The US ambassador had Belgian police stop our reporting
europeancorrespondent.com
europeancorrespondent.com
Belgium has been pretty repressive towards certain journalists for a while now. Our "World Press Freedom Index"-score has gone down a fair bit in recent years, and rightly so. The current prime minister and his friends have a history of litigating against journalists who exposed some questionable deals, so it's all to be expected.
As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people.
Also Congress was meant to be the democratic representation of the people. Technically, the president is elected by the states.
* https://noscommunes.ca/petitions/fr/Petition/Details?Petitio...
From Wikipedia:
«In February 2026, French authorities restricted Kushner’s direct access to government ministers after he failed to attend a summons from Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot, sending a senior embassy official in his place. The French foreign ministry cited an "apparent failure to grasp the basic requirements of the ambassadorial mission".»
It somehow seems like a huge number of people are working to throw America down the drain faster.
One almost wonders if the US admin is actively trying to get one of its ambassadors declared persona non grata.
This is incorrect. A pardon is not an expungement. The conviction remains a usable historical fact and could still be referenced in later legal procedings.
Exact ramifications vary between innocence-based pardons, rehabilitiation-based pardons, and pure discretionary clemency.
This is part of the reason why people will sometimes not accept a pardon.
Is that not a commonly misunderstood myth? You do not have to sign anything admitting guilt.
different courts have said different things. the more recent courts have said it only removes the punishment
you were still found guilty, so the guilt is still there
Like if a pardon is issued before trial, under normal circumstances the prosecutor will drop charges and the pardonee does not need to accept it. Further, a prosecutor won't go after charges when someone is pardoned.
These are the cases where a pardon wouldn't imply guilt.
But generally speaking, pardons happen after a conviction and not before. Accepting a pardon ends appeals.
I also even stipulated that people could not be made to forget about it. Yet, you then reiterate that after telling me I was incorrect.
Politics became a social media-based reality show, replacing policy with vibes.
That's what they want you to think. See the gent sitting down next to your elected VP? That is a "prince", a scion of an Arab FAMILY. The grifter twit standing over them? Another "prince", this time of a Jewish FAMILY.
They have goals; they have policy preferences, I assure you. Trillions of dollars are involved.
Let's just call a spade a spade: this is the emergence of Oligarchy International, sold to us as "a time of confusion because of media chaos".
You elected a sexual predator and conman with a cult of personality as president, twice
It reads like a low-level mafia guy from New Jersey. The only thing missing from the story was faking his death.
Example:
> [Charles] Kushner hired a prostitute to seduce his brother-in-law, arranging to record a sexual encounter between the two and send the tape to his sister.
Since we are talking about American ambassadors, Mike Huckabee, American ambassador to Israel, doesn't seem like to work for America, it feels like he is an ambassador for Israel
I wish that was a joke, but its not, and it's terrifying.
So: Jewish holy book? You're correct. Christian holy book? Answer is dependent on the sect of Christianity you are talking about.
The earliest Christians thought that Jesus would return while they were still alive.
Other people have read all kinds of things into the texts which aren't really there.
Probably Epstein files on Trump, some sort of equivalent awfulness for the rest.
The opposing side hates them, so naturally, because we are all semi-developed monkeys, you need to support them. No matter what.
> I feel the nation should be supported and deserves to exist
this is to say, you believe that israel should be supported in what it does, and that the inhumane stuff deserves to happen.
you arent in conflict with the conservative party.
if you said the same about nazi germany - that the nation should be supported and deserves to exist, that would be a very explicit support for the genocide.
the government is doing the things you want it to
Except you purposefully cut off where I said they're doing inhumane things that are not defense. I DO support their right to exist, but not their tactics. They're slaughtering tens of thousands of innocent people for every terrorist they get.
> you arent in conflict with the conservative party.
I assure you, I am. In most ways.
> if you said the same about nazi germany - that the nation should be supported and deserves to exist, that would be a very explicit support for the genocide.
Does Germany have a right to exist? Yes. Did Germany have a right to exist in 1918 and in 1939? Yes. Did it have the right to start two major wars and slaughter tens of millions? No.
You CAN support someone's right to exist without also supporting EVERYTHING they might ever do. That's a ridiculously extreme statement.
> the government is doing the things you want it to
Again, no, it's not. You ignored half of what I said and then decided supporting existence equals supporting genocide.
I regret this reply already, this was not a serious attempt at a conversation on your part.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolf_warrior_diplomacy
This kind of antagonism comes from the top. China mostly toned it down recently because it is ideology-driven counter-productive, we will see how long it takes the US to do the same.
