Civil liberties defenders sounded the alarm Tuesday over the draconian prison sentences imposed on a group of activists falsely accused by the Trump administration of being members of a non-existent "North Texas Antifa Cell"—including a 30-year term for a man convicted of moving a box containing leftist literature.
In what the US Department of Justice (DOJ) called "the first sentencing of defendants affiliated with Antifa following President Donald J. Trump’s executive order designating the group as a Domestic Terrorist Organization in September 2025," the defendants were sentenced in the US District Court for the Northern District of Texas in Fort Worth to between 30-100 years imprisonment for actions in connection with a July 4, 2025 protest at the Prairieland Detention Center in Alvarado, Texas, an ICE lockup run by prison profiteer LaSalle Corrections.
Despite DOJ documents showing that none of the defendants identified as Antifa—which does not exist as an organization, but is rather mostly an anti-fascist ideology and, to a lesser extent, a decentralized international movement—the targeted individuals were called "members of a North Texas Antifa Cell."
Prosecutors speciously called them "part of a larger militant enterprise made up of networks of individuals and small groups primarily ascribing to an ideology that explicitly calls for the overthrow of the United States government, law enforcement authorities, and the system of law."
The group Support the Prairieland Defendants said that relatives and supporters of the defendants "sat stunned as US District Judges Mark Pittman and Reed O’Connor delivered sentences ranging from 30-100 years in prison." They called the punishment "cruel, callous, and starkly disproportionate to the defendants’ actions."
On the night of the Prairieland protest, the group of convicted activists gathered outside what critics have called a concentration camp for what was meant to be a noise demonstration in solidarity with detainees. The group set off fireworks, and some participants vandalized property by spray-painting slogans, damaging a guard station, and damaging vehicles.
When law enforcement responded, a gunman fired from a wooded area and wounded Alvarado Police Lt. Thomas Gross in the neck. Prosecutors characterized the event as a coordinated attack, while defense attorneys argued that most participants intended only to protest and did not plan or expect violence.
Former US Marine Corps reservist Benjamin Song, who was convicted of shooting Gross, was sentenced to 100 years, officially for attempted murder of a law enforcement officer and lesser offenses including discharging a firearm during a violent crime, conspiracy to use and using an explosive, and rioting.
Song said he acted in defense of his comrades.
"When I saw... Gross stop pursuing and point his gun at the back of a running, unarmed protester, like he testified, I was terrified," he said on Tuesday. "As a firearms instructor and a United States Marine Corps veteran, I understood what I was seeing. I knew what it meant for someone to lean forward into a gun, like he testified, to prepare for recoil."
Maricela Rueda was sentenced to 70 years, officially for rioting, providing material support to terrorists, conspiracy to use and using an explosive, and conspiracy to conceal documents. Critics said her "crime" was protesting ICE oppression and asking her husband to move a box.
Savanna Batten, Zachary Evetts, Autumn Hill, Bradford Morris, and Elizabeth Soto got 50 years each, officially for rioting, providing material support to terrorists, and conspiracy to use and using an explosive. Critics said their "crime" was attending a protest.
Seven others—Seth Sikes, Nathan Baumann, Joy Gibson, Susan Kent, Rebecca Morgan, Lynette Sharp, and John Thomas—have already pleaded guilty to one count each of providing material support to terrorists and are set to be sentenced on July 1. Ines Soto, who is married to Elizabeth Soto, was convicted of the same offenses as her spouse and was granted a continuance. She is also set to be sentenced on July 1.
Most disturbingly, say free speech defenders, is the 30-year prison sentence imposed on Daniel "Des" Rolando Sanchez Estrada for conspiracy to conceal documents.
Under the auspices of National Security Presidential Memorandum 7 (NSPM-7)—signed by Trump following last year's assassination of racist influencer Charlie Kirk in an effort to target leftists—Sanchez was accused of “corruptly concealing a document or record” after he moved a box containing leftist literature, including zines titled "Another Critique of Insurrectionalism," "It's Vacant, Take It!," and "War In the Streets: Tactical Lessons From the Global Civil War Vol. I."
