博客

  • 玛格丽特·布伦南主持的《面对国家》节目嘉宾谈话实录:伊朗被拘留的美国公民家属及相关人士


    2026年3月20日 / 美国东部时间下午5:54 / 哥伦比亚广播公司新闻

    以下是与前伊朗被拘留者西亚马克·纳马齐(Siamak Namazi)和埃马德·沙尔吉(Emad Shargi)、哥伦比亚广播公司新闻评论员、前美国政府人质事务特使罗杰·卡斯滕斯(Roger Carstens)以及沙尔吉的妹妹内达·沙尔吉(Neda Sharghi)共同参与的小组讨论完整记录。部分讨论内容将于2026年3月22日在《面对国家》节目中播出。

    *

    玛格丽特·布伦南:目前至少有四名美国人被伊朗拘留。其中两人——雷扎·瓦利扎德(Reza Valizadeh)和卡姆兰·赫克马蒂(Kamran Hekmati)——已被美国政府认定为非法拘留,据信被关押在伊朗臭名昭著的埃文监狱(Evin Prison)。我们现在邀请了两位有过在伊朗被非法拘留经历的人士:西亚马克·纳马齐和埃马德·沙尔吉。内达·沙尔吉是埃马德的妹妹,多年来一直为他的获释奔走,现在继续帮助其他被非法拘留者的家属。罗杰·卡斯滕斯是哥伦比亚广播公司新闻评论员,曾在拜登和特朗普第一届政府中担任美国政府人质事务特使。欢迎各位来到节目。看到你们两位坐在一起,感觉很不真实,毕竟我们追踪报道你们的案件已经很久了。我想先问一下当前情况。去年6月以色列对埃文监狱进行了轰炸,这是12天战争期间的事件。但在当前这场战争中,我们还没有听说类似行动,但上周日伊朗外长在《面对国家》节目中表示,只要美国和以色列不攻击他们的监狱,这些囚犯就会安全。他指的就是我们刚才提到的至少四名美国人。你们都经历过监狱内的生活,埃马德,你现在最担心的是那些美国人的什么?

    埃马德·沙尔吉:谢谢你,玛格丽特,邀请我们参加节目。现在我们自由了,能坐在这里面对你,感觉很棒。我认为,每当伊朗发生什么事,埃文监狱的围墙就像一个放大器。外面社会上一点小风波,在监狱里就会掀起巨浪。2022年10月马哈萨·阿米尼(Mahsa Amini)抗议活动期间,我就在那里。监狱里的情况迅速恶化,从糟糕变得更糟,非常不舒服。我担心现在在那里的美国人的安全,他们不仅要面对看守的威胁,而且这个国家正在遭受轰炸,所以我有点担心他们可能成为囚犯的报复目标。

    玛格丽特·布伦南:针对美国人吗?

    埃马德·沙尔吉:针对美国人。我的意思是,如果你听说你的村庄、城镇遭到袭击,而你最能报复的方式就是——比如三个牢房之外的人,所以这种可能性一直存在。

    玛格丽特·布伦南:西亚马克,你非常了解监狱内部的情况。听到埃马德的描述,你现在最担心的是这些美国人的处境和地位?

    西亚马克·纳马齐:我认为,对伊朗的外国被拘留者来说,现在是最危险的时刻。他们被困在一个残忍的政权手中,这个政权把他们当作人质外交这场可怕游戏中的棋子,同时还身处一场他们无法控制的战争中。去年12天的战争期间,以色列在中午对埃文监狱投下了约7枚炸弹,炸弹不会区分囚犯和看守,所以他们确实面临真正的威胁。埃马德说得对,一旦国家局势军事化,监狱内部的军事化程度也会更高。我不太担心囚犯本身,我觉得他们都是好人,周围可能有朋友。我更担心的是伊朗政权——这些人现在成了这个流氓政权手中最容易攻击的目标。最后,对于人质或在海外被非法拘留的公民来说,最大的恐惧是被遗忘。现在华盛顿似乎忙于处理其他问题,而帮助这些人的国家——比如阿曼、卡塔尔——都有更紧迫的事情要处理,无暇顾及这些囚犯。所以我和埃马德都感谢你们能关注这个问题,我们需要让他们获释。对他们来说,现在就是我们能想象到的最危险的时刻。

    玛格丽特·布伦南:你说得对。我们很少听到这些囚犯的消息。不过我们会尊重一些不愿公开姓名的家属,但我们提到的数字可能比公开报道的要多。为什么?为什么这个问题没有被更多讨论?现在把它作为一个议题会不会有风险?这是外交官常说的论点:如果放大他们的重要性,可能会提高美国人的“身价”。你认为现在强调他们的重要性为什么很关键?

    埃马德·沙尔吉:因为我和身边的朋友都经历过那些牢房,我们明白,当你的国家有人关注你,让国务院都谈论你的案子时,这意味着什么。这给你带来希望,让你能安心入睡,醒来时也能轻松一些,知道隧道尽头有光。最糟糕的情况是没人谈论你,那种感觉很可怕,你会觉得自己在宇宙中迷失了。

    玛格丽特·布伦南:西亚马克,我记得你是从伊朗获释的被拘留时间最长的美国人,8年。

    西亚马克·纳马齐:这不是你希望获得的世界冠军头衔,对吧?

    玛格丽特·布伦南:不,很高兴你能以幽默面对。我想你必须这样才能挺过来。

    西亚马克·纳马齐:是的,但现在我们应该关注那些还在里面的人。幸运的是我们出来了。我想和埃马德一样,坐在这里很不真实。大概三年前,有人偷偷带了一部手机进来,让我们看看你的节目。我记得你当时在和埃马德的女儿们以及他的妻子交谈,如果我没记错的话,我还对埃马德说,我为你的女儿们感到骄傲,她们现在做得这么好。很遗憾,这是她们必须经历的,但给人以希望非常重要。但除了希望,还有美国这边的政策制定者。伊朗现在局势复杂,尤其是这场战争。我认为每一位美国总统,包括现任总统,都希望把被拘留的美国人带回来。我认为现任总统也以解决这个问题为荣。但我不知道他是否知道我们至少有6名被拘留者,我会质疑这个“4名”的数字,实际上可能至少有6名,甚至更多,因为很多人不愿向国务院透露自己的情况。我们需要让外界知道这些情况,给他们希望。正如我所说,被遗忘是最大的恐惧。现在,这种恐惧可能与被炸弹轰炸的恐惧相当,或者政权可能会忽视这些人的处境。但我们需要——我们需要向政策制定者施压,提醒他们,我们的公民仅仅因为持有蓝色护照就处于危险之中,我们需要把他们带回家。我想强调一点,现在是战争时期,我们还能对伊朗做什么?我们能威胁他们吗?或者说,有没有其他办法?

    玛格丽特·布伦南:——他们已经受到了极其严厉的制裁。

    西亚马克·纳马齐:没错,但——他们正在遭受轰炸,现在什么都没有了。但所有战争最终都会通过外交解决,无论是直接还是间接。因此,我希望看到的是,像你们这样的节目能推动政策制定者将解救美国人作为当务之急,尤其是在与伊朗进行外交谈判的第一个机会到来时。

    玛格丽特·布伦南:内达,你为弟弟奔走的事迹令人印象深刻。我们要提到两个希望公开姓名的人:雷扎·瓦利扎德是一名记者,被指控与敌对政府(即美国)合作;卡姆兰·赫克马蒂本周刚被认定为非法拘留,61岁,被判两年徒刑,指控包括访问以色列。我们需要了解这些案件的什么信息?正式认定非法拘留身份实际上能带来什么效果?

    内达·沙尔吉:谢谢你邀请我。认定非法拘留身份非常重要,因为这公开承认这些人是因为持有蓝色护照而被扣押的,美国政府现在可以动用所有资源来营救他们。雷扎和卡姆兰的家人希望他们的案件能公开。作为一名记者,我认为雷扎没有得到像埃文·格什科维奇(Evan Gershkovich)那样的关注,我不知道为什么,但我们需要提高雷扎的知名度。卡姆兰·赫克马蒂是美国犹太人,他的家人希望所有人都知道他和其他被关押在美国的人质一样,需要同样的关注。现在是战争时期,但特朗普总统已经证明了他的能力,他在加沙战争期间把美国人带回来了,我非常有信心,如果他知道这些人的名字和故事,他会指示政府想办法把他们带回家。

    玛格丽特·布伦南:你认为他真的不知道吗?

    内达·沙尔吉:我没有听到他提到这些名字。作为为弟弟和其他家庭奔走的人,我们常说,自由始于名字。你必须说出这个名字,它必须从你的嘴里说出来。我希望特朗普总统能说出这些名字。我给家属的建议是——你们的观众就在美国,要与媒体互动。向白宫和国务院的高层施压,他们很清楚,如果是他们的家人被关押在伊朗,他们会采取同样的行动。要让美国民众知道这些人的故事和名字,不要害怕,要大声疾呼。

    玛格丽特·布伦南:西亚马克,你曾是被关押时间最长的美国人,被释放后,你认为现在的政策制定者应该如何行动?

    西亚马克·纳马齐:我完全同意埃马德的说法,我相信特朗普总统非常重视这个问题。我们常说,这是最后一个无党派或两党共识的问题,无论是特朗普、拜登,还是回到20世纪50年代,你会发现美国总统都非常重视。正如内达所说,特朗普总统在这里有很好的记录。我想说的是,现在伊朗的政治、军事和经济能力都在恶化,这可能导致他们不得不做出反应。所以你会看到军事行动成为焦点,而人质问题可能被边缘化,或者无法实现。但我们希望总统能把营救美国人作为第五个目标,和其他四个战争目标并列。我认为至少有不到20名包括美国人在内的被拘留者,还有欧洲人。我希望无论是否被公开宣布,这个目标都能被列入他的议程。最后,我要指出,伊朗被首次列为“支持人质外交的国家”,就在战争开始前一两天。

    玛格丽特·布伦南:——这是第一次使用这个称号。

    罗杰·卡斯滕斯:是的,第一次。我认为这样做是有原因的。国务卿卢比奥(Rubio)在宣布时可能是想强调,这很重要,我们在关注,但我们首先有军事目标需要完成。

    玛格丽特·布伦南:所以你确信最终这些美国人会被营救出来,政府会推动这一进程。

    罗杰·卡斯滕斯:很难说,但我相信他们最终会被释放。我总是对我对面的两位朋友说,故事的结局是确定的,就是他们会出来。只是需要经历多少时间和痛苦。我希望政府在制定战略时能优先考虑营救美国人,特别是在伊朗局势恶化的情况下,这可能会影响人质问题的解决。我认为,只要有机会进行外交谈判,就应该立即营救我们的人。

    玛格丽特·布伦南:你们有这么丰富的经历,能谈谈埃文监狱里的人吗?那里不仅仅是关押罪犯,更是政权控制民众和政治权力的象征,对吗?

    西亚马克·纳马齐:是的,而且这也显示了他们控制手段的失败,因为即使在监狱里,他们也无法压制这些勇敢的人的声音。

    玛格丽特·布伦南:对于现在的囚犯和那里的美国人,罗杰,你能告诉我们,维特科夫特使和总统女婿贾里德·库什纳(Jared Kushner)是否在与伊朗高级外交官的间接谈判中提到了美国人的问题?还是说应该将其与核问题完全分开?

    罗杰·卡斯滕斯:我希望能准确回答,但我不确定。我只能说,当我们争取这些人的获释时,我们非常清楚核谈判与人质谈判之间的联系,如果核谈判突然失败,人质谈判也可能随之失败。因此,我们需要在这两个问题之间建立某种联系,但又不能过于紧密。而伊朗政权可能更倾向于将两者紧密联系起来。因此,这可能就是为什么在核谈判中,人质问题可能被暂时搁置。

    玛格丽特·布伦南:作为家属,你是否觉得不能忽视这些人?