I at one point took the FS exam and planned to go into the FS (and therefore know the process, how career progression works, and know people who did end up joining). I know how the US system works, but not anyone else's.
Only the best people!
Top. Men.
"In three medical papers done in Israel, Canada, and the US, oral suction following circumcision was suggested as a cause in 11 cases of neonatal herpes " lovely.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Defamation_League#Circumc...
When Iceland tried to ban it, the ADL had some very choice words about the potential consequences.
> Greenblatt sent Iceland's Parliament a letter regarding a proposed infant circumcision ban in that country, arguing that the ban should be rejected due to circumcision's religious significance and health benefits. Greenblatt also said that if the ban passed, the ADL would report on any celebration by antisemites and other extremists, asserting that this would deter tourism and harm Iceland's economy
It's scary stuff.
A perceived attack on circumcision is an attack on the fundamentalist religion that the Americans currently in power claim to follow.
No one here is getting arrested for doing a normal at-home bris, even if it's technically illegal.
If everything is antisemitism then nothing is antisemitism.
One of the mohels was from the US, it was viewed as asking for US citizens to have special treatment in the Belgian legal system.
Or reworded: "Belgian police stop our reporting simply because some foreign ambassador asked for it"
If, indeed, the park was rented out for a private affair and the person managing that affair asked that someone be removed from the property, then like any case of trespass, it is within the purview of the police to remove that person.
It doesn't make the US look good, but I don't think it reflects poorly on the behavior of the Belgian police.
Local laws also matter.
In the US, getting someone removed from a public event without or with fabricated cause is likely to cause problems down the road, as the removed people might be likely to win lawsuits.
Belgium has probably - like the rest of the EUb - far weaker freedom of speech protections,
But IANAL, and just a second rate, third hand armchair commentator.
The only point of inauthenticity is that neither journalist suffered any lasting physical harm.
And that the fuzz "disagreed with detaining them". The real experience involves them doubling, tripling down, etc. and threatening to "find a reason". By their logic, they are never and could never be wrong.
I did some search on freedom250.org and found this interesting piece of TOS: YOU WAIVE AND HOLD HARMLESS THE COMPANY AND ITS AFFILIATES, LICENSEES, AND SERVICE PROVIDERS FROM ANY CLAIMS RESULTING FROM ANY ACTION TAKEN BY THE COMPANY/ANY OF THE FOREGOING PARTIES DURING, OR TAKEN AS A CONSEQUENCE OF, INVESTIGATIONS BY EITHER THE COMPANY/SUCH PARTIES OR LAW ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITIES.
also it seems to be an wholly owned subsidiary of a Non profit (national park foundation): https://www.nationalparks.org/freedom-250-faqs#:~:text=NPS%2...
I am not a lawyer but I am unsure if this terms of service applies to the website or anything in general and if the European correspondent can sue freedom250.org or not
The congressionally created organization that was supposed to run the 250th events was America 250 - it was created in 2016 (IIRC). When Trump was re-elected, he spun up Freedom250, redirected funds to it, and started accepting bribes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolf_warrior_diplomacy#Bondaz_...
The reason why people like this don't care about the Streisand effect is that they are not afraid about a one-time scandal. The value they get out of harassing their victim and potentially having them stop reporting is worth a bad buzz that people will eventually forget.
Usually incidents like this (in the US) come from activists who are very bad at "picking their battles wisely." In this case, I don't think a battle was picked going in, as there was an assumption of a fair dialog, and the way the police acted implies that they (police) were hoodwinked into doing something they normally wouldn't do.
A bigger question is, what is the expected outcome from this reporting? Is it that Brussels shouldn't welcome events like this? Is it that the US needs to elect different leaders?
Definitely the latter. The primary goal of all journalists is to brainwash people into voting against their own interests.
Well, considering the EU's general direction, that is perpahsp appropriate symbolism :-(
> For a continent that lectures others on press freedom
Well, if it becomes difficult to lead by example:
https://europeanjournalists.org/blog/2026/03/03/press-freedo...
then lecturing about it is the thing to do I guess. The US is famous for lecturing other world states about human rights.
The fact it's a public space is kind of irrelevant here, if the landowners (the city council, I guess) decide to temporarily allow private use.
If some roads had been closed for film production use etc, the police would similarly be involved in removing people who interfered with the proceedings and didn't leave when asked to. The land owner has given the company exclusive rights to the space for the duration of the event.
Whether ejecting someone from a press event for asking a question you don't like is right or not (I personally think it's not) is irrelevant. At the point they ask you to leave for whatever reason and you don't comply, then it becomes trespass and the police can be asked to remove you.
According to the journalists' account, they were never asked to leave.
