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 United Nations Human Rights Council should reject the Sudanese government's request to terminate the mandate of the special rapporteur on human rights in Sudan, Human Rights Watch said in a letter to the council members today.
The special rapporteur, Sima Samar, will on June 16 deliver her latest report to the council, the UN's leading human rights body, in which she documents a range of serious human rights issues facing the whole country. Despite her conclusion that there has been little concrete improvement in the human rights situation in Sudan, the government and its allies are seeking to block the council from extending her mandate.
"Sudan is enduring a massive human rights crisis that affects millions of people," said Julie de Rivero, Geneva advocacy director at Human Rights Watch. "For the council to drop its special scrutiny of Sudan at this crucial time would be to duck its responsibility to monitor and address major human rights violations."
The special rapporteur has sought to play a constructive role in Sudan, working with both the Government of National Unity and the Government of Southern Sudan to help them carry out their human rights obligations. Her report highlights critical issues, many of which have been documented by Human Rights Watch, including the Sudanese security forces' harassment and arbitrary arrest and detention of human rights defenders, and increasing censorship and restrictions on the media. Human Rights Watch has expressed concern that these restrictions will diminish the chances that elections currently slated for February 2010 will be free and fair.
The special rapporteur also addressed ongoing security concerns and the lack of mechanisms for civilian protection and the rule of law in Darfur and Southern Sudan. More than a thousand civilian deaths from armed conflict have been reported so far in 2009. Many thousands more are at risk following the government's expulsion of humanitarian organizations that provided 40 percent of the aid in Northern Sudan and the transitional areas.
The special rapporteur also highlighted the government's continuing failure to investigate and prosecute those responsible for serious human rights violations in the past, including abuses during fighting between the northern Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and southern Sudanese People's Liberation Army (SPLA) at Abyei in May 2008.
Currently, the special rapporteur is the only UN or other independent international mechanism monitoring and publicly reporting on the situation in all of Sudan. The United Nations - African Union peacekeeping mission in Darfur (UNAMID) has human rights officers, but they cover only Darfur, and both their ability to move throughout Darfur and to report publicly on the situation are limited. Similarly, human rights officers with the United Nations Mission in Sudan (UNMIS) focus on Southern Sudan and also have limited ability to report publicly.
Following the government's expulsion of international aid organizations in March, its closure of Sudanese organizations and the increasing repression of human rights activists and journalists, the special rapporteur's role, as mandated by the Human Rights Council, becomes increasingly critical.
"We are seeing an increasingly dangerous silence on the human rights situation in Sudan," de Rivero said. "Human Rights Council members should focus on supporting the victims in Sudan by extending the mandate of the special rapporteur."
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.
"It was not self-defense or authorized by Congress," the Minnesota congresswoman said of Trump's strike on a boat bound from Venezuela, which killed 11 people last week.
US Rep. Ilhan Omar introduced a war powers resolution in the US House of Representatives on Thursday, seeking to restrain President Donald Trump from conducting attacks in the Caribbean after he ordered a drone strike on a ship from Venezuela last week, killing 11 people.
The Trump administration has claimed, with little evidence, that the boat was a drug trafficking vessel that posed an imminent threat to the United States. But that narrative has come increasingly into doubt in recent days.
In a statement on the resolution provided to The Intercept, Omar (D-Minn.) said:
There was no legal justification for the Trump administration’s military escalation in the Caribbean... It was not self-defense or authorized by Congress. That is why I am introducing a resolution to terminate hostilities against Venezuela, and against the transnational criminal organizations that the administration has designated as terrorists this year. All of us should agree that the separation of powers is crucial to our democracy, and that only Congress has the power to declare war.
Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution gives Congress the "sole authority to declare war," but presidents have often carried out military actions without congressional approval, citing their role as commander-in-chief of the armed forces, particularly since the passage of the Authorization for Use of Military Force in 2001.
The War Powers Act of 1973 allows Congress to check the president's war-making authority, requiring the president to report military actions to Congress within 48 hours and requiring Congress to authorize the deployment of troops after 60 days.
Omar unveiled the resolution alongside several of her fellow members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, including Chair Greg Casar (D-Texas) and caucus whip Rep. Jesús “Chuy” García (D-Ill.).
"Donald Trump cannot be allowed to drag the United States into another endless war with his reckless actions," Casar said. "It is illegal for the president to take the country to war without consulting the people's representatives, and Congress must vote now to stop Trump from putting us at further risk."
