

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.

In April, Pakistani authorities used draconian laws and excessive force to prevent tenant farmers in Punjab province from protesting for land rights, Human Rights Watch said today. Farmers in Okara district had planned to convene on April 17, 2016, the International Day of Peasants' and Farmers' Struggles.
The authorities should drop all charges brought against those exercising their rights to freedom of expression, association, and peaceful assembly, and appropriately punish security force members responsible for abuses against protesters.
"Blocking a peaceful meeting, arresting organizers, and then using excessive force against demonstrators shows a complete disregard for basic rights in a democratic society," said Brad Adams, Asia director. "The government's use of vague and overbroad counter-terrorism laws against protesting farmers brings new tensions to this volatile situation."
On the morning of April 16, police arrested Mehr Abdul Sattar at his home. Sattar is the secretary general of Anjuman-i-Mazareen Punjab, the farmers' group which was organizing the meeting the next day. The district administration imposed section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code, a colonial era law to restrict gatherings.
Hundreds of villagers gathered soon after to protest against the arrest of Sattar and four other tenant farmer leaders. The police and army personnel deployed in armored personnel carriers. After several protesters threw stones, the security forces carried out baton charges and fired tear gas canisters to disperse the protesters. Dozens were arrested under various anti-terrorism and public order provisions and many remain detained at undisclosed locations. Numerous witnesses told Human Rights Watch that security forces beat and arrested protesters, arresting some at their homes in the middle of the night.
The district coordinating officer of Okara told media that the local administration decided to forbid the Peasant's day meet because of security concerns after a recent terrorist attack in Lahore, saying there were "strict directions from the top authorities to keep an eye on the law and order situation and such assemblies that can cause security concern." He said that the farmer organizers refused to comply.
The Okara district police have registered more than 4000 cases under the penal code and the anti-terrorism law, which provides the authorities broad powers to arrest and to prosecute vaguely defined offenses such as section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. The government's National Action Plan against terrorism, created in 2015, expands the role of the military in counter-terrorism operations and permits the use of military courts for terrorism-related prosecutions.
In some cases, including that of Mehr Abdul Sattar, the police are refusing to provide information on the whereabouts of those arrested, which amounts to an enforced disappearance in violation of international law. Individuals forcibly disappeared are at a grave risk of being tortured or otherwise ill-treated.
Aisha Bibi, 55, villager, said that her son has disappeared since the crackdown by government forces. "When I asked the police about my son, the officers abused me and said that my son is being taught a lesson for being part of the farmers' struggle."
Since April 16, at least 24 farmers have been brought before the anti-terrorism courts and returned to judicial custody. Excessive use of tear gas might have resulted in the death of a 26-year-old farmer, according to his family members. Villagers told Human Rights Watch that security forces have since cordoned off villages in the area of dispute, preventing people, food and public services from entering or leaving.
Pakistan should ensure that security forces follow the United Nations Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials. They provide that all security forces use nonviolent means as far as possible before resorting to the use of force. Whenever the lawful use of force is unavoidable, officials should use restraint and act in proportion to the seriousness of the offense. Lethal force may only be used when strictly unavoidable to protect life.
"The government should promptly release those wrongfully held, provide information on those 'disappeared,' and hold accountable soldiers and police who use excessive force," Adams said. "Efforts to reach an agreement over the longstanding land dispute in Okara will be improved by showing greater respect for human rights."
Background and eyewitness accounts (names changed):
The dispute between tenant farmers in Okara and the military started 16 years ago. Traditionally, farmers were sharecroppers, handing over part of their produce as rent to the military, which acts as landlord through military-run farms. In 2000, the military unilaterally tried to change the rules, demanding that the farmers sign new rental contracts requiring them to pay rent in cash. The farmers refused, fearing that cash rents would, when times were lean, place them at risk of being evicted from land that their families have lived on for generations.
Human Rights Watch has previously documented a campaign of arbitrary detentions, torture, killings, and summary dismissals from employment by Pakistani security forces against the farmers.
