August, 21 2008, 01:33pm EDT
Mindanao Civilians in the Phillippines Under Threat From MILF Units and Militias, Reports Amnesty International
WASHINGTON
Tens of thousands of civilians who have already suffered from the renewal of violence in Mindanao could be at even greater risk if the Philippine government supports the creation of untrained and unaccountable civilian militias, Amnesty International said today.
Armed conflict in Mindanao escalated after August 4, when the Supreme Court suspended a peace agreement between the Philippine government and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF). After August 4, a number of MILF units occupied farmlands in North Cotabato province and burned houses, displacing more than 150,000 people. Two weeks later, MILF units in Lanao del Norte province engaged in attacks on civilians, hostage taking, bombings and arson, forcing another 50,000 people to flee their homes. The MILF central leadership has denied ordering the attacks carried out by two of their commanders.
The MILF has justified some of its recent attacks by claiming that it was targeting Civil Volunteer Organization (CVO) forces and other police auxiliaries, established by local government as emergency protection.
"MILF units that targeted villages have engaged in serious violations of international law and should be held to account," said Sam Zarifi, Amnesty International's Asia-Pacific director.
"But experience from around the world shows that the deployment of civilian militias can set off a chain of reprisals and only increases the danger facing civilians."
"All sides to this conflict should step back from the brink and demonstrate their commitment to avoid harming civilians. The MILF must control its forces, and the Philippine government should take responsibility for the security of all peoples in the Philippines, regardless of religion or ethnicity," said Zarifi.
Amnesty International has verified that local political leaders in Mindanao's Iligan City and North Cotabato province led efforts to form civilian militias after the MILF attacks. In Iligan City, the site of two bomb attacks on August 17 blamed on MILF elements, a group of 300 licensed gun owners, politicians and local government officials have set up a civilian militia called "God Save Iligan City". In North Cotabato province, armed civilians have already formed village militias, also known locally as CVOs. Local security officials reportedly rejected a request from North Cotabato's vice governor to provide ammunition for the CVO. However, Amnesty International has confirmed that local patrons have already supplied guns and ammunition to CVOs and police auxiliaries.
In Western Mindanao, the Provincial Peace and Order Council composed of civil society, military and local authorities in Zamboanga del Norte province decided to arm CVOs on August 19. Zamboanga del Norte's governor justified this move by stating: "We have to protect ourselves... the military could not warrant our safety. They come late."
The following day in the nation's capital, the Director General of Philippine National Police (PNP) announced to the media that 1,000 shotguns will be shipped to Mindanao and given to "selected, screened and trained police auxiliaries" and deputized village watchmen and selected CVOs, all of whom are civilians. The PNP has pledged to provide an additional 12,000 more if this effort is successful.
In at least one instance verified by Amnesty International, armed members of a CVO prevented representatives of the Joint Monitoring and Assistance Team from reaching an affected community, claiming direct orders from the town's mayor.
"The recent violent attacks by MILF elements have of course shaken many of Mindanao's residents, who have every right to demand greater protection," said Zarifi. "Many people in Mindanao are terrified of a return to a period when armed Muslim insurgents and Christian vigilante 'Ilaga' groups attacked civilians with impunity."
Background:
On August 4, the Supreme Court issued a temporary restraining order against the signing of the Memorandum of Agreement on Ancestral Domain by the Philippine government and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front.
The Philippine Supreme Court is scheduled to hold another hearing tomorrow, Friday, August 22.
The Memorandum of Agreement, which will create the Bangsamoro Juridical Entity, would have been a breakthrough in the decade-long peace talks. The Memorandum aimed to formally open negotiations between the government of the Philippines and the MILF to end the four-decade conflict in Mindanao that has claimed the lives of an estimated 120,000 people, displaced some two million and impoverished the resource-rich region.
The Memorandum would have expanded the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao. The governors of affected communities in North Cotabato and Zamboanga, with large Christian populations, challenged the agreement before the Supreme Court, claiming that their right to information and participation in making decisions that affect their lives was not respected.
For more information, please contact the AIUSA media office at 202-544-0200 x302 or visit www.amnestyusa.org.
Amnesty International is a global movement of millions of people demanding human rights for all people - no matter who they are or where they are. We are the world's largest grassroots human rights organization.