Though I agree with the rest of your reasoning.
2.) The ambassador told the cops the journalists are an active threat. That was straightforwardly a lie.
This was not "trespassing" event at all.
We also only have their word for it that that's what they told the cops. Maybe it's true, maybe it's not, there's no way of telling from what they've have chosen to present us.
Personally, I think it's suspicious that the interviewer was clearly recording their conversation on his phone that's inches from them, but we can't hear either the question or the response from the guy who seems to be asking them to leave them alone, we can only faintly hear the woman saying "no cameras, no cameras". The video then cuts and switches to the interviewer saying "well, no comment", but there are different people in frame, and personally I'd wonder how long they continued following and asking questions, and whether they were in fact asked to leave the event.
> We also only have their word for it that that's what they told the cops
This part is about what cops told to them. They cops were told they are active threat, the cops disagreed with that assessment and did not detained them.
There is nothing suspicious about anything here, except your intention to twist what was written in the article into something else.
If they wanted to prove that they weren't asked to leave, the could share the unedited footage from before they approached the group right up to him doing his piece to camera, and sharing the audio from the phone so we know what was actually said.
I have no reason to twist anything here. I have no idea who these 2 journalists are. I've never heard of them or The European Correspondant, who they seem to work for. [1] My gut feeling is that if these were the only people asked to leave this event, then there's a reason why they were targetted and none of the other journalists. I'd wonder if maybe they were trying to provoke the person they were following to get a clickbaity article, or maybe editing out what actually happened to try to present themselves as innocents and stir up a diplomatic situation.
As I was writing this, I though I actually checked myself and thought it's a bit cynical to think they'd just do this for clicks. So, I checked them out and the two guys are apparently the "Editor in Chief" and "Defence Editor and video journalist". It seemed kind of unlikely for an Editor in Chief to be out doing interviews, so I popped onto a couple of different traffic estimation websites, and their monthly traffic before today seems to be in the order of a few thousand visits per month. I guess their sensationalist article has got the viral publicity their company clearly needs now it's on HN.
[1] As a side note, the first 3 paragraphs being in the present tense no longer feels correct now I've looked them up before writing the last paragraph, but it feels wrong to go back and change that
Trespassing (lokaalvredebreuk or huisvredebreuk) has a much narrower definition focused on squatting for the former, or entering a home for the latter. A fenced-off party area in a public space is neither. Even if it were trespassing, police can't just force people to leave on the spot because someone asked them to.
The whole issue is that the lawful basis for ejecting the journalists is very unclear, and the initial complaint (active threat) certainly wouldn't play in Freedom 250's favor if it reached a court.
>Whether ejecting someone from a press event for asking a question you don't like is right or not (I personally think it's not) is irrelevant.
That's the core issue. It isn't irrelevant.
I used to balk at those who were too worried at growing government power, but this is a wake up call. Protections have to be in place for the vast majority of people, even if it does allow a few criminals to get away.
The link is police abusing their allowed powers to silence free speech and protest.
If you'd actually read the post you'd know that its about the the US ambassador being an asshole and the Belgian police doing their job (quickly removing a supposed 'active threat' from an event - because that's the only information they had - they later realized their mistake and that the 'active threat' was just a journalist asking inconvenient questions - but at that point the damage was done and the journalist wasn't let back into the event.
That has always been and will always be the excuse for these kind of rights violations by the police. "Oh it's just what we were told, sorry".
And yes, it's worth bringing up e.g. Palestine or climate activists being beaten, arrested etc. in this context, because it's where the limits and tolerances for this kind of behavior are being tested.
Police, at least in Germany, always justify their transgressions with arguments like: "well we had to beat up these demonstrators because they were engaging in criminal behavior", the "criminal behavior" being "chanting a slogan they don't like" or "carrying an umbrella" (I kid you not).
TLDR: If we continue to allow law enforcement to justify their actions with "well that's just what I was told", we are in for a very bad time, because, it turns out, anything can be justified this way.
Here’s the very problem. The police acting immediately to suppress a supposed threat (even “active” ones, whatever that means) which allows them to silence protest or even inconvenient questions to a public servant…
… and we’re splitting hairs here, but it also allows the police to be manipulated by said public servants to get the protest silenced on their behalf.
The police in this case should have quickly realised the individuals were journalists, posed no real threat (no weapons, explosives, chemicals on their persons) and let them go about their business.
Yet still the *main* problem is the ambassador lying about that person being an active threat.
E.g. what if that information would have been correct? All hell would break lose if the police wouldn't take such a call serious and the supposed 'threat' would be real and people killed, from that perspective they seemed to have reacted quite civilized and calm.
