Tag: police state

SCOTUS Will Consider the Constitutionality of the Federal Ban on Gun Possession by Illegal Drug Users

The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to consider the constitutionality of the federal ban on gun possession by illegal drug users. The Trump administration is urging the justices to overturn a ruling in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit deemed prosecutions under that law inconsistent with the Second Amendment unless there is evidence that the defendant handled firearms while intoxicated. Contrary to what the 5th Circuit held, the government’s petition argues that categorically disarming drug users is “consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation”—the constitutional test established by the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen.

The case, United States v. Hemani, involves a Texas man who was charged with violating 18 USC 922(g)(3), which makes it a felony for an “unlawful user” of “any controlled substance” to receive or possess a firearm. The defendant, Ali Hemani, was the subject of a terrorism investigation that included two searches of the Lewiston, Texas, home he shared with his parents. During the second search, in August 2022, FBI agents found a Glock 19 pistol that belonged to Hemani, along with less than a gram of cocaine and about two ounces of marijuana.

As Amel Ahmed explained in a Reason story about the case last year, the FBI was unable to substantiate its suspicion that Hemani, a native-born U.S. citizen whose parents are from Pakistan, was implicated in financial crimes involving Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. The government’s petition nevertheless implies that Hemani is a dangerous character for reasons that extend beyond his recreational drug use. But that allegation is not relevant to the constitutional question raised by the Supreme Court case.

The law that Hemani was charged with violating applies to millions of Americans who pose no plausible threat to public safety, including cannabis consumers, even if they live in states that have legalized marijuana for medical or recreational use. The 5th Circuit first questioned the constitutionality of Section 922(g)(3) prosecutions in 2023, when it overturned the conviction of Patrick Darnell Daniels Jr., who was sentenced to nearly four years in federal prison after he was caught with two guns and the remains of a few joints during a routine traffic stop in Hancock County, Mississippi.

Keep reading

How Ukrainian Courts Are Weaponizing Lawfare Against Anti-War Voices

The NATO-backed war in Ukraine is portrayed in the West as an ideological war between the democratic Ukraine and the authoritarian Russia. In reality, Ukraine is far from a liberal democratic paradise. Ukraine has nationalized the news media and banned opposing political parties, moves which President Donald Trump has criticized. With elections canceled and weapons being sent to Ukraine, including to neo-Nazi elements in the armed forces, Ukraine is devoid of actual democratic norms. However, most troubling of all is Ukraine’s treatment of activists who oppose a forever war in Russia.

In June of 2024, I reported on how Bogdan Syrotiuk, a Trotskyist and opponent of the Russia-Ukraine war, was jailed for “committing treason” over his writings for the World Socialist Web Site (WSWS). Syrotiuk is not a pro-Russian sycophant; as Matt Taibbi reported, the chairman of the Socialist Equality Party, which published the WSWS, opposed the Russian invasion and described the publication as “bitter enemies of the Putin government”. Syrotiuk now faces a sentence of 15 years to life in prison with the courts repeatedly extending his pre-trial detention without evidence or bail. These violations of any semblance of due process were so blatant that the European Court of Human Rights has now accepted his case.

The European Court accepted the case on the grounds that the Ukrainian government has restricted his right to liberty. This is a violation of Article 5 of the European Convention of Human Rights, which Ukraine has partially suspended under martial law. Ironically, the Ukrainian court cited the Iliykov v Bulgaria which forbade countries from denying bail or holding people in pre-trial detention based solely on suspicion. The Ukrainian court completely reversed the meaning of the ruling by citing the case as precedent for its actions. The court’s shady proceedings call into question the very legitimacy of the Ukrainian court system.

Further evidence of Ukraine’s judicial illegitimacy lies in its procedural irregularity. For example, in numerous rulings, the court employed similar language in response to the requests of prosecutions from the Ukrainian Security Service (SBU). In fact, large portions were blatantly copied and pasted, suggesting that the courts are merely a rubber stamp for the SBU. Furthermore, in October of 2025, the court ruled against a motion to dismiss the judge for bias. These harsh measures reveal an underlying authoritarian system that punishes dissidents for “thought crimes”.

Syrotiuk has faced horrible conditions in an overcrowded prison in Nikolaev for over a year. Syrotiuk faces severe dental problems exacerbated by the prison’s low-quality food and poor hygiene. Additionally, the Ukrainian government has repeatedly postponed a dental appointment outside the prison. Poor prison conditions and rampant lawfare are designed to discourage dissent. Through measures like these, the Ukrainian government is purposely creating a culture of fear to control the public.

