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.

As representatives of the international
community gather in The Hague to discuss the deteriorating situation in
Afghanistan, Amnesty International outlined three concrete steps that can
be taken immediately to improve the human rights of the Afghan people.
The organization said that while Washington's
new rhetoric and strategy offer new potential for progress on human rights,
the Afghan people deserve and demand performance, not promises, from their
government and its international supporters--chief among them the United
States.
Amnesty International has long pushed the
international community to adopt benchmarks that focus on the well-being
of the Afghan people, not just short-term military or political goals.
In that light, Amnesty International recommends the following three steps,
all of which can be implemented quickly.
1) Improve the accountability of international
and Afghan military forces
In view of the U.S. government's announcement
of the deployment of up to 30,000 extra troops in Afghanistan, Amnesty
International urges the international military forces to do more to provide
accountability for violations of international humanitarian law and remedy
for civilian casualties of military action, in order to ensure that the
presence of more international troops does not lead to more harm to Afghan
civilians.
There are currently military personnel from
more than 40 countries operating in Afghanistan, most of them under the
mandate of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), provided
by NATO, and a smaller number as part of the counter-terrorism mandate
of the U.S.-led Operation Enduring Freedom. In addition to regular military
forces in Afghanistan, there are numerous members of civilian intelligence
agencies as well as private contractors and local militias conducting military
operations.
A concerted effort is needed to clarify and
harmonize mandates, rules of engagement and the chains of command of these
forces. All international forces must immediately adopt common rules of
engagement that ensure full compliance with international humanitarian
law, and improve coordination with Afghan national forces to ensure compliance
with these rules.
Amnesty International welcomes the recent
announcement that the ISAF will create a mechanism for investigating civilian
casualties. But it is unclear whether this long-overdue mechanism will
investigate the conduct of forces operating under the U.S.-led Operation
Enduring Freedom. All international and Afghan security forces should develop
and implement a consistent, clear and credible mechanism for receiving
complaints and investigating claims of civilian casualties or injuries
resulting from its military operations. A coherent and systematic program
of assisting those injured by Afghan and NATO/U.S. forces and bringing
to justice those suspected of violations of international humanitarian
law should be developed and communicated to the Afghan people.
2) Improve respect for the rule of law
by international and Afghan authorities
Ordinary Afghans have almost no recourse
to the protection of the law from their own government's abuses, or those
committed by international forces. The international effort to build Afghanistan's
judiciary has been a notable failure of the past seven years. Making up
for this failure will take time. A clear political commitment to judicial
reform and the injection of the necessary resources must be a key priority
for action by the Afghan government and the international community. In
the meantime, several measures can be adopted now to improve respect for
the rule of law. They include:
*The Afghan government should bolster accountability
for its security forces--including misdeeds by the police and persecution
of journalists and human rights defenders--and focus on protecting Afghans,
especially women, who bear the brunt of insecurity throughout the country.
*The U.S. government should immediately grant
all detainees held at the U.S. base in Bagram access to legal counsel,
relatives, doctors, and to consular representatives, without delay and
regularly thereafter, and grant all Bagram detainees access to U.S. courts
to be able to challenge the lawfulness of their detention. Currently, U.S.
forces continue to detain hundreds of Afghans without clear legal authority
and without adequate legal process.
*International forces should retain responsibility
for the custody of the people they capture, and not hand them over to the
sole control of the Afghan authorities, until they no longer face the current
risks of torture or other ill-treatment, particularly at the hands of the
National Directorate of Security (NDS).
*The Afghan government should prohibit the
NDS from detaining prisoners and allow independent human rights monitoring
of all detainees, including by the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission,
with access to all places of detention and all detainees.
*The Afghan government and the international
community should seek mechanisms to ensure fair trials for those in detention,
including the option of mixed tribunals to try those apprehended in counter-insurgency
operations by either Afghan or international forces.
*The Afghan government should immediately
seek international assistance to help implement the 2005 Action Plan for
Peace, Justice and Reconciliation, which foresees the establishment of
"effective and reasonable accountability mechanisms in order to end impunity
in Afghanistan and ensure that there will no amnesty for war crimes, crimes
against humanity and other gross human rights violations".
3) Vet candidates in upcoming elections
to improve the government's legitimacy
With Presidential, parliamentary, and
regional elections scheduled for the next year, it is essential that a
proper vetting process be in place to keep out those who may have been
involved in human rights abuses, especially leaders of armed groups and
militias whose usurpation of the role of elected officials has done much
to erode the Afghan people's trust in their government and its international
supporters.
Since the inauguration of the Afghan National
Assembly in 2004, thousands of complaints about these abuses have been
received by the Complaint's Commission of the Afghan parliament.
However only one member of Parliament has
been suspended - in May 2007, Malalai Joya, an outspoken parliamentarian,
was suspended for raising concerns about the presence in parliament of
figures widely accused of being war criminals and human rights violators.
The Afghan government and its international
supporters should immediately institute a fair and transparent process
to vet candidates who are linked to armed groups and militias and against
whom there have been credible allegations of involvement in human rights
abuses.
Even as the Afghan government and international
forces increasingly discuss the possibility of seeking political compromise
with some members of the Taliban and other insurgent groups notorious for
a long record of human rights abuses, the Afghan people demand to be protected
from a return to the abusive policies of the Taliban and other armed groups.
Each such step would improve the dire human
rights situation in Afghanistan and signal that the interests of the Afghan
people are the focus of their government and the international community.
These steps are not the full answer to the political and economic problems
besetting the Afghan people. But if these steps are taken immediately,
they will give the Afghan people something that is essential and in increasingly
short supply: hope for the future.
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) 807-8400"This is our God: Jesus, King of Peace, who rejects war, whom no one can use to justify war."
Pope Leo XIV used his Palm Sunday sermon to take what appears to be a shot at US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.
In his sermon, excerpts of which he published on social media, the pope emphasized Christian teachings against violence while criticizing anyone who would invoke Jesus Christ to justify a war.
"This is our God: Jesus, King of Peace, who rejects war, whom no one can use to justify war," Pope Leo said. "He does not listen to the prayers of those who wage war, but rejects them."
The pope also encouraged followers to "raise our prayers to the Prince of Peace so that he may support people wounded by war and open concrete paths of reconciliation and peace."
While speaking at the Pentagon last week, Hegseth directly invoked Jesus when discussing the Trump administration's unprovoked and unconstitutional war with Iran.
Specifically, Hegseth offered up a prayer in which he asked God to give US soldiers "wisdom in every decision, endurance for the trial ahead, unbreakable unity, and overwhelming violence of action against those who deserve no mercy," adding that "we ask these things with bold confidence in the mighty and powerful name of Jesus Christ."
Mother Jones contributing writer Alex Nguyen described the pope's sermon as a "rebuke" of Hegseth, whom he noted "has been open about his support for a Christian crusade" in the Middle East.
Pope Leo is not the only Catholic leader speaking against using Christian faith to justify wars of aggression. Two weeks ago, Cardinal Pierbattista Pizzaballa, the Latin patriarch of Jerusalem, said "the abuse and manipulation of God’s name to justify this and any other war is the gravest sin we can commit at this time."
“War is first and foremost political and has very material interests, like most wars," Cardinal Pizzaballa added.
"Trump’s problem is that whatever the claims he might make about the damage to Iran’s nuclear and military capacity, which is substantial, the regime survives, the international economy has been severely disrupted, and the bills keep on coming in."
President Donald Trump is reportedly preparing to launch some kind of ground assault on Iran in the coming weeks, but one prominent military strategy expert believes he's heading straight for defeat.
The Washington Post on Saturday reported that the Pentagon is preparing for "weeks" of ground operations in Iran, which for the last month has disrupted global energy markets by shutting down the Strait of Hormuz in response to aerial assaults by the US and Israel.
The Post's sources revealed that "any potential ground operation would fall short of a full-scale invasion and could instead involve raids by a mixture of Special Operations forces and conventional infantry troops" that could be used to seize Kharg Island, a key Iranian oil export hub, or to search out and destroy weapons systems that could be used by the Iranians to target ships along the strait.
Michael Eisenstadt, director of the Military and Security Studies Program at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, told the Post that taking over Kharg Island would be a highly risky operation for American troops, even if initially successful.
“I just wouldn’t want to be in that small place with Iran’s ability to rain down drones and maybe artillery,” said Eisenstadt.
Eisenstadt's analysis was echoed by Ret. Gen. Joseph Votel, former head of US Central Command, who told ABC News that seizing and occupying Kharg Island would put US troops in a state of constant danger, warning they could be "very, very vulnerable" to drones and missiles launched from the shore.
