

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.

The new Maoist-led government of Nepal should investigate and prosecute
those responsible for thousands of extrajudicial killings, torture, and
enforced disappearances during the country's decade-long armed
conflict, Human Rights Watch and Advocacy Forum said in a joint report released today.
"The Maoists claimed they took up arms because of the denial of
justice," said Brad Adams, Asia director of Human Rights Watch. "Now
that they are in government, we hope they will show the courage to
bring perpetrators to justice."
The 118-page report, "Waiting for Justice: Unpunished Crimes from Nepal's Armed Conflict,"
documents in detail 62 cases of killings, disappearances, and torture
between 2002 and 2006, mostly perpetrated by security forces but
including a couple of cases involving Maoists. The families of those
killed and disappeared have filed detailed complaints with police
seeking criminal investigations but the Nepali justice system has
failed miserably to respond to these complaints.
"People took to the streets in 2006 demanding a new Nepal
built on justice, human rights, and rule of law," said Mandira Sharma,
executive director of Advocacy Forum. "It's time for the new government
to honour that call."
To date, not a single perpetrator has been brought to
justice before a civilian court. Fearing both the army and Maoists, at
times police refuse to register complaints altogether, saying they will
be dealt with by a proposed transitional justice body.
For instance, almost four years after eyewitnesses saw
army personnel seize and shoot Madhuram Gautam dead in Morang District
on December 18, 2004, police are still refusing to file a criminal
complaint into his death. This is despite interventions by lawyers,
representatives of the National Human Rights Commission of Nepal and
the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights-Nepal, and even
an order from the Biratnagar Appellate Court requiring police and the
chief district office to register the complaint. But when Madhuram's
family and Advocacy Forum visited Morang police on September 1, 2008,
to file the complaint, the superintendent of police still refused to
register it.
When police do register complaints, they often fail to
interview suspects and witnesses and conduct the most rudimentary of
investigations. Public prosecutors have been reluctant to scrutinize
ongoing police investigations, and courts have been unreceptive and
submissive to political influences. Meanwhile the army flatly refuses
to cooperate with investigations.
Fifteen-year-old Maina Sunuwar was "disappeared" after her
arrest in February 2004, and Kavre police registered a complaint in
November 2005 only after considerable national and international
pressure. But slow action by police in the process of identifying and
verifying human remains has hampered investigations. In July 2008, DNA
test results finally confirmed that human remains found buried at the
Panchkal army camp were Maina's. Despite a February 2008 court order
issuing summons for the arrest of four accused army officers, none has
yet been arrested.
"Due to fear, ignorance, or incompetence, police and
prosecutors have time and again failed in their duty to investigate and
prosecute these crimes," said Sharma. "If the political will is there,
then we can achieve justice. The government needs to support the police
to do their job of investigating crime and restore people's trust in
the rule of law and state institutions."
While only two of the 62 documented cases in the report
implicate Maoists, Maoist forces have also abducted, tortured, and
killed civilians. During the conflict and since, many victims have been
afraid to file complaints against them. Maoists abducted and allegedly
killed Arjun Bahadur Lama in December 2005, but police refused to
register a complaint fearing reprisals from the Maoists. More than a
hundred Maoists intimidated police and relatives when the relatives
tried to file a complaint with police. Following a Supreme Court order
for the police to register a murder case against five Maoist members
and a Maoist Central Committee member on August 11, 2008, the Kavre
police finally registered a complaint. Human Rights Watch also
documented Maoist and security force abuses in the October 2004 report,
"Between a Rock and a Hard Place: Civilians Struggle to Survive in Nepal's Civil War"
In the new report, Human Rights Watch and Advocacy Forum called on the new government of Nepal to:
The report also calls on
influential international actors to promote security sector reform
including the establishment of effective oversight and accountability
mechanisms for the security forces and vetting procedures. On September
1, 2008, Deputy Prime Minister and Home Minister Bamadev Gautam told
journalists that the main target of the new government would be to
establish law and order in Nepal within six months and end the state of
impunity. While some politicians maintain that justice for past abuses
has to be balanced against progress in the peace process, Human Rights
Watch and Advocacy Forum believe this is a dangerous misconception, and
that without justice there cannot be a lasting peace.
"Actions speak louder than words. The only real proof of
the government's commitment to human rights will be when perpetrators
are finally held to account in a court of law," said Adams. "The new
government and law enforcement agencies have a historic chance to show
that they will investigate and prosecute abusers and send a message
that no one in Nepal can get away with murder."
Selected accounts from the report:
"The
soldiers forced me to go into the other room. Then I heard the shots
and I ran out. My son and his wife, both of them were asking for water.
I saw them crying out with pain. I was holding my granddaughter, who
was also injured. I saw my son and his wife struggling for the last
minute of their life, they were dying in front of my eyes."
- Bhumisara Thapa, the mother of Dal Bahadur Thapa, who was killed by security forces in 2002.
"I
went to the [Chief District Officer] and the District Police Office at
least 20 times. Officials in both places took the application from me
but did not register a complaint. I met the CPN-M [Communist Party of
Nepal-Maoist] leader Prachanda and asked him for the whereabouts of my
husband. He asked me to give him two or three days. It's been two
years."
- Purnima Lama, wife of Arjun Lama, abducted by Maoists on April 19, 2005, and still missing.
"I
visited many places to knock on the door of state authorities for
justice, however I haven't got justice yet. The skeleton of my daughter
is still kept in the hospital. I am tired yet still visiting the
authorities to get justice in my daughter's case but I am not sure when
I will get justice...."
- Bhakta Bahadur Sapkota, father of 15-year-old Sarala Sapkota,
abducted by soldiers on July 15, 2004, and whose remains were found on
January 11, 2006.
"The army investigation and court martial was a mere
formality. They were not even put in jail and in any case being
[sentenced to] jail for six months for the torture and killing of a
minor is not just punishment."
- Devi Sunuwar, mother of 15-year-old Maina Sunawar, abducted by
soldiers on February 19, 2004, and whose remains were found in March
2007.
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.
"Trump is preparing to take the US into another illegal war against Cuba," warned one progressive critic of the US president. "We must stop him. It’s not too late."
Is Cuba next in line for a US attack?
US President Donald Trump has repeatedly said it could be, and USA Today on Wednesday cited "sources familiar" with the matter who said that the Pentagon is "quietly ramping up" preparations to wage war on the socialist nation if Trump gives the order.
On Monday, Trump flippantly declared that “we may stop by Cuba after we’re finished with this," referring to the illegal US-Israeli war of choice on Iran that's left thousands of Iranians dead or wounded, including hundreds of children.
Trump has also said that he believes he’ll “be having the honor of taking Cuba,” language echoing the 19th century US imperialists who conquered the island along with Puerto Rico and the Philippines from Spain in another war waged on dubious pretense.
"Whether I free it, take it—I think I can do anything I want," Trump said of the island and its 11 million inhabitants.
The USA Today report—authored by Kim Hjelmgaard, Rick Jervis, and Francesca Chambers—sparked widespread alarm among advocates for peace.
"This is not a drill. Trump is preparing to take the US into another illegal war against Cuba to appease the Miami mafia," Progressive International co-general coordinator David Adler said Wednesday on X. "We must stop him. It’s not too late."
Cubans—who have been subjected to generations of privation and hardship due largely to the internationally condemned US economic embargo of their island—have mostly shrugged off Trump's threats, with some observers noting that Cuba's socialist era has outlasted a dozen American presidents.
Responding to a question about a possible US attack on his country, Cuban President Miguel Díaz-Canel said Sunday on NBC News' "Meet the Press" that “if that happens, there will be fighting, and there will be a struggle, and we will defend ourselves, and if we need to die, we’ll die, because as our national anthem says, ‘Dying for the homeland is to live’.”
Numerous observers expressed shock, but not surprise, that Trump—the self-proclaimed "peace president" who has bombed 10 countries, more than any other US president—is setting his sights on Cuba, which American presidents since Thomas Jefferson have coveted.