Bogdan Syrotiuk’s story is similar to those of other activists like Gonzalo Lira and Yurii Sheliazhenko. Both Lira and Sheliazhenko were arrested by the SBU for allegedly justifying the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Like Syrotiuk, Lira also faced medical neglect. Shortly before his death in prison, Lira wrote a letter in which he stated “I have had double pneumonia (both lungs) as well as pneumothorax and a very severe case of edema (swelling of the body). All this started in mid-October, but was ignored by the prison.”

Regardless of political persuasion, the right to freedom of speech should be inalienable. Bogdan Syrotiuk’s fight against Ukrainian lawfare and harsh prison conditions is ignored by mainstream media to keep Americans and Europeans supportive of a war that does not serve their interests. Citizens of the West must demand accountability from their governments about the true nature of nations which they are financially supporting. The damning examples of Ukraine using lawfare against political dissidents prove that the Russia-Ukraine war is about geopolitical hegemony rather than a genuine struggle for democracy.

Keep reading

El Paso family claims Border Patrol killed their dog during search, CBP reviewing incident

U.S. Customs and Border Protection says they are reviewing a “use of force incident” in El Paso, after a family says a Border Patrol agent unjustifiably shot and killed their dog.

According to CBP, the incident happened on Tuesday at around 7:15 a.m.

Without offering specifics, CBP said that during a migrant smuggling investigation in El Paso, a U.S. Border Patrol Agent “was involved in a use of force incident” involving a dog.

CBP stressed that it is taking the matter seriously and said it will provide more information when it becomes available, providing no mention of any migrants being found.

However, KFOX14/CBS4 spoke with a distraught family from the Upper Valley who claimed to have been the victims of this incident and said the agents went into the home and shot and killed their dog.

The father, who wished to remain anonymous, said Border Patrol agents in jeans and t-shirts showed up at his son’s home looking for migrants after receiving a tip.

The son answered the door and, while he permitted the agents to search his home, claiming he had nothing to hide, he asked if they could wait first while he put the family dog, Chop, a Rottweiler, away in the bathroom before they walked in, as the dog could be aggressive.

Border Patrol agents then asked the son if he could show them some identification.

According to the family, it is at this point that the son went to his pickup truck to retrieve his ID and a Border Patrol agent entered the home and, as a result, ended up shooting the dog.

The family stressed that the agents knew– the son had told them– that Chop was put in the bathroom for their safety and that the agents opened the door, let Chop out and shot him.

The family appeared upset and disgusted by the agent’s actions, saying that they were following orders and trying to be upstanding citizens, only for an agent to kill “a family member.”

Furthermore, the family said none of the Border Patrol agents helped the family, who desperately tried to render aid to the dog, which bled to death on the kitchen floor.

Keep reading

Germany’s War on Satire: AfD MP Fined €11,250 for Meme While Leftist Magazine Is Celebrated After It Depicts Trump Giving Hitler Salute

Germany is no longer a democracy — it’s a warning. A German court has just fined AfD lawmaker Petr Bystron €11,250 for sharing a satirical meme online, while the country’s liberal establishment laughs as one of its biggest magazines once showed President Donald Trump giving the Hitler salute on its cover with the headline “Sein Kampf” (“His Struggle”).

That cover made international headlines in 2017. No prosecutor, no police, no criminal charge. It was called “art.”

But when Bystron — a conservative member of parliament — posted a meme mocking Ukraine’s former ambassador Andrij Melnyk, who had publicly defended a Nazi collaborator, the German justice system came crashing down on him.

Mock a Nazi Apologist? Get Convicted in Germany.

The meme, published in July 2022, showed German politicians “waving goodbye” to Melnyk after his recall from Berlin. Prosecutors said the waves looked like “Hitler salutes.” You can’t make this up.

Bystron’s real “crime”? Daring to expose hypocrisy in a system that protects globalists and punishes dissent.

Melnyk, the Ukrainian diplomat at the center of it all, had told a German interviewer that Stepan Bandera, a Nazi collaborator responsible for mass killings of Jews and Poles, was “no mass murderer.” That statement caused outrage in Poland and Israel — but in Germany’s woke establishment? Nothing. Melnyk stayed a hero. He was later promoted by Volodymyr Zelensky to Deputy Foreign Minister.

Bystron mocked that insanity — and Germany called him the extremist.

Keep reading

On the Precipice of Authoritarian Rule

Earlier this month, President Donald Trump threatened to unleash the armed forces on more American cities during a rambling address to top military brass. He told the hundreds of generals and admirals gathered to hear him that some of them would be called upon to take a primary role at a time when his administration has launched occupations of American cities, deployed tens of thousands of troops across the United States, created a framework for targeting domestic enemies, cast his political rivals as subhuman, and asserted his right to wage secret war and summarily execute those he deems terrorists.

Trump used that bizarre speech to take aim at cities he claimed “are run by the radical left Democrats,” including Chicago, Los Angeles, New York, and San Francisco. “We’re going to straighten them out one by one. And this is going to be a major part for some of the people in this room,” he said. “That’s a war too. It’s a war from within.” He then added: “We should use some of these dangerous cities as training grounds for our military.”

Trump has, of course, already deployed the armed forces inside the United States in an unprecedented fashion during the first year of his second term in office. As September began, a federal judge found that his decision to occupy Los Angeles with members of California’s National Guard — under so-called Title 10 or federalized status — against the wishes of California Governor Gavin Newsom was illegal. But just weeks later, Trump followed up by ordering the military occupation of Portland, Oregon, over Governor Tina Kotek’s objections.

“I am directing Secretary of War, Pete Hegseth, to provide all necessary Troops to protect War ravaged Portland and any of our ICE Facilities under siege from attack by Antifa, and other domestic terrorists,” Trump wrote on Truth Social late last month. And he “authoriz[ed] Full Force, if necessary.”

When a different federal judge blocked him from deploying Oregon National Guardsmen to the city, he ordered in Guard members from California and Texas. That judge then promptly blocked his effort to circumvent her order, citing the lack of a legal basis for sending troops into Portland. In response, Trump threatened to invoke the Insurrection Act — an 1807 law that grants the president emergency powers to deploy troops on U.S. soil — to “get around” the court rulings blocking his military occupation efforts. “I think that’s all insurrection, really criminal insurrection,” he claimed, in confused remarks from the Oval Office.

Experts say that his increasing use of the armed forces within the United States represents an extraordinary violation of the Posse Comitatus Act. That bedrock nineteenth-century law banning the use of federal troops to execute domestic law enforcement has long been seen as fundamental to America’s democratic tradition. However, the president’s deployments continue to nudge this country ever closer to becoming a genuine police state. They come amid a raft of other Trump administration authoritarian measures designed to undermine the Constitution and weaken democracy. Those include attacks on birthright citizenship and free speech, as well as the exercise of expansive unilateral powers like deporting people without due process and rolling back energy regulations, citing wartime and emergency powers.

Keep reading

Alert: Spanish Priest Facing Years in Prison for Comment That Offended Muslims

If you pay any attention to American ideological discourse, you’ve no doubt heard the one about “Christian nationalism.”

It’s this bogeyman idea that Christians are trying to take over the world politically, culturally, and spiritually (as if that’s a bad thing).

For anyone paying attention to the world, however, you’re no doubt aware of just how perilous — and powerless — life is for Christians outside of America’s protection.

Father Custodio Ballester, a Catholic priest in Spain, is facing the possibility of very real prison time on charges of “Islamaphobia,” according to a harrowing report from The Christian Broadcasting Network.

Ballester is facing up to three years in prison for this charge, as well as fines.

The big crime? Answering a question about the possibility of an interfaith dialogue between Christians and Muslims.

(It can’t be stressed enough that this happened in 2016, nearly a full decade ago.)

“This renewed revival of Christian-Muslim dialogue, paralyzed by the alleged ‘imprudence’ of the beloved Benedict XVI, is far from a reality,” Ballester wrote in a letter, responding to the question. “Islam does not allow for dialogue. You either believe or you are an infidel who must be subdued one way or another.”

The Christian Broadcasting Network added: “In a 2017 YouTube video, Ballester expanded on his 2016 remarks, warning that Islam not only poses a threat in Europe, but also that in many Muslim-majority countries, Christians face persecution.”

Despite the rote — and fairly accurate — description of Islamic culture, Ballester incensed the Association of Spanish Muslims Against Islamophobia.

Keep reading

‘Inactive’ Chicago Cop Sentenced To 20 Years In Prison For Sexual Abuse Of Minors

An “inactive” Chicago police officer has been sentenced to 20 years in prison after pleading guilty to charges that he sexually abused minors, the Cook County Sheriff’s Office announced.

David Deleon, 32, pled guilty Friday to one count of criminal sexual abuse and two counts of aggravated criminal sexual abuse of victims under 18, Sheriff Tom Dart’s office announced. He was sentenced to 20 years in prison in the guilty plea.

Deleon’s conviction comes after his arrest in 2023, when officers with northwest suburb Norridge’s police department charged him with aggravated criminal sexual abuse of a minor. Norridge police seized Deleon’s phone, which included evidence that he sexually assaulted and abused minors and recorded lewd videos of himself with minors, according to the sheriff’s office.

Norridge police turned the evidence over to Chicago police, who forwarded it to the sheriff’s Internet Crimes Against Children unit.

Investigators found Deleon, who lived in Edison Park, met his victims while working as a Chicago police officer and would invite them to sleep at his home, the sheriff’s office said.

Deleon was charged in August 2023 with criminal sexual abuse and assault as well as two counts of manufacturing child pornography, two counts of possession of child pornography and one count of unauthorized videotaping, the sheriff’s office announced at the time.

Deleon agreed to plead guilty to the sexual abuse and assault charges in exchange for prosecutors dropping the other charges, according to the Tribune. He has been in jail since his August 2023 arrest.

Deleon was stripped of his police powers following the 2023 charges, according to the sheriff’s office. He is considered an “inactive” employee with the Chicago Police Department, a spokesperson said.

Keep reading

Australia Advances National Facial Recognition Network Despite Privacy Concerns

Australia is moving forward with a national facial recognition network that will link millions of citizens’ identity documents, despite ongoing uncertainty about privacy safeguards.

The National Driver Licence Facial Recognition Solution (NDLFRS) will merge biometric data from driver’s licenses and passports so that both government departments and private businesses can verify individuals’ identities.

The proposal dates back eight years but has recently accelerated. The Digital Transformation Agency confirmed that the Department of Home Affairs will host the system, while each state and territory will continue to manage its own data.

The agency stated that the project aims “to protect Australian people from identity theft, to manage and prevent crime, to increase road safety and to improve identity verification.”

It also noted that “Tasmania, Victoria and South Australia have provided data to the NDLFRS, with other states and territories to follow.”

Although the initiative remains marked as “unendorsed,” the government is preparing to activate key components.

The Attorney-General’s Department has announced that the accompanying Face Verification Service (FVS), which checks whether a person’s facial image matches the photo held in official records, is expected to begin operation in 2025.

Keep reading

Canada Bill Sponsor Says Age Verification, Blocking Powers, Could Apply to Any Site, Even Social Media

A new Canadian Senate proposal on age verification has raised serious questions about the future of free expression and online access.

The bill’s sponsor has confirmed that the government would have the authority to decide which websites fall under its control, including platforms that have nothing to do with pornography.

Senator Julie Miville-Dechêne, who introduced Bill S-209, told a Senate committee that enforcement would ultimately be at the discretion of the federal government. “The government will decide on the scope, so the government could decide to include social media like X in its choices,” she said.

That statement cuts to the core of the controversy. The Protecting Young Persons from Exposure to Pornography Act was introduced as a measure aimed at sites that make adult content available for commercial purposes.

Yet, according to its sponsor, the government could extend it to any platform where some form of explicit content can be found, even if it is incidental or user-generated.

Bill S-209 completed its second reading in the Senate on June 12, 2025, and is now under committee review, which last met on October 9.

If passed, it would empower the government to impose mandatory age ID verification requirements across a wide range of online services. Those who fail to comply could face court-ordered blocking by Canadian internet service providers.

Although the proposal is framed as protecting minors, its broad wording leaves the door open for the government to demand compliance from social media companies, search engines, or discussion forums where adult material may appear in isolated cases.

Under Section 12, the Cabinet is granted full regulatory authority to determine which sites are covered and to set the rules for verification technologies.

Keep reading

Canada’s AG Claims Anti-“Hate” Law Isn’t About Censorship

Governments around the world have a long history of introducing laws that restrict speech while insisting they are not acts of censorship.

Each new proposal is framed as a measure to promote safety, combat misinformation, or protect vulnerable communities, yet the result is often the same: expanded state authority over what citizens can say or share.

Now Canada’s Attorney General Sean Fraser is attempting to reassure Canadians that the federal government’s new hate speech legislation, Bill C-9, is not a disguised attempt to police online expression.

The proposal, already facing strong opposition from free expression advocates, introduces new “hate-related” offenses and expands police powers over what is labeled “hatred” in the Criminal Code.

Fraser told MPs that the government is not seeking to criminalize internet activity that is currently legal.

“We should recognize there are many acts we may find offensive that do not constitute hate for the purpose of the Criminal Code,” he said during his appearance before the Commons justice committee.

He insisted the bill’s purpose is not censorship, even as he confirmed that its provisions would apply equally to speech on the internet and in public spaces.

The legislation, officially titled An Act To Amend The Criminal Code (Combatting Hate Act), also bans the display of Nazi and Hamas symbols that are deemed to promote hatred, makes it an offense to obstruct religious or cultural ceremonies, and rewrites how “hatred” is defined.

The bill frames it as “the emotion that involves detestation or vilification and that is stronger than disdain or dislike.”

Free speech advocates have warned that this rewording lowers the legal bar by abandoning the Supreme Court’s requirement that hatred must be “an emotion of an intense and extreme nature.”

Fraser responded that any online statement would only be subject to prosecution if it already met the threshold for hate propaganda under existing law. “The only circumstance where you could imagine some online comment attracting scrutiny under this law would attach to behavior that is criminal today but is punished less severely,” he told the committee.

Keep reading