

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.

AIUSA media office, 202-509-8194
Millions of Pakistanis in the
northwest tribal areas live in a human rights free zone where they have
no legal protection by the government and are subject to abuses by the
Taleban, Amnesty International said in a major report released today.
"Many areas of north-western Pakistan
now
resemble the Taleban-ruled Afghanistan in the late 1990s," said Larry
Cox, Amnesty International USA Executive Director. "The world should be
alarmed by the way living conditions have deteriorated under the
increasingly
brutal control of the Pakistani Taleban and its allied insurgent groups;
instead, the suffering of the people of this area has been largely
ignored,
sacrificed in the name of geopolitical interests."
The 130-page report, 'As if Hell Fell
on Me': The Human Rights Crisis in Northwest Pakistan, is based on
nearly 300 interviews with residents of the Federally Administered
Tribal
Areas (FATA) and adjacent areas of the Northwest Frontier Province
(NWFP).
Amnesty International's review of
available
information also suggests that at least 1,300 civilians were killed in
the fighting in northwest Pakistan in 2009, from a total of more than
8,500
casualties (including combatants).
The report documents the systematic
abuses
carried out by the Taleban as they established their rule by killing
those
who challenge their authority, such as tribal elders and government
officials.
Amnesty International was told of Taleban insurgents blocking roads to
prevent civilians from escaping as villages fell under heavy bombardment
by government forces. The insurgents also increased the likelihood of
civilian
casualties by dispersing themselves among civilians and in and around
schools.
Successive Pakistani governments have
treated
the tribal areas bordering Afghanistan with disdain, ignoring the rights
of the area's residents, particular in FATA. Over the past decade,
Pakistan's
government has veered from appeasing the Pakistani Taleban through a
series
of failed "peace deals" to launching heavy-handed military operations
that include indiscriminate or disproportionate attacks.
The United States' use of drones to
target
insurgents in northwest Pakistan has generated considerable resentment
inside Pakistan. Amnesty International has called on the U.S. government
to clarify its chain of command and rules of engagement for the use of
drones and ensure proper accountability for civilian casualties.
"President Obama should exert pressure
on
the Pakistani government to take steps to address abuses by the
Pakistani
security forces and local militias called "lashkars" - who are
little more than bandits," said T. Kumar, Amnesty International USA
director
of international advocacy. "As the main military supplier and trainer
of the Pakistani security forces, the U.S. government cannot turn a
blind
eye to their abuses. President Obama should also speak out about the
abuses
committed by the Pakistani Taleban and find ways to exert pressure
through
those entities who support or who otherwise have influence on them."
The report also demonstrates the role of
China and its influence on the Pakistani government. China has been
Pakistan's
largest supplier of arms and military equipment.
FATA residents are governed by the
Frontier
Crimes Regulation (FCR) of 1901. The FCR provides a
government-appointed
Political Agent ultimate judicial and executive authority, including the
ability to carry out communal punishment, including formal detention, by
holding all members of a tribe potentially responsible for alleged
infractions
committed by any tribe member.
The Constitution of Pakistan of 1973
explicitly
excludes FATA from the legal, judicial and parliamentary system of
Pakistan,
including barring residents from voting in parliamentary elections and
bringing appeals to a higher court outside the territory. Pakistan
has recently promised to reform the FCR but this has not yet happened.
Amnesty International urges both the
Pakistani
government and the Taleban to comply with international humanitarian law
by taking all measures to prevent loss of civilian life and buildings
including
hospitals and schools and allowing unfettered NGO access to provide
food,
shelter and medical supplies to the injured and displaced.
"Both the Pakistani and U.S. governments
should take note that addressing human rights abuses is not just the
right
thing to do from a human rights perspective," said Cox. "It's
also the smart thing to do from a security perspective. The insurgent
abuses described in this Amnesty International report have occurred as
part of their efforts to carve out a safe area to recruit, organize, and
train fighters-not only to launch military attacks in Pakistan and
Afghanistan
but also armed attacks on far-off international targets."
"All nations have two interrelated
obligations:
they must protect civilians from abuses by non-state actors, and they
must
respect human rights in the process of confronting non-state actors.
Getting
this balance right is a challenge that governments can no longer afford
to ignore," said Cox.