    西亚马克·纳马齐:不,我认为我们必须时刻铭记他们的存在。这些人只是因为持有美国护照而被扣押,他们没有任何过错。我们需要让政府知道,这些人需要被优先考虑,否则他们可能会成为政治博弈的牺牲品。

    玛格丽特·布伦南:最后,你们想对特朗普总统说什么?

    埃马德·沙尔吉:我想告诉总统,他在营救美国人方面有着卓越的记录,没有其他总统能在第一百天内做到他所做的事情。我相信,如果他知道有美国人被关押在埃文监狱,他一定会指示身边的人将此事列为优先事项。

    西亚马克·纳马齐:我完全同意埃马德的观点。我相信总统知道这些人的名字和情况后,一定会将营救他们作为优先事项。不幸的是,之前他们没有被优先考虑,但我认为,随着战争结束,通过外交谈判,他们很快会被释放。我恳请总统在与伊朗谈判时,确保营救美国人成为谈判的一部分。

    玛格丽特·布伦南:非常感谢你们的时间和分享。我们稍后回来继续节目。

    Transcript: Siamak Namazi, Emad Shargi, Roger Carstens, Neda Sharghi on “Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan,” March 22, 2026

    2026-03-20T17:54:39-0400 / CBS News

    March 20, 2026 / 5:54 PM EDT / CBS News

    The following is the full transcript of the panel with former Iran detainees Siamak Namazi and Emad Shargi, Roger Carstens, a CBS News contributor and former U.S. special envoy for hostage affairs, and Shargi’s sister, Neda Sharghi. A portion of the panel will air on “Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan” on March 22, 2026.

    *

    MARGARET BRENNAN: There are at least four Americans currently detained in Iran. Two of them, Reza Valizadeh and Kamran Hekmati, have been designated by the U.S. government as wrongfully detained and are believed to be held in Iran’s notorious Evin Prison. We’re joined now by two people who have shared that experience of being wrongfully detained inside Iran, Siamak Namazi and Emad Shargi. Neda Sharghi is Emad’s sister and spent years advocating for his release and continues to help other families of wrongful detainees. And Roger Carstens is a CBS News contributor and formerly the U.S. Special Envoy for Hostage Affairs under both Biden and Trump’s first administration. Welcome to the program. It is surreal to see the two of you sitting next to each other as well, having covered your cases for so long. I want to ask about what’s going on right now. During the 12-day war, we know that Israel, last June, did bomb Evin Prison. During this current war, we haven’t heard of anything like that yet, but last Sunday, Iran’s foreign minister told us here on Face The Nation that as long as the U.S. and Israel do not attack their prisons, I guess they are safe. He was talking about the at least four Americans that we mentioned there. You know what it’s like inside. Emad, what concerns you about the Americans there now?

    EMAD SHARGI: Thank you, Margaret, for having us here. It’s great to be sitting in front of you now that we are free. I think whenever there is an issue taking place in Iran, the walls of Evin are like an amplifier. So when there’s a ripple outside in the society, there’s a tidal wave inside. I was there in October of 20- 2022, when the Mahsa Amini protests were taking place. Things change rapidly, from bad to worse, inside. It’s a very uncomfortable situation. I’m worried about the Americans that are there now, about their safety, both from their captors and, you know, the country is being bombed, so I’m not, you know, I’m a little worried that they might become targets of inmates. So–

    MARGARET BRENNAN: For being American?

    EMAD SHARGI: For being American. I mean, you know, if- if you hear that your village, your town, has been hit, and the closest thing you have to take revenge is, you know, three cells down, so that possibility is always there.

    MARGARET BRENNAN: Siamak, you know very well what it’s like on the inside. I mean, when you hear Emad’s description there, what are you concerned about in terms of the Americans and their status right now?

    SIAMAK NAMAZI: I think this is as dangerous a time as it can be for foreign detainees in Iran. They are stuck between a cruel regime that is using them as a pawn in their horrible game of hostage diplomacy and a war that they cannot control. You know, in the 12-day war, Israel bombed Evin Prison around noon. I think they dropped about seven bombs, and bombs don’t distinguish between inmates and guards, and so they- they have a real worry. Emad pointed out correctly that as soon as the situation in the country becomes securitized, it becomes much more securitized within- within the prison. I am less worried about the inmates. I think these are lovely people, and they will probably have good friends around them. I am much more worried about the regime. These- they are the easiest to grab punching bag right now in the hands of- of that rogue regime. So I think this is as dangerous a time. And finally, you know, for- for a hostage or wrongfully detained citizen abroad, their biggest fear is to be forgotten, and this is a very dangerous time for them, with all that’s going on in Washington’s mind. And you know, the- the regular- the countries that help, the Omanis, the Qataris, everyone has bigger fish to fry than to worry about the detainees. So let me join Emad and the others of thanking you, you know, bringing attention to this, it’s- we- we do need to get them out. This is as dangerous a time as- as we can imagine for them.

    MARGARET BRENNAN: And you’re right. We’re not hearing a lot about these prisoners. We will honor some of the families who don’t want names public, but we mentioned that the numbers are- are perhaps even higher than what’s being publicly reported. Why? Why isn’t it being discussed more? Is there a risk right now in making it an issue? That’s often the argument you hear from diplomats. You increase the price on the head of an American if you amplify that they’re important. Why do you think it’s important right now to say that they matter?

    EMAD SHARGI: Because I and my friend sitting next to me were in those- on those floors, in those cells, we understand what it means when people in your country know about you, that your case is important enough for people in the State Department to talk about. It gives you hope. You go to bed a little easier. You wake up a little lighter. You know there is a light at the end of the tunnel. The worst thing that can happen to you is that nobody talks about you. That is a horrible feeling. You really feel lost in the universe.

    MARGARET BRENNAN: Siamak, you were, I believe, the longest held American prisoner to have been released from Iran. Eight years.

    SIAMAK NAMAZI: Not the world title you hope for, is it?

    MARGARET BRENNAN: No, I’m glad that you have a sense of humor about it. I guess you have to- to get through that.

    SIAMAK NAMAZI: Yes, but right now, let’s focus on those who are in there. We’re thankfully out. And I want to echo what Emad says, it’s really surreal to be sitting here. I think four years ago to- or three years ago to the mark, there was someone who had snuck in a cell phone and let us borrow it to see your program. And you- I think you were talking with Emad’s daughters and- and his wife, if I’m- if I remember correctly, and I remember telling Emad, I’m so proud of your girls for getting so good at this. I’m sorry that, you know, this is what it took, but it’s extremely important to give people hope. But beyond hope, it’s also the policymakers on this side. This- there’s so much going on in Iran and especially with this war. We, you know, all U.S. presidents, I think every single one of them, would want to get American detainees out. And I think this particular president takes pride in it. I don’t know if he’s even aware that we have at least six, and I would- I would challenge the four number. At least six, probably more, because there’s a lot of people who don’t want their cases mentioned, even to the State Department. And you know, we- we need to get the word out to give them hope. As I said, being forgotten is the biggest fear. Today, probably rivaled with the fear of bombs dropping on them, or the regime taking out the fact that they can’t do anything about the bomb on these guys. But we need- we- you know, we need to put pressure on the policy makers here to remind them we have Americans in harm’s way solely for holding a blue passport, and we need to bring them home. I think- one thing I should emphasize is, I know it’s wartime. I know what else are we going to do to Iran? What are we going to threaten them with? Or, you know, there’s- there’s no–

    MARGARET BRENNAN: –They’re incredibly sanctioned.

    SIAMAK NAMAZI: True, but- well, they’re getting bombed. There’s nothing else- they’re- they’re getting really bombed. But all wars end in diplomacy, either direct or indirect. And so what I would like to see, and what I hope for programs like this could encourage, is to make sure that it is a real priority to get out our people the first chance there is for diplomacy and negotiations with Iran.

    MARGARET BRENNAN: Neda, you were such an advocate for your brother. Two of the names that do want to be public, and I want to read them. Reza Valizadeh is a journalist. He was charged with collaborating with a hostile government. I guess the United States is the hostile government. Kamran Hekmati was just designated this week. He’s 61 years old, a two year sentence, an accusation of a few things, including visiting Israel. What do we need to know about these cases and what is this like formal designation actually achieve?

    NEDA SHARGHI: Thank you for having me on. The designation is very important, because you publicly now recognize these individuals as being used for their blue passport, and the United States government now has the sort of carte blanche to use all its resources to get them out. And, you know, these two individuals, Reza’s and Kamran’s families, do want their cases to be public. You know, as a journalist, you know, I don’t think Reza is getting as much attention as you know Evan Gershkovich was receiving. I don’t know why, but we need to increase Reza’s profile. And, you know, it’s- it’s public knowledge. Kamran Hekmati is an American Jew, and his- his family wants everyone to know that he- he- he needs the same attention that we gave the hostages who were being held in Gaza. And yes, we are at war, but President Trump has shown us proof of concept. He brought home Americans during the war in Gaza, and I am incredibly confident, having brought over 100 Americans home, that if he knows the names of these individuals, if he knows the stories that he will, you know, instruct his administration to find a way of bringing them home.

    MARGARET BRENNAN: Do you think there really is a chance he doesn’t know?

    NEDA SHARGHI: You know, I haven’t heard him say those names. And you know, as someone who advocated for my brother and for Siamak and for other families, we always say freedom starts with a name. You’ve got to utter the name, it has to come out of your mouth. And I- I hope to hear President Trump utter those words. And the families, you know, my advice to the families is- is, you know, you have- your audience is here in the U.S., engage with the media. Senior leaders in the White House and in the State Department, hold them accountable. They understand, they have thick skin. If it was their family members being held in Iran, they would do the same thing. And make sure the American public knows the stories and knows the names. Don’t be scared. Be vocal. Be out there.

    MARGARET BRENNAN: Roger, you were one of those officials with thick skin inside the department hearing in the past about people who had been detained. Right now, why aren’t we hearing more? You were part of the last administration’s attempts to get these gentlemen out. There was a trade there. There was release of prisoners from the United States, people who had actually gone through the court system. And then there was also a release of about $6 billion in funds. That was hugely controversial, but it was a trade President Biden decided to carry out, do these options not exist now?

    ROGER CARSTENS: Yeah. I mean, the options probably change. I can- I can point out that the- the trade that we did in terms of money, that was from South Korea to Qatar, the money’s not been touched. Not $1 went into Iran during that period. It was to be able to use for humanitarian items, and the Iranians never used it. And I think there probably are things that we should be considering, but I’ll say just a few things. Number one, from experience, President Trump does care about this topic very much. We often say that this is the last nonpartisan or bipartisan issue, and that both President Trump, President Biden and go back to probably the 1950s you’ll find American presidents that really cared about this. And as Neda said, President Trump has a pretty good track record here. I would say that though- it’s right now you’re seeing the political, military and economic degradation of Iran’s capabilities, and that’s kind of leading it. So you’re going to see the military, of course, front and center in terms of trying to drive a strategy. And maybe the things that you might call as a political objective or a hostage objective might be off to the side or not necessarily coming up to fruition. I think it’s our hope that if the president lists four war objectives, that the fifth objective is getting Americans out and maybe freeing all the other people that are kept in Evin Prison. I think I’ve seen a list of probably just under 20, not only Americans, but Europeans as well. And I’m hopeful that whether that’s an announced objective, or whether that’s off to the side, I’m hopeful that’s- that’s on his list of things to do. But maybe the last thing I’ll point out is the designation of Iran as a state sponsor of hostage diplomacy came out, like a day or two prior to the war starting–

    MARGARET BRENNAN: –For the very first time it was used.

    ROGER CARSTENS: First time. And I think- I think it was done for a reason. I think that Secretary of State Rubio, in making that announcement, was trying to say, this is important, we’re watching it, but we have some military objectives that we need to- to work through first.

    MARGARET BRENNAN: So you are confident that ultimately these Americans will be able to come out and that the administration will push for them.

