Terrorism

ABIDJAN: A senior official in Ivorian former president Laurent Gbagbo’s opposition party has been remanded in custody on charges including terrorism over electoral unrest in 2025, a prosecutor said Friday.

Violence left 11 people dead during the October 2025 election, won by President Alassane Ouattara, who has led the country since 2011.

Several dozen opposition party activists, including senior figures, were arrested or jailed over the unrest. Some have since been released.

A court opened a judicial investigation against Justin Kone Katinan, vice president of the PPA-CI party and a former minister under Gbagbo’s 2000-2011 presidency, prosecutor Oumar Braman Kone said in a statement on Friday.

He said it remanded Katinan in custody on several charges, including terrorist acts and conspiracy against the state.

Katinan’s lawyer, Roselyne Serikpa, told AFP: “These proceedings are irregular and unlawful. They are in complete violation of the penal code.”

The PPA-CI on Thursday denounced what it called a “judicial trap” targeting Katinan.

He was initially summoned by police on Wednesday over defamation accusations by the ruling party after he accused it of being behind the growth of illegal gold mining.

Reporting from ORANGE CITY, Iowa — They met decades ago, when they were first married, and the three sisters-in-law still gather each week at the Dutch Bakery to catch up amid the sweet smell of flour and sugar floating through the air.

Despite the cozy setting here on the state’s western edge, they can feel the country beneath their feet slipping away, eroding under the threats of immorality and terrorism.

“I never thought we would live in so much fear,” said Joanne Niezen, as her coffee sat cooling before her in a Styrofoam cup.

There’s fear on the other side of the state as well, though for different reasons.

In the college town of Iowa City, with its hip music scene and pita restaurant advertising “fresh thinking and healthy eating,” Veronica Tessler worries about the harsh rhetoric directed at immigrants and the economic inequality that lingers years after the Great Recession.

“I really fear for our country,” said Tessler, who left her job at a foreign policy foundation to open a frozen yogurt shop near the University of Iowa campus.

A sense of dread is about the only thing that unites Orange City, a bastion of religious conservatism, and Iowa City, known for its blue-sky liberalism. Together they bookend not only the state’s geography but its political spectrum as Iowa prepares to kick off the presidential selection process Monday night with its closely watched caucuses.

The two communities, located in the most lopsidedly partisan counties in the state, reflect the vast political chasm here and across the country, a divide that President Obama was unable to heal and which may prove insurmountable for whomever takes his place.

“Republicans see an America where the government is too big at home and too feeble abroad. Democrats see an America where the economy is out of whack,” said David Nagle, a Democratic attorney who used to represent Iowa City and surrounding Johnson County in Congress. “It’s like two trains in the night, passing in opposite directions.”

But the division goes far beyond a profound disagreement on issues. While partisan tensions are nothing new, they have deepened and intensified during the presidencies of George W. Bush and Barack Obama as the parties have splintered along the lines of age, race and culture. The result is a separation of America into mutually estranged and suspicious tribes.

Today, as conversations at opposite poles of Iowa show, voters on each side often get their news from different sources, worry about different problems and view political adversaries with mistrust and even contempt. One voter’s vision for America is nothing less than another’s nightmare; it’s common to hear candidates of the opposing party described as “concerning” or “scary” or “crazy.”

In 2014, a major study released by the nonpartisan Pew Research Center found that more than one-third of Republicans and just over a quarter of Democrats — especially those most engaged in politics — go as far seeing the other party as a “threat to the nation’s well-being.”

In Johnson County, known both affectionately and derisively as the “People’s Republic,” life in Iowa City revolves around the university, with young people constantly hustling between classes or hunkered down in coffee shops with headphones and homework.

Obama is largely viewed with gratitude or, at worst, disappointment for failing to deliver an even more liberal agenda.

The city’s leanings are evident at the Hamburg Inn, where jars labeled with the names of presidential candidates are lined up in the window. Diners drop in coffee beans to show their preferences; some of the Republican jars are nearly empty, while a second container was added for Bernie Sanders, a democratic socialist, because the first overflowed.

Tessler, 30, is volunteering with the Sanders campaign, and she’s been alarmed by what she hears coming from the mouths of Republican contenders.

In response to Donald Trump’s proposal to ban Muslims from entering the U.S., she helped make T-shirts to protest his Iowa City visit last Wednesday. “I stand with my Muslim neighbors,” they read.