Prosecutors alleged that Sanchez moved the box in a bid to avoid incriminating Rueda, who is his wife.
Prior to his sentencing, Sanchez—who is a green card holder—told the court that "I worked really hard every day in this country, and I believe in human rights and helping others in need. I donate money and art to help animals and other people."
"I’m a father, a husband, and a teacher," he added. "But I’m not a terrorist.”
Judge O'Connor was not moved, telling the court that the lengthy sentences are meant to "send a message to anyone who shares a similar ideology" with the defendants, according to one observer of Tuesday's proceedings.
"These sentences are a travesty and totally unjustified, but that's the point," Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) said on social media. "Americans hate the fascist Trump regime, so the only way they can try to cling to power is brute force. NSPM-7 is a grave threat to all of us, and more bullshit 'terrorism' charges like these are coming."
The Freedom of the Press Foundation said in response to Tuesday's sentencing, "The zines at issue may have discussed controversial political views, but they said nothing about the shooting or the Prairieland protest, and prosecutors did not allege that Sanchez’s wife... fired any shots or had anything to do with the shooting."
Seth Stern, Freedom of the Press Foundation's advocacy chief, said in a statement that "if prosecutors are correct that Sanchez moved zines because he feared they’d try to use them against his wife, that’s a commentary on prosecutors’ lawlessness, not Sanchez’s."
"Under the First Amendment, possessing literature cannot be criminal, so what legitimate evidence could he possibly have been concealing?" he continued. "Political zines like those Sanchez possessed are no different from the pro-Revolution pamphlets this country’s founders had in mind when they drafted the First Amendment’s press clause."
“Sanchez’s case is the latest example of the Trump administration grasping at any legal straws it can to criminalize disfavored ideologies and writings, from conflating dissent with terrorism to deporting immigrants who report on protests or criticize wars the US bankrolls," Stern said.
"Americans should not make the mistake of believing Sanchez’s sentence only threatens immigrants, leftists, or so-called Antifa members—they’re just the low-hanging fruit, not the endgame," he added.
The prison terms for the Prairieland defendants were more severe than the longest sentences for the average US murderer or rapist, as well as for the January 6, 2021 Capitol insurrectionists—all of whom were later pardoned by Trump.
Arjun Sethi, a professor at Georgetown Law and Vanderbilt Law School, said on social media that "if you care about free speech and protest one iota, you should be aghast at the sentences just handed down in the Prairieland case."
Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) Fort Worth secretary Moishe Dovgolevsky called the sentences "the face of the new Red Scare."
Ana Marie Thorne, chair of the Social Justice Committee at All People’s Church Unitarian Universalist in Fort Worth, said that “as a congregation, we decided that this case was a fundamental test of our right to dissent against authoritarian regimes."
“These defendants are not militant monsters out to kill,” she added. “They are everyday people who saw our country literally interning people in concentration camps and decided to show up at Prairieland Detention Center to let those incarcerated there know that they mattered. We leave here today knowing that the outcome of this trial is not the end. It is the beginning.”
Moira Meltzer-Cohen, an attorney representing defendants in the case, said following Tuesday's sentencing that "this entire prosecution has been calculated to test the state's ability to quell dissent."
"But the way forward is not silence, it is courageous solidarity with those who are being punished on the basis of their protected beliefs, associations, and activities," she added. "And as devastating as this has been for those affected, I do believe their rights will be vindicated in the post-conviction process."
"This entire prosecution has been calculated to test the state's ability to quell dissent."
Song warned the American people Tuesday that while "strangers" may be targeted today, "it will be you tomorrow."
"There is no group called Antifa. Everyone knows that, but this government is so blinded by hate... they want to bury me with an idea," he said. "This idea that they hate is the very idea of being against fascism."
"What kind of people are not against fascism?" he continued. "What kind of people are not against the hate and war and genocide and concentration camps that the Nazis brought upon the world?"