This report is supplemented by an
innovative
new website (www.eyesonpakistan.org)
that, through interactive maps, offers virtual access to this isolated
region. The information presented is based on a geo-coded database of
more
than 2,300 publicly reported incidents occurring between 2005 and 2009,
including suicide attacks, U.S. drone strikes and insurgent attacks
against
civilians. The Eyes on Pakistan website is unique, as it allows
users to manipulate the data and identify temporal and spatial trends of
insurgency and military activity, and contextualizes the hundreds of
individual
stories that Amnesty International has collected.
Amnesty International is a worldwide movement of people who campaign for internationally recognized human rights for all. Our supporters are outraged by human rights abuses but inspired by hope for a better world - so we work to improve human rights through campaigning and international solidarity. We have more than 2.2 million members and subscribers in more than 150 countries and regions and we coordinate this support to act for justice on a wide range of issues.
"Militarizing our communities against their will is not only un-American but also leads us down a dangerous path for our democracy," said Democratic Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker.
While Tennessee elected officials sued over Republican Gov. Bill Lee deploying the National Guard in Memphis at the request of President Donald Trump, the White House on Friday escalated a battle about a similar deployment push in Illinois to the US Supreme Court.
Illinois and Chicago's top attorneys are challenging Trump's attempt to federalize and deploy National Guard soldiers from the state and Texas amid the administration's anti-immigrant "Operation Midway Blitz" in and around the nation's third-largest city. US District Judge April Perry, an appointee of former President Joe Biden, last week issued a temporary restraining order.
On Thursday, a three-judge panel from the US Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit—featuring judges appointed by Trump as well as former Presidents George H.W. Bush and Barack Obama—paused Perry's decision on federalization of Guard troops but unanimously upheld her block on their deployment, declaring that "political opposition is not rebellion."
Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul called the 7th Circuit's order "another win for the people of Illinois and the rule of law in our state," and welcomed that "National Guard troops will not be seen patrolling the city of Chicago, Broadview, or other communities throughout Illinois."
"The responsibility of addressing local crime continues to fall to state and local law enforcement officers who are best trained to protect their communities," he added. "There is no need for troops in the state of Illinois, and my office will continue to vigorously oppose the administration's unlawful overreach."
Now, the Trump administration is appealing to the country's top court, which has a right-wing supermajority that includes three Trump appointees. In the application, Solicitor General John Sauer asks the justices to stay Perry's injunction, which was sought by the state of Illinois and the city of Chicago, so the president can immediately deploy troops.
According to the Chicago Tribune:
The 43-page petition also asked for an immediate administrative stay "given the pressing risk of violence," but the court had taken no action on that as of 5:00 pm Friday.
The filing said Illinois' resistance to a National Guard deployment mirrors similar actions still unfolding in California and Oregon. It asked that President Donald Trump be allowed to deploy some 700 troops in Illinois—300 from the Illinois National Guard and another 400 federalized out of Texas earlier this month.
The Supreme Court asked lawyers for Illinois to respond by 5:00 pm Eastern time on Monday.
Democratic Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker, a frequent critic of the president, said on social media Friday that "Donald Trump will keep trying to invade Illinois with troops—and we will keep defending the sovereignty of our state. Militarizing our communities against their will is not only un-American but also leads us down a dangerous path for our democracy. What will come next?"
Meanwhile, in Tennessee, seven elected Democrats—Shelby County Mayor Lee Harris, Memphis City Councilmember JB Smiley Jr., Shelby County Commissioners Henri Brooks and Erika Sugarmon, state Reps. GA Hardaway (93) and Gabby Salinas (96), and state Sen. Jeff Yarbro (21)—filed a lawsuit and motion for immediate relief over Lee's "patently unlawful" deployment.
The plaintiffs are represented by Democracy Forward, National Immigration Law Center, and Sherrard Roe Voigt & Harbison, which submitted a complaint to the Davidson County Chancery Court arguing that "defendants have trampled on Tennessee law by unilaterally deploying Tennessee National Guard members in Memphis as a domestic police force."
Smiley, who's also an attorney, said in a statement that "Lee's decision to send the National Guard into Memphis at President Trump's request isn't leadership…it's illegal. The governor has disregarded our laws to deploy troops to intimidate our city, and the president's talk of using communities like Memphis as training grounds is dangerous and dehumanizing. Memphis deserves to be respected, not treated like the playground of an out-of-control dictator."