The dispute peaked between May 5, 2003 and June 12, 2003, when the 150,000 people who live in the 18 villages that comprise Okara Military Farms were placed under curfew, with severe restrictions on movement within and into the district. Water, electricity and telephones were disconnected until the farmers agreed to sign the new contracts guaranteeing fixed income to the military owners of agricultural land.
During the election campaign of 2013, Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif held a rally in Okara district and promised farmers their right to the lands farmed over generations. However, Sharif's promise remains unfulfilled and local authorities' oppression of the Okara farmers continues unabated, which has led to further protests. In July 2014, security forces killed two tenant farmers during a siege and assault in village 15/4 L.
The following accounts are from Human Rights Watch's visit to Okara district, Punjab from April 21 to 23, 2016.
Arbitrary arrests, detention, enforced disappearances
Human Rights Watch interviewed 14 people who said that their friends or family members were arrested by the authorities on April 16 or on ensuing days. Many remain in custody. Some have not been accounted for and may have been forcibly disappeared. The interviews were conducted in villages 4/4-L and 15/4-L. The local farmers' movement started in village 4/4-L in 2000, and it is considered by both the government and the farmers as the movement's headquarters.
Sakina Bibi, a 70 -year-old farmer from village 15/4L, said that her sons were arrested and detained, and she is concerned for their safety:
At about 2 to 2:30 a.m. on April 18, the police broke down the door of my house. There was a lot of noise. They were shouting. There were many of them. First they dragged my elder son Abbas, who is a school teacher from his bed and started beating him with rifle butts. Abbas suffers from hepatitis. Then they grabbed my younger son Javaid, and started hitting him on the head with batons. When I tried to restrain them, one police officer hit me on the head. They kicked and slapped my two daughters-in-law. They also arrested two village chowkidars [caretakers] and an 80-year-old neighbor who came to our house hearing our screams.
I don't know, where they have taken my sons and why they were arrested. I am more than 70-years-old and cannot pursue the disappearance of my sons. Nobody from the village can go to the police station to check because whoever goes to the police station is arrested.
Why is the National Action Plan being used against farmers? It is clearly because they want to throw us in jails and take our lands.
Muhammad Irfan, a resident of village 15/4L, said that his 60-year-old mother was in custody:
My mother Kaneez Bibi went to get medicine from the city for her diabetes on the morning of April 16. She was in an auto-rickshaw [motorbike taxi] and fell out after she was caught in the firing of teargas shells. She was arrested for attempted murder and under various sections of the Anti-Terrorism Act. We do not know where she is. I can't even go to the police station to check since I fear that I will be arrested as well. My mother can hardly walk. It is absurd to accuse her of attempting to commit murder.
Aisha Bibi, 55, a resident of village 4/4L, said that her son has disappeared since the crackdown by government forces:
My son Nadeem was arrested on April 17 when he was on his way to Okara city. My son is an auto-rickshaw driver and he was not in the protest of April 16. We have no land and are not even farmers. My husband is dead and my son is the only person in the house that earns a living. The police say that they have sent him to the Okara jail. However, the jail people refuse to talk to me and say that they will give out no information. When I asked the police about my son, the officers abused me and said that my son is being taught a lesson for being part of the farmers' struggle.
Mehr Abdul Sattar is the secretary general of Anjuman-i-Mazareen Punjab, the group that had organized the April 17 meeting. His arrest, a day earlier, led to the protests. His brother Mehr Abdul Jabbar told Human Rights Watch:
On April 16, I heard footsteps and loud noises coming from the front gate of our house. I ran towards the gate. Around 40 to 50 police officers had broken into our house. I couldn't recognize any of them, apart from the local Station House Officer. They started dragging and beating my brother. When I tried to restrain them, they started hitting us with rifle butts. They dragged us both out to the front gate. There were at least 12 police vehicles outside in the street. Then they took him away.
The police refused to tell me why Sattar was arrested. The district government officials claim that they have arrested him under the Maintenance of Public Order law. Earlier, on April 13, the district government had asked him to cancel the planned convention celebrating the International Day of Peasants. The district government also imposed section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code to stop the convention. Sattar refused to comply and said it is the constitutional right of the farmers to hold a peaceful, public meeting.