"The hate has migrated into the government," Song warned. "Now that hate is taking power over me. It is taking power over you, over your words and your ideas. When will you be called a domestic terrorist, too?"
In Minneapolis, US Attorney Daniel Rosen—who was appointed by Trump last year—last week invoked NSPM-7 in the prosecution of 15 organizers with the groups Direct Action Minnesota and Black Cat Workers Collective who Rosen claims are linked to Antifa and who are accused of impeding the Department of Homeland Security's deadly anti-immigrant crackdown.
"When they killed Renee Good and Alex Pretti, they went on TV, and they called them domestic terrorists, the same day, within the hour," Song said, referring to two US citizens shot dead by Trump administration immigration enforcers in Minneapolis. "When will that happen to you?"
"I don’t fear for myself," he added. "I fear for all of you."
From Common Dreams via This RSS Feed.
3 Comments
Pierre121000@lemmy.ml · 0 pts · 63d
30 to 70 years to non-shooters for "domestic terrorism", 450 years in total for 8 persons.
The shooter didn't even kill anyone, he only harmed a policeman and got 100 years as a result.
Worst things happen everyday, no reason to be surprised, ok 🤷
For the "attack" of the 6 January of the Capitol, it was 1.300 cumulative years for 650 people, so that was even crazier.
Recently, also in the category "domestic terrorism", there were more than 22 cumulative years for 4 Palestine Action activists, only one of them wounded someone else, a policewoman, and got 7 years and 8 months.
No-one from the Epstein files was ever condemned b.t.w., but there's a thing about being powerless to resist peacefully in our "democracies", no doubt that these activists were taking risks to themselves in order to oppose injustices, one could say that they were anti-'domestic/foreign terrorists' condemned for domestic terrorism, since terrorism doesn't mean anything apart from "killers with a political motivation that we don't agree with"(, there's not even a need to kill apparently).
In a direct democracy, they could have used that energy in order to pass new laws(, in another mediatic environment,) while, in our current system, the extent of our authorized margin of action is to walk peacefully. Seems factual enough to write that.
And we're so proud of our "democracies" that we'll sanction&fight (socialist )countries who don't want to fight us, in order to liberate them. Even if our own surveys do not indicate such a higher satisfaction rate among our citizens, we'll repeat that it's for their own good if we harm them.
We(sterners) will criticize the imperialism of countries we dislike ? the U.S. has been involved in 393 military interventions in other nations since 1776. More than 200 of those have been since 1945, and 114 in the post-Cold War era (after 1989), try to beat that(, no doubt that invading Ukraine and Afghanistan made Russia worse than us, here's more if needed, they won't teach you this in school, just like they'll only focus&exaggerate on the bad parts of the u.s.s.r.).
Yeah, we are, no country even come close so how can we still paint ourselves as the good guys ? I don't get it, they were bad guys so the good guys liberated them from their oppressor, that's what we're taught, can you see how vietnamese people never needed our liberation ?
I hope that we(sterners) will lose, does that make me unpatriotic ? Well, the whole thing about the right is that they love France, yet want to change it(, in other words, just like the left, they don't like the current France).
I've been told by our designated enemies that if 'we lose'/'they win', then they'll put into place a multilateral new world order that their supporters have been calling for many decades ago.
We(sterners) aren't talking much about this topic, but our actions speak for themselves, we'll fight communists, islamists, and whatever diversity survived colonization. Why the fuck was/is it our role to fight i.s.i.s. for example(, suicide bombings were a consequence of our involvement not a cause) ?
So i hope that we'll lose.
Are these thoughts just against the west, or are they in support/favor of, currently, Venezuela(, sorry), Cuba(, sorry), Iran(, each year worse than the previous one, sorry), Russia(, sorry), Belarus(, sorry), North Korea(, sorry), China(, sorry), Palestine(, sorry), Lebanon(, sorry) , ...
And before that it was Libya, Yemen, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Yugoslavia(, as well as Pakistan, Somalia, ...)
And before that it was against communists all around the world(, many dozens of countries).