She doesn’t dismiss the threat of terrorism — in fact, she was visiting family near San Bernardino on the day of the attack there that killed 14 people in December. But she’s also the daughter of a Soviet Jew who escaped to Los Angeles in 1973, and she thinks Republicans are scapegoating immigrants and refugees.

“They are not American ideals,” she said.

For many in Iowa City, issues like economic inequality and student debt feel most urgent, not fears of terrorist attack.

“ISIS could do something terrible anywhere,” said Chuck Michaelson, 61, a piano instructor who lives in nearby Coralville, using an acronym for the militant group Islamic State. He paused while flipping through a biography of writer Joan Didion at a bookstore near campus. “But the likelihood of it being personally affecting is slim. It’s like being struck by lightning.”

About 300 miles away in Orange City, across a vast expanse of fertile farmland, the fears of terrorism seem more immediate despite the area’s isolation and outward serenity.

“The whole thing of ISIS scares me,” said Bob Hulstein, 64, who publishes the Orange City newspaper and owns a printing business with his brother-in-law, Dave Pluim, 51.

After attacks in Paris and San Bernardino, Hulstein said, “I’m afraid we’re going to see that closer and closer. I guess I want that stopped before it comes to my front door.”

Pluim agreed. “In fact, it would be real easy to do something horrible in Orange City,” he said. “Come to a high school basketball game.”

Settled largely by Dutch immigrants, this region proudly promotes its heritage; Orange City, the seat of Sioux County, was named after a Dutch prince, and decorative windmills, wooden shoes and tulip-themed businesses abound.

The area was hardly touched by the Great Recession — strong commodity prices and a boom in farm values helped see to that — and now there is something close to full employment. “Help wanted” signs are everywhere: at the florist, the bakery, restaurants, the post office.

So it is not economics that drives the anxiety here so much as concerns about the country’s place in the world.

“Are we willing to back our allies?” said Tony Vande Brake, 25, a financial advisor and newly elected member of the Orange City Council. “Are we willing to stand behind our military prowess, show strength if we had to?”

Back at the Dutch Bakery, Niezen and her sisters-in-law describe the election as a chance to reclaim the moral authority and military strength that, in their opinion, has withered under Obama and fueled a rise in Islamic extremism.

“He’s taken our military way down,” said Niezen, who is in her 70s. “When they were cutting our people’s heads off, he should have gotten in there right then.”

Leona Noteboom, an 83-year-old retiree, agreed. “I don’t trust him for taking care of my country,” she said.

“We’re just losing all our Christian values,” piped in Carol Noteboom, 74, who lives on a nearby farm.

Amid all the anxieties, there were glimmers of optimism.

Morgan Brittain, a political science student, crosses the ideological fault line every time he travels from his family’s home in Winterset, a small town outside Des Moines, to school in Iowa City. When he last got his hair cut back home, the woman holding the shears confided she planned to support Trump.

“I was like, ‘Oh my gosh, Heidi, you’re killing me,’” Brittain said.

At the barbershop close to campus, everyone seems bewildered by Trump’s popularity.

Asked if any candidate could bridge the divide, Brittain laughed and said, “I’m going to say absolutely, anybody can unify us.”

But he’s just 22, Brittain said, and still an idealist.

Twitter: @ChrisMegerian

Twitter: @markzbarabak

Megerian reported from Iowa City and Barabak from Orange City.

Hoy: Léa esta historia en español

For more, go to latimes.com/politics.

ALSO:

Everything you need to know about the Iowa caucus and why it matters

How Martin O’Malley could decide who wins the Democratic caucuses in Iowa

Republican rivals take advantage of Trump’s absence in Iowa presidential debate

Trump makes a big show of skipping GOP debate and staging benefit for veterans

Aug. 24 (UPI) — The U.S. State Department officially delisted Syria as a state sponsor of terrorism on Monday, marking a significant step toward the country’s reintegration into the global economy and the international community.

The announcement by Secretary of State Marco Rubio comes about a month and a half after President Donald Trump informed Congress of his intent to lift Syria’s decades-old terrorism designation that barred it from most U.S. foreign assistance and clamped down on what could be exported to it. It also meant the United States would oppose foreign institutions, such as the World Bank, granting it loans.

Along with the delisting of Syria, Rubio said he also removed Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham, the coalition of northern Syria-based Sunni Islamist groups that led the military campaign that toppled Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad in late 2024, from its list of specially designated global terrorists.

“These actions were all taken in recognition of the positive actions taken and further commitments by the Syrian government under President Ahmed al-Sharaa to fully distance Syria from acts of international terrorism,” Rubio said in a statement, listing as reasons Damascus’ joining the Global Coalition to Defeat the Islamic State and conducting terrorism-disrupting operations targeting ISIS and Iran-backed Hezbollah.

Rubio said removing the designations “eliminates the final major barrier for private sector investment in Syria and promotes economic recovery and reintegration into the global economy.”

Al-Sharaa issued a statement congratulating the Syrian people on their country’s removal from the U.S. state sponsors of terrorism list.

“Today, Syria is casting off a black mark from its shoulders, and with its own hands, tearing out a page from its painful past, so that it may set out toward development, reconstruction and building,” he said in a recorded statement.

“Great people of Syria, you have done it again. The sanctions have been lifted from you and the restrictions have been removed. I ask almighty God to help us serve you.”

Syria was among the first countries designated by the United States as a state sponsor of terrorism in 1979 over its hostility to Israel, fighting with Lebanon, partnership with Iran, alignment with Russia, support for terrorist groups and development of weapons of mass destruction, according to a Congressional Research Service report.

Since the fall of al-Assad in late 2024, Syria’s relations with the United States — and much of the Western world — have steadily improved. In June, Trump signed an executive order ending most U.S. sanctions on Damascus and informed Congress in July of his intent to delist it as a state sponsor of terrorism, starting the 45-day congressional notification clock before it could be formally removed.

“Lifting Syria’s designation as a state sponsor of terrorism is a historic step that returns it to its natural place within the global economic system,” Safwat Raslan, the governor of the Central Bank of Syria, said in a statement Monday.

“And we at the Central Bank of Syria are working to build a modern and reliable financial system, capable of keeping pace with and benefiting from all opportunities. And what is to come is better, God willing.”

Washington also rescinded designation of HTS, formerly led by Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa, as a ‘terrorist’ organisation.

The United States has removed Syria from its list of “State Sponsors of Terrorism,” the US Treasury has announced.

A statement issued on Monday confirmed the revocation of a decades-old designation placed on the country during the rule of the ousted Assad regime.

The announcement confirms a decision initially revealed last month. It also revoked the designation of al-Nusrah Front – the group formerly led by the now-President Ahmed al-Sharaa, also known as Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) – as a global “terrorist” organisation.

The move, first announced earlier this year pending a review by Congress, removes a critical impediment to investment in Syria, as the country seeks to reestablish itself in the international community and markets.

It represents a further vote of confidence in al-Sharaa, who has launched what many experts have described as a charm offensive aimed at Western powers, including meetings with President Donald Trump and French President Emmanuel Macron.

“Today’s action will help foster additional investment in Syria to promote political and economic stability,” Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said in a statement, adding that it is “in line with President Trump’s promise to deliver sanctions relief to Syria”.

Having lifted sanctions on Syria in June 2025, alongside the European Union, the US announced in July its decision to delist Syria from its “terror” list, citing efforts by al-Sharaa to unify the country.

HTS was once al-Qaeda’s official branch in Syria and was led by al-Sharaa. Under his leadership, the group removed former President Bashar al-Assad in December 2024 following a lightning offensive.

The ⁠designation of the state carried restrictions on US foreign ⁠assistance, defence exports, and ⁠financial transactions, so Syria’s removal from the list is already being celebrated in the country, particularly by financial officials.

The governor of Syria’s central bank, Safwat Raslan, said on X that this is “a historic step that restores the country to its natural place in the global economic system”. He added that the bank is “working to build a modern and reliable financial system”.

Syrian Finance Minister Mohammed Barnieh described Washington’s move as “a major and historic success for Syrian diplomacy”, according to the country’s official news agency SANA.

It “opens a major and long-awaited door to strengthening Syria’s integration into the global economic and financial system, attracting investment and modern technologies, and supporting development opportunities”, he said.

US envoy to Syria Tom Barrack, meanwhile, called the end of the designation a “decisive step in Syria’s remarkable journey from isolation to partnership, and from a source of terrorism to a committed partner in the global fight against it”.

Most people, when asked what terrorism is, will say that it is the use of violence and terror to create fear among people. This is broadly the dictionary definition. The 2017 Manchester Arena bombing at an Ariana Grande concert, in which 22 people, including many children, were killed, is a clear example.

Yet the legal definition of terrorism in Britain is far broader than this common understanding. Section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2000 allows even “damage to property” to constitute terrorism when it is carried out for a political, religious, racial or ideological purpose and is intended to influence the government or intimidate the public. Where firearms or explosives are involved, the latter requirement does not apply.

Including politically motivated damage to property within the definition was controversial from the start. When Parliament debated the bill in 1999, animal liberation activists were among the groups MPs had in mind.

Labour MP Alan Simpson warned during the debate that by defining attacks on property as terrorism, “we transform the relationship between civil protest movements and elected Parliaments and the judicial system.”

The criticism did not end with Parliament. The Supreme Court later described Section 1’s definition of terrorism as “very far-reaching”, while David Anderson QC, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, called it “remarkably broad – absurdly so in some cases”.

In his 2012 report, Anderson observed:

“The current law allows members of any nationalist or separatist group to be turned into terrorists by virtue of their participation in a lawful armed conflict… however odious the regime which they have attacked.”

In his 2014 Terrorism Report, he warned:

“To render people subject to the terrorism laws whom no sensible person would think of as terrorists risks destroying the trust upon which these special powers depend for their acceptance by the public.”

Yet defining what can count as terrorism is only part of the story. Not every organisation whose conduct falls within that definition is proscribed. That decision rests with the government.

Proscription therefore adds a political choice: Which organisations should be banned, making membership and inviting support for them criminal offences.

For example, the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), an armed Kurdish group that has fought the Turkish state for decades, is proscribed in Britain. Its Syrian offshoot, the Democratic Union Party (PYD), is not, because PYD-led forces became Western allies in the fight against ISIS (ISIL).

Britain proscribed Hamas’s military wing in 2001. In 2021, Home Secretary Priti Patel extended that proscription to Hamas in its entirety, including its political wing, declaring the previous distinction between the two “artificial”. Many civilian members of Hamas who had never picked up a gun were now deemed terrorists alongside its fighters.

By collapsing the distinction between Hamas’s military and political wings, Britain legitimised Israel’s portrayal of Hamas’s civilian administration as part of a terrorist apparatus and, with it, the targeting of hospitals and schools as terrorist infrastructure.

The asymmetry is stark. Britain’s terrorism laws can criminalise non-state organisations and those who support them, while state terrorism, including Israel’s, remains outside their reach.

The proscription of Palestine Action brought a different consequence of these laws into focus: Their use against protest in Britain. Palestine Action is a British direct-action group that has targeted arms companies supplying Israel. In July 2025, the government proscribed it under the Terrorism Act 2000.

United Nations Human Rights Chief Volker Turk warned that the decision to proscribe Palestine Action “raises serious concerns that counter-terrorism laws are being applied to conduct that is not terrorist”.

The ban has been fiercely contested in the courts. In February 2026, the Divisional Court ruled the proscription unlawful. On June 15, the Court of Appeal reversed that decision and upheld the ban. The court also described Elbit as carrying out a “lawful business”, ignoring its role in supplying the Israeli military during the genocide.

In upholding the ban, Lady Chief Justice Sue Carr drew a contrast with the Suffragettes, saying Palestine Action was not “a direct action civil disobedience protest group like the Suffragettes operating transparently in the open” but “a covert group operating in cells”.

Carr’s characterisation rests on an extraordinarily sanitised version of suffragette history.

In November 1909, a suffragette attacked Winston Churchill with a horse whip. In the same month, suffragettes, armed with a catapult and missiles, attacked Prime Minister H. H. Asquith’s car in Liverpool.

In 1912, Suffragettes attempted to set fire to the Theatre Royal in Dublin during a matinee attended by Asquith. They left a canister of gunpowder close to the stage. Earlier in the day, Mary Leigh had hurled a hatchet towards Asquith.

In 1913, four postmen in Dundee were severely injured by phosphorus chemicals left in post boxes. The following year, Mary Richardson slashed the Rokeby Venus in the National Gallery, while bombs were discovered in St Paul’s and churches were burned down.

This history sits uneasily with Carr’s distinction. The Suffragettes themselves engaged in politically motivated attacks on property and people of precisely the kind that Britain’s modern definition of terrorism is broad enough to capture.

The Filton case shows what this can mean in practice. When the Filton 25 attacked an Elbit factory in Bristol, they were remanded in custody for up to 18 months. When six of them went on trial in November 2025, the jury acquitted them of aggravated burglary, the most serious charge, and failed to reach verdicts on criminal damage. No defendant was convicted at that first trial. At a retrial, four were convicted of criminal damage; only one was eventually convicted of grievous bodily harm, without intent.

The jury was not told that guilty verdicts could later lead to the offences being treated as having a “terrorist connection” for sentencing. Justice Jeremy Johnson subsequently made precisely that finding. Johnson had also ruled out defences based on necessity and the need to prevent the greater crime of genocide. In doing so, he usurped the role of the jury.

The consequences of the ban were not confined to those accused of taking direct action against Elbit. Once Palestine Action was proscribed, inviting or expressing support for the group became a terrorism offence.

When the government proscribed Palestine Action, people defied the ban. Nearly 4,000 people have been arrested for holding placards supporting Palestine Action.

The Home Office reported that in the year ending March 2026, there were 3,061 terrorism-related arrests, 2,819 of them linked to suspected support for Palestine Action. The average age of those arrested in connection with Palestine Action was 59, compared with 31 for all other terrorism-related arrests. A majority of the Palestine Action arrests were women.

The profile of Britain’s average “terrorist” changed from a man aged 31 to a woman aged 59.

This is where Britain’s extraordinarily broad definition of terrorism, combined with the government’s power to proscribe organisations, has led. Conduct once understood as protest and political expression can now be prosecuted under terrorism legislation.

As Orwell wrote, “If thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought.” When the meaning of “terrorism” is stretched far enough, the extraordinary powers attached to that word stretch with it.

Today, my own trial begins. I am accused of inviting support for Hamas. My prosecution is not separate from the story told here. It is where that story leads.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.

In the UK around 14 million people are still paying ‘too much’

Personal finance expert Martin Lewis has told anyone with an iPhone or Android mobile to text a four-letter word. In a new video on Youtube, the ITV and BBC star said millions of people continue paying sky-high prices on contracts which are no longer binding.

He said that in the UK around 14 million people are still paying too much – often for deals which got them a new handset – and can save hundreds. People were told to check their contract status by texting ‘INFO’ for free to 85075.

Mr Lewis explained: “There’s a way to find out if you can save on your mobile bill just by typing five digits into your phone. All you got to do is text the word info info to 85075. This is a service the regulator mandates mobile phone networks to offer. It’s totally free. They then have to reply with whether you have any early termination or early cancellation charges.

“If it says you don’t, so 0 early termination, it means one of 14 million people who are out of contract and you’re therefore free to ditch and switch and the vast majority of people who are out of contract are seriously overpaying on their phones. So what do you then do? Well, just go on to a comparison site like money-saving experts cheap simfinder and see what’s available.

“Couple of quick notes. If you’re on three smarty or ID mobile, then when you do the text, it will reply back asking you for your date of birth, which is just an ID check. And I should Also note if you’re on a multiple phone contract like couple of different handsets on the contact on the contract it can’t do this. So then simple rule of thumb if you’ve been on the same deal for more than two years you’re almost certainly out of contract. Do check it out.”

If the “Early Termination” or “Cancellation Charge” reads £0, meaning your contract has run out, the MoneySavingExpert founder said, “go to a cheap SIM comparison site”, where a selection of suppliers will offer the same SIM allowance for a fraction of the price.

“If you’re on a multiple-phone contract, you won’t be able to do this”, he added.

He has previously explained how the cost of getting a new SIM has plunged – meaning people could get the full service on their handset for a lot less. He said previously: “Prices have been going up and up. At the same time the cost of new customer SIM deals have been plummeting. For 50gb two years ago you’d have been paying £9. Now you can get it as cheap as about £3 a month.”

Pointing to a diagram on screen Mr Lewis said: “Look at that dispersal – you’ve got existing customers going up and up and up and new customers going down and down and down.”

Mr Lewis went on to explain his three steps for mobile customers to cut costs. He said: “14 million people are out of contract on their mobile phone bill which means you are free to switch.”

He said there is an ‘easy’ way to find out if you are one of those out of contract. Mr Lewis explained: “You text ‘info’ for free to 85075 to check.” He added that people on Three would need to then enter their date of birth. He said that those in contract would still have to pay a termination fee, but otherwise people are free to switch: “You’re a free agent – you can go and get the cheapest deals, you can cut your costs.”

He added that once people decide to switch if they want to keep their number, all they have to do is text PAC (Porting Authorisation Code) to 85075 and give that code to your new provider which will than be able to take the number. According to the MSE founder, the best deals aren’t found by going directly to the big operators – instead he said that if someone is out of contract they should go to comparison sites.