Skye Perryman, president and CEO of Democracy Forward, tied the current conditions in Memphis to other US communities—more than 2,700 of which are planning "No Kings" protests against Trump's increasing authoritarianism on Saturday.
"Yet, again, the president and his allies are engaged in an unlawful and harmful use of military force in an American city. There has been no invasion or rebellion in Memphis, which is the prerequisite for National Guard deployment," Perryman said. "The people of Tennessee deserve leaders who respect the limits of their office and the rule of law. Using military forces in our cities and communities without legal justification threatens democracy and puts communities at risk."
“With climate warming impacts being felt everywhere on Earth, kicking this decision down the road is simply evading reality," says one campaigner.
Advocates of establishing an international framework for decarbonizing global shipping on Friday decried a postponed vote on proposed rules—a move that came amid pressure from the administration of US President Donald Trump and Saudi Arabia.
Members of the United Nations International Maritime Organization's (IMO) Marine Environment Protection Committee gathered in London for a special meeting, MEPC 83, to vote on its Net-Zero Framework (NZF), a new set of global regulations aimed at slashing the shipping industry's greenhouse gas emissions.
A Saudi proposal to adjourn the meeting and delay a final decision on the NZF narrowly passed by a vote of 57-49, with 21 abstentions, Mongabay reported.
The NZF—whose goal is net-zero shipping by 2050—has two main interconnected components, a global fuel standard requiring ships to gradually reduce emissions, and a pricing mechanism meant to encourage the industry to voluntarily slash greenhouse gas output.
"The delay leaves the shipping sector drifting in uncertainty."
The NZF was approved at the last MEPC meeting in April, then shared with member nations for review, with an eye toward final assent during the current special meeting. However, while the European Union and nations including China and Brazil have been pushing for the NZF, the world's two largest oil producers—the United States and Saudi Arabia—are working to scupper the proposal, which Russia also opposes.
Trump took to his Truth Social network Thursday to pressure MEPC members to vote "no" on the NZF:
I am outraged that the International Maritime Organization is voting in London this week to pass a global Carbon Tax. The United States will NOT stand for this Global Green New Scam Tax on Shipping, and will not adhere to it in any way, shape, or form. We will not tolerate increased prices on American Consumers OR, the creation of a Green New Scam Bureaucracy to spend YOUR money on their Green dreams. Stand with the United States, and vote NO in London tomorrow!
The one-year postponement drew sharp rebuke from supporters of the NZF.
“We are disappointed that member states have not been able to agree a way forward at this meeting," International Chamber of Shipping secretary general Thomas Kazakos said following Friday's vote. "Industry needs clarity to be able to make the investments needed to decarbonize the maritime sector, in line with the goals set out in the IMO [greenhouse gas] strategy."
"As an industry we will continue to work with the IMO, which is the best organization to deliver the global regulations needed for a global industry," Kazakos added.
John Maggs, who represents the Clean Shipping Coalition at the IMO, said in a statement, “By delaying adoption of its Net-Zero Framework, IMO has today squandered an important opportunity to tackle global shipping’s contribution to climate breakdown."
“With climate warming impacts being felt everywhere on Earth, kicking this decision down the road is simply evading reality," he added. "Governments serious about climate action must spend the next 12 months rallying every nation that supports the framework, convincing those who are on the fence, or opposing, that its adoption is the only sane way forward.”
Elissama Menezes, co-founder and director of the advocacy organization Equal Routes, said: "Delay costs the climate—and coastal Indigenous peoples and Arctic communities are already paying the price for inaction. This week’s non-outcome should mean that states and the marine sector should double down on related efforts to reduce the impacts from the triple planetary crisis.”
Faig Abbasov, director of shipping at the green group Transport & Environment, told Reuters that "the delay leaves the shipping sector drifting in uncertainty."
Global shipping accounts for approximately 3% of the world's CO2 emissions. Approximately 90% of all international trade is conducted at sea, and proponents of the NZF warn that emissions will soar without the regulations.
While leading shipping companies including Maersk and CMA CGM have taken steps to transition their fleets to zero emission vessels, they are still falling short of the goals laid out in the landmark Paris climate agreement or even the IMO’s own 2023 emissions reduction strategy.
