Turkish police detain 3 more employees of satirical magazine over prophet cartoon controversy
The cartoon, published in LeMan magazine, drew a string of condemnation from government officials who stated it represented the Prophet Muhammad and sparked an angry protest outside the magazine's Istanbul office.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Washington Post
an hour ago
- Washington Post
Trump says deal for ceasefire in Gaza is closer after Israel agrees on terms
CAIRO — U.S. President Donald Trump says Israel has agreed on terms for a new 60-day ceasefire with Hamas and that Washington would work with both sides during that time to try to end more than 20 months of war in Gaza . Neither side has accepted the proposal announced Tuesday by Trump, who has admonished Hamas that if the militant group does not buy into the offer, its prospects will get worse. It's not clear what conditions Israel agreed to.
CNN
2 hours ago
- CNN
DHS and FBI warn about potential lone wolf attacks ahead of July 4 celebrations
Terrorism Federal agencies The Middle East Israel-Hamas warFacebookTweetLink Follow Attacks perpetrated by lone actors are the biggest terrorism threat to July 4th festivities in New York City and elsewhere, federal authorities said in a threat assessment obtained by CNN. The FBI, the Department of Homeland Security and other law enforcement agencies issued a joint bulletin in late June saying 'the most significant terrorism threat facing the Macy's 4th of July Fireworks stems from lone offenders and small groups of individuals seeking to commit acts of violence.' 'These individuals are often motivated by a broad range of racial, ethnic, political, religious, anti-government, societal, or personal grievances,' the assessment continued. But the threat is not limited to New York City. The bulletin said other large gatherings could be targeted. 'Special events with high attendance and media coverage … remain attractive targets' for domestic and foreign terrorists and violent extremists who may want to 'cause mass casualties or draw attention to their causes,' the bulletin said. The agencies said they had not received any reports of specific threats at the massive fireworks show or related events. However, 'high-profile, large events can draw interest from malicious actors looking for targets of opportunity to perpetrate criminal schemes,' the bulletin said. It's not uncommon for authorities to issue threat assessments before major events. But several recent, high-profile attacks have spurred additional concern heading into July 4. 'We are concerned about the potential threat of copycat attacks inspired by the 2025 New Year's Day vehicle-ramming attack in New Orleans and continued FTO (foreign terrorist organization) messaging calling for attacks against Western targets,' the bulletin said. On January 1, a driver intentionally rammed a 6,000-pound truck into a crowd of revelers in New Orleans' bustling French Quarter, killing 14 people. The assailant, a Texas-born Army veteran who served in Afghanistan, was killed in a shootout with police. Investigators later discovered he had recorded several videos before the attack that mentioned his divorce and claimed he had joined ISIS. Just one month before that massacre, the FBI and DHS warned about the threat of violence from lone offenders and the potential use of vehicle ramming, according to two internal memos obtained by CNN. Tensions over the Israel-Hamas war in Gaza have been linked to a spate of recent violence in the United States, and authorities say similar attacks could erupt on July 4. 'Most attackers motivated at least in part by the Israel-HAMAS conflict have selected targets with a symbolic link to Israel, houses of worship, or locations associated with houses of worship. Individuals with grievances linked to the conflict could also perceive large gatherings, such as Independence Day celebrations, as opportunistic targets symbolic of the West in general,' the threat assessment said. The DHS and FBI cited last month's firebomb attack in Boulder, Colorado, that targeted a group of demonstrators supporting Israelis who were held hostage by Hamas. Dozens of people were injured, and an 82-year-old woman died. The attack marked 'the most recent act of terrorist violence in the Homeland motivated by the Israel-HAMAS conflict,' the joint bulletin said. 'This attack came shortly after the (May 21) attack killing two Israeli embassy staff in Washington, DC.' Drones have also raised the specter of possible violence at large holiday events, the threat assessment said. 'Unauthorized unmanned aircraft system (UAS) activities may pose a hazard to participants and attendees, delay events, and disrupt law enforcement operations,' the FBI and DHS said. 'Although we have no credible, specific reporting regarding illicit plans to use UAS to target the Macy's 4th of July Fireworks, we assess that unauthorized UAS operations have the potential to increase public safety risks.' While most drones are flown legally by hobbyists, they 'have also been used to facilitate terrorist and other criminal acts,' the threat assessment said. 'Various state and nonstate actors have increased their use and modification of short-range UAS to conduct surveillance of adversary positions, drop small munitions on targets, and detonate explosive-laden UAS on impact to targets in conflict zones abroad,' the bulletin said. 'Malicious use of UAS poses a potential risk to spectators, volunteers, security personnel, and first responders in and around the event.'
