panther Party rank and file. I have an exhibit open October 5th at the Alameda Law Library, which is across the street from the Oakland main library. Oh,

It’s across the street from the Oakland Main Museum. So that exhibit’s going to focus on the impact of the Black Panther Party on the law because of the political prisoners, clientele pro, racism in the police department, all those kind of things. So I got my hands full and on the 18th, which is the last day of the conference, I’m in charge of a day in Bobby Hutton Park. Local hip hop artists, poets, a couple bands will live music and we have speakers come, going to do it like we did back in the 1960s. Treat music, food, a joyful day in the community. Don’t caution that and all you have to do is bring your blanket, sit out and hear some speeches and hear some music and unify in the community.

Mansa Musa:

Okay. Thank you, Billy. Thank you. And Billy, we really appreciate you taking your time out to come on and educate our audience about all things the Black Panther Party. More importantly, clearing up a lot of misconcepts about the party, what it stood for, some of the more subtleties of it as opposed to, to your point, a lot of the things that was distorted primarily for the purpose of disassociating it from people, getting people to look at it in a different light. You came on today and educated us on how the party really operated as, like y’all said, the Vanguard intercommunal with us.

Billy X Jennings:

The party’s whole thing is to educate people. I had a young lady who worked in my campaign office when Bobby Seal ran for mayor. She is now the mayor of Oakland. So I know that she knows about the 10 point program and all those things. So the party is about growth and development and stuff like that. The Black Police Officers Association of Oakland was started because of the Black Panther Party, right? Because when they shut up our office on 45th and Grove in September 1968, the Black officers refused to help the white officers who was suspended from their job for shooting at that office. And they started an organization, which is one of the biggest Black organizations in Oakland. But a lot of people don’t know that history, but when we have chapter histories, a lot of this history that happened in those cities come up.

Who were now in charge of state health facilities work at the medical clinic and stuff like that. So there’s a lot of roots where people came from. We just have to talk about it, dig it up and document it for future generations because 17 years ago, when I was 17, I joined the party. Today I talked to people from all over the world. I just got off the phone talking to the New Zealand Panthers who are going to send some representatives out here. They have 15 members that came for our 50th. We have people from all over the world. We have Charlotte O’Neill coming in from Tanzania.

Mansa Musa:

Okay.

Billy X Jennings:

For over 50 years. Charlotte’s going through our libations. She has a film. She travels the world. We have all type of Panthers coming in, so this is going to be a event.

Mansa Musa:

There you have it. There you have the bars today. Look, you gave that row out. And we thank you for coming and sharing this information because like you said, at the end of the day, after everything all is said and done, the party was about educating our people about getting them to understand their right to self-determination and how to go about getting self-determination, understanding the contradictions, understanding social conditions, and more importantly, organizing to change conditions. And it’s a tribute to the party. No matter what people say about the party, that is the lasting legacy of the party is educate, educate, educate. Thank you, Billy. We appreciate you. All right. How do you want people to get in touch with you if they want to get in touch with you? They

Billy X Jennings:

Can get in touch with me by going to our website, itsabouttimebpp.com, which there’s a phone number and an address on that website. But for the 60th, you can go to bpp60.org for your latest update information on what’s happening with the 60th.

💾

The U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments today in an important case that asks how much judicial deference is owed to the U.S. Sentencing Commission's commentary on the federal sentencing guidelines when a judge is applying those guidelines during the sentencing of a federal criminal defendant. That may sound like a somewhat dry legal dispute, but the ramifications are big not only in the realm of criminal law, but also for the broader legal battle over statutory interpretation, the role of the courts, and the authority of those federal agencies that some critics have called "the administrative state."

The case is Beaird v. United States. Kendrick Jarrell Beaird was arrested for pointing a gun at someone and, because he had a prior felony record, was convicted as a felon in possession of a firearm. Under the federal sentencing guidelines, Beaird faced an even higher sentence if the firearm "involved…is capable of accepting a large capacity magazine." His gun's magazine was capable of holding 17 rounds. Did that count as large capacity and thus trigger a higher sentence? The federal sentencing guidelines did not directly say, but the U.S. Sentencing Commission's commentary on the guidelines did: According to the commentary, a magazine capable of accepting "more than 15 rounds of ammunition" counts as large capacity.

Are the federal courts bound to follow the Sentencing Commission's commentary in a case like this and dutifully impose a steeper sentence? Or may the courts impose a lower sentence based on their own alternate view of the best reading of the text of the sentencing guidelines?

In Stinson v. United States (1993), the Supreme Court held that the commentary to the federal sentencing guidelines is entitled to major deference from the courts. "We decide that commentary in the Guidelines Manual that interprets or explains a guideline is authoritative," the Court said, "unless it violates the Constitution or a federal statute, or is inconsistent with, or a plainly erroneous reading of, that guideline."

Among the questions at issue in today's oral arguments in Beaird is "whether Stinson v. United States still accurately state[s] the level of deference due to the Commentary of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines." In other words, should there be cases in which a judge's alternate reading may trump the interpretation favored by the commission's commentary?

Those questions alone make this a notable case. But this particular dispute also arrives in the midst of a broader, ongoing battle over judicial deference to the authority of federal regulatory agencies. For instance, in Kisor v. Wilkie (2019), the Supreme Court narrowly upheld a precedent which said that a federal agency's interpretation of its own "ambiguous" rule is entitled to broad judicial deference unless the agency's interpretation is "plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulations being interpreted."

Justice Elena Kagan's 5–4 majority opinion in Kisor v. Wilkie justified this holding on the grounds that the Court's deferential doctrine "enables the agency to fill out the regulatory scheme Congress has placed under its supervision."

Writing in dissent, Justice Neil Gorsuch faulted this approach for requiring judges "to accept an executive agency's interpretation of its own regulations even when that interpretation doesn't represent the best and fairest reading." That sort of deference, Gorsuch argued, "creates a 'systematic judicial bias in favor of the federal government, the most powerful of parties, and against everyone else.'"

This Kagan-Gorsuch clash of legal visions is likely to arise again in the Beaird case. Whether or not Kagan's pro-deference view will still command the majority, however, remains to be seen.

The post A New Supreme Court Case Tests the Limits of Judicial Deference to Federal Agencies appeared first on Reason Magazine.