To this day we do not know where the police have taken Sattar. The police and district government refuse to meet us or tell us where he is. I am sure that they are torturing him. I was arrested in 2003 and was kept in "torture cells" for weeks.
Anyone who tries to question the detention of Sattar and the other farmers is implicated in false cases and arrested. Our fault is that we are sons of a poor farmer who have become aware of our rights to our land.
Izhar is a lawyer and a resident of village 4/4L. He said:
They are detaining people without registering arrests. I am a lawyer who has been working for the rights of other villagers. However, now even I can't go out of the village. For the past one year, I have stopped practicing law because I am afraid of being arrested. There are check posts outside the village and they arrest anyone going in and out. Sometimes they ask for National Identification Card and if the address on the N.I.C. is of our village, the police detain the individuals without any legal cause. The government has used the National Action Plan, which is meant to counter terrorists, to use military force on us. Anti-terrorism cases have been registered against women and children.
Excessive use of force
On April 16, army soldiers and the police responded to several protesters hurling stones and carrying wooden sticks by firing teargas canisters, carrying out baton charges and using steel rods, and shooting in the air. According to accounts, several protesters were badly beaten.
A resident of village 4/4L said that her 26-year-old son died during the protest:
In the morning, on April 16, he left the house to go to the protest against cancellation of the Peasants' day event. In the evening, he was brought home by fellow villagers. He was very ill, and told me that the excessive exposure to the teargas shells was suffocating him. We called the emergency ambulance service. However, the ambulance was stopped on the way to the hospital by the police at the checkpoint outside the village. My son died in the ambulance. Had the security forces allowed the ambulance to pass through quickly, my son might have been saved.
Muhammad Aslam, 50, a farmer from the village of 4/4L, described the security forces' use of force at the protest on April 16:
We had gathered that morning to protest the arrest of our leader, Mehr Abdul Sattar. There was a heavy presence of police and army troops. At about 10 a.m., the police attacked to disperse us without any warning. They started beating us, men, women, and children, mercilessly. I have marks on my body, which you can see. They used rods and batons to beat us. I cannot even go for a medical examination since I am afraid that I will be arrested on my way to the hospital. The entire village is hostage now. Nobody goes out.
The police have registered cases against us under the anti-terrorism law. The only terror acts that were committed are by the police and army. We were unarmed and peaceful.
How is it a crime to commemorate the International Day of Peasants? Is it a crime to be a farmer? The government treats us farmers as criminals and traitors. For the past one year, even if four or five farmers are seen together, they are arrested. They detain us for a few days without registering our arrest. They torture us and give us dirty water to drink while in custody. They want to break our resistance.
Rasheedan Bibi, a farmer from the village 4/4L, said:
I am over 50-years-old, a woman suffering from multiple illnesses. On April 16, I went to the protest against the cancellation of the peasant convention and arrest of our leaders. We had not blocked any road. We were unarmed and simply chanting slogans demanding release of our leaders and for granting us rights to our lands. The police and the army troops charged at us without any warning. They beat us with batons, kicked us, and dragged women on the road. My finger was fractured as a result of the beating and my knees are injured. My only crime is that I am a poor, farmer woman.
Muhammad Shabbir said he and his mother were beaten by the army and police officers for being part of the protest:
I work as a laborer in the fruit market in Okara city. I don't own even an inch of land, so I'm not a farmer. However, I went to the protest on April 16 in solidarity with the rest of the villagers. The army and the police attacked for us no reason. We posed no threat to them. When they were beating my mother with batons, I pleaded with them to stop, as she is old. For this, a police constable hit me on the head repeatedly, even as I bled. I needed stitches on my head. My mother has a broken hand and bruises all over her body.
Human Rights Watch is one of the world's leading independent organizations dedicated to defending and protecting human rights. By focusing international attention where human rights are violated, we give voice to the oppressed and hold oppressors accountable for their crimes. Our rigorous, objective investigations and strategic, targeted advocacy build intense pressure for action and raise the cost of human rights abuse. For 30 years, Human Rights Watch has worked tenaciously to lay the legal and moral groundwork for deep-rooted change and has fought to bring greater justice and security to people around the world.
