

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.

Respect for human rights by the coup government that took power six months ago has been undermined by arbitrary arrests and detentions, restrictions on political activity, unpunished criminal acts by the military, calls for vigilante justice, and disappointing progress in organizing elections, Human Rights Watch said today.
"The new government has had six months to show that it was serious about improving respect for human rights in Guinea," said Corinne Dufka, senior West Africa researcher at Human Rights Watch. "There is no time to waste; they need to put a stop to human rights violations and organize free, fair, and transparent elections without any more delays."
A group of Guinean military officers calling themselves the National Council for Democracy and Development (CNDD) seized power hours after the death on December 22, 2008, of Lansana Conte, Guinea's president for 24 years.
Human Rights Watch research since the coup has found numerous instances in which the CNDD has violated its commitment to end human rights violations and taken little concrete action to organize elections promised before the end of the year.
At least 16 military personnel, including a former army commander, have been detained, and sources within the military have suggested that some of them have been abused in detention. All remain in detention, though none has been charged with any crime. Human Rights Watch calls on the Guinean authorities either to initiate formal trial proceedings against the men or order their release.
While the coup leaders initially agreed to a timetable for new elections, there has been little concrete action taken or funding committed to plan the elections. A ban on political activity has been reinstated, and there have been attacks on opposition parties. Human Rights Watch called on the Guinean authorities to repeal the ban on political activity immediately and to hold parliamentary and presidential elections as quickly as possible.
Human Rights Watch has documented a number of violent attacks by the military on ordinary Guineans, but no member of the military has been held to account for the attacks. Officials also appear to have condoned instances of vigilante justice. Human Rights Watch called on the coup government to retract the call for vigilante justice, and ensure that attacks on citizens by vigilantes end immediately and that those responsible are brought to justice.
Continued Arbitrary Detention of at Least 16 Military Personnel
In late December and early January 2009, the CNDD detained 12 military officers who had been assigned to provide security for the late President Conte. Military personnel interviewed by Human Rights Watch in Conakry said that the 12 were questioned by gendarmes only once, shortly after being taken into custody, but have yet to be allowed access to their lawyers or charged with a crime. The detained men were prevented from receiving family visits for a period of three months, and remain in custody in an unofficial detention center on the grounds of the CNDD's headquarters at the Alpha Yaya Diallo military camp in Conakry.
A second group of at least three military personnel was detained in late April following an alleged coup attempt against the CNDD president, Captain Moussa Dadis Camara. Sources within the military told Human Rights Watch that these men are being held in a military camp on Kassa Island - a few kilometers off the coast of Conakry. Military officers interviewed by Human Rights Watch suggested that this group had suffered repeated beatings.
In the afternoon of May 26, dozens of security forces personnel beat, tied up, and detained Kader Doumbouya, a former military commander under Conte, and then looted his residence in Conakry. He has since then been held without charge in the "PM3" gendarmes detention center in Conakry. Sources told Human Rights Watch that he is being treated for a cracked rib suffered during the incident.
This prolonged detention of the men without charge, access to a lawyer, or review by an independent judge constitutes arbitrary detention, in violation of Guinea's international law obligations. Article 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, ratified by Guinea in 1978, states that anyone arrested shall be informed, at the time of arrest, of the reasons for his arrest and shall be promptly informed of any charges against him. Human Rights Watch calls on the Guinean authorities either to initiate formal trial proceedings against the men in question and ensure that they are immediately brought before a judge, or order their immediate and unconditional release. In any case, the men should be compensated for their arbitrary detention.
Elections and Freedoms of Political Expression and Assembly
Little progress has been made toward the return to civilian rule through free and fair legislative and presidential elections, despite the CNDD's commitment to restore constitutional order by the end of 2009. In March, the Forces Vives of Guinea - an organization consisting of political parties, unions, and civil society leaders - presented the CNDD with a timetable for elections preparations, with a view toward holding legislative elections in October and presidential elections by December 2009. Though Camara agreed in March to this timetable, the CNDD has taken few concrete steps to organize elections, and has refused to provide funding for the Independent National Electoral Commission (CENI) - the government body charged with organizing and monitoring the elections - in May and June 2009.
A communique from Camara, read on Guinean public radio on June 26, reinstated a ban on all political and union activities. Prior to the official banning of political activity, rallies by three Guinean political parties planned in different towns across Guinea were cancelled by order of local authorities, presumably to comply with commands from authorities in the capital.