And before that it was the colonization(, almost each country).
In comparison, we generally don't accuse our designated enemies of being warmongers because we're simply unable to point at a single country they attacked, what a contrast.
Addition :
If the aim isn't anti-west but pro-world, then it can build something great.
On one side there's multilateralism, one of its possibilities would be that union in diversity, with a world army against overt actions and an ideal tribunal against covert ones, after decades of testing conditions with a lot of money&people invested. God allows us even better options certainly(, ~each with many variants that do not all succeed).
On the other side is something i've discussed less : why do we prefer a monopoly to a peaceful diversity ?
If we(sterners) win, we'll erase the ideals of communism(, as well as any last anti-zionist, and islamists afterwards), so paint me your best utopia for once(, one day we'll have reached the end of our journey, unable to climb higher, will the lives of children born afterwards still be meaningful ?)
In your post-"victory" future, what will happen if something new emerges(, religion/socio-economy/culture/life/civilization/..,) that isn't allowed by a doxa that may continue to restrict itself afterwards ? What if this re(-e)volution comes from another planet ? If our answer hasn't changed, we'll fight it until it disappears, as we do now.
Ok then, but would you still consider such fight desirable if it's not necessary(, and never has been, we could have lived in diversity a long time ago already), the new means of communication only facilitates that even further, while military (robotic/biological/nuclear/.. )technology makes such fight even deadlier.
We manifestedly consciously rejected multilateralism many times to choose fighting instead, and since it was/is not because unifying in diversities is impossible, it's because it was/is less desirable. I've tried once again to understand why we did/do not desire such thing, and failed again.
It's not about morality[1], nor insecurity since it'd lead to a more stable world, and there's absolutely not any "need" for a western control, nor any other final form of history, so these are not answers.
If we're evil, then we don't want that any system is left as a better alternative than ours.
If we're stupid, then we believe that it's just the natural/'only possible' result of any competition(, that works on exclusion rather than attraction).
I don't think we're stupid, and demonizing others is lazy, so i still don't have a satisfying answer.
Governmental plans are usually good at pursuing multiple desirable options simultaneously, but here we really reject that option.
Are we just evil, and that's it ? Probably not, but then what's the answer ?
We(sterners) say that our "universal" values are 'just one historical project among others'/'not the natural destination of mankind' in theory, i think ?
We(sterners) act by not allowing other countries to take a (very )different historical trajectory than us.
So it's not an absolute acceptation(, far from it).
A genuinely multilateral world would require ensuring the security of everyone, no more military bases, alliances, sanctions, opposition funding, media influence, covert operations of all kind, financial pressure, military encirclement, ..., no more attacks/paranoia against them nor against us, no more foreign actors, expansionism, or the 'foreign threat' justification for authoritarianism, nor the confusion of safety with an asymetric control over others, no more "need" for a "Pax" Americana either. Ideally, no more calling our actions defensive/preventive and theirs agressive/authoritarian.
It's in the selfish interest of everyone including us that the world doesn't become reduced to western values, that we(sterners) become "only" one voice/project among others.
We don't dislike that there are alternatives, right ? And we do not try to deprive humanity from a better ideology than ours ? That last one would be too evil/unrealistic/condescending to believe in.
One more selfish explanation is that we'd be poorer than now relatively to the rest of the world, but if that's the case we'd still be rich enough to live comfortably thanks to our machines, it's also about the spiritual wealth brought by diversities.
Again, our security wouldn't be threatened by the success of these alternatives with the correct multilateral institutions(, e.g. a world army against overt actions and an ideal tribunal against covert ones), so that's not a reason. Refusing to secure ourselves from their rise/'potential desire of revenge from our abuses' may end up in a win-lose scenario, so protecting everyone from any attack(, a win-win situation perhaps,) would be preferable to risking our loss(, and even our win perhaps), and probably more cautious than waiting passively while trusting in their good will.
As of now the most likely reasons seem to be our selfishness, unsatisfying.