Washington Post
3 hours ago
- Washington Post
Trump suggests he could demand journalists reveal source of Iran intel leak
President Donald Trump has said he wants to prosecute those responsible for the leak of classified intelligence about U.S. strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities, and suggested his government could pressure journalists who covered the leaked intelligence report to reveal their sources. Several news outlets, citing people familiar with the preliminary assessment, said it found that the U.S. strikes set Iran's nuclear program back by months but did not eliminate it, contradicting Trump's claims that the strikes resulted in its 'obliteration.' In response, the Trump administration is investigating the leak and plans to limit how much classified intelligence it shares with Congress. Here's what to know. In his interview with Fox News host Maria Bartiromo, Trump doubled down on his claim that Democrats were behind the leak related to the intelligence report. 'They should be prosecuted,' he added. When asked whether his administration could find out the source of the leak, Trump said: 'If they wanted, they could find out easily. You go up and tell the reporter, 'National security, who gave it?' You have to do that. And I suspect we'll be doing things like that.' The extent of the damage remains unclear, and assessments could change. But Trump and his officials have doubled down on their claims that the U.S. strikes devastated Tehran's nuclear program. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said the bombing campaign 'obliterated Iran's ability to create nuclear weapons,' and Secretary of State Marco Rubio called it 'complete and total obliteration.' Daniel Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said at a news conference that the three sites 'sustained extremely severe damage and destruction,' citing initial battle damage assessments. Meanwhile, Rafael Mariano Grossi, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, the United Nations nuclear watchdog, said that the conflict between Israel and Iran, which culminated in the U.S. airstrikes, 'severely damaged several nuclear facilities in Iran.' Yet Grossi told CBS's 'Face the Nation' on Friday that Iran probably had the ability to resume uranium enrichment activities 'in a matter of months.' 'Frankly speaking, one cannot claim that everything has disappeared and there is nothing there,' he said. Some preliminary information has further complicated the picture of the impact of the operation. Classified briefings of U.S. senators left many Democratic lawmakers confused about the impact of the strikes. And the United States obtained intercepted communication between senior Iranian officials discussing the U.S. strikes and remarking that the attack was less devastating than they had expected, The Post reported, citing four people familiar with the classified intelligence circulating within the U.S. government. The Trump administration strenuously disagreed with the Iranians' conclusions and cast doubt on their ability to assess the damage at the three facilities targeted in the U.S. mission. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt accused The Post of 'helping people commit felonies by publishing out-of-context leaks.' Journalists sometimes rely on confidential sources in their reporting. This helps to protect sources from personal or professional consequences when they share secret information that is in the public interest. It can also happen when officials agree to speak about a sensitive topic only on the condition of anonymity. 'It's crucially important that journalists be able to credibly assure their sources that they'll be able to keep their identities secret, or else these stories just don't get told,' said Gabe Rottman, vice president of policy for the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press (RCFP). Jason Shepard, a media law scholar at Cal State Fullerton, said that until the 1970s, there was an 'established view that journalists had an absolute right to protect the identity of their confidential sources.' Journalists who were subpoenaed as part of an investigation or ordered by a judge to reveal a confidential source typically 'said 'no,' and they got a slap on the wrist,' he said. But in 1972, the Supreme Court ruled in Branzburg v. Hayes that the First Amendment does not give journalists the absolute right to withhold confidential information from a grand jury. This marked a turning point — but even then, Shepard said, 'hundreds of lower-court decisions interpreted Branzburg to give journalists a qualified privilege under the First Amendment.' As a result, 'journalists have operated for many, many decades in a gray area about whether and under what circumstances the First Amendment gives them a right to protect their confidential sources,' he said. While most states provide protections for journalists against being compelled to reveal confidential sources, sometimes known as shield laws, an effort to create a federal shield law has languished in the Senate. And even existing shield laws have exceptions that could force journalists to reveal their sources in some cases. Trump's administration has waged a campaign against unauthorized leaks in his second term. Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and her staff said in April on social media that she had referred 'two intelligence community leakers' to the Justice Department for potential prosecution, with a third referral on the way. One of the leaks included information published in a Post article on the Venezuelan Tren de Aragua gang, Gabbard aide Alexa Henning said on X. Three top aides to Hegseth were also removed amid an apparent inquiry into the leak of sensitive information, defense officials said. The Office of the Director of National Intelligence said it has been assisting with the FBI's recent investigations into leakers. The Defense Department declined to comment on an ongoing investigation. Also in April, the Justice Department reversed a Biden-era policy that prevented officials from searching reporters' phone records when trying to identify government workers who leaked sensitive information. Attorney General Pam Bondi said in a memo about the rule change that she supports a free press and that the Justice Department would search reporters' communications only when other investigative tactics had been exhausted. She also said she must approve all attempts to question or arrest journalists. 'Leaking classified information is a crime, and anyone who threatens American national security in this manner should be held accountable,' said White House deputy press secretary Anna Kelly. Rottman said it's rare for the federal government to try to compel a journalist to reveal their source, adding that these types of cases are more likely to occur at a state and local level. But it's not unheard of. In the 2000s, President George W. Bush and Barack Obama both subpoenaed New York Times reporter James Risen to try to compel him to reveal how he obtained classified information about the Central Intelligence Agency's Iran operations. Risen never agreed to reveal his sources, and after a years-long legal battle, the Justice Department abandoned its efforts to compel him to testify. And in 2005, New York Times reporter Judith Miller spent nearly three months in jail after she refused to reveal the identity of a confidential source to a grand jury investigating whether senior government officials leaked a CIA operative's name in retaliation against a critic of the Bush administration. This issue is not 'purely partisan,' said Shepard, who pointed out that there were a number of leak investigations under Obama that 'raised serious questions about press freedom.' Obama's Justice Department was widely criticized by First Amendment advocates for secretly obtaining the telephone records of journalists working for the Associated Press as part of a wider investigation into the disclosure of classified information about a failed al-Qaeda plot in 2012. According to the RCFP, dozens of journalists have been fined or jailed over the past 75 years for refusing to reveal their sources in the face of court orders or subpoenas.