(212) 807-8400LATEST NEWS
230+ Environmental Groups Call On Congress to Impose Moratorium on New AI Data Centers
“The rapid, largely unregulated rise of data centers to fuel the AI and crypto frenzy is disrupting communities across the country and threatening Americans’ economic, environmental, climate, and water security.”
Dec 08, 2025
Environmental and economic justice advocates alike have been sounding the alarm for months regarding the Trump administration's push to built massive data centers to support artificial intelligence and cryptocurrency in communities across the United States—regardless of local opposition—and on Monday Congress heard from a coalition of more than 200 groups demanding action to stop what they called "one of the biggest environmental and social threats of our generation."
Led by Food and Water Watch (FWW), which originally demanded a moratorium on new AI data centers in October, more than 230 organizations have signed a letter warning that thus far, Congress has failed to take action to stop the rapid expansion despite the fact that "the harms of data center growth are increasingly well-established, and they are massive."
The national and state groups, including Greenpeace USA, Oil Change International, and the Nebraska-based Save Rural America, pointed to a number of harms associated with the expansion of data centers in places including rural Michigan, Wisconsin, and northern Virginia.
They warned that pushing the build-out onto communities—many of which have protested the approval of the centers to no avail—will lead to:
- Enormous electricity consumption, with a tripling of data centers in the next five years projected to result in the facilities consuming as much electricity as about 30 million households;
- Unsustainable water consumption, with those data centers requiring the amount of water normally used by 18.5 million households, just for cooling the computer servers;
- The worsening of the climate emergency, with 56% of the energy used to power data centers sourced from planet-heating fossil fuels;
- Surging electricity costs for people living in the vicinity of energy-sucking data centers; and
- Skyrocketing job losses as half of all entry-level white-collar jobs are projected to become obsolete due to the growth of AI and companies' investments in the technology, even as corporations report they're not seeing a significant positive impact on their bottom lines.
"The rapid, largely unregulated rise of data centers to fuel the AI and crypto frenzy is disrupting communities across the country and threatening Americans’ economic, environmental, climate, and water security," the groups told Congress. "We urge you to join our call for a national moratorium on new data centers until adequate regulations can be enacted to fully protect our communities, our families, our environment, and our health from the runaway damage this industry is already inflicting."
The groups noted that electricity costs have risen 21.3% since 2021, a rate that "drastically" outpaces inflation, driven by the "rapid build-out of data centers."
As CNBC reported last month, residential utility bills rose 6% in August compared with last summer, and though price increases can be due to a host of reasons, electricity prices rose "much faster than the national average" this year in states with high concentrations of data centers. Consumers in Virginia paid 13% more, while those in Illinois paid 16% more and people in Ohio saw their costs go up 12%.
Emily Wurth, managing director of organizing at FWW, told the Guardian that rising utility costs are driving much of the grassroots action against data centers in places like Wisconsin—where a woman was violently dragged out of a community meeting by police last week after speaking out against plans for a new facility in her town—and Tucson, Arizona, where residents successfully pushed the City Council this year to block a data center project linked to Amazon.
“I’ve been amazed by the groundswell of grassroots, bipartisan opposition to this, in all types of communities across the US,” Wurth told the Guardian. “Everyone is affected by this, the opposition has been across the political spectrum. A lot of people don’t see the benefits coming from AI and feel they will be paying for it with their energy bills and water... We’ve seen outrageous utility price rises across the country and we are going to lean into this. Prices are going up across the board and this is something Americans really do care about.”
Data center projects worth a total of $64 billion have been blocked or delayed in states including Texas, Oregon, and Tennessee, and Reuters reported last week that a sizable portion of the opposition is coming from parts of the country that heavily supported President Donald Trump in last year's election.
Hundreds of people attended a recent meeting in Montour County, Pennsylvania, where Trump won by 20 points last year, raising alarm over plans to rezone 1,300 acres for Talen Energy to build a data center.
While raising prices for households that are already coping with high grocery and healthcare bills, the unregulated growth in AI data centers is also expected to add up to 44 million tons of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere in just the next five years—the equivalent of putting 10 million new fossil fuel-powered cars on the road at a time when planetary heating has already been linked to recent US weather disasters like Hurricane Helene and deadly heatwaves.
The groups appealed to Congress as Trump said he plans to sign an executive order preempting state-level AI regulations, saying that states, "many of them bad actors," should not be "involved in RULES and the APPROVAL PROCESS.”