On June 18, the Union of Democratic Forces of Guinea (UFDG) was forced to cancel its month-long nationwide campaign tour for its presidential candidate, Cellou Dallein Diallo, after local authorities and the military in the eastern town of Kerouane - 1,000 km from Conakry - ordered hundreds of supporters who had gathered for the rally to return to their homes, and then ordered the party's delegation to leave town. Shortly before reaching Kankan, 130 km away, the delegation was stopped by about 50 military personnel. Witnesses interviewed by Human Rights Watch said that the commander told the delegation that he had received orders that they would not be allowed into Kankan, where they had planned to hold a rally later that day.
Similarly, rallies by the United Front for Democracy and Change (FUDEC) in the towns of Coyah and Boffa, north of Conakry, and by the Democratic Union of Guinea (UDG) on June 18 in Foracariah were forbidden by the local authorities.
Human Rights Watch also spoke with a witness who described a June 20 attack on the UDG party headquarters in Kagbelen, outside Conakry. He said that approximately 25 members of the military led by the minister in charge of presidential security, Claude Pivi, forced their way into the local headquarters. The witness said that the military told them that they were looking for the local party representative.
"The military were heavily armed and wearing red berets," the witness said. "Pivi was seated in his four-wheel-drive car, watching everything. He called me and asked me where the head of our party was. We said we didn't know. His men then forced their way into our offices looking for him, beat up a few of our people, and stole two of our mobile phones."
On July 4, there were media reports of a second raid on the UDG in Kagbelen by members of the military wearing red berets, in which several UDG activists were allegedly rounded up and detained at a nearby military camp.
Human Rights Watch called on the Guinean authorities to repeal the ban on political activity immediately and uphold the right of all Guineans to choose their representatives by holding free, fair, and transparent parliamentary and presidential elections as quickly as possible.
Criminality by Military Personnel with No Mechanism for Accountability
The CNDD promised in May to prevent acts of criminality by military personnel. However, little concrete action has been taken to improve the situation, Human Rights Watch said. While the security forces have made arrests of civilians alleged to have committed crimes, no member of the military has yet faced arrest, investigation, or prosecution for the types of criminal acts documented by Human Rights Watch in April.
Human Rights Watch has since then documented several incidents of theft and violence by members of the military against businesspeople and ordinary citizens, including thefts of goods and cars, and extortion by soldiers manning checkpoints in the Matoto and Bonfi neighborhoods of Conakry. In one egregious incident, a Guinean businessman who had recently returned from living abroad described how, on May 30, two armed soldiers threw him out of a third-story window after robbing him and spraying tear gas in his eyes. The soldiers then stole his car. The fall broke the man's back, both legs, and both arms.
Official Call for Vigilante Justice that Undermines the Rule of Law
A call from a CNDD top law enforcement official for vigilante justice to be meted out against suspected thieves has seriously undermined respect for the rule of law in Guinea. At least one person appears to have been murdered in a vigilante attack.
During a June 2 meeting with local government and community leaders, which was widely reported in national and international media, Captain Moussa Tiegboro Camara (no relation to the CNDD president, Dadis Camara), the minister charged with the fight against drug trafficking and serious crime, urged youths to set up surveillance brigades and to "burn all armed bandits who are caught red-handed committing an armed robbery," adding that there was no more room in Guinea's prisons to accommodate these criminals.
In the early morning hours of June 5, residents in the Yimbaya neighborhood of Conakry found a young man lying under a tree whose body was severely burned and whose face, fingers, and ears had been cut in multiple places. They informed Human Rights Watch that the man told them he had hours before been accused of theft by other local residents, who then burned him on his chest, back, and buttocks with a clothes iron, severely beat him, and cut him with a razor blade. The man died two hours after he was found by the residents.
Local residents further described to Human Rights Watch how, at around 5 p.m. the same day, Tiegboro visited the neighborhood to look at the corpse and address local residents. According to several residents who attended the meeting, Tiegboro told them: "You've done well to kill this man. He is a criminal and any time you see such a criminal, you should kill him. If you don't have the money to buy petrol, come to my office and I will give you money to buy it."
Another man attending the meeting said: "No one opposed what Captain Tiegboro said, but I think what happened to him [the victim] is wrong. In fact, it is the torturers who should be arrested and tried for what they did to him."
When interviewed by Human Rights Watch on June 24, Tiegboro asserted that he supported the rule of law and the right to a fair trial, but that his appeal for "popular justice had been intended as a preventive action to frighten would-be perpetrators." He denied offering money to local residents intending to burn criminals alive, but noted emphatically that the victim of the June 5 incident had a well-known criminal history and had been in and out of Conakry's main prison at least eight times.
While Human Rights Watch was unable to ascertain whether those who attacked the man were incited to action by Tiegboro's statement, it appears that he endorsed the killing after the fact. Human Rights Watch called on the Guinean authorities to retract the minister's call for the formation of vigilante groups and any calls to kill suspected criminals. Those who carry out vigilante attacks, including the murder in Yimbaya, should be investigated and prosecuted.