White House officials "just straight up fabricated shit," said the Democratic senator from Connecticut.
Just hours before the Trump administration conducted what it claimed were "self-defense strikes" against "Iranian military facilities," The Washington Post reported Thursday that the Central Intelligence Agency concluded that "Iran can survive the US naval blockade for at least three to four months before facing more severe economic hardship."
Citing four unnamed officials familiar with the analysis, the newspaper highlighted that "the CIA analysis might even be underestimating Iran's economic resilience if Tehran is able to smuggle oil via overland routes."
Militarily, "Iran retains about 75% of its prewar inventories of mobile launchers and about 70% of its prewar stockpiles of missiles," the Post added. "There is evidence that the regime has been able to recover and reopen almost all of its underground storage facilities, repair some damaged missiles, and even assemble some new missiles that were nearly complete when the war began."
Drop Site News' Murtaza Hussain responded that if this assessment along with a previous one from the Center for Strategic and International Studies about "remaining US munitions and interceptor capacity are even approximately correct, it goes a long way to explaining why Trump seems so eager to end the war whereas the Iranians have either dug in or escalated their negotiating positions. The missile math of continuing the conflict would be much more favorable to the Iranians, especially if the war continued for a significant time."
"Prior to the war, interceptor capacity compared to the size of the Iranian missile stockpile seemed like the most rationally incontrovertible reason to avoid fighting such a conflict, even for people who found it politically desirable," he added. "This also might explain why the US and Israel pivoted towards the end to threatening countervalue strikes against civilian targets if attempts to destroy the underground missile cities by air were ineffective."
The Post's reporting came one month into a fragile ceasefire and starkly contrasts the recent framing of conditions in Iran from President Donald Trump and others in his administration, including Defense Secretary Pete Hesgeth.
Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) responded to the Post's reporting by quoting Hegseth, who said in March that "never before has a modern, capable military, which Iran used to have, been so quickly destroyed and made combat ineffective."
Murphy declared: "They lied through their teeth. Just straight up fabricated shit."
Still, White House spokesperson Anna Kelly stuck to the administration's framing in a Thursday statement to the Post.
"During Operation Epic Fury, Iran was crushed militarily," Kelly said. "Now, they are being strangled economically by Operation Economic Fury and losing $500 million per day thanks to the United States military's successful blockade of Iranian ports. The Iranian regime knows full well their current reality is not sustainable, and President Trump holds all the cards as negotiators work to make a deal."
Meanwhile, some experts were unsurprised that the CIA privately delivered a "sober" assessment contradicting the administration's public commentary on the conflict—which it now claims is no longer an active "war," seemingly to dodge a key congressional deadline.
"Nice to know that a confidential CIA analysis is confirming what close observers of the Iranian economy have been saying publicly for weeks! Intelligent policymakers rely on intelligence. But Trump jeopardized diplomacy by instigating a blockade that was never going to work," said Esfandyar Batmanghelidj, an adjunct professor at Johns Hopkins University's School of Advanced International Studies in Europe and founder of the think tank Bourse & Bazaar Foundation.
Sharing the reporting on social media, Jennifer Kavanagh, a senior fellow and director of military analysis at the think tank Defense Priorities, wrote: "As I argued a week into the U.S. blockade, Iran can hold out for months without economic collapse. The costs for the US and the world are increasingly unsustainable, however."
Earlier this week, Stephen Semler, a senior fellow at the Center for International Policy, estimated that the US government spent $71.8 billion on the Iran War during its first 60 days, an average of $1.2 billion daily. The International Monetary Fund warned last month that the conflict could cause a global recession.
Last Friday, Trump responded to the War Powers Act's 60-day deadline by claiming to Congress that his war—which already violated US and international law—had been "terminated." The White House said at the time that no fire had been exchanged since April 7, when a ceasefire deal was reached just hours after the president issued a genocidal threat against the Iranian people.
However, on Thursday evening, United States Central Command announced that Iran "launched multiple missiles, drones, and small boats" at American warships. CENTCOM added that it "eliminated inbound threats and targeted Iranian military facilities responsible for attacking US forces, including missile and drone launch sites; command and control locations; and intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance nodes."
"Local hospitals and emergency rooms could shut their doors forever because billionaires insist on paying less than the rest of us," said Emmanuel Saez, the French economist who designed California's wealth tax proposal.
The architect of California's wealth tax proposal called out The Washington Post and its multibillionaire owner, Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, on Thursday for peddling what he said is "misinformation" to readers.
Emmanuel Saez, a French economist and professor at the University of California, Berkeley, who was tapped by California's largest union to design the tax proposal, singled out an opinion piece by the Washington Post editorial board from earlier this week that argues the proposal would backfire and cost California billions of dollars in tax revenue each year.
Saez said the article contains glaring falsehoods and omits key information about the proposal, which aims to create a one-time tax of 5% on the total assets of California's roughly 200 billionaire residents in order to recoup about $100 billion in revenue for healthcare, food assistance, and education stripped from the state by last year's Republican federal budget legislation, which will hand $1 trillion in tax breaks to the wealthiest 1% of Americans over the next 10 years.
The piece, published on Monday with the headline "California already losing with billionaire tax referendum," argues that even if California voters don't ultimately approve the measure, "the specter of such a wealth tax has already cost the state more in lost future revenue from income taxes than it would raise" due to an exodus of wealthy people from the state—an oft-used but weakly substantiated talking point by opponents of the measure.
The Post cited a paper by Jared Walczak, a visiting fellow at the California Tax Foundation, which it said demonstrates that billionaire flight "will cost California’s state government somewhere between $3.5 billion and $4.5 billion every year in other tax collections, and up to $19 billion in lost [gross domestic product]."
But Saez argued that his study makes a "basic mistake" by "modeling a mobility response of billionaires to a permanent annual and recurrent 5% wealth tax." In reality, though, the tax would be imposed only once and would apply to any billionaires who resided in the state after January 1, 2026, which has already passed, so it no longer creates an incentive to move.
Saez argued that in any case, "Walczak’s estimation of the California income tax paid by billionaires who have threatened to leave is also wildly exaggerated."
Walczak's figure for lost tax revenue, he said, hinges on the idea that the three richest men who've threatened to leave the state, Google co-founders Sergey Brin and Larry Page, and Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, pay $1.7 billion in California income taxes each year.
"If only they paid so much!" Saez quipped.
"In reality, using Securities and Exchange Commission data on stock sales, stock donations, dividends, and executive compensation, we can directly estimate that they paid only [$269 million] in California income tax in 2025, 6.3 times less than Walczak’s assumption," he said, citing a paper he co-wrote in March responding to a similar argument by a conservative think tank.
He cited tax data showing that the tech tycoons—who own a combined $810 billion according to Forbes—only collectively paid about [$22 million] per year on average between 2019-25, with Brin and Page paying no taxes on their wealth from stock in Google's parent company Alphabet during three of those years because they didn't sell stock, get dividends, or receive executive compensation. This is despite 90% of their wealth coming from those holdings.
"The one-time wealth tax finally makes them contribute in proportion to their enormous wealth gains," Saez said.
The Post also claimed that the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) United Healthcare Workers West, the union leading the charge in support of the referendum, is "pretend[ing] that the tax is needed to save California’s health system from 'collapse'" and is instead dishonestly using that framing to covertly pursue the "redistribution of wealth."
But Saez said that the federal cuts of roughly $20 billion annually are already having devastating effects on Californians that could be alleviated with more tax revenue.
As a result of the cuts, "more than 400 California hospitals have already laid off more than 3,400 healthcare workers as of mid-March, with a second wave of layoffs expected as funding cuts tied to recent federal policy changes are phased in over the next several years," he said. "Statewide, projections show the cuts could result in the loss of up to 145,000 healthcare jobs, impacting hospitals, clinics, and home care providers alike."
Eighty-three more hospitals in California may be at risk of closing due to the federal funding cuts, according to a recent nationwide analysis by Public Citizen. But Saez said the billionaire's tax would go a long way toward closing the gap.