Louisiana recently started executing death-row prisoners after more than 20 years of not doing so (save a “voluntary” execution in 2010, when a prisoner waived his right to appeal and said he wanted to die). John Corley, an award-winning writer who is incarcerated at Louisiana’s Angola prison, reflects on how MAGA politics have re-invigorated the practice of state killing in Louisiana and elsewhere, and what it means for the tenor of life in institutions like Angola:

Dalton Prejean Jr, who is serving time for manslaughter, found Hoffman’s execution particularly painful. When he was ten years old, in 1990, his father died in the penitentiary’s electric chair. “The day it all went down, it was almost like reliving the moments leading up to my father’s execution,” Prejean told me. “At ten o’clock the news reporter announced that Hoffman was dead. My heart skipped. I couldn’t believe they had actually killed somebody. Was what he did so bad that he just couldn’t be allowed to go on living? Wasn’t there anything about him that was redeemable?”

Twice a week, the inmate counsel substitute Gary Boudreaux makes rounds on the five death row tiers. He knows each of the surviving men housed there. “There was no tension on the row because the guys believed the execution wouldn’t happen,” Boudreaux said. “It had been so long, and they have good lawyers. They just didn’t think executions would come back.”

A week after the execution, Boudreaux returned to the row. The atmosphere was “totally different.” The men now knew that Governor Landry “is serious about executing people, and the state will execute people. There’s no doubt in their minds about that any more.”

Sacrifice the inconvenient, never the project. “Pal-washing” in action.

Join us on Telegram, X, and VK.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

A familiar script

On 9 October 2026, the Norwegian Nobel Committee awarded the Peace Prize to Navanethem Pillay, an 85-year-old South African jurist, former judge at the International Criminal Court and UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. The citation speaks of a person who has paved the way for a more comprehensive global legal order. The Committee’s chair, Jorgen Watne Frydnes, added that the prize is a message to those who attack and undermine the international system and its institutions. The verdict is avowedly political, and it is on this level that it must be discussed.

The very same figure who, in 2011, is said to have ‘toppled’ Gaddafi, paving the way for the plundering of Libyan oil and the enslavement of African migrants, would now ‘topple’ Netanyahu, thereby paving the way for Israel’s rehabilitation. The underlying logic would be neither morality nor peace, but the agenda of George Soros’s Open Society: to sacrifice those who have become inconvenient, never the essence of the project itself. Some have dubbed it ‘pal-washing’. The fundamental question is a serious one, for it asks whether there is a pattern behind the prizes and jurisdictions of the liberal order.

It must be emphasised that the script is already familiar. Do you remember when Barack Obama received the Nobel Peace Prize, whilst launching war after war? Or do you recall figures in search of a cause such as Machado, Mohammadi, or the defenders of Ukrainian criminals? But let us proceed in order.

Act One: Libya

In February 2011, Pillay, the High Commissioner, called on the Human Rights Council to take vigorous action to stop the violence and hold those responsible to account; the Council condemned the violations and established a commission of inquiry. The next step fell to the Security Council: referral to the ICC via Resolution 1970, followed by Resolution 1973, approved with ten votes in favour and five abstentions (Brazil, China, Germany, India, Russia). No one claims that Pillay decided to go to war. What matters is the sequence of events: the language of human rights opened the door, that of the protection of civilians authorised the use of force, and the operation gradually shifted towards regime change. As early as April, Lavrov was accusing NATO of exceeding its mandate, and a French minister admitted that regime change would have required a new vote.

Then there are the costs. In 2017, the IOM documented auctions of sub-Saharan migrants in southern Libya, sold for sums ranging from 200 to 500 dollars. The link with the collapse of the state after 2011 is the most plausible interpretation, although the source documents the phenomenon rather than its cause. Libya and the migrants paid the price; the legal framework emerged, formally speaking, intact, even if the controversy over the mandate would later weigh on the vetoes of Moscow and Beijing in other matters.

Act Two: Bibi

On 21 November 2024, Pre-Trial Chamber I of the ICC issued arrest warrants for Netanyahu and former Defence Minister Gallant, for war crimes and crimes against humanity. Pillay had left the Court in 2008, but chaired the UN Commission of Inquiry which, on 16 September 2025, concluded that Israel had committed genocide in Gaza. This is where ‘pal-washing’ comes into play. International criminal law deals with individuals: a defendant, a charge, a period of time. If the case concludes with the fate of a leader, a narrative break occurs – the ‘before’ and ‘after’ of a man – after which the state can present itself as restored. Libya offers an analogy: there, the case concluded with the fall of a man.

The limitations of the process work in favour of this interpretation. The Court has no police force and the execution of warrants depends on the States Parties; the Commission is not a court and does not speak on behalf of the entire UN; the Committee itself, according to AFP, has stated that it is up to a court to determine whether genocide has taken place. The award has no legal effect, as we know, but it lends legitimacy to a system that promises justice yet cannot guarantee it.

We must also bear in mind that we have already seen dynamics of this kind on numerous occasions within the globalist order that dominates the West. The Open Society Foundations presents itself as the world’s largest private funder of groups working for justice, democracy and human rights, active in over one hundred countries, and Pillay received the Stockholm Human Rights Award, the same prize that went to Soros and Neier in 2011. It certainly seems that the pattern of the Soros agenda is repeating itself once again – an agenda comprising foundations, NGOs, tribunals, commissions and bureaucracies that share a common lexicon and worldview: that of a liberal order to be perfected and never called into question. Those operating within that lexicon may denounce a government, a leader, or even a state, but they cannot challenge the underlying assumptions of the order that grants them legitimacy.

Some will object that Pillay’s Commission attributes responsibility to Israel as a state, not merely to its leaders, which contradicts the idea of a purely personalised operation. The second point concerns the reaction. Netanyahu accused the Committee of having lost its moral compass; the Israeli Foreign Ministry spoke of a grotesque exploitation of the prize; and Washington announced sanctions against the ICC just a few hours after the announcement. All true. But it would make sense and have value if the Western system were not rotten to its very core, if its legal system were functioning properly, but this is not the case, in any respect (and we have already seen sufficient evidence of this – let us not forget the Epstein case either).

If, over the next twelve months, Netanyahu’s political downfall is presented as the conclusion of the case, rather than as a stage in proceedings concerning the state, ‘Pal-washing’ will gain traction. If the proceedings continue beyond his person, and if the State Parties execute the warrants, perhaps it will lose ground. Given the current evidence, the argument is plausible and, until proven otherwise, this is yet another ‘Non-Peace’ Nobel Prize – one we cannot call ‘war’.

Federal law enforcement officials in Minneapolis announced at a press conference last week that FBI agents arrested a Minnesota teenager plotting to commit a mass shooting at the Mall of America.

Sheikhdoon Abdullahi Mohamud, an 18-year-old American-born citizen of Somali descent, was arrested in a public park on October 6 by FBI agents immediately after he allegedly paid an undercover agent posing as a member of the Islamic terrorist group ISIS $600 for an AK-47 rifle and 200 rounds of ammunition. The arrest was the culmination of a two-year investigation into Mohamud, who allegedly planned to commit a mass shooting at the mega-mall on October 24.

According to the criminal complaint filed against Mohamud, he exchanged hundreds of messages with a confidential FBI informant expressing his desire to travel to Somalia to join ISIS, but lacking enough money to travel, he eventually settled for an alleged plot to attack the Mall of America because it was owned by Jews.

"I want to do this, I am very serious I don't care about anything in the world, I am 100% committed to the cause of dying for the sake of Allah only," Mohamud allegedly wrote in one text message, according to the complaint.

Christopher Dotson, a special agent running the FBI's Minneapolis field office said at a press conference that Mohamud's messages "document the idolization of ideologically motivated violence, a callous disregard for the sanctity of human life, a blind hatred of people of other faiths, and a cold commitment to carrying out his vision of violence in our community."

As I explained in a 2022 Reason magazine feature, "It's (Almost) Always the Feds," the FBI has a long history of using its sprawling network of paid informants to locate and bait would-be radicals in undercover sting operations.

The FBI's Countering Violent Extremism (CVE), created in 2011 to stop domestic recruitment by foreign terrorist organizations, has focused heavily on Somali immigrant communities in Minnesota and elsewhere because of Somalia's links to ISIS and al-Shabab, two Islamic terrorist groups.

An ISIS-affiliated account posted a video in 2015 calling for an attack on the Mall of America. In 2016, a Somali man in the U.S. on a refugee visa stabbed 10 shoppers and employees at a St. Cloud mall. Last year, a Minneapolis man was charged with attempting to join ISIS.

However, the sort of young men who usually get onto the FBI's extremist radar have grand and violent ambitions but limited means to carry them out. They tend to be unemployed or marginally employed, sometimes still living with their parents, and socially awkward.

In one text exchange, the confidential informant asked Mohamud how school was going.

"It's terrible man but I gotta keep doing it and if I fail its straight to just killin kuffar [a derogatory term for non-Muslims]," Mohamud responded, according to screenshots included in the criminal complaint . "And im already failing so if I don't pass in a yr ill probably save up for a gun."

The informant responded with the "grinning squinty face" emoji.

Mohamud continued to chat with confidential informants, praising terrorist attacks and sharing terrorist propaganda videos, according to the complaint. He didn't have a phone, so he had to use his sibling's computers and tablets to chat with informants. Last month, he recorded a video of himself pledging allegiance to ISIS on his little brother's iPad.

Despite persistent criticisms from civil liberties groups that the FBI is in many cases manufacturing terror plots to ensnare young men with limited to no ability to carry them out, the federal government has been enormously successful in securing convictions because of the high bar for defendants to prove entrapment.

The FBI's use of paid informants and these sting tactics have resulted in hundreds of convictions since 9/11, but it's also created long-term credibility problems for the bureau, especially when administrations have used those criminal cases to advance their political narratives.

For example, in a 2024 speech condemning political violence, former President Joe Biden cited the plot to kidnap Democratic Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer. However, text messages and other records uncovered by defense attorneys during the case showed that the farcical plot was in large part concocted and encouraged by paid FBI informants and their bureau handlers.

"We have a saying in my office," one FBI special agent told a confidential informant in the Whitmer case. "Don't let the facts get in the way of a good story."

The CVE program and related counterterrorism initiatives have also subjected tens of thousands of Somali refugees and other ethnic and religious minorities to heightened surveillance and infiltration by government informants, sowing distrust and fear, all based on a relatively small handful of incidents. Reason's Eric Boehm wrote in 2018 about how Minnesota's peaceful and entrepreneurial Somali refugee communities had become a domestic front in the war on terror, as well as microcosm of the national debate over immigration and national security.

None of this is to say the investigation into Mohamud was unwarranted, or that he wouldn't have been able to eventually get a gun absent the FBI's assistance. Nor is it a statement on his guilt or innocence, although he is as a matter of law innocent until proven guilty. It is a reminder to read carefully and wait for all the details to come out whenever the FBI announces it has thwarted another terrorist plot.

The post FBI Foils Plot To Attack Mall of America With FBI-Provided AK-47 appeared first on Reason Magazine.

On Monday, CBS News reported that federal agents searched the Washington, D.C., home of U.S. Rep. Ilhan Omar (D–Minn.), as part of an ongoing investigation that "centers on Omar's immigration paperwork." 

In a statement to the Associated Press, the Justice Department said agents from Homeland Security Investigations (HSI)—an office within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) that conducts federal criminal investigations into immigration fraud and identity and benefits fraud—"executed a judicially authorized search warrant" as "part of an ongoing federal criminal investigation." 

The search warrant reportedly "lists a series of potential immigration crimes under investigation, including false statements and fraud in immigration paperwork, as well as a general conspiracy charge," according to The New York Times. The Times reported that federal officials are also investigating "whether Ms. Omar derived citizenship from a father who may have been ineligible to obtain naturalized status." In a statement, Omar called the investigation an "outrageous abuse of power and an unprecedented escalation in the weaponization of federal law enforcement to target political enemies," stating she did "nothing wrong."

Omar has been in the Justice Department's crosshairs since January, when President Donald Trump announced that the department and Congress were "looking at 'Congresswoman' Illhan Omar, who left Somalia with NOTHING, and is now reportedly worth more than 44 Million Dollars." 

Trump was referencing an investigation by the House Ethics Committee, based on a 2025 financial disclosure form showing she and her husband held assets worth between $6 million and $30 million, a notable increase from her previous filings. Omar later filed an amended disclosure form that showed the assets were worth $18,004 to $95,000 after accounting for liabilities. However, in September, the Wall Street Journal reported that the Office of Congressional Conduct—which reviews allegations against House members and their staff—voted 5–1 to recommend that the House Ethics Committee dismiss the allegations. Per the Journal, investigators found no "substantial reason to believe that Rep. Omar reported false or incomplete information in her financial disclosures." Omar's office told the Journal she didn't catch the errors, which stemmed from erroneous valuations of her husband's businesses, because she "isn't involved in her husband's businesses and trusted the accountant involved."

The investigation into Omar appears to be part and parcel of the Trump administration's weaponization of government—which the president vowed to end—adding to a list of cases that includes former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson, former FBI Director James Comey, and former National Security Adviser John Bolton.

Omar's opposition to the Trump administration's immigration enforcement efforts, particularly in her home state of Minnesota, and her Somali heritage have made her a frequent target of the president and his allies. 

Last December, a federal indictment revealed a nearly $9 billion fraud scandal in Minnesota, much of it tied to the state's Somali immigrants. In March, Vice President J.D. Vance—who leads the Trump administration's anti-fraud task force—told right-wing commentator Benny Johnson that Omar "definitely committed immigration fraud against the United States of America." Vance accused Omar of "being at the center of a lot of the worst fraudsters in the Somali community." 

Vance doubled down in May, telling White House reporters the immigration fraud allegations were "something that the Department of Justice is looking at right now." He appeared to pull back from his March claim that he was certain Omar had committed immigration fraud, instead stating that while he didn't want to "prejudge an investigation," it "certainly seems like something fishy is there."

In September, DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin told Johnson that the investigation into Omar was still "ongoing," and that the department knew she had "married her brother to try to bring him into the United States." Omar's office has denied the accusations, which were first levied against her in 2016. 

Mullin claims the investigation into Omar is "not political." He could be telling the truth; federal investigators have scrutinized Omar before. In 2024, the Biden administration's Justice Department opened an investigation into Omar's "finances, campaign spending and interactions with a foreign citizen," according to The New York Times. Per the Times, the investigation eventually "stalled for lack of evidence." 

But Mullin's words are also hard to take at face value. Despite denying accusations of weaponizing the justice system, the Trump administration has time and again used dubious legal reasoning to investigate the president's political enemies. This includes New York Attorney General Letitia James, who, after successfully suing Trump for financial fraud, was indicted for mortgage fraud by Trump's Justice Department, which used the same petty justification on her. 

The president has also continued a campaign to indict Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, announcing last week that the White House would hold in-person hearings to look into claims she committed mortgage fraud. Ousting Cook would ostensibly allow the president to install a Fed governor aligned with his priorities. It's a tactic that failed Trump once before, when his Justice Department opened a criminal investigation into former Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell for his handling of renovations at the central bank's headquarters. Jeanine Pirro, the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, dropped the probe in April, and the department ultimately found nothing criminal in Powell's conduct.

An investigation will reveal whether Omar broke the law. Still, if it's anything like the Trump administration's previous efforts, the investigation is likely driven by political animus, not criminal behavior.

The post DHS Searched Ilhan Omar's Home as Part of Immigration Fraud Investigation appeared first on Reason Magazine.

After President Donald Trump banned CNN, MS NOW, and Politico from the White House last month, ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox News protested by suspending their participation in the press pool that provides widely used video of presidential events. According to the Department of Justice (DOJ), which last Friday demanded network communications regarding the TV pool, that show of solidarity may have violated the Sherman Antitrust Act.

The antitrust investigation adds another layer of bullying to Trump's vendetta against "Fake News Media Outlets." The president reflexively threatens to yank broadcast licenses in response to news coverage he views as biased against him. He has repeatedly tried to punish disfavored journalists by excluding them from the White House, culminating in last month's sanctions against CNN, MS NOW, and Politico, which irked him by running "purposely negative stories." Now he is deploying the Justice Department against the TV networks that objected to his assault on freedom of the press.

Under a longstanding arrangement, ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, and Fox News take turns covering the president in venues where press access is limited, sharing the footage with other news outlets. But after Trump excluded CNN from that role, the other networks stopped participating. They resumed their coverage on September 25, the day after a federal judge ordered the White House to restore press passes for employees of CNN, MS NOW, and Politico.

The TV pool suspension was brief, lasting just four days. But it irritated Trump, who on September 24 complained that the networks "refused to cover one of the Biggest and Most Beautiful Events to take place in many years"—i.e., "the arrival at the White House of the Highly Respected President of China, Xi Jinping, and his beautiful wife, Madam Peng." That event was "magnificent" and "made for Television," he said, but the networks "refused to be there" because "they knew how good it would be" and "didn't want credit to be given to 'TRUMP.'"

As the DOJ tells it, the lack of network coverage was not only annoying; it was also potentially illegal. "Members of the television press pool have boycotted covering White House events," Emily Covington, who directs the department's Office of Public Affairs, said on Saturday. "Group boycotts among commercial competitors can violate the Sherman Act," she added, and "the Antitrust Division is simply investigating to determine whether these news organizations have violated the antitrust laws."

Section 1 of the Sherman Act broadly prohibits any "contract," "combination," or "conspiracy" in "restraint of trade." But it applies to group boycotts only insofar as they aim to thwart competing businesses.

William E. Kovacic, who chaired the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) during the George W. Bush administration, is skeptical that the concept applies in this case. "The critical ingredient in successful antitrust cases is to demonstrate that there is unmistakably a commercial motive and that the commercial motive predominates," Kovacic told The New York Times. "And I don't think they would ever be able to do that here."

The Supreme Court's 1990 decision in FTC v. Superior Court Trial Lawyers Association illustrates the importance of a "commercial motive." The case involved attorneys in private practice who were paid to serve as court-appointed counsel for criminal defendants in the District of Columbia. The FTC concluded that they violated the Sherman Act when they agreed to stop accepting cases until their fees were increased.

Since that agreement was aimed at protecting the right to counsel by ensuring adequate funding for court-appointed attorneys, the lawyers association argued, it was protected under NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware, a 1982 decision in which the Supreme Court recognized a First Amendment right to engage in politically motivated consumer boycotts. But the Court saw an important distinction between the two cases.

"Our reasoning in Claiborne Hardware is not applicable to a boycott conducted by business competitors who 'stand to profit financially from a lessening of competition in the boycotted market,'" Justice John Paul Stevens wrote. "No matter how altruistic the motives of respondents may have been, it is undisputed that their immediate objective was to increase the price that they would be paid for their services."

In Claiborne Hardware, by contrast, the boycotters were not trying to reap a financial benefit by reducing competition. Nor were ABC et al. when they "boycotted" the White House TV pool. They were not trying to increase their profits by putting competitors at a disadvantage; they were standing up for freedom of the press.