Republicans in Congress have also recently suggested they could try to ban state-level AI regulations in the National Defense Authorization Act.
The Trump administration and its allies in the industry have issued warnings to communities that oppose the construction of AI data centers, with the White House's AI Action Plan demanding the fast-tracking of permits for building the facilities and former Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (I-Ariz.) lobbying for the industry and recently telling local officials in Chandler, Arizona that "federal preemption is coming" and they must approve plans for a 20,000-square foot data center in the city.
A Morning Consult poll taken last month found that public support for the centers is falling as rapidly as companies try to take over rural and suburban communities with new data centers. More than 40% said they supported a ban on the construction of new facilities, up from 37% just a month prior.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Retired General Says Hegseth Boat Strike on Shipwrecked Sailors Was a 'War Crime'
"Secretary Hegseth is basically convening everyone to think... this is the kind of thing that happens in war," said retired Lt. Gen. Mark Hertling. "It's not."
Dec 08, 2025
A retired general suggested Monday that the Trump administration’s strike on shipwrecked survivors on September 2 may have been a war crime.
In the face of mounting scrutiny, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth has continued to defend what has been described as a "double-tap" strike off the coast of Trinidad, alleging that the two survivors were drug traffickers bound for America who could have still theoretically harmed it in some way despite clinging to the wreckage for their lives following the first strike.
NBC reported this weekend that Adm. Frank "Mitch" Bradley, who oversaw the strikes, told lawmakers that Hegseth had given direct orders for all 11 men aboard the vessel to be killed because "they were on an internal list of narco-terrorists who US intelligence and military officials determined could be lethally targeted.”
Last week, when reports first emerged of a second strike, Hegseth denied that it had taken place, calling it “fake news” before the White House later confirmed and defended the killing of the survivors.
Lt. Gen. Mark Hertling, who served as the commanding general of the US Army Europe from 2011 to 2012, discussed the strikes on Monday in an appearance on MS NOW's (formerly MSNBC's) "Morning Joe."
"It is, in fact, in my view, a war crime," Hertling said.
"Imagine yourself falling off a cruise ship and being asked to hang on to a piece of wood after you've just been struck with a large kinetic round that has killed nine of your 11 copilots on this boat," Hertling said. "It doesn't matter what they're doing at that point."
Hertling suggested that the frequent use of the term "double-tap" to refer to the strike was a misnomer, as was Hegseth's invocation of the phrase "fog of war" to defend the military's actions.
“That’s a term that special operators use when there are two successive rounds at a target to eliminate it, and to get rid of someone who is attacking them,” the general explained regarding the claims of a "double-tap" strike. “This was a restrike, with time between the first strike and the second. That gives you time to figure out what you’re going to do and clear that so-called ‘fog of war.'”
He cited the definition from Carl von Clausewitz, the 18th-century Prussian general and military theorist who coined the term to describe the “uncertainty” of battle.
"Secretary Hegseth is basically convening everyone to think he has been in war for 20 years, and this is the kind of thing that happens in war. It's not," Hertling continued. "What I'll tell you, having been involved in strikes like this on the ground, the only time you consider a restrike is when the enemy continues to fight, and you're continuing to either strike them with artillery or some type of faraway missile. So a restrike like this occurs when you realize the individuals on the ground or in the water are trying to fight back."
Hegseth and Bradley’s defense of the strikes has centered around the idea that even as they floated helplessly on a piece of debris, the victims still posed a “continuing threat” as they could have theoretically called in other traffickers as backup to retrieve them and their cargo.
As of yet, the administration has presented no evidence that the men were calling for backup, and videos of the incident viewed by members of Congress during a closed-door hearing reportedly suggest they lacked any means of communication. Bradley, meanwhile, acknowledged in his Senate testimony that the survivors did not appear to have any radio or communication devices.
Further undermining the Trump administration's argument that the boat posed an immediate threat, Bradley also reportedly told Congress that the ship was not even bound for the US, but for the South American nation of Suriname.
Hertling emphasized that the two men were shipwrecked on "a piece of debris floating in the middle of the Caribbean," adding that "these individuals are not going to go anywhere, which will become clear with the film," though Hertling acknowledged that he had not personally seen it.
In recent days, leading Democrats, as well as some Republicans in Congress, have called for the release of the video, which House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Ranking Member Jim Himes (D-Conn.) described last week as “one of the most troubling things I’ve seen in my time in public service.” Himes said that while the video showed the men were carrying drugs, “they were not in a position to continue their mission in any way.”