I initially wrote more to insist on an extensive stress-testing for decades with a lot of money/people invested(, in which i said that Étienne Chouard is very suspicious of the powerful, one of his many virtues, yet even him would trust some national constitutions).
However, we(sterners) wouldn't want to share the world even if our own safety was ensured.
If i'm wrong, as i naively hope, then these results would be worth obtaining, and if we're unsatisfied for good reasons and find no way of ever 'answering our worries'/'improving the structure', then we'll know we're unable to find a way for multilateralism to be a valid option, only the race for global domination is left, a world government promoting unity through uniformity like our national states or current federations, with many laws applying to all.
If i'm right, then why would you support the west ?
Pierre121000@lemmy.ml · 1 pts · 57d
[1] : On the great lie that we're just fighting authoritarianism, not the "too different from us" :
It suffices to see how we never once considered an ally of the u.s.s.r. tolerable enough to be left alone(, even less accepted), and if it's not enough then realize that none of our many anti-communist allies were ever considered authoritarian enough to be sanctioned(, even less invaded). We're told it's about authoritarianism versus "democracy", that's one of their great lie.
We're also not taught at school the many greatnesses that the u.s.s.r. brought to its lucky/deserving citizens, it's all black-and-white. What good is your "just go live there" when you're intent on destroying it.
You'll still be unable/refusing to see through our lies/exaggerations about these countries. To you we're not imperialists but just anti-authoritarians, someone has to bear that difficult burden.
You especially refuse to believe that western authoritarianism would increase in times of crisis(, Patriot Act post-2001, France post-2015, ..., temporary measures now normalized into ordinary law), and that we knowingly increase their repression by increasing their insecurity. We create siege conditions and then pretend to be shocked by siege politics.
We'll hide the many criticisms our system would deserve(, on personal freedoms, mediatic freedom/plurality, lack of democracy, common injustices, our imperialism, ...), while also hiding everything good about other countries, e.g. : a high unemployment rate is a legal obligation in the west otherwise they couldn't easily fire people, but there was a 0% unemployment rate in the u.s.s.r. ; we've accepted homelessness as normal, but there was a 0% homelessness rate in the u.s.s.r. ; we say that their medias&elections aren't free, but ours are clearly influenced(, lobbying, donor influence, revolving-door corruption, expert "consensus", party gatekeeping, ostracism of conspiratorial/extremist/pro-foreign political opinions, ...) ; that they don't have any respect for their population, but we're allowing capitalism/thievery and promoting a private healthcare unaccessible to the poor ; we especially love to promote opponents to their "regime" while understandably opposing/condemning ours even though we(sterners) aren't attacked ; the leader of the "free world" has the highest incarceration rate ; and hundreds of examples.
You'll still naively believe that we're not imperialists/anti-disobedience but just anti-authoritarians, and hence that we shouldn't be opposed, and should even be supported.
The test is simple : if anti-authoritarianism was truly the principle, then our anti-communist dictatorships would have been treated as enemies instead of spending money to put them into place, and socialist (direct )democracies wouldn't have been demonized.
On the contrary, a pro-Western dictatorship can torture, ban parties, crush unions, censor the press, ..., and will be called "stable" or "strategic".
A socialist government can win elections and still be called a cheater that should be overthrown, and/or a threat if it nationalizes its resources and refuses to become a client state.
Their sin isn't authoritarianism but disobedience/difference. As a consequence, while our opponents are terrorists that should be killed, their opponents are freedom fighters that should be supported.
Their experts are parroting "regime" propaganda, while ours are always aligned with the foreign policy of our government, and often emerge from think tanks funded by private interests.
Their election are fake because opposition parties are harassed/filtered, but ours need signatures from mayors and a lot of money/donors, as well as media visibility, and a necessary amount of "respectable"/orthodox opinions to ever have a chance.
Our political candidates don't need to be banned since they're pre-filtered. Our journalists don't need to be arrested since they're marginalized, and usually censored in a general indifference because that's what they deserve for their supposedly dangerous unorthodoxy. Our dissidents can lose banking, platforms/visibility/reputation, employment, ..., without ever being formally imprisoned(, that's today).