Lawrence Freedman, professor emeritus of war studies at King's College London, believes that the president has already checkmated himself regardless of what shape any ground operation takes.
In an analysis published Sunday, Freedman declared Trump had run "out of options" for victory, as there have been no signs of the Iranian regime crumbling due to US-Israeli attacks.
Freedman wrote that Trump now "appears to inhabit an alternative reality," noting that "his utterances have become increasingly incoherent, with contradictory statements following quickly one after the other, and frankly delusional claims."
Trump's loan real option at this point, Freedman continued, would to simply declare that he had achieved an unprecedented victory and just walk away. But even in that case, wrote Freedman, "this would mean leaving behind a mess in the Gulf" with no guarantee that Iran would re-open the Strait of Hormuz.
"Success in war is judged not by damage caused but by political objectives realized," Freedman wrote in his conclusion. "Here the objective was regime change, or at least the emergence of a new compliant leader... Trump’s problem is that whatever the claims he might make about the damage to Iran’s nuclear and military capacity, which is substantial, the regime survives, the international economy has been severely disrupted, and the bills keep on coming in."
"The NY Times saves its harshest skepticism for progressives," said one critic.
The New York Times is drawing criticism for publishing articles that downplayed the significance of Saturday's No Kings protests, which initial estimates suggest was the largest protest event in US history.
In a Times article that drew particular ire, reporter Jeremy Peters questioned whether nationwide events that drew an estimated 8 million people to the streets "would be enough to influence the course of the nation’s politics."
"Can the protests harness that energy and turn it into victories in the November midterm elections?" Peters asked rhetorically. "How can they avoid a primal scream that fades into a whimper?"
Journalist and author Mark Harris called Peters' take on the protests "predictable" and said it was framed so that the protests would appear insignificant no matter how many people turned out.
"There's a long, bad journalistic tradition," noted Harris. "All conservative grass-roots political movements are fascinating heartland phenomena, all progressive grass-roots political movements are ineffectual bleating. This one is written off as powered by white female college grads—the wine-moms slur, basically."
Media critic Dan Froomkin was event blunter in his criticism of the Peters piece.
"Putting anti-woke hack Jeremy Peters on this story is an act of war by the NYT against No Kings," he wrote.
Mark Jacob, former metro editor at the Chicago Tribune, also took a hatchet to Peters' analysis.
"The NY Times saves its harshest skepticism for progressives," he wrote. "Instead of being impressed by 3,000-plus coordinated protests, NYT dismisses the value of 'hitting a number' and asks if No Kings will be 'a primal scream that fades into a whimper.' F off, NY Times. We'll defeat fascism without you."
The Media and Democracy Project slammed the Times for putting Peters' analysis of the protests on its front page while burying straight news coverage of the events on page A18.
"NYT editors CHOSE that Jeremy Peters's opinions would frame the No Kings demonstrations and pro-democracy movement to millions of NYT readers," the group commented.
Joe Adalian, west coast editor for New York Mag's Vulture, criticized a Times report on the No Kings demonstrations that quoted a "skeptic" of the protests without noting that said skeptic was the chairman of the Ole Miss College Republicans.
"Of course, the Times doesn’t ID him as such," remarked Adalian. "He's just a Concerned Youth."
Jeff Jarvis, professor emeritus at the CUNY Graduate School of Journalism, took issue with a Times piece that offered five "takeaways" from the No Kings events that somehow managed to miss their broader significance.
"I despise the five-takeaways journalistic trope the Broken Times loves so," Jarvis wrote. "It is reductionist, hubristic in its claim to summarize any complex event. This one leaves out much, like the defense of democracy against fascism."
Journalist Miranda Spencer took stock of the Times' entire coverage of the No Kings demonstrations and declared it "clueless," while noting that USA Today did a far better job of communicating their significance to readers.
Harper's Magazine contributing editor Scott Horton similarly argued that international news organizations were giving the No Kings events more substantive coverage than the Times.
"In Le Monde and dozens of serious newspapers around the world, prominent coverage of No Kings 3, which brought millions of Americans on to the streets to protest Trump," Horton observed. "In NYT, an illiterate rant from Jeremy W Peters and no meaningful coverage of the protests. Something very strange going on here."