The strike was the first in a months-long campaign of extrajudicial bombings by the Trump administration on boats that they have claimed without evidence have contained drug traffickers bound for the US. At least 87 people have been killed in the two dozen strikes since September. Some of those killed in the strikes were later reported to have been ordinary fishermen, and others who had nothing to do with the drug trade.
While focus has been centered on the details of the September 2 strike in recent days and Hegseth's role, experts have emphasized that the entire boat-bombing campaign is illegal.
"The initial attack was illegal too,” said Kenneth Roth, the former longtime director of the advocacy group Human Rights Watch, on social media last week. "Whether Hegseth ordered survivors killed after a US attack on a supposed drug boat is not the heart of the matter. It is blatantly illegal to order criminal suspects to be murdered rather than detained. There is no 'armed conflict' despite Trump's claim."
While the "Morning Joe" segment focused on the question of whether the second September 2 strike was a war crime, some legal experts have said those involved in ordering and carrying out that attack and the other bombings could actually be liable for murder under US law, since Congress has not authorized an armed conflict in the Caribbean.
Keep ReadingShow Less
After Trump Vow to Intervene, Kushner Linked to Paramount's Hostile Bid for Warner Bros.
"The correct option is neither Paramount nor Netflix buy Warner," said one antitrust advocate.
Dec 08, 2025
Paramount Skydance on Monday launched a hostile bid to take over Warner Bros. Discovery shortly after US President Donald Trump publicly expressed skepticism of Netflix's proposed deal to acquire parts of the media company—and pledged to intervene in the federal review process.
"It is a big market share, there’s no question about it," Trump said late Sunday of Netflix's proposed $83 billion purchase of Warner Bros. Discovery's (WBD) film studio and streaming business.
"I’ll be involved in that decision," the president added.
Hours after Trump's comments, Paramount CEO David Ellison—the son of billionaire GOP megadonor and close Trump ally Larry Ellison—announced the hostile bid to buy WBD, attempting to subvert the Netflix deal by taking an all-cash, $30-per-share offer directly to Warner Bros. shareholders.
Observers expressed alarm over the seeming coordination between the president and Paramount's chief executive as the fight over Warner Bros. escalates. Trump reportedly favored Paramount to win the bidding war for WBD, which owns CNN, HBO Max, and other major assets.
Axios reported Monday that "Affinity Partners, the private equity firm led by Jared Kushner, is part of Paramount's hostile takeover bid for Warner Bros Discovery, according to a regulatory filing."
"Affinity Partners was not mentioned in Paramount's press release on Monday morning about its $108 billion bid," Axios noted, "nor were participating sovereign wealth funds from Saudi Arabia, Abu Dhabi, and Qatar."
Ellison was reportedly at the White House last week urging the Trump administration to block Netflix's bid for WBD.
Speaking to CNBC on Monday, Ellison said that "we've had great conversations with the president about" Paramount—which controls CBS News thanks to a merger that the Trump administration approved—potentially becoming the owner of CNN, a frequent target of Trump's vitriol.
CNBC: Do you think the president embraces the idea of you being the owner of CNN given his criticism for that network?
DAVID ELLISON: Ah -- we've had great conversations with the president about this but I don't want to speak for him in any way, shape, or form pic.twitter.com/FdwBzfP3eO
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) December 8, 2025
Nidhi Hegde, executive director of the American Economic Liberties Project, said in response to Ellison's remarks that "the correct option is neither Paramount nor Netflix buy Warner."
"The president inserting himself in the deal is obviously problematic, regardless of the parties involved," said Hegde. "If Netflix’s Ted Sarandos, who Trump called a great person, finds a way to appease him, that is also not good!"
US Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) expressed similar concerns about Trump's potential corruption of the regulatory process. The proposed Netflix deal is expected to face a review by the US Justice Department's Antitrust Division, where top officials were recently ousted for "insubordination" amid criticism of agency leaders' corporate-friendly approach to merger enforcement.
"Is that an open invite for CEOs to curry favor with Trump in exchange for merger approvals?" Warren asked after Trump pledged to insert himself into the Netflix-WBD review process.
"It should be an independent decision by the Department of Justice based on the law and facts," added Warren, who called the Netflix-WBD deal "an anti-monopoly nightmare."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular