Category World News

ICC judges stoic in face of US sanctions over Israeli war crimes cases

By in News, World News

Judges and prosecutors at the International Criminal Court (ICC) have been cut off by banks, credit card companies and tech giants like Amazon as a result of sanctions brought by the United States President Donald Trump administration over war crimes investigations into Israeli and US officials.

The Associated Press news agency reported on Friday on the sweeping and punitive effect of the US sanctions on nine staff members – including six judges and the chief prosecutor – of The Hague court.

Recommended Stories

list of 4 itemsend of list

The measures, introduced in an executive order by Trump earlier this year, block their access to basic financial services and everyday activities like online shopping and email, and prevent them from entering the US, subjecting them to the same restrictions as those brought against figures like Russian President Vladimir Putin, who nevertheless was allowed to visit the US state of Alaska for a summit with Trump in August.

“Your whole world is restricted,” Canadian judge Kimberly Prost, one of the ICC officials targeted by the sanctions, told AP.

The ICC, the world’s permanent war crimes tribunal with 125 member states, was targeted with the restrictions in February, with the White House saying the move was in response to the “illegitimate and baseless actions targeting America and our close ally Israel”.

The order followed the ICC’s move to issue arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant for “crimes against humanity and war crimes” committed during its genocidal war on Gaza.

Neither Israel nor the US is a member of the ICC.

‘Now I’m on a list with those implicated in terrorism’

Prost, who was named in the latest round of sanctions in August, told AP that she had lost access to her credit cards, had purchased e-books vanish from her device, and Amazon’s Alexa stopped responding to her.

“It’s the uncertainty,” she said. “They are small annoyances, but they accumulate.”

Prost had been sanctioned for voting to allow the court’s investigation into alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity committed in Afghanistan, including by US soldiers and intelligence operatives.

“I’ve worked all my life in criminal justice, and now I’m on a list with those implicated in terrorism and organised crime,” she said.

Luz del Carmen Ibanez Carranza, a sanctioned Peruvian judge, said the US travel sanctions, which also extended to family members, meant her daughters could no longer attend conferences in the US.

The sanctions threaten businesses and individuals with substantial US fines and prison time if they provide sanctioned people with “financial, material, or technological support”, driving them to withdraw services to the targeted individuals.

“You’re never quite sure when your card is not working somewhere, whether this is just a glitch or whether this is the sanction,” deputy prosecutor Nazhat Shameem Khan told the AP.

Reports of threats over warrants

The sanctions are reportedly only one of the measures that have been levelled against the court in an attempt to exert pressure over the arrest warrants against Netanyahu and Gallant.

In July, the Middle East Eye (MEE) website reported that the court’s chief prosecutor, Karim Khan, was warned that he and the ICC would be “destroyed” if the warrants were not withdrawn.

The threat reportedly came from Nicholas Kaufman, a British-Israeli defence lawyer at the court linked to a Netanyahu adviser. Khan said the Israeli leader’s legal adviser told him he was “authorised” to make Khan a proposal that would allow the prosecutor to “climb down the tree”, the news website reported.

The site reported in August that Khan had also been privately warned by then-British Foreign Secretary David Cameron in April the previous year that the UK would defund and withdraw from the ICC if it issued the warrants against Netanyahu and Gallant, while in May 2024, US Republican Senator Lindsey Graham also “threatened” Khan with sanctions if he applied for the warrants.

In May, Khan’s office announced he had taken a leave of absence pending the conclusion of a UN-led investigation into allegations of sexual misconduct against him, with two deputy prosecutors assuming his responsibilities.

Why is Trump demanding travellers’ social media handles; how will it work?

By in News, World News

The United States is planning to require some visitors to provide their social media history from the past five years, according to US President Donald Trump’s administration.

This requirement will apply to visitors who do not need a visa to enter the US.

Here is a closer look at this proposal:

What is the US planning to do?

The proposal was announced on the Federal Register by the US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) on Wednesday. It will enable officials to collect up to five years of social media history from travellers from certain visa-waiver countries before they can enter the country.

The proposal states that this mandatory social media history disclosure is in line with Executive Order 14161, signed by Trump in January 2025.

That order, titled “Protecting the United States from foreign terrorists and other national security and public safety threats”, required US government agencies to increase their vetting of foreign nationals entering the country.

Who would this affect?

The requirement will apply to travellers using the Electronic System for Travel Authorization (ESTA) under the US’s Visa Waiver Program.

The Visa Waiver Program permits citizens of 42 countries – including the United Kingdom, Germany, Qatar, Greece, Malta, New Zealand, Australia, Japan, Israel and South Korea – to travel to the US for tourism or business purposes for up to 90 days.