Trump has been threatening Cuba since his first administration, when he systematically rolled back the Obama administration's diplomatic normalization with the island's socialist government. He also activated a provision of the Helms-Burton Act allowing lawsuits over property confiscated after the Cuban Revolution.
On the last day of his first term, Trump re-designated Cuba a state sponsor of terrorism, a move critics slammed as absurd given that Cuba has never carried out any acts of terrorism—unlike the United States and the militant Cuban exiles it harbors, who have a decadeslong record of terrorist bombings and other attacks, as well as numerous failed or aborted attempts to assassinate former revolutionary leader Fidel Castro.
Since returning to office, Trump has ratcheted up military threats and economic pressure on Cuba, which was already reeling from decades of US sanctions and the inefficiencies of centralized state control. Trump tightened the embargo by severely restricting fuel imports, exacerbating an energy emergency characterized by blackouts and deadly suffering among the most vulnerable Cubans, including sick people and children.
Last month, US Sens. Tim Kaine (D-Va.), Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), and Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.) introduced a war powers resolution aimed at preventing Trump from attacking Cuba without congressional authorization as required by law. Numerous war powers resolutions related to Iran, Venezuela, and Trump's extralegal high-seas boat bombings have failed to pass.
Abdul El-Sayed has been attacked by a centrist think tank for campaigning with anti-Israel commentator Hasan Piker. He faces Haley Stevens and Mallory McMorrow, who both have ties to the pro-Israel lobby.
Weeks into a controversy egged on by the centrist think tank Third Way regarding Democratic US Senate candidate Dr. Abdul El-Sayed's decision to campaign with an outspoken anti-Israel commentator, a new poll out Wednesday revealed that despite the best efforts of the explicitly anti-left group and El-Sayed's opponents, the three candidates are in a dead heat with four months to go until Michigan's primary.
The Data for Progress poll, conducted on behalf of Zeteo News and Drop Site News, found that US Rep. Haley Stevens (D-Mich.) was in the lead with 23%, but state Sen. Mallory McMorrow (D-8) and El-Sayed were not far behind, with 22% each. A third of voters were undecided, potentially leaving many open to learning more about the three candidates ahead of the August 4 primary.
With Israel and Palestine already a central theme in the primary due the uproar over El-Sayed's decision to campaign with Twitch streamer and commentator Hasan Piker, voters were asked about their views on Piker as well as Stevens' and McMorrow's ties to the pro-Israel lobby, and signaled that the latter two candidates may have more to explain than El-Sayed.
"Michigan primary voters appear significantly more concerned about the influence of [the American Israel Public Affairs Committee], America’s top pro-Israel lobby," wrote Andrew Perez at Zeteo. "Sixty-four percent said they are less likely to support a Senate candidate who receives donations from AIPAC and other pro-Israel groups, while 10% said they are more likely."
Stevens received $340,000 in direct campaign contributions from AIPAC's political action committee last year before she launched her Senate campaign, and she taped a promotional video for the powerful group last month.
McMorrow has positioned herself as a middle ground between Stevens and El-Sayed, a vehement supporter of Palestinian rights, and has spoken out against Israel's US-backed assault on Gaza. The war, which has killed more than 72,000 Palestinians, has been called a genocide by leading human rights groups and Holocaust scholars, but McMorrow has not used that word to describe the attacks and has complained that those who urge politicians to do so are subjecting them to a "purity test."
McMorrow reportedly drafted a position paper for AIPAC and attended an invite-only event hosted by the group last year, featuring a columnist who publicly questioned whether Israel was imposing a starvation policy in Gaza.
Michigan primary voters' views on AIPAC mirror those of the larger electorate, according to one poll from last October by Upswing Strategies, which found that nearly half of voters in competitive districts said they "could never support" a candidate funded by AIPAC or the pro-Israel lobby.
The Data for Progress poll also found that 62% of voters agreed with the statement, "If a candidate is not willing to stand up to AIPAC, I am less likely to trust them to stand up for Michiganders on other issues."
The poll was taken between April 2-8, with 515 people surveyed around the time that El-Sayed was appearing with Piker at rallies at the University of Michigan and Michigan State University.