”However, all is not lost—not by a long shot," said Maggs, "as there is an immediate opportunity to slash [greenhouse gas] emissions from shipping, minimize fuel burn, and the overall cost of the energy transition, and that is to strengthen and make enforceable the carbon intensity indicator (CII), the IMO’s cornerstone energy efficiency measure."
CII is a shipping industry regulatory metric that measures a vessel's annual carbon intensity.
“There’s no time to waste," Maggs added. "At MEPC 84 in April 2026 member states need to focus all their attention on transforming the CII into the energy efficiency powerhouse needed to quickly right this ship and put it back on route to being a climate solution.”
"Congress has not authorized military force against Venezuela," said Sen. Adam Schiff. "And we must assert our authority to stop the United States from being dragged—intentionally or accidentally—into full-fledged war."
With President Donald Trump floating potential military action within Venezuela and authorizing operations by the Central Intelligence Agency after launching several deadly strikes on boats near the South American country, three lawmakers from both sides of the aisle on Friday said they would force a new vote on blocking the White House from carrying out an attack there.
Sens. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) and Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) last week introduced a measure to rein in Trump's bombing of boats in the Caribbean, which the White House has claimed are being used to traffic drugs into the US and present an imminent threat.
The measure failed, with one Democrat, Sen. John Fetterman (Pa.) joining most of the GOP in opposing it and two Republicans, Sens. Rand Paul (Ky.) and Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), supporting it.
Kaine and Schiff on Friday were reportedly hoping that a new bipartisan measure, introduced with Paul, would garner more support from the Republicans.
They said they would force a vote on a war powers resolution to block the use of force by US troops "within or against" Venezuela unless it was "explicitly authorized by a declaration of war or specific authorization for use of military force."
The 1973 War Powers Act requires Congress to consider and vote on resolutions regarding a president's power to enter an armed conflict without congressional authorization.
"Congress has not authorized military force against Venezuela. And we must assert our authority to stop the United States from being dragged—intentionally or accidentally—into full-fledged war in South America," said Schiff.
"Americans don’t want to send their sons and daughters into more wars—especially wars that carry a serious risk of significant destabilization and massive new waves of migration in our hemisphere."
The lawmakers announced the resolution as it was reported that two survivors of the military's most recent drone strike on a boat have been detained by US forces, with legal experts questioning whether they are prisoners or war or criminal suspects.
The White House has insisted it is acting within its rights to defend US security by striking boats it believes are carrying drugs—even as details have emerged calling into doubt the allegations that the vessels pose a threat.
Venezuela is not a significant source of drugs that are trafficked into the US—a fact that Secretary of State Marco Rubio dismissed when a reporter brought it up soon after the military began bombing boats, at least six of which have been struck so far. At least 27 people have been killed, and the grieving family of one victim spoke out Thursday and said they had not been involved in drug trafficking.
Even if the vessels were carrying illegal substances, legal experts and critics in Congress have stressed in recent weeks that they should be dealt with, as in the past, by federal law enforcement agencies, as Congress has not authorized military action against Venezuela or drug cartels.
“The American people do not want to be dragged into endless war with Venezuela without public debate or a vote," said Paul. "We ought to defend what the Constitution demands: deliberation before war."
Kaine told reporters on Thursday the Congress' knowledge of legal rationale for the boat strikes amounts to “a complete black hole."
Meanwhile, Trump has suggested this week he could further escalate attacks on Venezuela, saying the Caribbean Sea is "very well under control"—even though Vice President JD Vance has joked that the US could accidentally strike fishing boats in its operations there.
"We are certainly looking at land now," Trump said Wednesday.
Kaine said he was "extremely troubled that the Trump administration is considering launching illegal military strikes inside Venezuela without a specific authorization by Congress."
"Americans don’t want to send their sons and daughters into more wars—especially wars that carry a serious risk of significant destabilization and massive new waves of migration in our hemisphere,” said Kaine. “If my colleagues disagree and think a war with Venezuela is a good idea, they need to meet their constitutional obligations by making their case to the American people and passing an authorization for use of military force."
"I urge every senator to join us in stopping this administration from dragging our country into an unauthorized and escalating military conflict," said the senator.
The New York Times reported that Sen. Todd Young (R-Ind.) could potentially join the effort to pass the war powers resolution after voting against last week's measure, which he said was too broad.
"I am highly concerned," Young said after the vote last week, "about the legality of recent strikes in the Caribbean and the trajectory of military operations without congressional approval or debate and the support of the American people."