At present, the ESTA automatically screens applicants and grants travel approval without requiring an in-person interview at a US embassy or consulate, unlike standard visa applications. Applicants are required to provide a more limited set of information, such as their parents’ names, current email address and details of any past criminal record.

Since 2016, the ESTA has included an optional question asking travellers to disclose their social media information.

How would this work?

Once the proposal comes into effect, visitors will be required to provide CBP with a list of their social media handles or usernames used over the past five years.

The visitors would not have to give CBP their social media log‑in credentials or passwords. They will use this information to review the publicly accessible information on the social media profiles of these visitors.

The new notice also states that travellers will have to provide additional personal information, including all telephone numbers used over the past five years and email addresses used over the previous 10 years.

Authorities also said they plan to add what are described as “high-value data fields” to the ESTA application “when feasible”. These will include metadata from electronically submitted photographs, extensive personal details about applicants’ family members, such as their places of birth and telephone numbers used over the past five years, as well as biometric information, including fingerprints, DNA and iris data.

The announcement did not include information about what the administration will be looking for within social media accounts of visitors or why it is asking for that information.

It is unclear when the proposal will take effect. However, the public now has 60 days to submit comments about the proposed changes before they are finalised, the notice in the Federal Register states.

Why is the US government doing this now?

Travellers from non-Visa Waiver Program countries have been required to disclose their social media handles since 2019. This is an extension of that.

That measure was first introduced by the Trump administration during his first term as president, and was kept in place during President Joe Biden’s tenure.

The CBP and US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) have been seeking to significantly broaden the existing social media disclosure rules for some time.

“USCIS has proposed to extend the social media disclosure requirement to applicants for other immigration benefits as well – up through naturalisation,” Caroline DeCell, a senior staff attorney and legislative adviser at Columbia University’s Knight First Amendment Institute, told Al Jazeera.

In June this year, the State Department also announced that it now requires all F, M and J visa applicants to make their social media profiles public as part of enhanced screening to identify national security threats.

Most social media platforms allow users to either keep their profiles private or make them public.

Private profiles can only be viewed by people actively added as friends – this includes all posts, photos, videos or other content posted by the profile user. Content posted on public profiles can be viewed by anyone.

This relates to student visas for those enrolled in accredited colleges, or in vocational or technical, non‑academic educational programmes. It also covers exchange visitors participating in approved exchange study programmes.

“A US visa is a privilege, not a right,” the State Department statement from June said.

What are the privacy implications of this?

DeCell said that if the CBP proposal is approved, the privacy implications would be “significant” as it will require disclosure not only of social media handles, but also of all phone numbers used in the past five years and email addresses used in the past 10 years, as well as biometric data.

“Even travellers who post publicly on social media typically maintain some expectation of obscurity, if not privacy, online. And those who use pseudonymous social media handles or email addresses would be directly deprived of their online anonymity,” she said.

DeCell added that if the USCIS proposal to seek this information for all immigration visa and citizenship applicants is also approved, besides the CBP proposal for travellers from visa waiver countries, “then nearly every non-US citizen who seeks to enter or remain in the United States would be subject to indefinite social media surveillance by the US government”.

Under the USCIS proposal, US citizens who petition in support of their relatives’ immigration applications would also be subjected to this “surveillance”.

What are the implications for freedom of speech?

The First Amendment to the US Constitution guarantees the freedom of religion, speech, the press and peaceful assembly.

However, DeCell warned that this expanding system will deter free speech online and many foreigners will be put off from travelling to the US, whether for work or leisure.

Fans slam FIFA, demand halt to ‘extortionate’ 2026 World Cup ticket sales

By in News, World News

Football’s leading fan organisations have demanded FIFA immediately stop selling tickets for next year’s World Cup, to be played in the United States, Canada and Mexico, warning that prices reaching nearly $9,000 for premium final seats will exclude supporters from the tournament.

Football Supporters Europe, which called the ticket pricing “extortionate”, issued the call on Thursday after national associations began circulating price lists showing costs up to seven times higher than the 2022 World Cup in Qatar.

Recommended Stories

list of 2 itemsend of list

The group described the pricing structure as a “monumental betrayal” of the tournament’s traditions and called for urgent consultations before sales continue.

A fan attending every match next June and July from the group stage through the championship game faces costs of at least $6,900 via official supporter channels, based on price details released by Germany, England and Croatia’s football federations.

Premium tickets for the July 19 final at MetLife Stadium in New York are priced at $8,680, compared with roughly $1,600 for the equivalent category in Qatar.