"Right now, California’s billionaires pay much lower tax rates than what working families pay out of every paycheck," Saez said.
Despite claims otherwise by the Post editorial board—which last month ran another piece arguing that due to progressive taxation, "the rich already pay more than their fair share"—according to the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, at all levels of government from 2018-20, billionaires paid just 24% of their total income in taxes, while the US-wide average was 30%. This disparity arises largely due to loopholes that allow the rich to avoid taxes on business and investment gains that are not sold.
"Local hospitals and emergency rooms could shut their doors forever because billionaires insist on paying less than the rest of us," Saez said.
Debru Carthan, the executive vice president of SEIU-United Healthcare Workers West, said it was not surprising that the Post "completely ignores that the billionaire tax would keep hospitals from closing and healthcare costs from skyrocketing for millions of Californians" because it is "a crisis that comes as a direct result of the tax breaks handed out to Jeff Bezos and his buddies."
Since the return of Donald Trump to the presidency, the Amazon founder has taken a much heavier hand over the content of his flagship paper, including its opinion section, which he last year mandated to exclusively publish pieces on economics that promote “personal liberties and free markets," leading to the resignation of opinion editor David Shipley.
But Saez marveled at how blatant Bezos' thumb on the scale has appeared in his paper's coverage of California's billionaire wealth tax and similar proposals, which it has denounced on several other occasions.
“Are readers meant to take this seriously?" Saez asked. "‘Board of billionaire-owned paper comes out against tax on billionaires’? Everyone knows this board makes political decisions at the behest of Jeff Bezos, but this one is the most transparent of them all."
"Saying so privately to some big donors is very different than publicly calling for transparency from the DNC, which is badly needed," said Norman Solomon of RootsAction, which has led calls for the release.
Even former Vice President Kamala Harris reportedly "has no problem with a public airing" of the Democratic National Committee's internal "autopsy" report on her 2024 loss to Republican President Donald Trump—which the DNC has continued to conceal, despite mounting demands for transparency.
Harris' position was reported Thursday by NBC News, which noted that "while she indicated to donors that she had no issue with releasing it, Harris has not discussed the postmortem with DNC Chairman Ken Martin and did not know about his decision to keep it under wraps until it happened."
NBC cited "a person who has heard the conversations," one of multiple sources journalists Jonathan Allen and Natasha Korecki spoke with for their broader report exploring "turmoil over the Democratic Party’s future" and Harris' consideration of a 2028 run.
For months, Martin has resisted pressure to release the autopsy—which, as Axios revealed in February, found that the Biden administration's support for Israel's genocidal assault on Palestinians in the Gaza Strip contributed to Harris' defeat.
Citing a "person close to Harris," NBC also reported Thursday that the former VP "is signaling privately that she has more to say about the Middle East now that she is freed from the Biden White House policy," and "she is likely to do so after the midterm elections," either "from the perspective of a party elder or from the perspective of a candidate seeking votes."
While touring the country for the book she wrote after her loss, Harris has publicly acknowledged that she is weighing another White House run. Though the 2028 election is two and a half years away, she has led early polling. However, the party's potential primary field is incredibly crowded, featuring dozens of current or former governors and members of Congress.
Potential contenders include governors from the Trump 2.0 era—such as Gavin Newsom of California, JB Pritzker of Illinois, Andy Beshear of Kentucky, and Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan—as well as leading progressive voices in Congress, such as Reps. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY).
Norman Solomon, national director of RootsAction, which has spearheaded calls for publishing the full postmortem, wrote in a recent opinion piece for Common Dreams that "Martin's concealment of the autopsy report puts a thumb on the scale for one candidate: Kamala Harris."
Solomon highlighted the DNC's reported conclusion about the role of the Gaza genocide in the election result, and suggested that "renewed attention to the Harris 2024 finances would also be unwelcome."
In response to Harris' reported remarks to donors, Solomon said Thursday that "more than four months have passed since Martin announced he was reneging on his promise to release the autopsy.
"But Harris still hasn't made any public statement that she believes it should be released," he added. "Saying so privately to some big donors is very different than publicly calling for transparency from the DNC, which is badly needed."