Then we call the result of this institutional repression the marketplace of idea(l)s, a free debate, while describing them in other countries as suffering under the thumb of a single dictator arbitrarily sanctioning those who dare to ever displease h·er·im.
See pages 1167-1225 for a reverse card, demonizing is so easy : https://mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/doklady/2116571/?lang=en
Portugal’s Estado Novo dictatorship was a founding member of NATO, Franco’s Spain was accepted, as well as Papadopoulos' Greece and dozens more. A Pinochet was always preferred to an Allende, and a Suharto to a Sukarno. Our news would have been ferociously anti-'South Africa' if it had been communist, same for Israel right now.
The plainly visible rule that we somehow refuse to see is that authoritarianism is allowed when it's against communists, trade unionists, anti-colonial movements, palestinians, migrants, leftists, indigenous peasants, striking workers, anti-imperialists, ..., while it's suddenly morally intolerable when it's against western capital, military access, NGOs, media influence, property claims, or geopolitical obedience.
We(sterners) only hate a repression that isn't serving our side, and if it doesn't exist then we'll make it up(, Venezuela's humanitarian aid burned, Kadhafi's viagra, China's uyghurs genocide, al-Assad's chemical weapon use, Cuba's Havana syndrom, North Korea's too long list of cartoonish atrocity propaganda, ...), and we'll always focus on the good sides of our allies and on the bad sides of those we designated as our enemies(, who obviously don't want to be hated by us, just to freely choose a different path).
In any case, you're just as powerless as me in this "democracy", don't make waves and keep your job, you have children to feed.
I personally won't excuse our imperialism based on the "need" to save these population from their governments, feel free to believe that lie.
Pierre121000@lemmy.ml · 1 pts · 54d
The machine called it rational, selfishness is not christian and your realism is selfish, the following quote makes sense :
Each part of the all/whole has a responsibility in consequences affecting the all/whole(, either by provoking or enabling/'failing to prevent' it), i.e., choosing neutrality is enabling the winning side.
And the winning side is the one refusing diversity, Hungary is just one more example that despite its motto, the e.u. has a very narrow acception of diversity. One year ago, we found it authoritarian/unacceptable that Viktor Orbán used public medias for pro-Fidesz propaganda, but now we find it normal to use them for anti-'Orbán/Fidesz' propaganda, classic. The hungarian president mandate was supposed to end three years for now, but since any mean is justified it'll end tomorrow. We also considered the u.s.s.r. irredeemably authoritarian, a union which was dissolved through referendum, and every mean was justified to prevent communists from getting back into power, both through laws and medias. After our "friendly advices" that destroyed their economy once followed.
There's not a single european country obeying the e.u. that is considered authoritarian, and each heterodox european country disobeying us is authoritarian, an observation that can be extended to the rest of the world, certainly a coincidence.
Anyway, i clearly don't subscribe to what the e.u. means by "united in diversity", we're not diverse enough.
It's just that if we continue to oppose diversity all around the world, then the only end result is uniformity, which is less desirable than diversity, right ?
My ignorant opinion on the "dismantling campaign" recently announced by the u.s. against the International Criminal Court(, update) :
I think that the rules should be the same whether a country is weak or powerful, and that any country should be allowed to 'do what'/'be as different as' it wants domestically with an absolute freedom(, yes, even a democide wouldn't be a cause of sanctions by an international tribunal, as long as this government allows&helps its future victims to flee, those who choose to stay in order to wage a civil war should neither be helped nor hindered by foreign governments).
In a future that'd prevent all hostile overt actions(, e.g. world army), such international tribunal should only be concerned with covert actions abroad, in order to ensure everyone's security.
I'm insisting on security because here as well, once again, we justify our crimes through the pretext of our need for security, we 'always do'/'will continue to do so'. I point out that by ensuring the security of others we'd not only ensure ours(, if it ever was a sincere concern), but obtain diversity as well.