FIFA is already under the microscope in the wake of its President Gianni Infantino’s effusive praise for US President Donald Trump and the doling out by the world football governing body of an inaugural peace prize award to the US leader, who was infuriated to be bypassed for this year’s Nobel Peace Prize.

That has triggered a formal complaint over ethics violations and political neutrality. Human rights group FairSquare said on Tuesday that it has filed a complaint with FIFA’s ethics committee, claiming the organisation’s behaviour was against the common interests of the global football community.

The latest controversy comes as FIFA began its third phase of ticket sales, with variable pricing now applied to group stage matches based on what the governing body terms fixture “attractiveness”, though it has not explained how this is calculated.

England’s opening match against Croatia carries a $523 price tag for seats behind the goal, while Scotland supporters will pay less for comparable matches, creating what critics call an opaque two-tier system.

“For the prices that have been put up by FIFA, we’re a bit stunned,” Football Supporters Europe executive director Ronan Evain said.

He warned that final tickets approaching $4,000 would strip stadiums of the atmosphere that makes the tournament compelling, adding that “none of this will happen” at current pricing levels.

Henry Winter, a prominent football writer in the UK, cautioned that excluding passionate supporters who generate atmosphere risks turning the competition into what he termed the “Corporate Games,” potentially leaving broadcasters, who pay FIFA substantial sums, facing empty seats and muted crowds.

For fans travelling from outside North America, the financial burden extends far beyond tickets. Gary Al-Smith, who covers African football, noted that supporters “will fly in from outside the US, spend on lodging and feeding,” warning this would prove “one helluva costly World Cup for fans”.

The pricing represents a dramatic departure from FIFA’s 2018 bid document for the tournament across the US, Canada and Mexico, which projected group stage tickets starting at $21.

Kilmar Abrego Garcia freed from US immigration detention, returns home

By in News, World News

Kilmar Abrego Garcia, whose case has become a flashpoint in the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown in the United States, has been freed from detention on a judge’s order and returned to his home, according to reports.

Abrego Garcia was due to check in with US immigration officials on Friday, The Associated Press news agency reported, a day after returning to his home following his release from an immigration processing centre in the latest twist in a convoluted case of deportation and detention targeting the Maryland man.

Recommended Stories

list of 4 itemsend of list

In a ruling on Thursday, US District Judge Paula Xinis in Maryland ordered Immigration and Customs Enforcement to let Abrego Garcia go immediately, writing that federal authorities had detained him again after his return to the US without any legal basis.

The face of Trump’s hardline immigration policies

Abrego Garcia has an American wife and children and has lived in Maryland for years, under protected legal status since 2019, when a judge ruled he should not be deported because he could be harmed in his home country by a gang that targeted his family. He originally moved to the US without documentation as a teenager.

He then became the highest-profile case among more than 200 people sent to the notorious El Salvador’s CECOT mega-prison as part of President Donald Trump’s crackdown on refugees, migrants and asylum seekers in the US.

He was wrongfully deported by the Trump administration to El Salvador in March. A court later ordered his return to the US, where he was detained again, as immigration officials sought to deport him to a series of African countries instead of El Salvador.

‘Judicial activism’

The Department of Homeland Security slammed Thursday’s ruling and said it would appeal, labelling the decision as “naked judicial activism” by a judge appointed during President Barack Obama’s administration.

“This order lacks any valid legal basis, and we will continue to fight this tooth and nail in the courts,” said Tricia McLaughlin, the department’s assistant secretary.

Abrego Garcia’s lawyer, Simon Sandoval-Moshenberg, said he expected his client’s ordeal was far from over, and he was preparing to defend him against further deportation efforts.

“The government still has plenty of tools in their toolbox,” Sandoval-Moshenberg said.

“We’re going to be there to fight to make sure there is a fair trial.”

The lawyer said the judge’s ruling had made it clear that the government could not detain a person indefinitely without legal authority, adding that Abrego Garcia had already “endured more than anyone should ever have to”.

Abrego Garcia has filed a federal lawsuit claiming the Trump administration is illegally using the deportation process to punish him due to the attention his case received.

Since his return, federal authorities have also filed charges against Abrego Garcia for alleged human smuggling related to a 2022 traffic stop.

He has pleaded not guilty and filed a motion to dismiss the charges, claiming the prosecution is vindictive.

In her ruling on Thursday, Judge Xinis said Trump lawyers “affirmatively misled” the court, including falsely claiming that Costa Rica had rescinded an offer to accept Abrego Garcia.

Abrego Garcia has said he was willing to resettle there in the event he was deported from the US.