If the events happened as reported, the ambassador should at the very least be summoned and grilled by the Belgian government.
It's a shame someone is so sensitive to a subject that it can't even be used as additional support of another argument.
Palestine is so divisive it should have its own 'law' - both sides are abhorable, both sides are shielded by fanatics who don't want to hear any criticism of their side, despite there being plenty of official evidence with photos, videos, wiki articles and so on.
And even if "both sides" are abhorable, only one side is in power of influence. And this is how they behave with that power.
And how do those protections work when the current administration doesn't even respect the law, and no one will enforce it against them?
If USA becomes a constitutional democracy again will you expel all those who failed to uphold the constitution? Essentially the whole military except those who quit.
Surely you can't move forward without removing honours and pensions, and imprisoning, all those in the chain of command who ordered firing on civilian sailors/shipwrecked combatants (take your pick which), for a single example.
How can you inoculate against these things happening again?
It's just that the US cannot be trusted anymore, and this will probably be the moment that Belgian police will stop taking US intel as fact.
Palestine supporters or "Palestine supporters"? Your freedom of speech ends when you sabotage military bases.
- https://www.dw.com/en/german-armed-forces-bundeswehr-elite-u...
- https://www.dw.com/en/germany-far-right-extremism-bundeswehr...
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_German_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat... (look at the list of members)
You can give finger to Trump from distance but you can't attend to his press conference to actually ask him stuff if he doesn't like you. That's just slightly different from Turkey where you will be arrested for giving the finger to Erdogan's motorcade(happened a few times, then Turks learned their lessons and in the stats Turkey doesn't arrest as much as Britain).
In contrast, in most of Europe you usually can approach and ask politicians whatever you like.
That's a pretty trite way of looking at it. You could see for example how important free speech was to the US' civil rights movement in making sure that people were able to organize to challenge the status quo.
>.. if it was in US they could have been removed and have their free speech in a designated area simply because they don't want them there.
US' citizens generally have a better time in courts challenging such things than Europeans do, however.
>In contrast, in most of Europe you usually can approach and ask politicians whatever you like.
But can you tell them whatever you like without facing repercussion if they don't like what they're hearing? No.
In the US, you can still exercise your right to free speech to inform your fellow citizens about the genocide of Gaza - in Europe, most definitely not so easy. (Some European states, its easier than others ...)
I don't really care about the courts in this, you win in court and never speak again anything new because you don't want to go through all this again.
And who cares if you can tell someone something if you can't engage with them. Are you casting a spell? why would you care someone hears you? In USA they take you to safe distance behind some barriers to tell your thing. Useless stuff.
I don't know why you believe that you can't inform people about the genocide of Gaza in Europe, in fact Europeans are significantly more informed on this and having flotillas and what not.
US free speech seems to be performative. Its even limited to words, they try not to say the N word and do all their racism without that, then they are relieved when they end up saying the N word and claim freedom of speech win. It's weird from European perspective.
"in fact Europeans are significantly more informed on this", "US free speech seems to be performative".
And then there's the, "Are you casting a spell?". You really think you did something there lol.
Sources. Examples. Otherwise, you're just someone who can string together complete sentences and break up concepts into paragraphs for easy reading.
What you can't do is to demand killing of the Jewish people and I like it stay like that. That's significantly more freedom than US where you can loose your career, government funding, you can get deported or visa denied etc. if you talk about the genocide in Gaza.
Your last paragraph is a bit incoherent, so I don't know exactly how to respond, but no, I am not demanding the killing of Jewish people nor the killing of any Palestinian.
I can always tell when someone is off the rails in ideology because the picture they paint is so detached from reality that it doesn't hold under the most minor scrutiny.
That someone is you.
TBF USA is very restrictive on speech, just less direct about it. All platforms are American and we can see that speech is strictly restricted through indirect means. Even here, I had my account rate limited so many times on political topics.
I can stand outside on the street corner in any street in LA with a sign in my hands that says "JAIL OUR WAR CRIMINALS" any time of day .. but if you try to do that in Berlin, Paris, Amsterdam, you will get a visit and told to move along.
I say this on the basis of direct personal experience in all cases. It is far, far harder to protest the Gaza genocide than it should be - in both the US and Europe, to be frank - but in the US I at least have the courts to resort to if someone comes and smashes my signs.
In Berlin, Paris or Amsterdam you won't be visited by the police for a sign that says "JAIL OUR WAR CRIMINALS", you will be visited for one that says something like "Finish the work Hitler started" or "Burn the Mosques" and depending on the context nothing will happen or you may get fine or jail sentence.
In US you will have much more trouble for your undesired speech than in Europe, just more indirectly.
No. You still have courts protecting your rights and if indeed there is suppression, the courts will defend you. The US Constitution is still a thing. There is no such recourse in Europe.
BTW, I concur with your cynicism, but the situation in Europe is far more dire - especially if you contrast the French vs. German vs. Dutch vs. Austrian results, which are in quite distinct conflict with the ideal we both wish for.
That's not free speech, just because eventually you might be acknowledged that you have right to say something doesn't at all mean that you can do it.
>That's not free speech, just because eventually you might be acknowledged that you have right to say something doesn't at all mean that you can do it.
Yes it is, because once the speech is made, it is free to be propagated. That fascist elements use that free speech to attack you is one thing - and indeed, a government which does not protect its citizens' free speech in favour of other entities, is a repressive one.
But, that is the price of freedom - fight back with whatever tools the state gives you! The USA does, in fact, have tools for its citizens to protect free speech and there are an infinity of examples.
However, throughout history, it is proven: you lose a right once you stop exercising it.
So your totalitarian-defeatism is actually manifesting the thing you're complaining about, yo.
I see you're not paying much attention to the streets of Berlin.
Within living memory for some of us. So not that different really.
>What freedom of speech examples do you have that involve living people?
Julian Assange, Edward Snowden, Virginia Guiffre. Medea Benjamin.
You may argue that these are individuals whose speech was limited - and it was - but they have been protected nevertheless by the US' free speech laws, or they wouldn't have made as big a fuss as they have in the first place.
>Every single one freedom of speech fighter are fascist who demand some other speech be suppressed and theirs amplified.
This is a gross generalization.
>I don't know why you believe that you can't inform people about the genocide of Gaza in Europe, in fact Europeans are significantly more informed on this and having flotillas and what not.
Just try to show people the situation in Gaza, on the streets of Vienna, and see how far you get before the police turn up to suppress your right to discuss the atrocities in public.
Your free speech examples are telling enough. You should check out what happened to them.
But in our circle, members of these countries not currently being bombed into oblivion - in contrast, look at the "Witness J .. Witness K .. Witness L .." situation in Australia's secret star court ..
Just because you eventually go free after your life gets ruined by the government doesn't really make you better than Uganda. In those shitty countries they too go free eventually.
>Just because you eventually go free after your life gets ruined by the government doesn't really make you better than Uganda. In those shitty countries they too go free eventually.
A truly imperialist perspective. None of this is relevant for any government engaged in genocide, anyway. My freedom of speech means nothing if the government under which its right is granted is, meanwhile, massacring innocents at atrocious scale ..
Freedom of expression and information
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.
2. The freedom and pluralism of the media shall be respected.
Death threats, insults and promises of rape can be considered ways to express yourself, but any opinion worth expressing can be stated without.
Sure, this can be the first step to the suppression of dissenting points of view.
The thing is: Before the nazis came to power, they made everybody else afraid to state their mind with open threats and violence. So it’s painfully obvious that unmoderated free speech can also be used to suppress dissenting opinions.
I was born and raised in Turkey, and I have been living in Germany for nearly two decades, and I have Greeks, Bulgarians and Kurdish in my family too (no. I don't take pills to survive), so I know what I'm talking about.
It's not about inferiority/superiority, it's just a completely, unmistakably different culture, perspective on life, degree of pragmatism, and... everything. Especially when it comes to the topic at hand, freedom of speech. I think the Ottomans have a lasting effect there. The Turkish search for the new sultan never ends. You may say that some tendency in dictatorship exists everywhere, but in Turkey, you'll see authoritarian ambitions in the speeches of even the most supposedly liberal people.
I also have to say, I'm not even talking about religion. Perhaps the most religious groups, Muslim or Christian or Jewish, are the groups with the most similarities actually.
It was never their opposition's speech they wanted to be free.
Also, you don't have to answer their questions before they tell you why they are asking those questions. It's none of their business.
The US is turning into a planetary joke and it's sad to see.
* Entanglement of tech industries
* Israel serves as an outpost of US imperialism in the Middle East.
* Shared understanding with fellow Settler-Colonialist state
* On a related note, it's a country with a big white-reading population in a mostly brown neighborhood.
* Evangelicals believe Israel is where the battle that rings in the Second Coming will happen.
Can you name 10 of the groups who spent more than them? How about five? The question worth asking is why are people obsessed with demonizing the AIPAC in particular and singling it out as the one or primary 'evil lobbying group' when there are tens or dozens of groups that spent more. The 2024 AIPAC spending number (50 mil, which is donated by American voters, not foreign money) is 1/8th of the $400 million plan Qatar (a foreign government) gave Trump in 2025.
People focus on AIPAC specifically because they have a problem with Jews. Jews and other Israel supporting Americans are allowed to pool money and lobby just like anyone else. the fact that people think they shouldn't be allowed to play this game, the same one everyone else is playing in US politics, is what should be questioned.
0: https://www.opensecrets.org/elections-overview/top-organizat...
Qatar didn't spend 9 figures getting Trump elected, but an Israeli gambling magnate did.
"They are spending so much, that's why they control the government!" They (American citizens funding AIPAC) actually spending much less than many other lobbying groups. "Aha- they're so conniving they can control the government even without being in the top 10 lobbies!"
There's no winning against this "logic" because the conclusion has been decided ahead of time & any evidence is interpreted as supporting that conclusion, no matter which way it goes.
Is your assertion that no one is allowed to criticize AIPAC unless they can 'prove' to you that others who spend more than them are not somehow worse?
I'm also saying the narrative that "AIPAC controls the gov't via lobbying" which many people believe is incoherent because Coinbase must control the gov't even more by this thinking.
If you think people aren't obsessed with AIPAC you are not following US politics.
I think a simpler explanation might be just that there is a lot of attention being paid to why the US seems beholden to Israel to the extent that it would be willing to risk it's relationship with other allies that provide far more in return.
Exhibit A is the Iran war where the US essentially abandoned it's middle east and far east allies (to the extent to moving interceptors from Korea and Japan) to defend Israel. Other regional allies were largely left to fend for themselves.
Seeing all this, people are legitimately asking, what exactly does the US get in return for the enormous support, both direct and indirect that it provides to Israel. Given it's role, naturally AIPAC is going to be central to these conversations.
Fun fact: Not a single Kia vehicle sold in Finland has had a tow hook in it for 6 months - they're ALL stuck in Hormuz.
Can you explain how Trump's MoU fits into this "beholden to Israel" model? This deal goes directly against Israel's interests and wishes.
Biden forced Israel to stay their hand during their war with Hamas, for example telling them not to go into Rafah, which delayed them for some time. So is Israel controlled by the US, or is it the other way around? (When they did go into Rafah, they found both Israeli hostages and Hamas leadership, proving that Biden was wrong for telling them not to take the fight there.)
The point being, it's not just the amount of money at play. That's only part of it. But you know that.
The same reliable voting block that thinks the current president is basically the second coming despite the fact he is an obvious nihilist. They are obsessed with Israel for similarly delusional reasons. I have few things in agreement with Tucker Carlson. But the way he made Mike Huckabee or Ted Cruz squirm on basic questions about Israel was delightful. These people are motivated by little more than blind faith which resembles a cult to any thinking person. Couple this with American anti-democratic compromises (connecticut compromise which allows sparsely populated, evangelical states to get outsize representation) and you have your answer. These small states are also easier to control. AIPAC actually doesn't spend that much money. It turns out to buy a Senator in the middle of nowhere is pretty cheap, and a great ROI. A Senator from Arkansas has the same voting power as a Senator from New York. Of course, for the time being New York is also bought and paid for. That may be changing. Part of the reason primaries in NYC have gotten so much attention in the last month is because of what it portends for a potential primary against Chuck Schumer. While he is not an evangelical, he is a beneficiary of AIPAC.
Since he's not an evangelical and is capable of critical thought he did call for new elections in Israel in a somewhat notable speech in 2024. It was notable as a public criticism of Netanyahu even if it was pretty mild. People of Chuck Schumer's generation who are not evangelicals still have a bias towards Israel because of post WWII guilt. America essentially inherited the power, but also the responsibility of the terminated British empire in WWII's wake. Unlike young progressive Jews who are perfectly capable of recognizing two things can be true - a state can both be Jewish and genocidal - older Americans have a bias to buying into the fiction that Israel is some uniquely vulnerable nation that needs protecting because they have parents that were around to know America largely sat on its hands during the genocide against the Jews in WWII. Americans did not want to get involved until after Pearl Harbor, and even then, anti-semitism was not exactly out of the American mainstream. And there was a time where in the Middle East, Israel was not the obvious regional superpower that it is today. So the American intelligentsia was also largely behind Israel, even if for very different reasons than evangelicals.
But even these Chuck Schumer types have basically been forced to come to terms with the fact that the current Israeli leadership is extremely far right, and frankly, pretty much as nuts (if not more) as people like Mike Huckabee. That's why again, the real answer is the evangelicals. As with Trump, they don't care if a president or a nation careens off course. They believe they are doing what their invisible friend wants. You can't really argue with that type of crazy.
It would be more accurate to say the current administration in Israel is only in power because it has entered into coalition with the far right. This does not make it "the most left of all possible options".