Stevens and McMorrow both took aim at El-Sayed for associating with Piker, who once said the US "deserved" the September 11 attacks—a remark he later apologized for—and has said the Hamas-led October 7, 2023 attack was a "direct consequence" of US and Israeli actions. Stevens condemned El-Sayed for "choosing to campaign with someone who has a history of antisemitic rhetoric," while McMorrow compared Piker to far-right, white nationalist streamer Nick Fuentes. Piker and El-Sayed have spoken out against antisemitism and emphasized the difference between opposition to the Israeli government and bias against Jewish people.
Despite the focus on Piker in recent weeks, the poll found that the vast majority of Michigan primary voters didn't know enough about him to have an opinion about his involvement in El-Sayed's rallies. Thirteen percent of respondents had a favorable view of him while 7% viewed him negatively.
Data for Progress gave respondents some context about Piker, highlighting his past remarks and noting he's been accused of antisemitism as well as mentioning El-Sayed's view that "criticism of Israel should not be confused with antisemitism." With the background information, 40% of respondents said they approved of El-Sayed campaigning with Piker, 30% said they disapproved, and 30% said they weren't sure.
Previous polls have found larger gaps between the three candidates; a poll by Upswing Research found in early March that 27% of voters backed Stevens, 25% supported McMorrow, and 23% supported El-Sayed.
While Third Way has cast the primary election as a referendum on a popular livestreamer in recent weeks, Data for Progress executive director Ryan O'Donnell said the poll offered clarity on the other issues that matter to Michigan voters, including expanding Medicare to the entire US population and abolishing US Immigration and Customs Enforcement—both proposals El-Sayed strongly supports.
The Data for Progress poll was released as progressive organization Our Revolution announced its endorsement of El-Sayed.
"He is running on a bold vision beyond universal healthcare, from taking on corporate greed to ending big money in politics to advancing a more just and humane future for all," said Our Revolution. "This is a people-powered campaign—and a chance to build a government that truly works for working families."
Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison called the verdict "a win for everyone who thinks concert tickets are too damn expensive."
Antitrust advocates celebrated on Wednesday after a jury found that Live Nation and is subsidiary Ticketmaster were illegal monopolies who for decades systematically overcharged customers for concert tickets.
As reported by The Associated Press, the verdict against Live Nation and Ticketmaster could cost the two entities "hundreds of millions of dollars, just for the $1.72 per ticket that the jury found Ticketmaster had overcharged consumers in 22 states," and they could be forced to sell off some of the venues they own.
The case against Live Nation, which was brought by 33 states and the District of Columbia, was initially led by the US Department of Justice. However, under President Donald Trump, the DOJ last month reached a last-minute settlement with the company that would not require it to be broken up.
The state attorneys general, however, vowed to see the case through and were rewarded with a big verdict in their favor.
New York Attorney General Letitia James celebrated the verdict, describing it as "a landmark victory to protect New Yorkers from harmful monopolies."
Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison called the verdict "a win for everyone who thinks concert tickets are too damn expensive," and declared himself "proud to have brought this lawsuit."
District of Columbia Attorney General Brian Schwalb noted Live Nation "has raked in billions in profits from an illegal monopoly that coerces venues, restricts artists, and exploits fans," and called the verdict "a massive win in the fight for fairness for local venues, artists, and fans."
Lina Khan, former chair of the Federal Trade Commission under President Joe Biden, hailed the verdict, but said it was just "a key first step towards ending Live Nation’s monopolistic control and securing real relief for those it harmed."
Lee Hepner, senior legal counsel at the American Economic Liberties Project, said the verdict was "decades in the making," and he cited iconic Seattle band Pearl Jam's fight against Ticketmaster in the 1990s to illustrate just how long it's taken to hold the company accountable.
"Pour one out for Pearl Jam, who testified before Congress in 1993 about Ticketmaster's abuse of the live concert industry," he commented.
The Roosevelt Institute took a shot at the Trump DOJ for bailing on the case, and noted the verdict against Live Nation "only happened because state AGs kept pushing after a federal settlement that let the companies off the hook."