    ROGER CARSTENS: You know, it’s hard to say, I am confident that they will eventually come out. I always used to say this about my two friends across the table here. We know how the story ends. The story ends with them coming out. It’s just how much time and how much pain do you have to go through to get there. And I’m just hopeful that the administration is working that. I would have a belief that they are. I think this is the one area that I know President Trump cares deeply about, just as President Biden did. And I’d like to think that it’s one of those objectives that’s over here, and when it’s time, it will come to the forefront. But I think just from where we are in terms of what’s important to us, you know, deep down, I know we’d like to see that come out to the forefront earlier, rather than later.

    MARGARET BRENNAN: Because you two have such incredible experience. Can you tell us a little bit about who are the people inside the walls of Evin Prison. Because right now, in the American dialogue, you are hearing these calls from the Israeli government, from the American government, for the- for the Iranian people to take to the streets. You knew a lot of that political opposition, and they were inside the walls of that prison, right? Who is there? Like, what are you thinking about in this moment?

    EMAD SHARGI: I wilI defer to Siamak to answer that question. I think for about two years, Siamak and I were separate. Siamak knows some of the more highly known and respected opposition leaders who were in his ward, and I got to meet some of the boys who had gone on the street and- and protest during the Mahsa Amini and also during the fuel increase uprisings. So I think together, we have seen both sides of them, so Siamak?

    SIAMAK NAMAZI: That’s a point, Evin Prison is not just where they take criminals, it’s where the regime holds anyone they want out of the way. And this is a highly corrupt mafia-like system, so you will run into very senior people. It’s kind of like a mafia war. He knocks out the group, nothing personal, wants the turf. So if your under boss gets weak, you end up in prison, and some other guy takes over your economic turf. So you meet very senior Iranian officials all the way down to, you know, members of ISIS and everything in between. Obviously, there’s a lot of the opposition coming, from prominent people, former reformists turned transitionalists as they call themselves, some really, really, amazingly brave people, human rights lawyers, civil rights movements, from labor unions, teachers movements. And I will tell you something, they will leave you in awe of what bravery means. And I have seen tremendous bravery. But what we always knew was across- where we were just one yard away from the women’s ward, and we knew they- they had the real guts- they were- they shamed us. You know, they shamed all the men. They had a lot more restrictions and a lot more guts. You just meet amazing, amazing people. And one thing I’m proud to say, you would see from monarchists to members of the MEK to, as I said, reformists, and they spoke respectfully to each other, unlike what we see today among the Iranian opposition of the diaspora, which is- has a long way to go, but- but you do meet amazing, amazing, courageous people who stand up for what is right and gladly come in prison and within prison too, stand up for what is right and pay the price inside as well.

    MARGARET BRENNAN: And I think you captured it there that the prison isn’t just a place for criminals, it’s really a symbol of the regime’s hold and the way it uses it to control the public and the political power, right? That’s what I’m hearing you say.

    SIAMAK NAMAZI: And it also shows how bad they are at doing that, because even within prison, even while they’re containing you, you will hear people putting out announcements, printing in the newspapers. Even within Evin Prison, they- they fail to crush the voice of these courageous people.

    MARGARET BRENNAN: For the- the inmates now and the Americans there, Roger, can you tell us in the talks that Envoy Witkoff and the president’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, were having indirectly with top Iranian diplomats, were the Americans raised at all? Or should they remain completely separate from the nuclear objectives?

    ROGER CARSTENS: Yeah, I- I wish I had the answer to that just out of curiosity. I don’t know the answer to it, but I can say that when we were arguing to get these gentlemen home, we were very cognizant of the connection between the nuclear talks and that of the prisoner talks, because if the nuclear talks suddenly fail very horribly, the prisoner talks could be pulled down with it. So it was very important for us to maybe just have a dotted line between the two issues, but not link them too tightly together, which–

    MARGARET BRENNAN: But in the view of the regime, they’re tied.

    ROGER CARSTENS: I think to- more to an extent than in ours. I think we were very practical about how close those issues got together, and we wanted the flexibility to separate them if we wanted to. And the regime, I think they’re- they’re much more married close together. And so that’s why— I really don’t know I mean, if- if Witkoff and Kushner were- were trying to articulate an end to a nuclear issue, how close will they push it together? Practically, it may not be that close, depending on where they feel they are with the Iranians.

    MARGARET BRENNAN: It’s hard, as a family member, to not say- and I know you literally went to the White House and said, you need to talk about my brother, and these things need to be raised. But this is so thorny and complicated when human beings are at the other end of these really complex nuclear issues and military issues. For the American people, what do you want them to know, Neda, about both the Americans who are held and the Iranians and the Iranian Americans who are back in Tehran right now?

    NEDA SHARGHI: Well, you know, I’m not an analyst. I can give you a little bit about my own lived experience. You know, I was born in Iran, and I left with my family during the revolution in 1979 with my parents and Emad. I am an American now, but, you know, my country of birth is still very much in my heart, and there are people in Iran who all they want is freedom and peace, and they, you know, it’s- it’s- it’s tough, because here I am trying to advocate for Americans there, but I want freedom for everyone, And I want people of Iran to find liberation just as much. I- I do want to say that, sort of to Roger’s point, what happens with our American hostages, whether they’re- they’re in Iran or in Venezuela, is that they always become a hostage to other bigger, broader political issues. And I wish that, you know, Envoy Witkoff had, sort of, before he started engaging with the Iranians, had said, we will not talk to you until there’s an unconditional release of our Americans. I’m not sure if that was asked or not, but here we are again. You know, these- these Americans who are innocent, are again tied to this issue that’s, you know, out of their control. So I want- I want Americans to know that, you know, Kamran and- and Reza are just ordinary Americans who were there, sort of, to- to take care of family, and they’ve been caught in this big issue. And we need to- we need to convince our government to separate them from what’s going on and- and find a creative solution, like we did to get Emad and Siamak home. Find a creative solution to bring them home.

    MARGARET BRENNAN: I wonder what you, but the two of you in particular, would say to President Trump at a moment like this.

    EMAD SHARGI: What I would tell the president is he has such a great record of getting Americans home from all over the world. I don’t think any other president has managed to do what he has done in the first 100 days. And I’m confident that if he is aware that there are Americans sitting in Evin Prison, that he is going to instruct people around him to put that on the agenda. So I think it’s important that he hears that, that there are innocent Americans being held like we were as political pawns.

    MARGARET BRENNAN: Siamak?

    SIAMAK NAMAZI: I completely agree with Emad, and I can’t imagine if President Trump knew their names and knew these cases, they wouldn’t be one of the priorities. I would say that it is unfortunate that they weren’t- priority was not given to them before. But as I said, I personally think that there will be a time soon because all wars end with some form of diplomacy. So I would implore President Trump to make sure that part of those negotiations that will be coming up is bringing our people home.

    MARGARET BRENNAN: I’ll let that be the final word from the two of you. Thank you and thank you for your time. We’ll be right back.

    In:

  • 美国司法部寻求撤销与2020年警察杀害布雷娜·泰勒相关的刑事案


    By Andrew Goudsward
    2026年3月20日 美国东部时间晚上9:58 更新于2小时前

    (注:此处原内容”节点运行失败”为系统错误提示,非原文内容,已忽略)

    • 摘要
    • 特朗普政府司法部在内部审查后决定驳回案件
    • 两名前警官被指控伪造搜查令
    • 泰勒被杀引发关于种族主义和警务问题的抗议

    WASHINGTON, March 20 (Reuters) – 美国司法部周五表示,将撤销对肯塔基州路易斯维尔市两名前警察的刑事指控。这两名警察被指控伪造搜查令,导致其同事在2020年误杀黑人医疗工作者布雷娜·泰勒(Breonna Taylor)。

    在法庭文件中,司法部律师表示,在联邦法官两次将最严重指控从重罪降为轻罪后,司法部已决定不再继续追究此案。案件撤销需经法官批准。

    订阅《每日 docket》(The Daily Docket)新闻通讯,获取最新法律动态,直接发送至您的收件箱。立即订阅


    共和党总统唐纳德·特朗普领导的政府正不断撤销民主党总统乔·拜登任内启动的民权案件和警察不当行为案件,包括与执法部门高调杀戮事件相关的案件。 2020年3月泰勒被杀事件引发了当年街头大规模抗议活动,成为反种族主义和警务改革运动的一部分。

    • 案件背景
    • 路易斯维尔前警察布雷特·汉基森(Brett Hankison)因侵犯泰勒权利被判有罪后,前警察布雷特·汉基森(Brett Hankison)的判决听证会当天,抗议者、执法人员和媒体记者聚集在吉恩·桑德联邦大楼前。
    • 泰勒于2020年3月被警察在使用无搜查令闯入其住所时开枪打死。
    • 案件细节
    • 案件撤销的法律依据:联邦法官两次将最严重指控从重罪降为轻罪后,司法部决定撤销案件。
    • 被告身份:约书亚·杰恩斯(Joshua Jaynes)和凯尔·米尼(Kyle Meany)均为路易斯维尔前警察,杰恩斯为前侦探,米尼为前警长。
    • 指控内容:二人被指控在宣誓书中作虚假陈述,导致同事对泰勒住所进行非法搜查。
    • 案件关联性:特朗普政府此前曾干预另一宗与泰勒被杀相关的联邦民权案件,包括要求对一名前警察判处1天监禁(尽管其未击中泰勒),但该警察最终被判处33个月监禁。
    • 案件后续:司法部还撤销了路易斯维尔警方存在系统性民权侵犯的调查结论,并退出了拜登政府期间达成的和解协议。
    • 各方反应
    • 米尼的律师迈克尔·登博(Michael Denbow)在声明中表示:”凯尔对今天的文件提交感到无比感激,他期待将此事抛在脑后,重新开始生活。”
    • 杰恩斯的律师尚未立即回应置评请求。
    • 案件起因
    • 2020年3月,泰勒在家中遭遇警方突袭时被误杀。当时警方在执行对泰勒前男友的无搜查令时,其前男友持有合法枪支并向警方开枪,导致警方向公寓内开枪22次。
    • 警方在公寓内未发现任何毒品,而泰勒本人当时并未携带武器。
    • 杰恩斯和米尼均未参与突袭泰勒公寓的行动,但被指控明知无合法理由仍提交了搜查令宣誓书。二人均不认罪。
    • 司法政策动向
    • 路透社报道称,在特朗普政府下,刑事检察官被要求提高法律门槛,以便在执法部门使用武力案件中提起诉讼。
    • 特朗普政府还撤销了司法部对路易斯维尔警方系统性民权侵犯的调查结论,该调查是由泰勒被杀事件引发的独立调查。
    • 案件影响
    • 泰勒被杀事件成为美国反种族主义运动的标志性事件,引发全球关注。
    • 此次司法部撤销案件,再次凸显了特朗普政府在执法和司法系统中对警察的保护倾向。
    • 报道与编辑
    • 报道:Andrew Goudsward
    • 编辑:Rosalba O’Brien

    我们的标准:路透社信托原则(opens new tab)

    DOJ seeks to drop criminal case tied to police killing of Breonna Taylor in 2020

    By Andrew Goudsward
    March 20, 2026 9:58 PM UTC Updated 2 hours ago

    节点运行失败

    Protesters, law enforcement members, and members of the press gather in front of the Gene Sander Federal Building on the day of the sentencing of former Louisville police officer Brett Hankison for violating the rights of Breonna Taylor, who was shot and killed by police officers in March 2020 after they used a no-knock warrant at… Read more

    • Summary
    • DOJ under Trump moves to dismiss case after internal review
    • Two former officers were accused of falsifying search warrant
    • Taylor’s killing sparked protests over racism and policing

    WASHINGTON, March 20 (Reuters) – The U.S. Justice Department on Friday moved to drop a ​criminal case against two former police officers in Louisville, Kentucky, who were accused of falsifying a ‌search warrant that led colleagues to fatally shoot Breonna Taylor, a Black medical worker, in 2020.

