

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.

Tel: +1-212-290-4700
Email: hrwnyc@hrw.org
Civilian deaths in Afghanistan from US and NATO airstrikes nearly tripled from 2006 to 2007, with recent deadly airstrikes exacerbating the problem and fuelling a public backlash, Human Rights Watch said in a new report released today. The report also condemns the Taliban's use of "human shields" in violation of the laws of war.
Though operational changes advocated by Human Rights Watch have reduced the rate of civilian casualties since they spiked in July 2007, continuing tragedies, such as the July 6, 2008 strike on a wedding party and the August 22, 2008 bombing in Azizabad, have greatly undermined local support for the efforts of international forces providing security in Afghanistan.
The 43-page report, "'Troops in Contact': Airstrikes and Civilian Deaths in Afghanistan,"
analyzes the use of airstrikes by US and NATO forces and resulting
civilian casualties, particularly when used to make up for the lack of
ground troops and during emergency situations. Human Rights Watch found
few civilian deaths resulted from planned airstrikes, while almost all
deaths occurred in unplanned airstrikes.
"Rapid response airstrikes have meant higher civilian
casualties, while every bomb dropped in populated areas amplifies the
chance of a mistake," said Brad Adams, Asia director at Human Rights
Watch. "Mistakes by the US and NATO have dramatically decreased public
support for the Afghan government and the presence of international
forces providing security to Afghans."
The report documents how insurgent forces have contributed
to the civilian toll from airstrikes by deploying their forces in
populated villages, at times with the specific intent to shield their
forces from counterattack, a serious violation of the laws of war.
Human Rights Watch found several instances where Taliban forces
purposefully used civilians as shields to deter US and NATO attacks.
In 2006, at least 929 Afghan civilians were killed in
fighting related to the armed conflict. Of those, at least 699 died
during Taliban attacks (including suicide bombings and other bombings
unlawfully targeting civilians) and at least 230 died during US or NATO
attacks. Of the latter, 116 were killed by US or NATO airstrikes. In
2007, at least 1,633 Afghan civilians were killed in fighting related
to the armed conflict. Of those, some 950 died during attacks by the
various insurgent forces, including the Taliban and al-Qaeda. At least
321 were killed by US or NATO airstrikes. Thus, civilian deaths from US
and NATO airstrikes nearly tripled from 2006 to 2007.
In the first seven months of 2008, at least 540 Afghan
civilians were killed in fighting related to the armed conflict. Of
those, at least 367 died during attacks by the various insurgent forces
and 173 died during US or NATO attacks. At least 119 were killed by US
or NATO airstrikes. For all periods cited, Human Rights Watch uses the most conservative figures available.
Human
Rights Watch criticized the poor response by US officials when civilian
deaths occur. Prior to conducting investigations into airstrikes
causing civilian loss, US officials often immediately deny
responsibility for civilian deaths or place all blame on the Taliban.
US investigations conducted have been unilateral, ponderous, and
lacking in transparency, undercutting rather than improving relations
with local populations and the Afghan government. A faulty condolence
payment system has not provided timely and adequate compensation to
assist civilians harmed by US actions.
"The US needs to end the mistakes that are killing so many
civilians," said Adams. "The US must also take responsibility,
including by providing timely compensation, when its airstrikes kill
Afghan civilians. While Taliban shielding is a factor in some civilian
deaths, the US shouldn't use this as an excuse when it could have taken
better precautions. It is, after all, its bombs that are doing the
killing."
Human Rights Watch found that few civilians casualties
occurred as the result of planned airstrikes on suspected Taliban
targets. Instead, most cases of civilian deaths from airstrikes
occurred during the fluid, rapid-response strikes mostly carried out in
support of "troops in contact" - ground troops who are under insurgent
attack. Such unplanned strikes included situations where US special
forces units - normally small in number and lightly armed - came under
insurgent attack; in US/NATO attacks in pursuit of insurgent forces who
had retreated to populated villages; and in air attacks where US
"anticipatory self-defense" rules of engagement applied.
The effects of airstrikes go beyond civilian deaths. For
example, an investigation by the Afghan government found that two
battles over a three-day period starting April 30, 2007 in Shindand
district resulted in the destruction of numerous homes. In every case
investigated by Human Rights Watch where airstrikes hit villages, many
civilians had to leave the village because of damage to their homes and
fear of further strikes. People from neighboring villages also
sometimes fled in fear of future strikes on their villages. This has
led to large numbers of internally displaced persons.
To respond to public concern and complaints from President
Hamid Karzai, in July 2007 the NATO-led International Security
Assistance Force (ISAF) announced several changes in targeting tactics.
These changes include employing smaller munitions, delaying attacks
where civilians might be harmed, and turning over house-to-house
searches to the Afghan National Army. A review of available evidence
suggests that the changes had some impact, as there was a significant
drop in civilian casualties due to airstrikes in the last half of 2007,
even as the overall tonnage of bombs dropped increased.
Human Rights Watch welcomed these changes in targeting, but
remained concerned by continuing civilian casualties from airstrikes,
particularly as the number of airstrikes has increased dramatically and
the number of deaths and injuries has spiked this summer.
Human Rights Watch called for the US and NATO to address
the rising civilian death toll from unplanned airstrikes, and to fix
continuing problems with field collateral damage estimation and the
inconsistent application of their Rules of Engagement.
"The recent airstrikes killing dozens of Afghans make clear
that the system is still broken and that civilians continue to pay the
ultimate price," said Adams. "Civilian deaths from airstrikes act as a
recruiting tool for the Taliban and risk fatally undermining the
international effort to provide basic security to the people of
Afghanistan."
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.
"This should be a blaring wake-up call for Democratic leaders," said one campaigner. "The political tide is clearly turning against unconditional US military support for Israel."
Nearly half of all Democrats in the House of Representatives voted Wednesday to cut off US military aid to Israel, a move that underscored a dramatic shift away from the US support the Mideast ally has enjoyed for nearly 60 years.
While House lawmakers ultimately rejected Rep. Thomas Massie's (R-Ky.) amendment to a national security spending bill that would have eliminated the $3.3 billion in annual foreign military financing provided to Israel’s military, the details of the vote were viewed as an encouraging sign by defenders of Palestine and the rule of law.
Massie and 103 Democrats voted for the measure, while 215 Republicans and 98 Democrats rejected it. The overall tally was 104 for, 314 against, and 10 "present" votes, with 9 absences.
"I cannot vote for aid to a country that committed genocide and has used tax dollars to detain Americans like me," Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) said ahead of the vote, referring to an incident in which heavily armed residents of an Israeli settler colony stopped and surrounded him last week in the illegally occupied West Bank of Palestine.
Speaking to reporters after the vote, Congressional Progressive Caucus Chair Greg Casar (D-Texas)—who had urged colleagues to support Massie's amendment—noted, "It used to be that just a small number of House Democrats would vote against sending taxpayer dollars to weapons for the Israeli military."
"Today, over 100 House Democrats voted for a measure to block billions of dollars in weapons to [Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu," he continued. "That is enormous progress. That is a victory for our movement, for security, peace, and justice for all people."
The vote, Casar said, "sasends a strong message to Netanyahu that the days are over of an unaccountable blank check to his wars and his war crimes, at least from the Democratic Party."
"So this is an important moment because nothing will be the same on this issue ever again, I think, after this vote," he added.
CPC Chair @RepCasar, Deputy Chair @Ilhan Omar and @USProgressives on the historic vote by a majority of House Democrats to block $3 billion in weapons to Israel pic.twitter.com/T58q6J5LHZ
— Keane Bhatt (@KeaneBhatt) July 15, 2026
Speaking after Casar, Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) said that she was "surprised" by many of her colleagues' votes in favor of the amendment, "and I am proud of them."
"I am proud that they have finally decided to lead with their morals, that they finally dared to stand up, and that we are all finally listening to our constituents, who have been asking us to do the right thing for many years," she added.
The high vote count in favor of Massie's amendment came after a "dear colleague" letter from House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries' (D-NY) expressing his opposition to the measure.
Palestine and human rights defenders hailed Wednesday's vote.
“Today’s vote reflects a seismic shift in US politics. What was once unquestioning bipartisan consensus to fund Israel’s atrocities against Palestinians is now breaking apart," Jewish Voice for Peace Action political director Beth Miller said in a statement. "While it is shameful that the House failed to pass this amendment, it is also now clear that it is impossible for Congress to ignore our voices."
"The overwhelming majority of Democratic voters are demanding that we halt US military funding to Israel, and every Democrat who ignored these calls should fear for their seat,” Miller added.
Margaret DeReus, executive director of policy projects at the Institute for Middle East Understanding (IMEU), said Wednesday's vote "reflects the popular will of Americans, and the overwhelming majority of Democratic voters who do not want to see another penny of our tax dollars fund Israel’s genocidal military."
"No more weapons to Israel is a principled demand, a legal obligation, and now a political necessity for any Democrat in office," DeReus added. "Democratic lawmakers who continue to stand with [the American Israel Public Affairs Committee's] fringe agenda of funding to Israel, and against their voters on the moral issue of our time, are inviting a primary challenge.
The United Nations' International Court of Justice is currently weighing a genocide case against Israel filed by South Africa and formally supported by nearly 20 nations. A UN panel of experts concluded last year that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza.
Meanwhile, the International Criminal Court has issued arrest warrants for Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant, his former defense minister, for alleged crimes against humanity and war crimes in Gaza, where more than 250,000 Palestinians have been killed or wounded, most of them civilians, since the Hamas-led attack of October 7, 2023, including over 9,000 people who are missing and presumed dead and buried beneath rubble.
In addition to the $3.3 billion in annual military aid the US gives Israel under a 2016 memorandum of understanding signed by then-President Barack Obama, the Biden and Trump administrations have provided billions of dollars in additional armed aid to Israel since it began waging its US-backed war on Gaza.
All told, the US has provided approximately $174 billion in direct bilateral assistance and missile defense funding—over $300 billion when adjusted for inflation—since the modern Israeli state's atrocity-laden founding in 1948. This makes Israel the largest overall beneficiary of US foreign aid since World War II.
US aid dramatically increased after the 1967 Israeli occupation of the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Gaza, and the attack that same year by Israeli forces on the USS Liberty, which killed or wounded more than 200 Navy sailors in what numerous senior US officials believed was a deliberate attack. Last month, Massie introduced a resolution honoring the 34 Americans killed and 174 wounded in the Liberty attack.
Demand Progress senior policy adviser Cavan Kharrazian said in a statement that "congressional Democrats are finally starting to catch up to the American people, who no longer want to give Israel a blank check."
"This should be a blaring wake-up call for Democratic leaders," Kharrazian added. "The political tide is clearly turning against unconditional US military support for Israel. Leadership can no longer dismiss this position as marginal or politically untenable. Members should listen to their constituents, stop shielding Israel’s government from accountability, and support future efforts to end the flow of US weapons and military financing."
"Trump's DHS has lost the trust of the American people and can no longer be considered a reliable source of fact."
Nearly all Democrats in the US House of Representatives on Wednesday demanded independent investigations into federal immigration agents' recent fatal shootings of Johan Sebastián Durán Guerrero in Biddeford, Maine, and Lorenzo Salgado Araujo in Houston, Texas.
The men killed—immigrants from Colombia and Mexico—apparently weren't even the targets of the operations that claimed their lives earlier this month, Democrats stressed in their letter to the leaders at the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and its agency Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
"Both of these incidents have created enormous fear and outrage in the community, and raise serious questions about the safety of community members, regardless of immigration status," the nearly 200 members of Congress wrote to DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin and ICE acting Director David Venturella.
The letter was led by Democrats from both states, Congresswomen Chellie Pingree (Maine) and Sylvia Garcia (Texas), as well as ranking members on key House panels: Reps. Bennie Thompson (Miss.) of the Committee on Homeland Security, Jamie Raskin (Md.) of the Judiciary Committee, and Pramila Jayapal (Wash.) of the Subcommittee on Immigration, Integrity, Security, and Enforcement.
"DHS agents have shot at least 22 people just since the start of President Donald Trump's second term. Six of these shootings have been fatal, resulting in the death of US citizens and individuals with no criminal records," wrote the lawmakers—who have also drawn attention to the dozens of immigrants who have died at ICE detention centers under this administration.
"In several of these cases, DHS and its component agencies made unsubstantiated allegations about individuals its agents have shot and even killed, including Renée Good, Alex Pretti, Ruben Ray Martinez, Marimar Martinez, and Julio Sosa-Celis," they highlighted. "DHS claimed that the shooting victims were attacking law enforcement officers, attempting to 'weaponize' their vehicles, and even called them domestic terrorists."
The Democrats emphasized that "in each case, evidence later emerged that contradicted these claims, showing that DHS representatives made false statements and DHS agents acted inappropriately, resulting in several cases against DHS's victims to be dismissed with prejudice. As such, Trump's DHS has lost the trust of the American people and can no longer be considered a reliable source of fact."
"We are calling for immediate independent investigations into both of these deaths, without interference. We are also calling on ICE to stop any removal proceedings against the witnesses to Mr. Salgado Araujo's killing for the duration of the investigation," they wrote, pointing to reported attempts by the administration to deport his brother, Victor Hugo Salgado Araujo, as well as two employees, Jose Trinidad Rojas Pliego and Daniel Tirado Pantoja.
Those three witnesses to the killing in Texas "should have no threat of retaliation or deportation to provide their testimony," the lawmakers argued. "Similarly, DHS must not interfere with any investigations into the death of Mr. Guerrero. Far too many people, Americans and noncitizens alike, are dead as a result of DHS's reckless actions."
The House Democrats aren't alone in their demand. The Fair Immigration Reform Movement, faith leaders, and labor advocates held a Wednesday press conference to call for "independent investigations and real accountability" after the deaths in Texas and Maine, as well as Florida.
The 28-year-old man who officials say died Tuesday after being hit by a tractor-trailer while fleeing federal immigration agents at a gas station in St. Augustine has not yet been publicly identified, but like the other two cases, he had been in a vehicle. Despite the rising death toll, Trump said Wednesday that he wants ICE to keep pulling over cars.
"No one can be guaranteed safety from this rogue agency, which has terrorized our community since long before the current administration, but is now capturing and even widening a net of Americans in their ruthless execution of the mass deportation agenda," said Lizeth Chacon, executive director of Workers Defense Action Fund, one of the groups demanding an independent probe.
"To end this brutal campaign for good, we must abolish ICE and offer a pathway to citizenship for all," Chacon declared. "The officers responsible for the killing of Mr. Lorenzo must be held accountable. We can and must dismantle this agency because ICE's next victim could be any of us. Mr. Lorenzo could be any of us."
Rev. Jodi Hayashida, an organizer from Multifaith Justice Maine, said Wednesday that "the most important fact about ICE is that it is simply the latest vehicle in this nation's long-standing practice of racialized state-sanctioned violence and terror, that this paramilitary force accountable to nearly no one and funded by billions of dollars pulled from our housing and healthcare does not provide the safety or security it promises. It is a threat to the well-being of all people."
"We know that death is an inevitable consequence of the existence of ICE, modifications to practices and policies are not enough," Hayashida added. "In the very short term ICE must not be allowed to investigate itself. We demand a full, transparent accounting of every single death, and then we demand that Congress stop funding this violence and remove ICE from our communities altogether."
"Maine does not need a senator who signs the checks and hopes for the best from Donald Trump," said one Democratic US Senate candidate.
Two days after a federal immigration agent fatally shot 26-year-old Johan Sebastián Guerrero in Biddeford, Maine, the state's Republican senator, who voted earlier this year to fund US Immigration and Customs Enforcement without requiring reforms, refused to say she regrets the vote.
Prem Thakker of Zeteo News approached Senate Appropriations Committee Chair Susan Collins at the Capitol on Wednesday with a polite but direct question.
"Hi senator, how are you?" Thakker began. "I was wondering, do you regret giving ICE more money, given the killings, including the one in your state?"
Collins, who was waiting for an elevator with an aide, did not reply, while her staffer asked what outlet Thakker was with before saying the senator had to leave.
As Collins approached the elevator, Thakker repeated the question: "No regrets?"
Watch @prem_thakker ask Sen. Susan Collins if she regrets funding ICE given its recent killings, including of 26-year-old Maine resident Joan Sebastian Guerrero. Collins defends herself, saying it went to bodycams & training. ICE wasn’t wearing bodycams when they killed Guerrero. pic.twitter.com/hl8FYYyBMq
— Zeteo (@zeteo_news) July 15, 2026
The senator did not directly answer the question, but suggested she stood by her vote in April to provide ICE and Customs and Border Protection with $70 billion for the next three years—without agreeing to guardrails Democrats had demanded following the killings of at least four people since the beginning of 2026 and the deaths of dozens of people in ICE detention and during deportation operations in 2025.
She referred to "money I got for body-worn cameras and training"—but as Thakker pointed out, that money didn't stop agents from killing Guerrero on Monday morning.
"They didn't wear cameras though, did they, Senator?" asked Thakker as the elevator doors closed.
Guerrero, who reportedly had legal status in the US and was married with a 3-year-old daughter, was killed in his vehicle Monday morning. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) said ICE had been “conducting targeted surveillance on the last known address of an illegal alien with a final order of removal,” and details that have emerged since the shooting suggest Guerrero was not the person agents were looking for.
DHS said Guerrero "attempted to flee the scene" and bullet holes were seen in the windshield of Guerrero's car. ICE agents are trained never to shoot into a moving car, but they have in several recent cases, including the killings of protester Renee Good in Minneapolis in January and immigrant Lorenzo Salgado Araujo in Houston last week.
Fleeing a scene is also not considered grounds for the use of force, according to the Department of Justice.
Nirav Shah, who is running to be the Democratic US Senate candidate in Maine, noted that Collins' call for ICE to suspend its use of vehicle stops was ineffectual, with President Donald Trump ordering the stops to continue on Wednesday.
"That is the entire measure of her influence in Washington," said Shah. "Sen. Susan Collins can't stop Trump, and she's too weak to stand up to him—period."
"Susan Collins funds ICE and has given them a blank check," he added. "Maine does not need a senator who signs the checks and hopes for the best from Donald Trump. It needs one who will end ICE's rampage and abolish it."
Democratic US Senate candidate Troy Jackson also condemned Collins for helping Trump enact his "deadly, racist, and authoritarian agenda."
"Mainers won't forget," he said.