There are certainly more "mainstream" options available though I'm not sure calling them "left" would be accurate. However it is also true that the Israeli far right is not going anywhere and has only grown in power. It is not like they are a key part of the current government by accident. They may have more or less power in the future, who knows. For his part Netanyahu has embraced the far right because they were willing to support him even as he was being indicted by the courts. Recall the protests against the government in Tel Aviv not that long ago [1]. In this way he really is like Trump, teaming up with right wing forces to hold the courts at bay for personal reward.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Israeli_judicial_reform_p...
We are way past the point where we have to use the present continuous tense
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Israel_Lobby_and_U.S._Fore...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUQ_0MubbcM [Why the US. supports Israel / Noam Chomsky]
To those who haven't realised yet, there lies the problem.
Can definitely understand why police would roll aggressively and with limited info if they’re lead to believe there is an active threat at a mass public event.
In the book, the Czech police characters frequently complained about the various ways the US ambassador in Prague had too much influence over their investigations, especially of American citizens.
This influence was served as multiple plot devices.
Please report about this at length. This is the risk you all face if you elect a bunch of ultra right wing nut jobs.
New vocab word, thanks. The word's been around for a while, so I guess there's some solace in knowing that this isn't the first time. Hopefully this is just a speed-bump to progress, and not a long-term decline.
FTFY
> a foreign ambassador had Belgian police remove us
Belgian police removed us.
FTFY again.
The article is making a good point, especially the hilarious irony of all the private companies, and US being complicit in limiting press freedom. But it also fails to recognize the agency and complicitness of the Belgian authorities as well, and makes them out to be some sort of innocent bystandards -- "Oh look those poor Belgians being bullied by the big bad US!" If they didn't want to remove you, they simply could have not.
So the article isn't strictly alleging that the ambassador did anything he didn't have the right to do, but uninviting journalists from an event after they ask a question he preferred not to answer and involving the police instead of directly telling them to leave is maybe not the best use of those rights.
The ambassador does not have the right to lie about someone being an active threat.
> A few days before the event, Samuel had published on his Instagram that ambassador White tacitly threatened an American and Belgian resident after that citizen urged the Zac Brown Band not to perform at the event
No right to threaten either.
> how we had got into the event (that the American embassy invited us to).Eventually, they accepted that we were journalists and that they disagreed with detaining us.
You dont get to invite journalists and then try to get police to detain them either.
The Belgian police got the information that the person would be an 'active threat' which is just absolutely bizarre and explains the somewhat 'hasty' reaction of the police to quickly remove that person from the event before asking further questions. After they realized their mistake they apologized but of course at that point the journalist wasn't allowed back in.
The ambassador essentially swatted the journalist.
I quoted something from deep in the article.
Did you read my entire comment, and assume the least bit of positive intent?
I acknowledged the main points the article brought up. I highlighted a glaring discrepancy, from my point of view.
When police act unjustly, hastily, or rash, in my country, it gets at least equal weight (typically more). We don't just focus entirely on the person or party who triggered the reaction.
Anyways, the reason I commented anything at all was, as someone who values true unbiased and objective journalism, something we need now more than ever, this is clearly falling short of their stated goals -- from their editorial policy:
"Doing journalism means taking responsibility for the public. We are aware of our biases and strive not for artificial objectivity but fairness."
Seems like a complete lack of awareness of the strong Anti-american bias, and a lack of taking responsibility for the Belgian public.
Suppose the Belgian government declared the ambassador persona non grata, and sent them on the next plane to Washington. Presumably this would raise their popularity with their own voters, although if Trump noticed he'd throw another temper tantrum. What then?
It's always this one exact excuse. They were simply "following orders". The police don't have their own brains capable of thinking.
Also, apparently they do have brains capable of thinking because: "Eventually, they accepted that we were journalists and that they disagreed with detaining us."
Most likely they still would've been kicked, but without being detained.
So if Bill White, the US ambassador, pays to rent out the park for, I think it was 2 weeks, they can have whoever they want removed from this public park. Including any reporters.
That would be by private security not police though. You aren't generally arrested for annoying an event organiser.
In this case the Belgian police might have been justified in escorting the journalists off the premises. But I'm not sure what grounds they had to detain and question them.
Aside: why do Americans always talk about trespassing as something that is done to the trespasser? Isn't trespassing the act itself? If I plant myself in your livingroom uninvited, then surely I am trespassing. Why do so many people instead say that I "get trespassed"?
Trespassing is the act. The trespasser is the subject undertaking the act. The object that is being trespassed upon is surely then the offended location and/or person?
