Americans trying to send Bibles to N. Korea arrested
Police arrested six US nationals attempting to send plastic bottles packed with rice and Bibles to North Korea, the head of the investigation team said.
Local police said the six were trying to send thousands of plastic bottles, filled with rice, one-dollar bills and Bibles, into the sea off Ganghwa Island at 1.03am yesterday when they were caught.
'We have arrested and are questioning six American nationals in their 20s to 50s on suspicion of violating the Framework Act on the Management of Disasters and Safety,' the head of the investigation team at Ganghwa Police Station in Incheon said.
The Americans could not speak Korean, so 'an interpreter was provided for them and we have since started the questioning,' he added.
Located northwest of Seoul, Ganghwa Island is one of the closest South Korean territories to North Korea, with some parts of the surrounding sea lying just 10km from the maritime border between the two countries.
The island has long been a popular site for non-profit organisations and anti-North Korean groups to launch plastic bottles filled with rice, as well as USB sticks containing K-pop and South Korean dramas.
The area was designated a danger zone last November, along with other border regions where activists launch balloons carrying leaflets.
Last year, the two Koreas were in a tit-for-tat propaganda war, as the North sent thousands of trash-filled balloons southwards, saying they were retaliation for propaganda balloons launched by South Korean activists.
In response, Seoul turned on border loudspeaker broadcasts –including K-pop tunes and international news – and North Korea started transmitting bizarre, unsettling noises along the frontier that had been a major nuisance for South Korean residents in the area.
South Korea's President Lee Jae-myung has vowed a more dovish approach towards Pyongyang and has halted the loudspeaker broadcasts, which North Korea, in return, stopped the following day. — AFP
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Sun
3 hours ago
- The Sun
Trump wins Supreme Court ruling but birthright citizenship fight continues
WASHINGTON: The U.S. Supreme Court's landmark ruling blunting a potent weapon that federal judges have used to block government policies nationwide during legal challenges was in many ways a victory for President Donald Trump, except perhaps on the very policy he is seeking to enforce. An executive order that the Republican president signed on his first day back in office in January would restrict birthright citizenship - a far-reaching plan that three federal judges, questioning its constitutionality, quickly halted nationwide through so-called 'universal' injunctions. But the Supreme Court's ruling on Friday, while announcing a dramatic shift in how judges have operated for years deploying such relief, left enough room for the challengers to Trump's directive to try to prevent it from taking effect while litigation over its legality plays out. 'I do not expect the president's executive order on birthright citizenship will ever go into effect,' said Samuel Bray, a Notre Dame Law School professor and a prominent critic of universal injunctions whose work the court's majority cited extensively in Friday's ruling. Trump's executive order directs federal agencies to refuse to recognize the citizenship of children born in the United States who do not have at least one parent who is an American citizen or lawful permanent resident, also called a 'green card' holder. The three judges found that the order likely violates citizenship language in the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment. The directive remains blocked while lower courts reconsider the scope of their injunctions, and the Supreme Court said it cannot take effect for 30 days, a window that gives the challengers time to seek further protection from those courts. The court's six conservative justices delivered the majority ruling, granting Trump's request to narrow the injunctions issued by the judges in Maryland, Washington and Massachusetts. Its three liberal members dissented. The ruling by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who Trump appointed to the court in 2020, emphasized the need to hem in the power of judges, warning against an 'imperial' judiciary. Judges can provide 'complete relief' only to the plaintiffs before them, Barrett wrote. A HOST OF POLICIES That outcome was a major victory for Trump and his allies, who have repeatedly denounced judges who have impeded his agenda. It could make it easier for the administration to implement his policies, including to accelerate deportations of migrants, restrict transgender rights, curtail diversity and inclusion efforts, and downsize the federal government - many of which have tested the limits of executive power. In the birthright citizenship dispute, the ruling left open the potential for individual plaintiffs to seek relief beyond themselves through class action lawsuits targeting a policy that would upend the long-held understanding that the Constitution confers citizenship on virtually anyone born on U.S. soil. Bray said he expects a surge of new class action cases, resulting in 'class-protective' injunctions. 'Given that the birthright-citizenship executive order is unconstitutional, I expect courts will grant those preliminary injunctions, and they will be affirmed on appeal,' Bray said. Some of the challengers have already taken that path. Plaintiffs in the Maryland case, including expectant mothers and immigrant advocacy groups, asked the presiding judge who had issued a universal injunction to treat the case as a class action to protect all children who would be ineligible for birthright citizenship if the executive order takes effect. 'I think in terms of the scope of the relief that we'll ultimately get, there is no difference,' said William Powell, one of the lawyers for the Maryland plaintiffs. 'We're going to be able to get protection through the class action for everyone in the country whose baby could potentially be covered by the executive order, assuming we succeed.' The ruling also sidestepped a key question over whether states that bring lawsuits might need an injunction that applies beyond their borders to address their alleged harms, directing lower courts to answer it first. STATES CHALLENGE DIRECTIVE The challenge to Trump's directive also included 22 states, most of them Democratic-governed, who argued that the financial and administrative burdens they would face required a nationwide block on Trump's order. George Mason University constitutional law expert Ilya Somin said the practical consequences of the ruling will depend on various issues not decided so far by the Supreme Court. 