    In a court filing, DOJ lawyers said they no longer wanted to pursue the case following an internal review triggered by a federal judge’s decision to twice downgrade the most serious ​charge from a felony to a misdemeanor. A judge must approve the dismissal.

    Jumpstart your morning with the latest legal news delivered straight to your inbox from The Daily Docket newsletter. Sign up here.

    Advertisement · Scroll to continue

    Report Ad

    Joshua Jaynes, a former Louisville Police ​Department detective, and Kyle Meany, a former Louisville sergeant, were accused of depriving Taylor of ⁠her civil rights by making false and misleading statements on an affidavit used to justify the search of Taylor’s ​home.

    The move is the latest by Republican President Donald Trump’s administration to undo civil rights and police misconduct cases started ​during Democratic President Joe Biden’s term, including those tied to high-profile killings by law enforcement. Taylor’s March 2020 killing was condemned in street demonstrations that year as part of a larger protest movement over racism and policing.

    Advertisement · Scroll to continue

    “Kyle is incredibly grateful for today’s filing. He is looking ​forward to putting this matter behind him and moving forward with his life,” Michael Denbow, a lawyer for Meany, said ​in a statement.

    Attorneys for Jaynes did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

    Taylor was killed in March 2020 during a botched police ‌raid ⁠after officers investigating a man Taylor had previously dated executed a no-knock warrant at her home. Her boyfriend, who was carrying a legally owned firearm, shot at police, prompting them to fire back 22 times into the apartment.

    Police found no drugs in the apartment. Taylor was unarmed.

    Jaynes and Meany were not part of the team that went to Taylor’s apartment. ​An indictment accused them of ​filing an affidavit despite ⁠knowing they did not have legal justification for the search.

    Both pleaded not guilty.

    Political appointees at the Trump Justice Department previously intervened in a second federal civil rights case tied to ​Taylor’s killing.

    DOJ lawyers asked for a one-day prison sentence for a former Louisville police ​officer who had ⁠been convicted on a civil rights charge for firing into Taylor’s apartment, though his shots did not strike Taylor. A judge sentenced the former officer to 33 months in prison.

    The Trump administration also rescinded the Justice Department’s finding of widespread civil rights violations by Louisville ⁠police, a ​separate probe spurred by Taylor’s killing. A federal judge granted the ​Trump DOJ’s request to withdraw from a proposed settlement agreement brokered under the Biden administration.

    Civil rights prosecutors have been told there will be a higher ​legal bar to bring law enforcement use-of-force cases under the Trump administration, Reuters reported.

    Reporting by Andrew Goudsward, Editing by Rosalba O’Brien

    Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles., opens new tab

  • 马克·罗宾逊承认就CNN报道“撒谎”


    By Em Steck、Andrew Kaczynski
    3小时前
    发布于 2026年3月20日,美国东部时间下午5:03


    马克·罗宾逊(时任北卡罗来纳州副州长) 于2024年7月15日在威斯康星州密尔沃基举行的共和党全国代表大会上发言。

    Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

    前北卡罗来纳州副州长马克·罗宾逊承认,在其2024年州长竞选活动的最后几个月中,他就美国有线电视新闻网(CNN)KFile的一项重磅调查撒了谎,而这项调查揭露了他曾在色情网站上发布大量煽动性和种族主义言论的广泛历史。

    罗宾逊最初否认了该报道,并于当年秋季起诉CNN,索赔5000万美元,同时继续推进其州长竞选活动。最终,他以超过14个百分点的差距输给了现任民主党州长乔希·斯坦因。

    如今,在最近的一次播客采访中,罗宾逊承认了自己的欺骗行为,并表示他曾对色情和性存在“痴迷”。他声称,为了保护包括唐纳德·特朗普总统在内的身边人,他对CNN的报道“撒谎”是“最权宜之计”。

    “我不会说我完全撒谎了,整个故事中有些内容是真实的。有些部分——确实有一些真相存在。”罗宾逊周四在采访中说道。

    但他表示:“如果当时为了他们的便利而必须无视真相,我觉得那是正确的做法。”

    “我当然不想成为让美国总统输掉选举的人。也不想让其他人失去选举。我猜可能有人觉得我确实这么做了。”他说道。


    2024年9月,CNN KFile报道称,罗宾逊在十年前曾在一个色情网站的留言板上发表了一系列煽动性言论,其中包括称自己为“黑人纳粹!”并表示支持恢复奴隶制。这些评论使用的化名是“minisoldr”,CNN通过匹配大量个人信息和共享邮箱地址,成功将其与罗宾逊关联起来。

    当时,罗宾逊在接受CNN采访时强烈否认了这一报道:“这不是我们的话。这些言论不属于我,也不符合我的特点。”

    尽管面临共和党人要求其退选的压力,罗宾逊仍选择继续参选,其竞选团队成员随后迅速撤离。

    卸任后,罗宾逊撤销了对CNN的诽谤诉讼,并誓言退出政坛。

    在佛罗里达州牧师乔希·霍尔主持的播客“After the Call”中,罗宾逊进行了长达90分钟的采访,深入探讨了自己的童年、与色情和性痴迷的斗争,并承认了CNN报道中的部分内容。

    “最重要的是,你知道,那些指控我观看色情内容并与观看色情内容的人有关联,这些都是绝对真实的。”罗宾逊表示。

    他称自己公开谈论色情“痴迷”,是因为他认为像他这样挣扎后重获新生的人,是帮助其他挣扎者的最佳代言人。

    “其中唯一的羞耻就是沉溺其中。”他说。

    罗宾逊还暗示,他的在线化名“minisoldr”发布的一些内容可能被错误归因于他。“我不否认,在某个时候,我说了足够多的低俗言论,足以让这些内容看起来像是我的所作所为。”

    目前尚不清楚罗宾逊具体指的是哪些言论。

    他还坚持称,如果在选举前的夏天听从直觉更换竞选团队,他本可以挺过这场丑闻。

    “我本应该在夏天更换竞选团队,并将竞选活动引向完全不同的方向。如果那样做了,我相信即使有CNN的丑闻,我仍然会赢得那场选举。”他表示。

    当主持人问他是否能回到那个时候做出不同选择或承认此事时,罗宾逊毫不犹豫地回答:

    “不,我会做完全相同的决定。”他补充说,这个故事“从来不是关于我的”。

    “对于那些针对我的人来说,这不是关于我,而是关于一个远比我更重要的事业。他们知道可以利用我来摧毁我身边的人,包括总统,他们会这么做。所以我会做出完全相同的决定。”

    Mark Robinson admits ‘I lied’ about CNN story

    By Em Steck, Andrew Kaczynski
    3 hr ago
    PUBLISHED Mar 20, 2026, 5:03 PM ET

    Mark Robinson, then-North Carolina Lt. Gov., speaks at the Republican National Convention, July 15, 2024 in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

    Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

    Former North Carolina Lt. Gov. Mark Robinson admitted he lied about a bombshell CNN KFile investigation during the final months of his 2024 gubernatorial campaign, uncovering his extensive history of posting inflammatory and racist comments on a pornography website.

    Robinson initially denied the report and sued CNN for $50 million that fall as he marched on with his gubernatorial campaign. Robinson eventually lost to current Democratic Gov. Josh Stein by more than 14 points.

    Now, in a recent podcast interview, Robinson has acknowledged his deception and that he had an “obsession” with pornography and sex. He says he lied about the CNN report to protect those around him, including President Donald Trump, because it was “the most expedient thing to do.”

    “I won’t say that I completely lied, some of the things about the whole story. Some of it — there’s some truth to it,” Robinson said on Thursday.

    But “if I had to ignore the truth at that moment for their expediency, I felt like it was the right thing to do,” said Robinson.

    “I certainly don’t want to be the person that costs the president of the United States the election. Didn’t want to cost anyone else their election. I guess there may be some people that feel like that I did,” he said.

    CNN’s KFile reported in September 2024 that Robinson made a litany of inflammatory comments on a pornography website’s message board a decade earlier, in which he called himself a “black NAZI!” and expressed support for reinstating slavery. The comments were made under an alias, minisoldr, that CNN was able to link to Robinson by matching numerous biographical details and a shared email address.

    Robinson strongly denied the story to CNN in an interview at the time. “This is not us. These are not our words. And this is not anything that is characteristic of me,” Robinson said.

    Despite pressure from Republicans to drop out of the race, Robinson remained in it and his staff quickly fled the campaign.

    After leaving office, Robinson dropped the defamation lawsuit against CNN and vowed to retire from politics.

    During a 90-minute interview on “After the Call,” a podcast hosted by Florida-based pastor Josh Hall, Robinson delved into his childhood, his struggles with his obsession with sex and pornography, and copped to some of the reporting in CNN’s story.

    “More than anything, you know, allegations that I watched pornography and was involved with people that watched pornography, and that that was absolutely true,” Robinson said.

    Robinson said he was speaking out about his pornography “obsession” because he believes people like him, who struggled and came back from it, are the best messengers to help others struggling.

    “The only shame in it is staying in it,” he said.

    Robinson also suggested that some things his online alias, minisoldr, posted were falsely attributed to him. “I don’t deny the fact that at some point, I said enough salacious things where they could certainly make it seem so.”

    It is unclear what comments Robinson is referring to.

    He also maintained that had he followed his instincts and replaced his staff in the summer before the election, he could have survived the scandal.

    “I should have changed campaign teams in the summer and took my campaign in a completely different direction. And if I had, I believe even with the CNN scandal, I believe I still would’ve won that race,” he said.

    When asked by the host if he could go back to that time and make that decision or own up to the story, Robinson didn’t hesitate.

    “No, I’d do the exact same thing,” he said, adding that the story was “never about me.”

    “For the other, for the people who were doing it to me, it wasn’t about me. It was about a cause bunch bigger than that. And they knew that they could use me to destroy, the people around me, up to and including the president, they would do it. And so I’d make the exact same decision.”

  • 特朗普考虑逐步降级伊朗军事行动 | 联合早报


    发布/2026年3月21日 07:04

    特朗普3月20日在社媒贴文说:“霍尔木兹海峡的守卫和巡逻将由需要使用这条海峡的国家负责——美国不需要!” (路透社)

    美国总统特朗普正在考虑“逐步降级”对伊朗的军事行动,称美国已接近实现目标。

    彭博社报道,这场搅乱全球金融市场和整个中东地区的战事即将进入第四周。特朗普星期五(3月20日)在社交媒体发文说:“我们距离实现目标越来越近了,正在考虑逐步降级针对伊朗的军事行动。”

    特朗普称,他的目标是“彻底削弱”伊朗的导弹能力,“摧毁”伊朗的国防工业基础,消灭它的海军和空军,绝不允许德黑兰发展核武器,以及保护中东盟友。

    他还谈到霍尔木兹海峡,要把保护这条关键航道的工作交给其他国家。

    特朗普说:“霍尔木兹海峡的守卫和巡逻将由需要使用这条海峡的国家负责——美国不需要!”

    他说:“如果它们要求,我们会在它们巡逻霍尔木兹海峡的行动中提供协助。但一旦伊朗的威胁消除,就没必要这么做了。重要的是,对它们来说,这将是一个简单的军事行动。”

    在特朗普发表这番言论之前,他还说拒绝宣布停止对伊朗的敌对行动,称尽管盟友不愿帮忙,他仍确信霍尔木兹海峡会“自行”重新开放。

    另据英国广播公司(BBC)报道,在特朗普说考虑逐步降级对伊朗的军事行动前,英国宣布批准美国使用军事基地对伊朗位于霍尔木兹海峡的目标进行空袭。特朗普批评英国的这一决定“为时已晚”。

    特朗普考虑逐步降级伊朗军事行动 | 联合早报

    发布/2026年3月21日 07:04

    特朗普3月20日在社媒贴文说:“霍尔木兹海峡的守卫和巡逻将由需要使用这条海峡的国家负责——美国不需要!” (路透社)

    美国总统特朗普正在考虑“逐步降级”对伊朗的军事行动,称美国已接近实现目标。

    彭博社报道,这场搅乱全球金融市场和整个中东地区的战事即将进入第四周。特朗普星期五(3月20日)在社交媒体发文说:“我们距离实现目标越来越近了,正在考虑逐步降级针对伊朗的军事行动。”

    特朗普称,他的目标是“彻底削弱”伊朗的导弹能力,“摧毁”伊朗的国防工业基础,消灭它的海军和空军,绝不允许德黑兰发展核武器,以及保护中东盟友。

    他还谈到霍尔木兹海峡,要把保护这条关键航道的工作交给其他国家。

    特朗普说:“霍尔木兹海峡的守卫和巡逻将由需要使用这条海峡的国家负责——美国不需要!”

    他说:“如果它们要求,我们会在它们巡逻霍尔木兹海峡的行动中提供协助。但一旦伊朗的威胁消除,就没必要这么做了。重要的是,对它们来说,这将是一个简单的军事行动。”

    在特朗普发表这番言论之前,他还说拒绝宣布停止对伊朗的敌对行动,称尽管盟友不愿帮忙,他仍确信霍尔木兹海峡会“自行”重新开放。

    另据英国广播公司(BBC)报道,在特朗普说考虑逐步降级对伊朗的军事行动前,英国宣布批准美国使用军事基地对伊朗位于霍尔木兹海峡的目标进行空袭。特朗普批评英国的这一决定“为时已晚”。

  • 赫格斯多次称美军对伊打击频率提升 数据却显示事实另有隐情


    发布时间:2026年3月20日,美国东部时间下午4:49 | CNN政治

    作者:[海莉·布里茨基]

    更新时间:37分钟前
    更新于:2026年3月20日,美国东部时间晚上7:24

    相关主题:彼得·赫格斯、中东、联邦机构、美国军方

    [查看全部主题]
    Facebook
    推特[邮件]
    链接
    话题讨论
    链接已复制!

    五角大楼,2026年3月19日,国防部长彼得·赫格斯在新闻发布会上就针对伊朗的持续军事行动提供最新进展。
    (Win McNamee/Getty Images)

    尽管国防部长彼得·赫格斯反复声称,美军针对伊朗的打击数量和强度正持续增加,但美国军方提供的数据显示,过去三周内军事行动的节奏呈现波动起伏状态。

    在赫格斯与联合参谋部主席丹·凯恩将军一同出席的一系列新闻发布会上,他多次断言“未来一天将迎来美军对伊朗最猛烈的打击”。

    从3月4日(即2月28日战争爆发后的第二次简报会)开始,赫格斯宣称“更多、规模更大的打击浪潮即将来临”,并强调国防部正“加速推进而非减速”。
    “伊朗的军事能力正每小时瓦解,”他说。3月10日,他表示“今天将再次成为我们在伊朗境内最猛烈的打击日”;而在周四(3月12日),他进一步称“今天将是规模最大的打击包,就像昨天一样”。

    然而,美国中央司令部公开的数据并未显示打击数量如赫格斯所言呈每日递增趋势。这可能部分是由于飞机和舰船在持续行动的同时需要调整飞行频率以进行维护,也可能是因为军方最初设定了目标清单,目前正逐步识别和确认新目标。

    美国中央司令部将CNN的提问转至国防部。一位国防部官员向CNN表示:“正如部长和海军上将(布拉德)·库珀所说,国防部继续加强针对伊朗军事目标的行动。”

    这种说法与现实的脱节,凸显了战争表述与实际地面情况之间的矛盾。在新闻发布会上,赫格斯称美军“正取得决定性胜利”;伊朗的防空系统已被“彻底摧毁”,工业基地“被压倒性摧毁”;伊朗“已无防空能力、无空军、无海军”。

    不可否认,伊朗的军事能力确实遭到严重削弱,以色列也已杀死包括最高领袖阿里·哈梅内伊和伊朗国家安全委员会负责人阿里·拉里贾尼在内的高级官员。

    然而,美军在霍尔木兹海峡仍难以确保商业船只的安全通行,该海峡因伊朗威胁而实际关闭。德黑兰持续对周边国家和美军在该地区的部队进行报复。周四(3月12日),一架美军F-35战斗机在执行作战任务时疑似遭伊朗袭击后紧急降落,这引发了人们对赫格斯3月4日宣称“本周末美军将完全掌控伊朗领空”的质疑。

    美国中央司令部公布的公开打击数据显示,尽管赫格斯多次宣称打击规模持续扩大,但自他首次简报会以来,打击浪潮并未稳定递增。

    美国海军陆战队退休上校、战略与国际研究中心国防安全部高级顾问马克·坎西安向CNN表示,打击数量随时间增减并不罕见,这可能反映出行动已进入持续空中战役阶段——军方需为飞机和舰船进行维护,而行动初期“可以集中突击”。例如,“杰拉尔德·福特”号航空母舰在洗衣房发生火灾后,短暂撤离作战行动以在克里特岛苏达湾进行维修。

    坎西安指出,随着军方寻找新目标,打击节奏可能会出现波动。“军方以中央司令部数十年维护的目标清单为起点发起行动,”他解释道,“近三周内打击了7000多个目标后,可能已完成大部分清单,目前正根据新情报扩大目标范围。”

    “综合来看,打击频率已趋于平稳,日均平均打击量低于1000次,”坎西安说。

    打击数据并未每日更新显示新增目标数量;中央司令部仅每几天公布一次累计打击目标数。根据这些数据,打击频率呈现波动趋势——尽管在行动第一天,中央司令部称单日打击超1000个目标,达到峰值。

    例如,3月9日和3月12日的数据显示,累计打击目标增加约1000个,日均打击量约333次。但在这期间的3月10日,赫格斯宣称“今天将再次成为伊朗境内最猛烈的打击日,出动战机、轰炸机最多,打击规模最大,情报更精准”。

    3月13日,赫格斯再次声称“今天将是美国对伊朗和德黑兰上空发动的最高规模打击”。但根据中央司令部数据,3月12日至16日,美军日均打击量约250次,累计打击目标从约6000个增至7000多个。

    打击频率也有阶段性上升:3月2日约250个目标被打击,3月3日增至450个;3月6日至9日日均打击量达666个,较3月3日至6日的433个有显著提升。

    本报道已更新补充细节。

    相关主题:彼得·赫格斯、中东、联邦机构、美国军方

    [查看全部主题]
    Facebook
    推特[邮件]
    链接
    话题讨论
    链接已复制!

    Hegseth has repeatedly said the US is upping the frequency of its Iran strikes. The data tells a different story

    Published Mar 20, 2026, 4:49 PM ET | CNN Politics

    By

    [Haley Britzky]

    Updated 37 min ago

    Updated Mar 20, 2026, 7:24 PM ET

    Pete Hegseth The Middle East Federal agencies US military

    [See all topics]

    Facebook Tweet[Email]Link Threads

    Link Copied!

    Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth provides updates on the continued military operations against Iran during a press briefing at the Pentagon on March 19, 2026.

    Win McNamee/Getty Images

    While Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has repeatedly stated that the number and intensity of the strikes the US is carrying out against Iran is only increasing, data provided by the US military shows a pace of operations that has ebbed and flowed over the last three weeks.

    As Hegseth has gone to the podium alongside Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Dan Caine in a series of press conferences, he has repeatedly asserted that the coming day would bring the most US strikes on Iran yet.

    Starting on March 4, his second briefing on the war which began on February 28, Hegseth said “more and larger waves” of strikes were coming, and that the Defense Department was “accelerating, not decelerating.”

    “Iran’s capabilities are evaporating by the hour,” he said. On March 10, he said that “today will be yet again our most intense day of strikes inside Iran.” And on Thursday, Hegseth said, “today will be the largest strike package yet, just like yesterday was.”

    But data released publicly by US Central Command has not shown that the number of strikes has increased daily the way Hegseth has indicated, which could partly be due to the need to adjust the frequency of flights as aircraft and ships receive maintenance while operations continue, or because the military started with a set target list and is now working to identify and confirm new targets.

    US Central Command referred questions from CNN to the Defense Department. A department official told CNN, “As the Secretary and Admiral (Brad) Cooper have said, the Department of War continues to intensify our operations against military targets in Iran.”

    The discrepancy speaks to a disconnect between how the war is being messaged and the reality on the ground. During briefings to the press, Hegseth has said the US is “winning decisively”; that Iran’s air defenses have been “flattened” and industrial base “overwhelmingly destroyed”; and that Iran has “no air defenses…no air force….no Navy.”

    Undoubtedly, Iran’s military capabilities have been degraded significantly and Israel has killed senior Iranian leaders including Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and Ali Larijani, the head of Iran’s National Security Council.

    However, the US has struggled to secure safe passage for commercial ships in the Strait of Hormuz, which has been effectively closed due to threats from Iran. Tehran has continued retaliating against neighboring nations and US forces throughout the region. On Thursday, a US F-35 fighter jet made an emergency landing after sources said it was believed to have been struck by Iran during a combat mission, raising questions about Hegseth’s claim on March 4 that by the end of that week, the US and Israel would have “complete control of Iranian skies.”

    And the public strike numbers released by US Central Command reveal that the waves of attacks since Hegseth’s first briefing have not been increasing steadily, despite Hegseth’s rhetoric indicating otherwise.

    It’s not particularly surprising that the number of strikes would increase or decrease over time, Mark Cancian, a retired Marine Corps colonel and senior adviser to the Center for Strategic and International Studies’ Defense and Security Department told CNN. It could reflect that the operation is moving into a sustained air campaign, meaning the military will need to provide maintenance to aircraft and ships as the operations continue, whereas at the beginning, “you can just surge,” Cancian said. The USS Gerald R. Ford, for example, is moving away from participating in the operations briefly to conduct repairs in Souda Bay, Crete, after a fire broke out in the ship’s laundry area.

    But the pace of operations could decrease and increase as the military works to find new targets, Cancian said. The military “started the campaign with a CENTCOM target list, which has been maintained for decades,” he said. Nearly three weeks and more than 7,000 targets later, they have likely worked through much of that list and are expanding it as more intelligence comes in.

    “I think for both reasons, that rate of attacks has sort of moderated to a level that is on average, below 1,000 a day,” Cancian said.

    Strike data has not been released daily showing the increase in targets hit; CENTCOM has instead released data every few days showing an increase in targets struck. Using that data, the average number of strikes per day in the interim shows the number of strikes has increased and decreased over time — though the peak was reached on the first day of the operation when CENTCOM said more than 1,000 targets were hit.

    Numbers released by CENTCOM on March 9 and March 12, for example, show that targets struck increased by roughly 1,000, amount to an average of 333 strikes per day. But on March 10, in the middle of that period, Hegseth said, “today will be yet again our most intense day of strikes inside Iran, the most fighters, the most bombers, the most strikes, intelligence more refined and better than ever.”

    On March 13, Hegseth said that “today will be yet again the highest volume of strikes that America has put over the skies of Iran and Tehran.” But from March 12 to March 16, the US averaged roughly 250 strikes per day according to an average of CENTCOM’s data, as the targets struck increased from approximately 6,000 on March 12 to more than 7,000 on March 16.

    There have been moments of uptick in the average number of strikes: On March 2, roughly 250 targets were struck, which increased to 450 targets struck on March 3. And between March 6 and March 9, there was an average of 666 targets hit per day, up from an average of 433 targets struck between March 3 and March 6.

    This story has been updated with additional details.

    Pete Hegseth The Middle East Federal agencies US military

    [See all topics]

    Facebook Tweet[Email]Link Threads

    Link Copied!

  • 众议院多数党督导汤姆·埃默称,归化公民发动的一系列近期恐怖袭击暴露了美国移民法的严重缺陷,他强调现在比以往任何时候都”更迫切”通过《防止公民身份滥用和虚假陈述法案》(SCAM法案),以允许政府将”仇恨美国的恐怖分子”驱逐出境。


    1月首次由埃默提出的SCAM法案将扩大美国政府对被定罪参与恐怖主义、欺诈或间谍活动的归化公民剥夺公民身份的权力。该法案的参议院版本由密苏里州共和党参议员埃里克·施密特提出。

    “这必须得到处理,”明尼苏达州共和党人埃默告诉福克斯新闻数字版。

    “如果你要利用美国人的慷慨,或者你与已知恐怖组织有联系,或犯下严重重罪或发动恐怖袭击,甚至未遂,这都无关紧要;不要再玩游戏了,”埃默表示,”你应该被剥夺公民身份并被遣送回你来自的地方。”

    [众议院国土安全委员会共和党人在一系列袭击后敦促美国穆斯林领袖’隔离极端分子’]

    他哀叹现行法律下,”剥夺某人公民身份的标准太高了”,但指出”我们有解决方案来解决这个问题”。

    该法案在众议院目前仍停留在众议院司法委员会,据埃默称,SCAM法案已获得近50名众议院共同提案人支持。一旦安排投票,他认为不会有通过障碍,甚至可能获得一些民主党人的两党支持,因为他们认识到问题的严重性。

    “这真的很简单,”他说,”信息是,恐怖分子无论是否归化,都不应该在美国领土上。”

    [与归化公民相关的一系列袭击引发国家安全质疑]

    警方称,3月初,塞内加尔出生的归化公民恩迪亚加·迪亚涅在奥斯汀枪击案中涉嫌杀害三人、打伤十余人后被警方击毙。

    不久之后,据警方称,来自土耳其和阿富汗归化公民家庭的埃米尔·巴拉特和易卜拉欣·卡尤米据称支持”伊斯兰国”(ISIS)并企图在纽约市市长官邸外的反伊斯兰示威活动中引爆炸弹。他们被控企图向ISIS提供物质支持、使用大规模杀伤性武器以及运输、接收和持有破坏性装置等多项爆炸物相关罪名。

    3月12日,原黎巴嫩归化美国公民艾曼·穆罕默德·加扎利据称企图驾车冲撞密歇根州一所犹太教堂,该教堂内有儿童和教师,据当局称。

    同一天,弗吉尼亚州诺福克市老多米尼昂大学,塞拉利昂归化公民穆罕默德·拜勒·贾洛赫据称向预备役军官训练团(ROTC)学生开枪,打死布兰登·沙阿中校,警方称。他在现场被击毙。

    “显然我们的移民系统存在问题,”埃默表示,补充说恐怖分子”不断进入我国,却不断被允许留在这里,这是以美国人和美国生命为代价的”。

    “我们不能再这样下去,”他继续说道,强调”现在比以往任何时候都更迫切需要完成这项工作”。

    [前圣战分子在纽约市ISIS启发的爆炸阴谋后警告掠夺性招募]

    尽管如此,埃默在明尼苏达州因其强硬立场面临一些反对。

    当地媒体MPR新闻报道,他所在选区非盈利组织”非洲移民和难民组织中心”执行董事社区活动家领袖阿卜迪卡迪尔·巴希尔指责埃默”试图在政治上抹杀我们”。

    “当公民身份取决于政客是否觉得我们方便时,我们谁都不安全,”巴希尔在接受该媒体采访时表示,”今天可能是索马里裔美国人,明天可能是另一个族群。”

    尽管他不愿猜测法案通过的时间线,但表示”尽快是我的请求”。

    [点击此处下载福克斯新闻应用]

    “我们有一个移民系统,没有要求这些人真正声明对美国的忠诚和成为美国人的意愿,”他说。

    “我们希望任何来自任何地方的人来这里追求美国梦并成为美国人……我们欢迎你,”他总结道,”如果你来到这里不打算成为美国人,而是打算改变或摧毁美国,你就该滚出去。”

    彼得·皮内多是福克斯新闻数字版政治记者。

    House Majority Whip Tom Emmer says a string of recent terrorist attacks by naturalized citizens exposes serious flaws in U.S. immigration law, arguing it’s “more imperative now than ever” to pass the Stop Citizenship Abuse and Misrepresentation (SCAM) Act to allow the government to remove “America-hating terrorists” from the country.

    First introduced by Emmer in January, the SCAM Act would expand the U.S. government’s ability to revoke citizenship from naturalized citizens convicted of being involved in terrorism, fraud or espionage. The Senate version of the bill was introduced by Sen. Eric Schmitt, R-Mo.

    “This has to be dealt with,” Emmer, a Minnesota Republican, told Fox News Digital.

    “If you’re going to take advantage of the generosity of Americans, or you are going to associate with known terrorist organizations or commit aggravated felonies or terrorist attacks, even attempted, it doesn’t matter; no more playing games,” said Emmer. “You should be denaturalized and shipped back to wherever the heck you came from.”

    [HOUSE HOMELAND SECURITY REPUBLICAN URGES US MUSLIM LEADERSHIP TO ‘ISOLATE EXTREMISTS’ AFTER STRING OF ATTACKS]

    He lamented that under current law, “the standards to denaturalize someone are just too high,” but noted, “we have a solution to fix it.”

    The bill, which on the House side currently sits in the House Judiciary Committee, allows prosecutors to use crimes committed after naturalization as evidence that an individual falsely claimed good moral character during the citizenship process, effectively arguing their citizenship was invalid from the start.

    The SCAM Act already has nearly 50 House co-sponsors, according to Emmer. Once it is scheduled for a vote, he believes it will not have an issue passing and may even receive some bipartisan support from Democrats recognizing the gravity of the issue.

    “It’s really simple,” he said. “The message is, terrorists do not belong on U.S. Soil, naturalized or not.”

    [STRING OF ATTACKS CONNECTED TO NATURALIZED CITIZENS RAISES NATIONAL SECURITY QUESTIONS]

    At the start of March, Senegalese-born naturalized citizen Ndiaga Diagne was killed by police after allegedly killing three people and injuring more than a dozen in a shooting in Austin, police said.

    Not long after, Emir Balat and Ibrahim Kayumi, the children of naturalized citizens from Turkey and Afghanistan, allegedly pledged support to ISIS and attempted to bomb an anti-Islam demonstration outside the mayor’s mansion in New York City, according to police. They have been charged with attempting to provide material support to ISIS, attempting to use a weapon of mass destruction, and multiple explosives-related offenses including transporting, receiving and possessing destructive devices.

    Then, on March 12, Ayman Mohamad Ghazali, a naturalized U.S. citizen originally from Lebanon, allegedly attempted to ram his vehicle into a Michigan synagogue filled with children and teachers, according to authorities.

    The same day at Old Dominion University in Norfolk, Virginia, Mohamed Bailor Jalloh, a naturalized citizen from Sierra Leone, allegedly opened fire on a class of Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) students, killing Lt. Col. Brandon Shah, according to police. He also was killed at the scene.

    “Clearly something is broken in our immigration system,” said Emmer, adding that terrorists “keep getting into our country and they keep being allowed to stay here at the expense of Americans and American lives.”

    “We can’t go on like this,” he went on, emphasizing, “It is more imperative now than ever that we get this thing done.”

    [EX-JIHADIST WARNS OF PREDATORY RECRUITMENT AFTER ISIS-INSPIRED BOMB PLOT IN NEW YORK CITY]

    Despite this, Emmer has faced some opposition in Minnesota for his hardline stance.

    Local outlet MPRNews reported a community activist leader in his district named Abdikadir Bashir, who is executive director of the nonprofit Center for African Immigrants and Refugees Organization, accusing Emmer of “trying to erase us politically.”

    “The moment citizenship becomes conditional on whether a politician finds us convenient, none of us is safe,” Bashir said, according to the outlet. “Today, it might be the Somali Americans. Tomorrow, it could be another ethnic group.”

    Though he declined to hazard a guess on a timeline of when the bill might be passed, he said that “as soon as possible would be my plea.”

    [CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP]

    “We have an immigration system that is not requiring these people to actually declare their allegiance to the United States of America and their willingness to be Americans,” he said.

    “We want anybody and everybody from anywhere who comes here to chase their American dream and become an American … we want you,” he concluded. “If you come here and you don’t intend to become an American, you intend to change America or destroy America, you need to get the heck out.”

    Peter Pinedo is a politics writer for Fox News Digital.

  • 美官员:白宫正在权衡夺取伊朗哈尔克岛计划


    2026-03-20T23:42:36.000Z / 联合早报

    知情者称,面积约为美国曼哈顿三分之一的哈尔克岛可以被迅速占领,这将成为美国迫使德黑兰解除霍尔木兹海峡封锁的关键筹码。 (法新社)

    美国官员透露,白宫正向中东派遣数百名海军陆战队员,同时在权衡一项夺取伊朗石油出口枢纽哈尔克岛的计划。即便只是在伊朗部署少量的地面部队,对特朗普而言仍隐藏巨大风险。

    彭博社报道,知情人士称,目前在特朗普的顾问中,支持采取有限地面行动的势头正在增强。面积约为美国曼哈顿三分之一的哈尔克岛可以被迅速占领,这将成为美国迫使德黑兰解除霍尔木兹海峡封锁的关键筹码。

    曾为五角大楼和中央情报局提供咨询的鲁金斯学会智库的国防战略专家奥汉隆说:“诚然,此举具有战术优势,但也可能代价高昂,而且没有明确的战略目标。”

    他指出,在中东部署一支海军陆战队远征部队将面临巨大的伤亡风险,而且缺乏明确的下一步,说明美国将如何真正加速伊朗的政权更迭,或促使伊朗愿意通过谈判结束敌对行动。

    特朗普本周早些时候说,他不会在任何地方部署军队。但他已下令海军陆战队前往中东,拥有超过2000名士兵的日本第31海军陆战队远征部队也参与其列。

    任何试图夺取并控制伊朗能源设施的行动,都将使美军面临更大的危险,并将使美以伊战争的规模和成本超出空袭行动的范畴。迄今为止,这场战争已造成13名美军士兵阵亡。

    同样引人关注的还有美军登陆伊朗领土的象征意义,以及特朗普可能发动一场属于他自己的战争。特朗普之所以能在美国政坛迅速崛起,部分原因是他曾猛烈批评在他之前的美国总统发动无休止的海外战争。

    在美国正向中东派遣数百名海军陆战队员,拟夺取伊朗哈尔克岛的消息传出之时,特朗普在社媒贴文说,他正在考虑“逐步降级”对伊朗的军事行动,称美国已接近实现目标。

    他还谈到霍尔木兹海峡,说要把保护这条关键航道的工作交给其他国家。

    美官员:白宫正在权衡夺取伊朗哈尔克岛计划

    2026-03-20T23:42:36.000Z / 联合早报

    知情者称,面积约为美国曼哈顿三分之一的哈尔克岛可以被迅速占领,这将成为美国迫使德黑兰解除霍尔木兹海峡封锁的关键筹码。 (法新社)

    美国官员透露,白宫正向中东派遣数百名海军陆战队员,同时在权衡一项夺取伊朗石油出口枢纽哈尔克岛的计划。即便只是在伊朗部署少量的地面部队,对特朗普而言仍隐藏巨大风险。

    彭博社报道,知情人士称,目前在特朗普的顾问中,支持采取有限地面行动的势头正在增强。面积约为美国曼哈顿三分之一的哈尔克岛可以被迅速占领,这将成为美国迫使德黑兰解除霍尔木兹海峡封锁的关键筹码。

    曾为五角大楼和中央情报局提供咨询的鲁金斯学会智库的国防战略专家奥汉隆说:“诚然,此举具有战术优势,但也可能代价高昂,而且没有明确的战略目标。”

    他指出,在中东部署一支海军陆战队远征部队将面临巨大的伤亡风险,而且缺乏明确的下一步,说明美国将如何真正加速伊朗的政权更迭,或促使伊朗愿意通过谈判结束敌对行动。

    特朗普本周早些时候说,他不会在任何地方部署军队。但他已下令海军陆战队前往中东,拥有超过2000名士兵的日本第31海军陆战队远征部队也参与其列。

    任何试图夺取并控制伊朗能源设施的行动,都将使美军面临更大的危险,并将使美以伊战争的规模和成本超出空袭行动的范畴。迄今为止,这场战争已造成13名美军士兵阵亡。

    同样引人关注的还有美军登陆伊朗领土的象征意义,以及特朗普可能发动一场属于他自己的战争。特朗普之所以能在美国政坛迅速崛起,部分原因是他曾猛烈批评在他之前的美国总统发动无休止的海外战争。

    在美国正向中东派遣数百名海军陆战队员,拟夺取伊朗哈尔克岛的消息传出之时,特朗普在社媒贴文说,他正在考虑“逐步降级”对伊朗的军事行动,称美国已接近实现目标。

    他还谈到霍尔木兹海峡,说要把保护这条关键航道的工作交给其他国家。

  • 法官推翻五角大楼限制性新闻政策,认定其违反第一修正案


    2026年3月20日 / 美国东部时间下午7:31 / CBS新闻

    一名联邦法官推翻了五角大楼对进入其设施的记者报道方式的部分严格限制,终止了一项导致多家新闻机构撤离五角大楼的政策。

    美国地区法官保罗·L·弗里德曼支持《纽约时报》及其记者朱利安·E·巴恩斯的诉讼请求。巴恩斯于去年12月提起诉讼,指控新的五角大楼政策违反了美国宪法第一修正案、第五修正案以及正当法律程序条款。

    五角大楼去年秋季推出了新的新闻准入政策,要求持证记者签署一系列限制条款,才能继续每日进入五角大楼。

    包括哥伦比亚广播公司新闻、美国广播公司新闻、全国广播公司新闻、美国有线电视新闻网和福克斯新闻在内的多家媒体组织拒绝签署新规定,并停止了日常在五角大楼的工作。目前,五角大楼内部记者团主要由同意签署新政策的保守派媒体组成。

    弗里德曼的裁决叫停了新闻机构最强烈反对的部分限制条款,其中包括一项规定:” soliciting “(征集)军事人员的机密或敏感信息的记者可能被视为安全风险并被禁止进入大楼。他还推翻了将五角大楼准入权描述为”特权”而非”权利”的条款。

    部分条款仍被保留,例如限制记者在没有陪同的情况下进入五角大楼的特定区域。

    五角大楼发言人肖恩·帕内尔在社交媒体帖子中表示:”我们不同意这一裁决,并将立即提起上诉。”美国司法部尚未立即回应置评请求。

    五角大楼记者协会在周五晚间向哥伦比亚广播公司新闻提供的声明中表示,该协会”对联邦法官今天裁定五角大楼的新闻认证政策违反美国宪法表示欢迎”,并呼吁”立即恢复所有记者协会成员的认证”。

    五角大楼辩称,其政策并非强制记者向军方审核稿件,而是试图通过防止高度敏感信息泄露来保护国家安全。军方还表示,他们曾尝试与新闻机构进行谈判。但许多报道军方事务的记者以及五角大楼记者协会认为,该政策可能实际上限制了记者在未经政府许可的情况下与消息源互动。

    弗里德曼命令五角大楼恢复巴恩斯和其他几名《纽约时报》记者的新闻通行证,并撤销政策中的关键条款。目前尚不清楚这对其他新闻机构会产生什么影响。

    法官表示,他”认识到必须保护国家安全、军队安全以及战争计划”。

    “但考虑到美国近期对委内瑞拉的入侵以及持续与伊朗的战争,公众比以往任何时候都更需要从不同角度了解政府的行动——以便公众可以支持政府政策(如果愿意的话)、进行抗议(如果愿意的话),并基于全面、完整和公开的信息决定在下一次选举中支持谁。”

    弗里德曼指出,关于”征集”信息的限制过于模糊,无法明确哪些行为违反规定,因此”很容易预见记者会选择不问任何问题,以免冒失去认证的风险”。

    他还认为,该政策通过实施观点歧视违反了第一修正案,称其试图压制批评性言论并”淘汰不受欢迎的记者”。

    五角大楼则辩称,其新政策并非旨在惩罚特定媒体或歧视其不同意的观点,并重申军方已尝试与新闻机构进行谈判。

    弗里德曼指出,国防部长彼得·赫格斯泰特和其他五角大楼高级官员曾用严厉措辞批评新闻机构。他表示,证据”讲述了一个部门的故事:其领导层过去和现在都公开敌视它认为报道不利的’主流媒体’,而对更支持其立场的媒体更为友好”。

    他还指出,右翼影响者劳拉·卢默尽管设立了”举报热线”,却被允许进入五角大楼,而《华盛顿邮报》提出的类似信息征集请求却被视为不当。

    这一问题在本月早些时候的法庭听证会上被提出,当时弗里德曼向政府律师追问为何允许卢默的举报热线而不允许《华盛顿邮报》的。

    “《华盛顿邮报》的举报热线是否构成刑事征集?”弗里德曼问道。

    “我认为不是,法官大人,”司法部律师迈克尔·布伦斯回应道。

    “你不确定《华盛顿邮报》的举报热线是否构成刑事征集?”弗里德曼再次追问。

    “不,法官大人,”布伦斯说。

    “如果你们不确定,他们怎么能确定?”弗里德曼反问。

    布伦斯随后向弗里德曼解释,《华盛顿邮报》的举报热线存在问题,因为它要求军事人员提供信息,而卢默的热线性质更为笼统。

    在听证会上的另一场紧张对话中,弗里德曼表示,他经历过从越南战争到”9·11″袭击的多次军事和国家安全冲突,并指出在这些事件中,媒体在帮助美国公众了解政府行动方面发挥了关键作用。

    谈及越南战争,他说:”可以公平地说,公众被很多事情误导了。”他补充道,”很多事情需要严格保密,但公开和透明能让公众了解政府的所作所为。”

    Judge strikes down restrictive Pentagon press policy, finding it violates First Amendment

    March 20, 2026 / 7:31 PM EDT / CBS News

    A federal judge has struck down some of the Defense Department’s strict controls on how journalists with access to the Pentagon are allowed to report — ending a policy that caused many news outlets to leave the Pentagon.

    U.S. District Judge Paul L. Friedman sided with the New York Times and a reporter at the newspaper, Julian E. Barnes, who sued in December, arguing the new Pentagon policy violated the First Amendment, Fifth Amendment and due process provision of the Constitution.

    The Pentagon rolled out its new press access policy last fall, requiring credentialed reporters to sign onto a host of restrictions in order to maintain daily access to the building.

    Many media organizations — including CBS News, ABC News, NBC News, CNN and Fox News — declined to sign the new rules and stopped working out of the Pentagon on a day-to-day basis. The Pentagon’s in-house press corps is now mostly made up of conservative media outlets that agreed to sign.

    Friedman’s ruling halts some of the restrictions that news outlets objected the most strenuously to, including one section that suggested reporters who “solicit” classified or sensitive information from military personnel could be deemed a security risk and barred from the building. He also struck down a section that referred to Pentagon access as a “privilege” rather than a “right.”

    Some sections were left in place, including restrictions on where reporters are allowed to go in the Pentagon without an escort.

    In a social media post, Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell said, “We disagree with the decision and are pursuing an immediate appeal.” The Justice Department did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

    In a statement provided to CBS News Friday evening, the Pentagon Press Association said that it “celebrates the decision by a federal judge today that the Pentagon’s press credentialling policy violated the U.S. Constitution,” and called for the “immediate reinstatement of the credentials of all PPA members.”

    The Pentagon has argued that it isn’t forcing reporters to clear their stories with the military, and is instead trying to protect national security by preventing leaks of highly sensitive information. The military also says it has tried to negotiate with news outlets. But many reporters who cover the military, and the Pentagon Press Association, argued the policy could effectively restrict journalists from interacting with sources without the government’s permission.

    Friedman ordered the Pentagon to reinstate Barnes and several other Times reporters’ press passes, and vacated key parts of the policy. It’s not clear what the impact will be on other news outlets.

    The judge said he “recognizes that national security must be protected, the security of our troops must be protected, and war plans must be protected.”

    “But especially in light of the country’s recent incursion into Venezuela and its ongoing war with Iran, it is more important than ever that the public have access to information from a variety of perspectives about what its government is doing—so that the public can support government policies, if it wants to support them; protest, if it wants to protest; and decide based on full, complete, and open information who they are going to vote for in the next election,” he said.

    Friedman found that the restrictions on “soliciting” information were so vague that it wasn’t clear what kinds of conduct did and didn’t violate the rules, so “one could easily predict that journalists would opt not to ask any questions rather than risk losing their [credential].”

    He also argued that the policy violates the First Amendment by engaging in viewpoint discrimination, writing that it seeks to chill critical speech and “weed out disfavored journalists.”

    The Pentagon has argued that its new policy isn’t aimed at punishing certain outlets or discriminating against views that it disagrees with, pointing to the military’s efforts to negotiate with news outlets.

    Friedman pointed to instances of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and other top Pentagon officials criticizing news outlets in harsh terms. He said the evidence “tells the story of a Department whose leadership has been and continues to be openly hostile to the ‘mainstream media’ whose reporting it views as unfavorable,” and warmer to more supportive outlets.

    And he pointed to the fact that right-wing influencer Laura Loomer was allowed access to the Pentagon despite setting up a “tip line,” even though a similar request for tips by The Washington Post was deemed inappropriate.

    That issue was raised during a court hearing earlier this month, when Friedman grilled government lawyers on why Loomer’s tip line was permitted and the Post’s wasn’t

    “Is the Washington Post tip line criminal solicitation?” Friedman asked.

    “I don’t think so, your honor,” Justice Department attorney Michael Bruns responded.

    “You’re not clear whether the Washington Post tip line constitutes criminal solicitation?” Friedman asked again.

    “No, your honor,” Bruns said.

    “So, if you’re not clear, how can they be clear?” Friedman retorted.

    Bruns then told Friedman that The Washington Post tip line was problematic because it asked for information from military members, while Loomer’s is more general in nature.

    In another tense exchange during that hearing, Friedman said he has lived through many military and national security conflicts, from the Vietnam War to the Sept. 11 attacks, and noted that through those events, the press played a vital role in helping the American public understand what its government was doing.

    Regarding the Vietnam War, he said that “the public, I think it’s fair to say, was lied to about a lot of things,” and added, “A lot of things need to be held tightly and securely, but openness and transparency allow members of the public to know what their government is doing.”

  • 五角大楼限制独立媒体采访政策被法官裁定为非法


    2026-03-20T21:17:54.163Z / CNN

    五角大楼限制独立媒体采访政策被法官裁定为非法

    By

    [Devan Cole]

    Updated 1小时53分钟前

    更新于2026年3月20日,美国东部时间下午6:07

    发布于2026年3月20日,美国东部时间下午5:17

    媒体 联邦机构 美国军方 人权

    [查看全部主题]

    Facebook 推文[电子邮件]链接 话题

    链接已复制!

    国防部长彼得·赫格塞斯于2026年3月19日在弗吉尼亚州阿灵顿的五角大楼就伊朗战争举行新闻发布会,提供有关持续军事行动的最新情况。

    Win McNamee/Getty Images

    周五,一名联邦法官宣布国防部长彼得·赫格塞斯去年推出的一项限制性新闻政策的多个部分无效,裁定这些政策践踏了记者在五角大楼庞大总部内报道美国军方的宪法权利。

    美国地方法院高级法官保罗·弗里德曼的裁决对赫格塞斯加强对新闻报道控制的努力是一个重大打击。这一裁决是在伊朗战争和今年早些时候美国在委内瑞拉的行动期间,对国防部的报道大幅增加之际作出的。

    该裁决废除了新政策中几项允许五角大楼基于报道内容暂停或吊销记者证的条款,但保留了该政策中在早期版本中生效且未受到法律挑战的其他部分。

    广告反馈

    “第一修正案的主要目的是使新闻界能够自由发布其想发布的内容,公众能够自由阅读其选择的内容,不受任何官方禁止,”弗里德曼在一份措辞严厉的意见中写道。他是前总统比尔·克林顿任命的法官。

    “起草第一修正案的人认为,国家安全需要一个自由的媒体和一个知情的民众,而政府压制政治言论会危及这种安全,”法官补充道。“这一原则近250年来一直维护着国家的安全,现在绝不能被抛弃。”

    《纽约时报》去年年底对该政策提出质疑,认为它违反了其第一修正案权利和正当程序权利。

    弗里德曼废除的政策部分要求记者签署一份承诺,不获取或使用未经授权的材料。包括《纽约时报》和美国有线电视新闻网(CNN)在内的数十家新闻机构拒绝签署,导致记者被拒绝授予进入五角大楼的记者证。

    [相关文章 美国总统唐纳德·特朗普周日晚上在返回华盛顿特区的空军一号上向记者发表讲话。Kevin Lamarque/路透社 特朗普及其官员在伊朗战争审查加剧的情况下与新闻媒体同步施压 6分钟阅读]

    弗里德曼命令官员恢复《纽约时报》七名国家安全记者的记者证,这些记者去年失去了进入五角大楼的权限。

    “法院认识到必须保护国家安全、保护军队安全以及保护战争计划,”弗里德曼写道。“但特别是考虑到该国最近对委内瑞拉的入侵以及正在进行的与伊朗的战争,公众比以往任何时候都更需要从不同角度了解其政府正在做什么的信息——这样公众才能在支持政府政策(如果愿意的话)、抗议(如果愿意的话)以及基于充分、完整和公开的信息决定下一次选举投票给谁。”

    美国有线电视新闻网(CNN)已联系美国国防部和《纽约时报》寻求置评。

    “地方法院的裁决有力地驳斥了五角大楼在战争时期阻碍新闻自由和向美国民众报道重要信息的企图,”代表《纽约时报》参与诉讼的第一修正案律师西奥多·布特罗斯告诉CNN。

    又一法官裁定赫格塞斯违反第一修正案

    弗里德曼成为最近几周第二位认定赫格塞斯无视第一修正案保护的法官。

    上个月,同一法院的另一名法官表示,赫格塞斯在试图报复一名民主党参议员(该参议员敦促美国军人拒绝非法命令)时,违反了该参议员的言论自由权利。

    周五,弗里德曼指出赫格塞斯及其助手的各种声明表明,该部门对其认为“不利”的主流新闻机构的报道“公然怀有敌意”,但对“过去表达过支持特朗普政府”的媒体则“态度接受”。

    “无可争议的证据反映了该政策的真实目的和实际效果:淘汰不受欢迎的记者——在国防部看来,这些记者‘不支持并愿意服务’——并用符合其要求的新闻机构取而代之,”他写道。“这就是观点歧视,没有任何借口。”

    弗里德曼还同意《纽约时报》的观点,即该政策违反了其正当程序权利,因为它过于模糊,记者在试图遵守时可能会无意中违反。

    “记者获取信息的主要方式之一是提问,”他写道。“根据该政策的条款,原告和其他人每天从事的基本新闻工作——例如向部门员工提问——可能会触发该部门对记者构成安全或安全风险的认定。”

    新闻自由基金会倡导主任塞思·斯特恩表示:“很遗憾,五角大楼的荒谬政策花了这么长时间才被废除。”

    “特别是现在我们正在为又一场基于不断变化的借口的战争投入资金和鲜血,记者应该加倍努力,查明五角大楼不希望公众知道的信息,而不是重复‘官方’叙事,”斯特恩在一份声明中说。

    本文已更新,补充了更多细节。

    美国有线电视新闻网的布赖恩·斯特尔特对本报道有贡献。

    媒体 联邦机构 美国军方 人权

    [查看全部主题]

    Facebook 推文[电子邮件]链接 话题

    链接已复制!

    广告反馈

    By

    [Devan Cole]

    Updated 1 hr 53 min ago

    Updated Mar 20, 2026, 6:07 PM ET

    PUBLISHED Mar 20, 2026, 5:17 PM ET

    Media Federal agencies US military Human rights

    [See all topics]

    Facebook Tweet[Email]Link Threads

    Link Copied!

    Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth provides updates on the continued military operations on Iran 2during a press briefing on the Iran war at the Pentagon on March 19, 2026 in Arlington, Virginia.

    Win McNamee/Getty Images

    A federal judge on Friday voided various parts of a restrictive press policy rolled out by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth last year, ruling that they trampled on the constitutional rights of reporters who seek to cover the US military from within its sprawling headquarters.

    The ruling from senior US District Judge Paul Friedman is a major blow to Hegseth’s effort to exert greater control over press coverage and comes as reporting on the Defense Department has ramped up amid the war in Iran and the US operation earlier this year in Venezuela.

    It voids several provisions of the new policy that enabled the Pentagon to suspend or revoke credentials based on reporting, but leaves in place other parts of the policy that had been in effect in earlier iterations and were not subject to the legal challenge.

    Ad Feedback

    “A primary purpose of the First Amendment is to enable the press to publish what it will and the public to read what it chooses, free of any official proscription,” Friedman, an appointee of former President Bill Clinton, wrote in a scathing opinion.

    “Those who drafted the First Amendment believed that the nation’s security requires a free press and an informed people and that such security is endangered by governmental suppression of political speech,” the judge added. “That principle has preserved the nation’s security for almost 250 years. It must not be abandoned now.”

    The New York Times challenged the policy late last year, arguing it violates its First Amendment and due process rights.

    The parts of the policy Friedman struck down required beat reporters to sign a pledge not to obtain or use unauthorized material. Scores of news organizations, including the Times and CNN, declined to agree, resulting in reporters being denied press badges that give them access to the Pentagon.

    [Related article US President Donald Trump speaks to reporters aboard Air Force One on a flight back to Washington D.C., on Sunday night. Kevin Lamarque/Reuters Trump and his officials pressure the news media in unison as Iran war scrutiny intensifies 6 min read]

    Friedman ordered officials to reinstate the press badges of seven national security reporters at the Times who lost access to the Pentagon last year.

    “The Court recognizes that national security must be protected, the security of our troops must be protected, and war plans must be protected,” Friedman wrote. “But especially in light of the country’s recent incursion into Venezuela and its ongoing war with Iran, it is more important than ever that the public have access to information from a variety of perspectives about what its government is doing – so that the public can support government policies, if it wants to support them; protest, if it wants to protest; and decide based on full, complete, and open information who they are going to vote for in the next election.”

    CNN has reached out to the Defense Department and New York Times for comment.

    “The district court’s decision is a powerful rejection of the Pentagon’s effort to impede freedom of the press and the reporting of vital information to the American people during a time of war,” First Amendment attorney Theodore Boutrous, who is representing The Times in the suit, told CNN.

    Another ruling against Hegseth on First Amendment

    Friedman became the second judge in recent weeks to conclude that Hegseth was playing fast and loose with First Amendment protections.

    Last month, another judge who sits in the same courthouse said the secretary had run afoul of the free speech rights of a Democratic senator when he attempted to retaliate against the lawmaker over his urging of US service members to refuse illegal orders.

    Friedman on Friday pointed to various statements by Hegseth and his aides that he said shows the department has been “openly hostile” to reporting from mainstream news organizations whose stories “it views as unfavorable, but receptive to outlets that have expressed ‘support for the Trump administration in the past.’”

    “The undisputed evidence reflects the policy’s true purpose and practical effect: to weed out disfavored journalists – those who were not, in the department’s view, ‘on board and willing to serve,’ and replace them with news entities that are,” he wrote. “That is viewpoint discrimination, full stop.”

    Friedman also agreed with the Times that the policy ran afoul of its due process rights because it was vague and therefore could be unintentionally violated by reporters seeking to comply with it.

    “A primary way in which journalists obtain information is by asking questions,” he wrote. “Under the policy’s terms, then, essential journalistic practices that the plaintiffs and others engage in every day – such as asking questions of department employees – could trigger a determination by the department that a journalist poses a security or safety risk.”

    Seth Stern, chief of advocacy at Freedom of the Press Foundation, said, “It’s unfortunate that it took this long for the Pentagon’s ridiculous policy to be thrown in the trash.”

    “Especially now that we are spending money and blood on yet another war based on constantly shifting pretexts, journalists should double down on their commitment to finding out what the Pentagon does not want the public to know rather than parroting ‘authorized’ narratives,” Stern said in a statement.

    This story has been updated with additional details.

    CNN’s Brian Stelter contributed to this report.

    Media Federal agencies US military Human rights

    [See all topics]

    Facebook Tweet[Email]Link Threads

    Link Copied!

    Ad Feedback

  • 消息:五角大楼为可能在伊朗部署地面部队做好准备


    发布时间:2026年3月21日 07:59 / 来源:联合早报

    消息人士称,美国总统特朗普一直在考虑是否在伊朗部署地面部队,美国高级军事指挥官已提交旨在为此类方案做准备的具体请求。 (路透社)

    有消息指,美国五角大楼官员已为可能在伊朗部署美军地面部队做好了准备。

    美国哥伦比亚广播公司(CBS)星期五(3月20日)引述消息人士的话说,美国总统特朗普一直在考虑是否在伊朗部署地面部队,美国高级军事指挥官已提交旨在为此类方案做准备的具体请求。

    美国军方还召开会议,为特朗普决定派遣美军地面部队参战制定应对预案,包括如何处理可能抓获的伊朗士兵等细节。

    另据彭博社报道,知情人士透露,目前在特朗普的顾问中,支持采取有限地面行动的势头正在增强。面积约为美国曼哈顿三分之一的哈尔克岛可以被迅速占领,这将成为美国迫使德黑兰解除霍尔木兹海峡封锁的关键筹码。

    白宫新闻秘书莱维特当天在一份声明中说:“五角大楼的职责是为三军统帅提供最大选择权,这并不意味着总统已经做出决定,正如总统昨天在椭圆形办公室所说,他目前不打算向任何地方派遣地面部队。”

    特朗普20日在社媒贴文说,“我们距离实现目标越来越近了,正在考虑逐步降级针对伊朗的军事行动。”19日,他对媒体表明不会向伊朗派兵,但很快补充道:“如果我派兵,我肯定不会告诉你们。”

    消息:五角大楼为可能在伊朗部署地面部队做好准备

    发布时间:2026年3月21日 07:59 / 来源:联合早报

    消息人士称,美国总统特朗普一直在考虑是否在伊朗部署地面部队,美国高级军事指挥官已提交旨在为此类方案做准备的具体请求。 (路透社)

    有消息指,美国五角大楼官员已为可能在伊朗部署美军地面部队做好了准备。

    美国哥伦比亚广播公司(CBS)星期五(3月20日)引述消息人士的话说,美国总统特朗普一直在考虑是否在伊朗部署地面部队,美国高级军事指挥官已提交旨在为此类方案做准备的具体请求。

    美国军方还召开会议,为特朗普决定派遣美军地面部队参战制定应对预案,包括如何处理可能抓获的伊朗士兵等细节。

    另据彭博社报道,知情人士透露,目前在特朗普的顾问中,支持采取有限地面行动的势头正在增强。面积约为美国曼哈顿三分之一的哈尔克岛可以被迅速占领,这将成为美国迫使德黑兰解除霍尔木兹海峡封锁的关键筹码。

    白宫新闻秘书莱维特当天在一份声明中说:“五角大楼的职责是为三军统帅提供最大选择权,这并不意味着总统已经做出决定,正如总统昨天在椭圆形办公室所说,他目前不打算向任何地方派遣地面部队。”

    特朗普20日在社媒贴文说,“我们距离实现目标越来越近了,正在考虑逐步降级针对伊朗的军事行动。”19日,他对媒体表明不会向伊朗派兵,但很快补充道:“如果我派兵,我肯定不会告诉你们。”