* trespasserified
English is flexible; almost any combination of words can start to have meaning.
This isn't a judgement on the article; it you don't want to say they were trespassing, then you should say it differently: they were _charged with_ or _accused of_ trespassing, etc.
Correct. But it is, sometimes, a transitive verb. One can trespass (go somewhere one is not allowed), and one can be trespassed (be banned from a property). One can even be trespassed against, which has a different meaning altogether (to be wronged by someone else).
I think you and the other commenters are confused by the usage of “trespassing someone” because it’s not an everyday usage of the term. “Trespassing someone” is essentially shorthand for “formally banning someone.” Being formally banned from someplace (and notified of it) has special legal significance: it’s basically what determines whether you get kicked out (in the case of mere trespassing) versus getting arrested (criminal trespass). That’s why this phrasing is especially common among cops and other legal personnel.
> Saying someone got trespassed is like saying you were driven when you go somewhere in your car, or that the door opened itself; you're taking the agency away from the person doing the trespassing and saying that they didn't actually do it themselves, but rather someone else did it/it something that happened to them.
It’s not like that at all. The difference between “she trespassed” and “he trespassed her” is not the same as the difference between “the vase broke” and “she broke the vase,” even though both are examples of intransitive/transitive uses of a verb. Humans discussing trespassing in a legal context found it convenient for “trespass” to gain a new meaning when used transitively. This usage has now been around for decades so it’s not particularly new anymore, but it’s still uncommon because most people don’t have a need to talk about trespassing in a legal context, and notice of trespass in particular.
The _noun_ tresspass, on the other hand, can refer to the charge, the act itself, or a case regarding such. Perhaps this is what you're thinking of?
Etymology: the word tresspass is derived from crossing (violating) the law.
> Humans discussing trespassing in a legal context...
Legal definitions may not follow common definitions, but they generally don't contradict them. Legal language tends not to use words that have contradictory meanings (see: inflammable), as it makes it rather difficult to have a clear meaning.
> Cops and other legal personnel
Cops are not legal personnel, they are enforcers. They aren't trained in legal language.
-----
Dictionaries consulted: Webster's, Collins, American heritage, Cambridge, Cornell Wex, ecfr.gov, just about every dictionary I can find other than OED (requires payment) (most websites just quote one of the first three).
Further information on the use of tresspass in this way can be found at https://www.visualthesaurus.com/cm/dictionary/trespassers-wi...
That is one definition, yes, though to my ear it feels archaic and has mostly been replaced with “trespass against.”
> If you search for translations/conjugations of _tresspass_, _was trespassed_ is not listed (_was trespassing_ is, referring to the trespasser).
That’s not surprising, since as I said, “trespass someone” in the sense of “ban someone from property” is not everyday usage, except by cops.
> The _noun_ tresspass, on the other hand, can refer to the charge, the act itself, or a case regarding such. Perhaps this is what you're thinking of?
No, what I’m thinking of is exactly what I said. Watch police bodycam videos and you’ll encounter this usage all the time. See also this blog post that I linked in another comment: https://www.visualthesaurus.com/cm/dictionary/trespassers-wi...
> They aren't trained in legal language.
I wasn’t referring to formal legal language. I was referring to language in common use by police when enforcing law, as well as some commenters on Hacker News discussing cases of police enforcing law.
I know it's a common phrase (albeit sa uniquely american one? Never heard this from e.g. Brits). I'm asking how it came to be that way when it seemingly makes no sense.
> Same as "get carded"?
No, because "being carded" (if I understand correctly) is something that does in fact happen to you. In trespassing, you are the one doing the trespassing (to something/someone else). That's why I find it so weird that Americans turn the subject into object in the sentence.
> English is flexible; almost any combination of words can start to have meaning
Sure. But taking a perfectly fine sentence and turning the subject into an object (when the physical reality is unchanged) seems strange, and warrants curiosity.
> albeit sa uniquely american one? Never heard this from e.g. Brits
According to this lexicography blog post, datasets reveal the transitive definition to be most common in New Zealand. https://www.visualthesaurus.com/cm/dictionary/trespassers-wi...
Here are some examples of it being used on a NZ website: https://www.police.govt.nz/use-105/trespass
In summary:
(1) It's not an American thing at all. I was wrong.
(2) It's not new. I was wrong.
(3) It has its roots in authorities charging or threatening to charge someone with the act of trespassing. I learned something today :-)
TLDR: "I was trespassed" means "I was charged with the crime of trespassing" (or "threatened with being charged with the crime of tresapssing").
Can you please give other examples? I can't think of any and I can't let it go
Lying to the police that the reporters are an "active threat" is criminal.