"The investigation is nonsense," Seth Stern, chief of advocacy at the Freedom of the Press Foundation, says in an emailed press release. "Trump may view the presidency as a business venture, but news outlets' standing up for their constitutional rights has nothing to do with antitrust law….Depriving Trump of the attention he craves is not a competitive harm."

The post TV Networks Protested Press Bans by Declining To Cover Trump. That Might Have Been Illegal, the DOJ Says. appeared first on Reason Magazine.

In a near unanimous vote, city council members in Cambridge, Massachusetts, adopted a policy order suggesting that local law enforcement authorities shouldn't arrest or prosecute sex workers.

With eight members voting yes and one voting present during the council's October 5 meeting, the new policy aims to "let folks in our community know that we do stand in support of not arresting or prosecuting people who sell sex," as Councilor Patricia M. Nolan put it.

The order's stipulation with regard to sex customers, however, is unclear. And what practical effect it will have is uncertain, since Cambridge City Council members can't change Massachusetts state law, under which both buying and selling sex are still crimes.

The new policy order states that it is the council's "belief that the arrest of adult persons for consensual sex work should continue to be amongst the lowest law enforcement priorities for the City of Cambridge" and that "the Middlesex County District Attorney should cease prosecution of persons for consensual adult sex work and cease prosecution of persons who provide support services to sex workers absent unlawful means."

The district attorney's office does not have to take this recommendation, of course. Still, it seems meaningful that government officials are urging prosecutors to adopt some level of decriminalization policy when it comes to prostitution. The Cambridge City Council isn't even the first in the area to do so. "In 2019, Somerville City Council voted to direct Somerville police not to arrest sex workers," Cambridge Day points out.

Originally, some Cambridge authorities wanted to go even further. An earlier draft of the order urged "the State House to support efforts to achieve the full decriminalization of consensual adult sex work statewide," but that language was removed before passage of the final policy last week. The change was made so as "not [to be] taking a stand on…full decriminalization of the buyer," Nolan said at the meeting.

Yet according to The Cambridge Somerville Independent, Council Member Jivan Sobrinho-Wheeler, who authored the new policy, said that even as adopted it still supports full decriminalization (that is, decriminalization of both full-service sex work providers and their clients):

In the version that passed, some councillors believed they voted for something different: that customers remain seen as criminals and that the goal is to end sex work rather than allow the trade to continue safely with protections for human and worker rights. "People are going to read it a little differently," Sobrinho-Wheeler said, but he and supporters believe the order continues to cover clients and suppliers of sex work.

Sex worker rights advocates are calling the policy—which also includes plans for a phone line that sex workers can use to report crimes against them without having to interact with police—a win.

"Victories seem rare. This one is special because of how many sex workers, survivors, and allies supported our effort," Mary Carol, co-chair of the Boston Sex Workers and Allies Collective, said in a press release.

During the public comment portion of the council's October 5 meeting, at least 27 people—including current and former sex workers, lawyers, and people in social services—spoke in support of full decriminalization.

"I choose to do this work and I choose to do this work without going to jail for it," said Rita Romero, who said she has been "a sex worker for over 20 years."

A woman describing herself as "a student, a mother, an advocate, and a sex worker" told council members: "We are not asking you to understand every choice that we make. We are asking you to understand that criminalization does not make us disappear, it only changes how safely we are able to exist."

"Our commonwealth should protect people's dignity, not punish them for trying to survive," opined Kayla Kittredge, an independent candidate for lieutenant governor of Massachusetts.

Several speakers who described themselves as survivors of sex trafficking supported the policy order. This included Quinn, who said she was "pushed into the sex industry as a teenager" and still supports full decriminalization.

Clients "didn't hurt me because of a lack of punishment," Quinn said. "They were able to hurt me because I had a lack of power, political power, to keep myself safe and to determine the trajectory of my own life. The fact is full decriminalization—not partial, not the equality model—only full decriminalization has been proven to afford both trafficking victims and sex workers more political power, actual political power."

Only three people—two with the group Safe Exit, which helps people who do not want to be selling sexual services to stop doing so—spoke against the policy.

Safe Exit's Audra Dooty said the policy would "hurt people and get more vulnerable folks sucked into the life" and advocated what's alternately known as the Nordic model, the equality model, or partial decriminalization, in which sex workers are not criminalized but their clients are.

Several speakers at the council meeting directly opposed any policy that still prioritizes arresting sex buyers. Claudia Torres, a staff attorney at Justice at Work, noted that while some say decriminalization removes protection for vulnerable people, "vulnerability does not make meaningful consent impossible. Whether coercion is present is a fact-intensive, context-specific inquiry."

"Criminalizing buyers does not eliminate dangerous clients or exploitation," said Molly Lynch, a licensed clinical social worker. Instead, it "makes it harder for sex workers to protect themselves from those dangers." Lynch added that having worked with street-based sex workers, she learned that "sex workers are experts in their own safety."

"In other industries, like domestic work, we say the solution is giving people more labor protections," Jessica Van Meir told the council. "We don't say the solution to trafficking of domestic workers is to criminalize hiring a maid."

The new Cambridge policy order puts on the record what already seems to be police policy. Shameka Gregory with the city's Domestic and Gender-Based Violence Prevention Initiative said the Cambridge Police Department has made only about four sex worker arrests in the past five years. She did not say if any or how many solicitation arrests were made.

But even if local police aren't proactively going after prostitution, sex workers and/or their customers in the area may still face arrests and prosecutions. In recent years, Cambridge has been the home of a high-profile "brothel" bust involving both federal and state police. More than 30 clients were arrested and prosecuted on state charges, and three people who ran the business were prosecuted on federal charges.

---

In the News

Where will the Trump administration livesteam its firing squad? (What a sentence to have to write.) "Depending on how much [social media platforms] want to bend over backwards (or should I say, bow down?) to appease Donald Trump and the bloodthirsty Pete Hegseth, all of them except Meta can make unfortunately credible claims that livestreaming an execution by firing squad doesn't technically violate their policies," notes Mike Masnick at Techdirt. "Meta cannot say that. I'd argue that the videos likely do violate YouTube, X, and TikTok's policies as well, but it very much depends on subjective calls for all three."

"Remember, some of the earliest moral panic over how 'bad' social media is came from US elected officials losing their minds about terrorist execution videos on YouTube," adds Masnick:

It's kind of incredible how far we've come: Now the US government itself is planning to stream a gruesome execution of its own, and any platform that pushes back will likely be attacked by the president and his supporters for not being patriotic enough.

Continuing in what's apparently a surrealist theme of today's newsletter…

---

On Substack

Will Ukraine decriminalize porn to help fund its military? Sofya Owl has helped fund Ukraine's defense efforts by selling nude photos. That could make her a criminal in Ukraine, "where producing and distributing pornography remains a criminal offense," explains Mariana Lastovyria at The Counteroffensive:

For years, it has had a thriving market for adult content that operates largely in the shadows.

Now, as the country faces a roughly $27 billion shortfall in defense funding, lawmakers are considering whether to remove pornography from the criminal code—potentially bringing part of that underground economy into the legal tax base. This gap is critical, as the money is needed now to pay for supplies at the front line for the first quarter of 2027.

According to recent estimates by Ukrainian lawmaker Yaroslav Zhelezniak, who co-authored a bill to decriminalize pornography production, legalizing the industry could bring the state budget up to $25 million a year in tax revenue. He says that amount would be enough to purchase around 30,000 drones.

---

Read This Thread

Why are campus administrators teaching about sex toys? 

Setting aside whether universities should be in the business of providing this kind of advice, the real question is why therapeutic bureaucracies are now somehow responsible for attending to every last private corner of student life, right down to the "bondage and fetish gear." https://t.co/TmJ7ayMM5C

— Tyler Austin Harper (@Tyler_A_Harper) October 8, 2026

---

Follow-Up

Two very different Flock rulings: Last week, this newsletter covered a federal court ruling in which the judge called automated license plate reader (ALPR) systems such as Flock "a type of indiscriminate mass surveillance." But all is not well in Flock/Fourth Amendment jurisprudence.

"A decision that a California judge issued the following day, which dismissed a lawsuit arguing that San Jose's ALPR network violates the state constitution, is much more typical of litigation in this area, which so far has been almost uniformly unsuccessful," reports Reason's Jacob Sullum. More:

The contrast between those two decisions suggests the challenges such lawsuits face as judges grapple with the implications of Supreme Court precedents involving cellphone location data. Although the relevance of those precedents might seem obvious, state and federal courts generally have perceived important differences between cellphone tracking and police use of roadside cameras that record images of passing cars.

Related: more cops facing criminal charges for misusing Flock.

---

More Sex & Tech

• Playboy says: Your parents were having more sex than you are. (If you're in Gen Z, that is.)

• Claude is trolling cops now?

• Are bondage photos a political career-killer in 2026? We'll soon find out!

• Always read Chris Ferguson on cellphone ban studies (and do it quick before he gets himself locked in a padded room rather than have to scream about effect sizes one more time).

• The winner of Britain's prestigious Caine Prize for African Writing is now under question, after "the AI detector Pangram flag[ged] almost the entire story as AI-generated," notes The Atlantic. And "this isn't the first prize-winning story to be flagged by Pangram. It comes after similar scandals over this year's Commonwealth Prize and Prix Goncourt—two other renowned literature contests—in which Pangram flagged AI use among finalists."

• "The case for screen time limits rests in part on an unproven assumption that fewer hours will mean fewer anxious and depressed kids. The best evidence doesn't support it," writes the Columbia University psychiatrist Jonathan Slater in The New York Times:

Limiting screen time can promote children's overall health. But the amount of time children spend on screens has only a small effect on their mental health. Genetics and certain experiences in childhood, as well as the lack of proper diagnosis and treatment, appear to be far more influential. Limiting screen time is not the first line of treatment for children with anxiety or depression.

• Abortion pill update: "The Food and Drug Administration expects to complete its safety review of the abortion pill mifepristone in March," reports NBC. In a court document filed by the Department of Justice last Wednesday, the agency "said it plans to compare mifepristone's safety to that of surgical abortions through 10 weeks' gestation. Its review will measure the frequency of side effects among roughly 100,000 women who took mifepristone, it said."

• The Pentagon has been a bad influence on Silicon Valley.

• Is AI slop what the people really want? "They like the slop, they're eager for more, and whoever's serving it to them is just fulfilling the authentic demand for unlimited AI-generated garbage," suggests Jeremiah Johson at The Argument.

• A win for cryptocurrency: "The U.S. Treasury's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) has withdrawn its proposal for a rule that would require financial institutions to report on cryptocurrency transactions that they 'know, suspect, or have reason to suspect' involve mixing in a foreign jurisdiction," reports Reason's Matthew Petti. "The proposal was first made in October 2023, and the government withdrew it this week, citing complaints from the crypto industry and privacy concerns."

The post Cambridge Decriminalizes Sex Work—Sort Of appeared first on Reason Magazine.

Ammon Bundy was once considered the face of America's far-right militia movement. Now he's speaking out against President Donald Trump and his treatment of immigrants. 

"How do you demonize them to the point where they should be rounded up by armed men in the government, kicking down their doors and dragging them off?" Bundy tells Reason.

Bundy views Trump's violent, indiscriminate immigration crackdown as just the latest example of how an oversized, tyrannical United States government is stomping on individual rights. Bundy has sacrificed a lot for his beliefs, including serving a two-year stint in federal prison (though he was ultimately acquitted) and being stripped of his property. It hasn't stopped Bundy from continuing to fight for what he believes in.

The anti-government activist first entered the national spotlight in 2014 when he joined his father, Cliven Bundy, in an armed standoff against the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) at the elder Bundy's Bunkerville, Nevada, ranch. The BLM had impounded 400 of Cliven's cattle after a decades-long disagreement over land rights had ended with Cliven's refusal to pay his grazing fees. Cliven and Ammon solicited militias from around the country to join them in confronting the federal agents guarding the confiscated cattle. The show of force caused the BLM to stand down and release the cows. The conflict, closely followed by the national media, made Ammon and his father celebrities and established a pattern in which the younger Bundy would aggressively challenge what he deemed to be the federal government's violation of individual rights.

Just two years later, Bundy championed the cause of Oregon ranchers Dwight and Steven Hammond, who were imprisoned for allegedly setting fires on federal land adjacent to their property. Bundy says their prosecution was simply another power play by the government. Rather than accept the United States Court of Appeals decision to re-sentence the Hammonds to an additional five years, Bundy led a group of armed followers to occupy the nearby Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in Harney County, Oregon to protest the court's decision. Again, the national media spotlight was on Bundy. The occupation, which lasted 41 days, ended with an FBI ambush, resulting in the death of one of Bundy's allies, an Arizona rancher named LaVoy Finicum. 

"They shot him three times in the back, and he died in the snow," lamented Bundy.

Bundy and his allies were arrested on January 26, 2016. The FBI simultaneously pursued charges against Bundy for the Oregon occupation and the earlier Bunkerville standoff. He faced life in prison. After spending about two years locked up, he was acquitted of all charges. Then on July 10th of 2018, Trump pardoned the Hammonds, and they were released from prison. 

"That wouldn't have happened if we hadn't made such a big deal out of it," continued Bundy.

Bundy was living in Idaho during the COVID-19 pandemic and was arrested multiple times for protesting lockdown measures. In 2022 he challenged Idaho's Republican establishment by running for governor as an independent. Two months before the primary, the 10-month-old grandson of Ammon's campaign manager was taken by Child Protective Services after doctors at St. Luke's Hospital in Boise suspected the parents were neglecting the child's health. Bundy, furious, accused St. Luke's of kidnapping. The child was returned to his parents six days later, but St. Luke's sued Bundy and his campaign manager, saying they bullied and intimidated staff while disrupting business at the hospital. With the lawsuit pending, Bundy lost the election to the Republican incumbent, Brad Little, though received 17 percent of the vote. Bundy did not show up in court, and he and his co-defendants were ordered to pay St. Luke's nearly $53 million in damages. Bundy's home and most of his assets were seized. He faced the possibility of another lengthy jail sentence.  

"They got a gag order against me where I couldn't speak about (the baby) Cyrus's case. And of course, I kept speaking about it. They kept getting contempt charges until finally they ended up getting a $250,000 bond against me, and I had to leave the state."

Bundy fled with his wife and five kids to Cedar City, Utah, where a friend offered them a one-room attic apartment. He joined his brother's diesel truck parts business and was eventually able to move his family into a house.

After vocally opposing Trump's anti-immigrant rhetoric during his first run for president, Ammon continued to criticize Trump in his second term, drawing parallels between the federal agents who seized his father's cattle and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents acting with impunity in American cities.

"If I and my family were threatened by federal agents in an unconstitutional way, I would do all I could to oppose them. In fact, I have pretty good experience with that," Bundy said in a Facebook post during Operation Metro Surge in Minneapolis in early 2026.

 In 2025, Bundy circulated a self-published essay titled, "The Stranger: A Christian and Constitutional Case for Protecting Those Who Come to America." In the essay, Bundy argues that treating immigrants like criminals simply for lacking "official permission" to cross the United States border violates constitutional ideals and defies the spirit of an American society built by legal and "illegal" immigrants. He also draws heavily on scripture to assert that Christians have a spiritual calling to protect and welcome immigrants.

Bundy's criticisms of Trump's immigration crackdown has cost Bundy friends, including some of his allies from Oregon and Bunkerville. He had a falling out with one former ally who "was bragging about how the ICE agent pulled his gun so fast," to shoot and kill Alex Pretti, the 37-year-old intensive care nurse in Minneapolis. The ally "was someone that literally went to prison with us," continues Bundy. "How in the world do you take that position, after having federal weapons pointed at you? How could you possibly say something like that? It's disgusting."

Despite recent dust-ups with friends and supporters, Bundy remains in high demand for guidance and inspiration. While Reason was filming Bundy in his small auto parts shop fulfilling orders, a friend called him to ask for advice on legal troubles. Bundy reassured him and asked him to send the paperwork over so he could be of better assistance. That inclination just seems to be second nature for Bundy. He's always ready to lend a helping hand, while simultaneously advocating for personal responsibility.

"If you want a healthy nation, you must look at an individual and protect those liberties, protect those freedoms," says Bundy.

As for how Bundy feels about the direction of our current government—it's unflinching. 

"Like George Washington said, government is like a fire. It can be a useful tool or a terrible master. And a terrible master is what our government has become."

 

Photo Credits: Alex Milan Tracy/Sipa USA/Newscom ; Mike Stotts/ZUMAPRESS/Newscom; Andy Nelson/ZUMA Press/Newscom; Vyacheslav Prokofyev/TASS/Newscom; Sean Madden/Planetpix/ZUMA Press/Newscom; Prentice C. James/Cal Sport Media/Newscom; Mark Black/ZUMA Press/Newscom; John Nacion/ZUMA Press/Newscom; Jeremy Hogan/Polaris/Newscom; Karen Focht/ZUMA Press/Newscom; Sarah A. Miller/TNS/Newscom; facebook/realammonbundy; Benjamin Hanson/Middle East Images/StringersHub/Sipa USA/Newscom; Charles Reed/ZUMA Press/Newscom; Carol Guzy/ZUMAPRESS/Newscom; Dave Decker/ZUMAPRESS/Newscom; EyePress/Newscom; Roberto E. Rosales/ZUMAPRESS/Newscom; Carol Guzy/TNS/Newscom; Allison Dinner/ZUMAPRESS/Newscom; National Archives; Library of Congress; Elijah Scott/SiPA USA/Elijah Scott/Sipa USA/Newscom; Jen Golbeck/ZUMAPRESS/Newscom; Lela Edgar/ZUMAPRESS/Newscom; CNP/AdMedia/SIPA/Newscom; Chris Kleponis - CNP/CNP / Polaris/Newscom; Wayne Gooden/Image of Sport/Newscom

Music Credits: "The Tomorrow War" by Or Chausha via Artlist; "Under Pressure" by Michael Kobrin via Artlist; "Beyond the Stories" by Ian Post via Artlist; "Long Road" by Oakfield via Artlist; "Railroad" by Max H. via Artlist; "Hidden Answers" by FableForte via Artlist; "Foreboding" by Kyle Preston via Artlist; "Whodunit" by FableForte via Artlist; "No Decides" by Or Chausha via Artlist; "Witness" by Oliver Michael via Artlist; "It Comes at Night" by Adam Dib via Artlist; "Dusty Roads" by FableForte via Artlist; "Lullaby" by Assaf Ayalon via Artlist; "Unsettled" by Matt Evans via Artlist; "Uneasy Atmosphere" by Matt Evans via Artlist; "Reset" by sero via Artlist; "Dream Life" by DJ Taz Rashid via Artlist; "Can't Lose You" by The Likes of Us via Artlist; "From the Ground Up" by Earth Tone via Artlist; "Pianissimo" by Adrián Berenguer via Artlist; "Washed Away" by Mark Grundhoefer

The post The Anti-Government Rebel Who Turned Against MAGA appeared first on Reason Magazine.

British imams are openly preaching that husbands can beat wives who refuse sex – and the police are doing almost nothing about it.

The post The British Imams Telling Men to Beat Their Wives for Refusing Sex appeared first on The Daily Sceptic.

Russia’s demands for the extradition of International Criminal Court judges and Washington’s sweeping sanctions against the institution have converged within days. The two governments have different grievances, but the consequences of their actions increasingly overlap, raising questions about the political relationship between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin and the future of international criminal justice.

Russia and the United States have intensified their campaigns against the International Criminal Court (ICC) almost simultaneously, exposing an increasingly consequential convergence between the policies of Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump.

On 8 October, Moscow demanded the extradition of ICC President Tomoko Akane and eight other current and former officials. The following day, Washington announced sanctions against the court as an institution, extending earlier measures against individual judges and prosecutors.

The timing raises an obvious question: are these independent campaigns arising from different disputes with international justice, or do they reflect a broader political understanding between Washington and Moscow?

There is no publicly established evidence of a coordinated operation or an agreement between Trump and Putin to undermine the ICC. Nevertheless, the strategic consequences of their respective actions are remarkably similar. Both weaken an institution pursuing criminal proceedings against political leaders whom the two governments seek to protect.

Different grievances, overlapping interests

Russia’s hostility towards the ICC is directly connected to the arrest warrant issued against Putin in March 2023 over the alleged unlawful deportation and transfer of Ukrainian children from occupied territories.

The court subsequently issued warrants against senior Russian military commanders, including Sergei Shoigu and Valery Gerasimov, over alleged crimes involving attacks on Ukrainian civilian infrastructure.

Moscow’s response has been to pursue ICC personnel through its own criminal justice system. The latest extradition demands follow convictions handed down in absentia by a Russian court in December 2025.

Washington’s confrontation with the ICC has a different immediate origin. The Trump administration objects to the court’s jurisdiction over American nationals and Israeli officials, particularly following the arrest warrants issued against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former defence minister Yoav Gallant.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio has presented the American campaign as a defence of US sovereignty. Yet the sanctions announced on 9 October are not confined to the Israeli proceedings or any investigation involving American personnel.

They target the institution itself, potentially disrupting financial transactions and commercial relationships essential to its operation. This distinction matters because a court-wide restriction necessarily affects investigations beyond those cited by Washington. That includes Ukraine.

The Anchorage question

The political context cannot be separated from the relationship between Trump and Putin, including their meeting in Anchorage, Alaska, in August 2025.

The summit formed part of Trump’s efforts to negotiate directly with Moscow over the war in Ukraine. The American president has repeatedly treated relations with Putin as a question of diplomatic bargaining, seeking arrangements that might produce an agreement where conventional Western pressure has failed.

Against this background, suggestions that pressure on the ICC might form part of a wider accommodation with Moscow warrant scrutiny. However, the proposition that Trump specifically offered Putin assistance in neutralising the court during their Anchorage discussions remains unsubstantiated. There is no verified public account establishing such a commitment.

A more defensible conclusion is that Washington’s independently declared campaign against the ICC also advances an important Russian interest. For Putin, the benefit is clear. Measures designed to restrict the court’s financial and administrative capacity could complicate investigations into Russian conduct, irrespective of the American administration’s stated intentions.

The relationship therefore need not involve explicit coordination to produce politically significant results.

Why sanctions against the institution matter

The escalation from targeting individual prosecutors to sanctioning the entire ICC represents a substantial change. Previous American measures imposed personal and financial restrictions on selected officials. The latest approach threatens the broader infrastructure upon which international criminal proceedings depend.

The court requires banking facilities, secure communications, technology services and commercial suppliers. American sanctions can reach beyond US territory because of the international financial system’s dependence on dollar transactions and American service providers.

The ICC had already anticipated this vulnerability. According to details disclosed in September, the institution has pursued alternatives to American software and financial services to reduce its exposure.

Nevertheless, operational continuity and investigative effectiveness are not necessarily the same thing. The court may remain formally functional while facing additional costs, delays and restrictions affecting prosecutors, investigators and international cooperation.

For Ukraine, this is particularly significant. The ICC holds and evaluates evidence connected to alleged Russian war crimes, including the deportation of children and attacks on civilian infrastructure. Its proceedings preserve a judicial process independent of whatever diplomatic settlement Washington and Moscow might eventually negotiate.

Weakening that capacity would not invalidate existing warrants or automatically destroy evidence, but it could make the pursuit of accountability more difficult.

Europe’s response and its limitations

The European Union now faces a dispute with Washington over an institution that European governments have spent decades supporting.

On 9 October, eight governments issued a joint statement, reaffirming their support for the ICC and rejecting the American sanctions. The signatories included Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Britain, Japan and Canada.

The European Commission also indicated that the EU was prepared to take measures necessary to preserve the court’s operations. Such assurances are politically important, but they do not automatically resolve the practical consequences of American restrictions.

European financial institutions and technology suppliers must consider their own exposure to US sanctions. Sustaining the court may require alternative payment arrangements, commercial protections and potentially further European regulatory intervention.

The EU has discussed extending its blocking statute to shield European operators from the effects of American sanctions. Whether that mechanism can provide sufficient protection remains uncertain.

The dispute also extends beyond the ICC’s current investigations. Ukraine and the Council of Europe are developing a separate Special Tribunal for the Crime of Aggression, designed to address jurisdictional limitations preventing the ICC from prosecuting Russia’s leadership for the decision to launch the invasion.

The two institutions have distinct legal mandates, although cooperation between them is envisaged. Undermining the ICC would not automatically prevent the special tribunal from operating, but it would weaken an important part of the wider international accountability framework.

A convergence with consequences for Ukraine

Washington and Moscow have not adopted identical positions towards the ICC. Russia seeks to discredit and punish the officials responsible for pursuing Putin. The Trump administration is attempting to restrict the court’s authority and operational capacity, principally in response to proceedings involving Americans and Israelis.

Yet their actions converge at precisely the point where the ICC’s independence becomes politically inconvenient. The distinction between motive and consequence is essential. It would be premature to describe the American sanctions as evidence of a secret bargain struck in Anchorage. It would be equally mistaken to overlook the assistance these measures could provide to Moscow.

The broader concern is that the United States, traditionally central to Western efforts to hold Russia accountable for its invasion of Ukraine, is now applying pressure to one of the principal institutions carrying out that work.

For European governments, the immediate question is no longer simply whether they support the International Criminal Court. It is whether they are prepared to protect its practical independence when the political and financial pressure comes not only from Russia, but also from Washington.