In the days following Trump's strike on the ship, the administration's narrative that it contained members of Venezuela's Tren de Aragua gang bound for the United States has been called into question by news reports and by those briefed by the Department of Defense, which the Trump administration recently rebranded as the "Department of War."
After his staff was briefed on Tuesday, Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.), the ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, told CNN that the Pentagon has "offered no positive identification that the boat was Venezuelan, nor that its crew were members of Tren de Aragua or any other cartel."
While Trump has stated that the boat was en route to the US, the briefers themselves acknowledged that they could not determine its destination. Secretary of State Marco Rubio contradicted the president, saying "these particular drugs were probably headed to Trinidad or some other country in the Caribbean, at which point they just contribute to the instability these countries are facing."
The New York Times, meanwhile, reported Wednesday that the boat "had altered its course and appeared to have turned around before the attack started," which further contradicts the claim of imminent harm to the US.
“There is no evidence—none—that this strike was conducted in self-defense," Reed said. "That matters, because under both domestic and international law, the US military simply does not have the authority to use lethal force against a civilian vessel unless acting in self-defense.”
Even if the people aboard the boat were carrying drugs, as the administration claims, there is no legal precedent for the crime of drug trafficking justifying such an extraordinary use of military retaliation.
The White House has attempted to argue that the president has the legal authority to summarily kill suspected drug smugglers using an unprecedented legal rationale, which labels cartel members as tantamount to enemy combatants, who are allowed to be killed in war, because the product they carry causes thousands of deaths per year in the US. Legal analysts have described this as a flimsy pretext for extrajudicial murder.
Scott R. Anderson, a senior fellow in the National Security Law Program at Columbia Law School and a former legal adviser at the US State Department, wrote for the Lawfare blog:
There is no colorable statutory authority for military action against Tren de Aragua and other similarly situated groups. Occasional suggestions in the press that the Trump administration’s description of Tren de Aragua as a terrorist organization is meant to invoke the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) are almost certainly mistaken: That authorization extends only to the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks and select associates, and no one—not even in the Trump administration—has accused Tren de Aragua of being that.
Marty Lederman, who served as deputy assistant attorney general in the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel from 2009 to 2010, wrote for Just Security:
Regardless of which laws might have been broken, what’s more alarming, and of greater long-term concern, is that U.S. military personnel crossed a fundamental line the Department of Defense has been resolutely committed to upholding for many decades—namely, that (except in rare and extreme circumstances not present here) the military must not use lethal force against civilians, even if they are alleged, or even known, to be violating the law."
The resolution introduced by Omar is the first seeking to restrain Trump's ability to launch military strikes against Venezuela. But it's not the first seeking to rein in his wide-ranging use of unilateral warmaking authority.
In June, following his launch of airstrikes against Iran, war powers resolutions introduced in the House and Senate to limit Trump's actions in the Middle East narrowly failed despite receiving some Republican support.
Though specific attempts to rein in Trump's power have failed, the House did pass a bipartisan resolution earlier this week to repeal the AUMFs issued by Congress in the lead-up to the Iraq War, and which presidents have used for over two decades to justify a wide range of military actions across the Middle East without congressional oversight.
If passed, Omar's measure would require Trump to obtain congressional approval before using military force against Venezuela or launching more strikes on transnational criminal organizations that he has designated as terrorist groups since February, including Tren de Aragua.
García, the Progressive Caucus whip, said the resolution was an effort to begin restoring Congress' authority to check a president operating with impunity.
"The extrajudicial strike against a vessel in the Caribbean Sea is only the most recent of Trump’s reckless, deadly, and illegal military actions. Now, he’s lawlessly threatening a region already profoundly impacted by the destabilization of U.S. actions,” said García. "With this War Powers Resolution, we emphasize the total illegality of his action, and— consistent with overwhelming public opposition to forever war—reclaim Congress' sole power to authorize military action.”
Law enforcement sources subsequently told CNN that "the suspect in the murder of Charlie Kirk confessed to his father that he was the shooter."
This is a developing story... Please check back for possible updates...
Republican Utah Gov. Spencer Cox announced on Friday that 22-year-old Utah resident Tyler Robinson had been arrested as the suspect in the assassination of right-wing activist Charlie Kirk.
Cox said that Robinson was apprehended after being turned in by his family after he allegedly confessed to murdering Kirk on Wednesday.
The Utah governor also elaborated on some of the engravings that were found on bullet casings that were found on the scene. One of the messages, claimed Cox, said, "Hey fascist! Catch!" while another had the words: "If you read this you are gay lmao."
US President Donald Trump was the first to assert Friday morning that law enforcement officials have apprehended a suspect in the murder of right-wing activist Charlie Kirk.
During an appearance on "Fox & Friends," the president said that he believed "with a high degree of certainty" that law enforcement had the suspect in custody.
"I just heard about it five minutes before I walked in, as I'm walking in, they said, 'Looking real good,' they have the person they wanted," he said. "So you have breaking news, don't you?"
Trump: "I just heard about it five minutes before I walked in ... they have the person that they wanted. So you have breaking news, don't you eh? You always have breaking news, Ainsley. Sean's gonna be very disappointed that we're not doing it on his show." pic.twitter.com/0mBjZk0sNR
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) September 12, 2025
Trump also said that a person who knew the suspect provided information on him to law enforcement officials that led to his arrest, although he offered no details. He said that the FBI would likely make an announcement on the suspect later on Friday.
Shortly after Trump made this announcement, law enforcement sources gave CNN some additional details that seemingly corroborated Trump's claims about having a suspect in custody.
"The suspect in the murder of Charlie Kirk confessed to his father that he was the shooter," wrote CNN's Kristen Holmes in a social media post. "His father told authorities and secured his son until they could arrive to pick him up."
While much remains unclear, several outlets—including NBC News, The Daily Beast, New York Post, and others—identified the individual in custody as a 22-year-old with the name Tyler Robinson. Many of the other details surrounding the individual's arrest could not be independently verified by Common Dreams.
In the hours after Kirk's assassination, law enforcement officials took two people into custody, only for those people to be released shortly after officials determined they had nothing to do with the killing.
"It means that you cannot convince people of the correctness of your ideas, and you have to impose them through force."
In an online video address posted one day after the assassination of right-wing activist Charlie Kirk, Sen. Bernie Sanders offered a solemn message to the country denouncing political violence in all its forms, calling it a threat to the very foundation of democratic ideals and the freedoms upon which the nation claims it was built.
"Freedom and democracy is not about political violence. It is not about assassinating public officials. It is not about trying to intimidate people who speak out on an issue," says Sanders, who represents Vermont as an Independent. "Political violence, in fact, is political cowardice. It means that you cannot convince people of the correctness of your ideas, and you have to impose them through force."
The ability for people to speak their minds and express their political views, said Sanders, "without worrying that they might be killed, injured or humiliated" for doing so, "is the essence of what freedom is about and what democracy is about."
"You have a point of view, that’s great. I have a point of view that is different than yours, that’s great," he continued. "Let’s argue it out. We make our case to the American people at the local, state, and federal level, and we hold free elections in which the people decide what they want. That’s called freedom and democracy. And I want as many people as possible to participate in that process without fear."
The murder of Kirk, the 31-year-old founder of Turning Points USA, who was gunned down by a sniper's bullet on Wednesday during an appearance on a college campus in Utah, has rattled the political landscape over recent days. While the assailant, as of this writing, remains unidentified and potentially still at large, President Donald Trump said during a Friday morning appearance on "Fox & Friends" that a suspect was in custody, though he offered few details and suggested the information was preliminary.
In his address, Sanders said Kirk's assassination "is part of a disturbing rise in political violence that threatens to hollow out public life and make people afraid of participating" in civic life.
"From the January 6, 2021, attack on the United States Capitol, to the attempted assassination of Donald Trump, to the attack on Paul Pelosi, to the attempted kidnapping of Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer, to the murder of Minnesota Speaker of the House Melissa Hortman and her husband, to the arson attack on Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro, to the shooting of UnitedHealth executive Brian Thompson and the shooting several years ago of Rep. Steve Scalise," said Sanders, "this chilling rise in violence has targeted public figures across the political spectrum."
The murder of Charlie Kirk is part of a disturbing rise in political violence that threatens to hollow out our public life.
A free society relies on the premise that people can speak out without fear or humiliation.
No more political violence. pic.twitter.com/SR71FJkiDz
— Sen. Bernie Sanders (@SenSanders) September 11, 2025
"This is a difficult and contentious moment in American history. Democracy in our country and throughout the world is under attack," said Sanders.
While the various reasons for that deserve serious consideration and debate, he said, the bottom line is more straightforward.
"If we honestly believe in democracy, if we believe in freedom, all of us must be loud and clear," concluded Sanders: "Political violence, regardless of ideology, is not the answer and must be condemned."