'As the majority recognizes, states may be entitled to much broader relief than individuals or private groups,' Somin said. New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin, a Democrat who helped lead the case brought in Massachusetts, disagreed with the ruling but sketched out a path forward on Friday. The ruling, Platkin said in a statement, 'recognized that nationwide orders can be appropriate to protect the plaintiffs themselves from harm - which is true, and has always been true, in our case.' Platkin committed to 'keep challenging President Trump's flagrantly unlawful order, which strips American babies of citizenship for the first time since the Civil War' of 1861-1865. Legal experts said they expect a lot of legal maneuvering in lower courts in the weeks ahead, and the challengers still face an uphill battle. Compared to injunctions in individual cases, class actions are often harder to successfully mount. States, too, still do not know whether they have the requisite legal entitlement to sue. Trump's administration said they do not, but the court left that debate unresolved. Meanwhile, the 30-day clock is ticking. If the challengers are unsuccessful going forward, Trump's order could apply in some parts of the country, but not others. 'The ruling is set to go into effect 30 days from now and leaves families in states across the country in deep uncertainty about whether their children will be born as U.S. citizens,' said Elora Mukherjee, director of Columbia Law School's immigrants' rights clinic.
The Sun
3 hours ago
- The Sun
US Supreme Court's birthright ruling sparks confusion among immigrants
WASHINGTON: The U.S. Supreme Court's ruling tied to birthright citizenship prompted confusion and phone calls to lawyers as people who could be affected tried to process a convoluted legal decision with major humanitarian implications. The court's conservative majority on Friday granted President Donald Trump his request to curb federal judges' power but did not decide the legality of his bid to restrict birthright citizenship. That outcome has raised more questions than answers about a right long understood to be guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution: that anyone born in the United States is considered a citizen at birth, regardless of their parents' citizenship or legal status. Lorena, a 24-year-old Colombian asylum seeker who lives in Houston and is due to give birth in September, pored over media reports on Friday morning. She was looking for details about how her baby might be affected, but said she was left confused and worried. 'There are not many specifics,' said Lorena, who like others interviewed by Reuters asked to be identified by her first name out of fear for her safety. 'I don't understand it well.' She is concerned that her baby could end up with no nationality. 'I don't know if I can give her mine,' she said. 'I also don't know how it would work, if I can add her to my asylum case. I don't want her to be adrift with no nationality.' Trump, a Republican, issued an order after taking office in January that directed U.S. agencies to refuse to recognize the citizenship of children born in the U.S. who do not have at least one parent who is an American citizen or lawful permanent resident. The order was blocked by three separate U.S. district court judges, sending the case on a path to the Supreme Court. The resulting decision said Trump's policy could go into effect in 30 days but appeared to leave open the possibility of further proceedings in the lower courts that could keep the policy blocked. On Friday afternoon, plaintiffs filed an amended lawsuit in federal court in Maryland seeking to establish a nationwide class of people whose children could be denied citizenship. If they are not blocked nationwide, the restrictions could be applied in the 28 states that did not contest them in court, creating 'an extremely confusing patchwork' across the country, according to Kathleen Bush-Joseph, a policy analyst for the non-partisan Migration Policy Institute. 'Would individual doctors, individual hospitals be having to try to figure out how to determine the citizenship of babies and their parents?' she said. The drive to restrict birthright citizenship is part of Trump's broader immigration crackdown, and he has framed automatic citizenship as a magnet for people to come to give birth. 'Hundreds of thousands of people are pouring into our country under birthright citizenship, and it wasn't meant for that reason,' he said during a White House press briefing on Friday. WORRIED CALLS Immigration advocates and lawyers in some Republican-led states said they received calls from a wide range of pregnant immigrants and their partners following the ruling. They were grappling with how to explain it to clients who could be dramatically affected, given all the unknowns of how future litigation would play out or how the executive order would be implemented state by state. Lynn Tramonte, director of the Ohio Immigrant Alliance said she got a call on Friday from an East Asian temporary visa holder with a pregnant wife. He was anxious because Ohio is not one of the plaintiff states and wanted to know how he could protect his child's rights. 'He kept stressing that he was very interested in the rights included in the Constitution,' she said. Advocates underscored the gravity of Trump's restrictions, which would block an estimated 150,000 children born in the U.S. annually from receiving automatic citizenship. 'It really creates different classes of people in the country with different types of rights,' said Juliana Macedo do Nascimento, a spokesperson for the immigrant rights organization United We Dream. 'That is really chaotic.' Adding uncertainty, the Supreme Court ruled that members of two plaintiff groups in the litigation - CASA, an immigrant advocacy service in Maryland, and the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project - would still be covered by lower court blocks on the policy. Whether someone in a state where Trump's policy could go into effect could join one of the organizations to avoid the restrictions or how state or federal officials would check for membership remained unclear. Betsy, a U.S. citizen who recently graduated from high school in Virginia and a CASA member, said both of her parents came to the U.S. from El Salvador two decades ago and lacked legal status when she was born. 'I feel like it targets these innocent kids who haven't even been born,' she said, declining to give her last name for concerns over her family's safety. Nivida, a Honduran asylum seeker in Louisiana, is a member of the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project and recently gave birth. She heard on Friday from a friend without legal status who is pregnant and wonders about the situation under Louisiana's Republican governor, since the state is not one of those fighting Trump's order. 'She called me very worried and asked what's going to happen,' she said. 'If her child is born in Louisiana ... is the baby going to be a citizen?'
The Star
3 hours ago
- The Star
Thai PM Paetongtarn faces more heat as thousands of protesters on Saturday demand her resignation over disastrous phone call
Anti-government protesters gather at the Victory Monument during a protest calling for Thailand's Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra to resign after her leaked phone call with former Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Sen on the Thailand-Cambodia border dispute, in Bangkok, Thailand, on Saturday, June 28, 2025. -- REUTERS/Chalinee Thirasupa BANGKOK (AFP): Thousands of anti-government protesters rallied in the Thai capital Bangkok on Saturday, demanding Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra resign after a leaked diplomatic phone call stirred public anger. A Cambodian elder statesman leaked a call meant to soothe a border spat between the two nations in which Paetongtarn called him "uncle" and referred to a Thai military commander as her "opponent". A key party abandoned Paetongtarn's coalition, accusing the 38-year-old dynastic premier of kowtowing to Cambodia and undermining Thailand's military, leaving her teetering with a slim parliamentary majority. About 10,000 demonstrators jammed roads ringing the capital's Victory Monument, waving Thai flags and placards reading "Evil PM, get out". One speaker took to the stage and shouted: "PM, you committed treason!" The crowd was mostly senior-aged and led by veteran activists of the "Yellow Shirt" movement, which helped oust Paetongtarn's father Thaksin in the 2000s. One of Thaksin's former allies, now among his harshest critics, was also a key organiser. "I'm here to protect Thailand's sovereignty and to say the PM is unfit," said 70-year-old protester Seri Sawangmue, who travelled overnight by bus from the country's north to attend. "After I heard the leaked call I knew I couldn't trust her," he told AFP. "I've lived through many political crises and I know where this is going. She's willing to give up our sovereignty." Thailand has seen decades of clashes between the bitterly opposed "Yellow Shirts" who defend the monarchy and military, and the Thaksin-backing "Red Shirts", considered by their opponents a threat to the traditional social order. Jamnong Kalana, 64, said she was once a "Red Shirt" but had changed her colours and was demanding the resignation of Paetongtarn, leader of the Pheu Thai party. "I feel full of pain when I see a fellow Thai who doesn't love the country like I do," she said. - Make-or-break court cases - Mass protests have been uncommon in Thailand since 2021, when youth-driven demonstrations calling for monarchy reform ended with many leaders convicted under the country's strict lese-majeste laws. Authorities said more than 1,000 police and 100 city officials had been deployed to the protest, which remained peaceful on Saturday afternoon. The 62-year-old protester Santhiphum Iamjit was overcome with emotion. "Our ancestors shed blood, sweat and tears for this land, but now politicians are ready to give it away for personal gain," the former bureaucrat tearfully told AFP. Paetongtarn was visiting Thailand's flood-hit north but before departing Bangkok she told reporters: "It's their right to protest, as long as it's peaceful." The prime minister has been battered by controversy and abandoned by her largest backer, the Bhumjaithai Party, after her phone call with Cambodia's ex-leader Hun Sen was leaked earlier this month. Tensions between the countries have soared after a border dispute boiled over into violence last month which killed one Cambodia soldier. Thailand's military has staged a dozen coups since the end of absolute monarchy in 1932 and politicians are usually careful not to antagonise the generals. After calling a border region military commander her "opponent", Paetongtarn gave a contrite press conference where she issued a public apology flanked by military officials in a show of unity. Her remaining coalition partners have not yet backed out of their pact. But next week both Paetongtarn and her father face legal battles that could reshape Thailand's political landscape. On Tuesday the Constitutional Court will decide whether to take up a petition by senators seeking her removal over alleged unprofessionalism. That same day her father is set to stand trial on royal defamation charges linked to decade-old remarks to South Korean media. Paetongtarn took office less than a year ago after her predecessor was disqualified by a court order and her father returned from exile after 15 years. She is the fourth Shinawatra-linked figure to become prime minister following her father, aunt and uncle-in-law. - AFP