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.
"Every American should be terrified by this secret ICE policy authorizing its agents to kick down your door and storm into your home," said Sen. Richard Blumenthal, demanding congressional hearings.
"The United States government is looking for ways around that pesky Fourth Amendment," an investigative journalist said of Wednesday reporting by the Associated Press on an internal US Immigration and Customs Enforcement memo claiming that ICE agents can forcibly enter a private residence without a judicial warrant, consent, or an emergency.
The Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution states, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
ICE's May 12 memo, part of a whistleblower disclosure obtained by the AP, says that "although the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has not historically relied on administrative warrants alone to arrest aliens subject to final orders of removal in their place of residence, the DHS Office of the General Counsel has recently determined that the US Constitution, the Immigration and Nationality Act, and the immigration regulations do not prohibit relying on administrative warrants for this purpose."
The January 7 disclosure was sent to the US Senate by the group Whistleblower Aid, which is "keeping the whistleblowers' identities anonymous even from oversight investigators," according to the document. It notes that despite being addressed to "All ICE Personnel," the seemingly unconstitutional memo "has not been formally distributed to all personnel."
Instead, it "has been provided to select DHS officials who are then directed to verbally brief the new policy for action. Those supervisors then show the memo to some employees, like our clients, and direct them to read the memo and return it to the supervisor," the disclosure details. "Newly hired ICE agents—many of whom do not have a law enforcement background—are now being directed to rely solely on" an administrative warrant drafted and signed by an ICE official to enter homes and make arrests.
Yeah, why could anyone think that ICE fits the description of the Gestapo?apnews.com/article/ice-...
[image or embed]
— Dan Sohege (@danielsohege.bsky.social) January 21, 2026 at 4:48 PM
Asked about the May 12 memo, signed by acting ICE Director Todd Lyons, Homeland Security spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin told the AP that everyone DHS serves with an administrative warrant has already had "full due process and a final order of removal," and the US Supreme Court and Congress have "recognized the propriety of administrative warrants in cases of immigration enforcement."
However, as Whistleblower Aid senior vice president and special counsel David Kligerman stressed in a Wednesday statement, "no court has ever found that ICE agents have such legal authority to enter homes without a judicial warrant."
"This administration's secretive policy advocates conduct that the Supreme Court has described as 'the chief evil against which the wording of the Fourth Amendment is directed'—that is the warrantless physical entry of a home," he noted. "This is precisely what the Fourth Amendment was created to prevent."
"If ICE believes that this policy is consistent with the law, why not publicize it?" he asked. "Perhaps they've hidden it precisely because it cannot withstand legal scrutiny. Policies which impact fundamental constitutional rights, particularly one which the Supreme Court has called the greatest of equals among the Bill of Rights, should be discussed openly with the American people. It cannot be undone by hidden policy memos."
They just make up bullshit, bad-faith legal theories, do what they want until a court stops them, then lather, rinse, and repeat. In the meantime, they get to terrorize people. And nothing will happen to any of those responsible.Our courts are not equipped to deal with this.
[image or embed]
— Radley Balko (@radleybalko.bsky.social) January 21, 2026 at 5:14 PM
Other lawyers, journalists, and critics responded similarly to the AP's reporting on social media. Alejandra Caraballo of the Harvard Law Cyberlaw Clinic declared that "the Fourth Amendment literally exists to prevent this."
Bradley P. Moss, an attorney specializing in litigation related to national security, federal employment, and security clearance law, said, "Remember when the Fourth Amendment was still a thing?"
American Immigration Council senior fellow Aaron Reichlin-Melnick wrote: "It has been accepted for generations that the only thing which can authorize agents to break into your home is a warrant signed by a judge. No wonder ICE hid this memo!"
"This is the Trump administration trashing the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution in pursuit of its mass deportation agenda," he continued, highlighting a footnote that suggests "they won't even rule out authorizing home invasions with no judicial warrant for people not even ordered removed!"
"In short, this secret memo explains SO MUCH of what we've been seeing over the last months, including this raid of a home in Minneapolis where ICE officers presented no judicial warrant before breaking in the door," he said. "Turns out they were secretly told they don't need one!"
While Reichlin-Melnick shared photos of a scene in which armed immigration agents used a battering ram to enter a Minneapolis home and arrest a Liberian man, federal agents also recently broke down the door of a residence in neighboring Saint Paul, Minnesota, and arrested ChongLy "Scott" Thao, a US citizen who was later freed.
The AP reporting and responses to the leaked memo came as the Trump administration on Wednesday surged immigration agents to Maine for what it dubbed "Operation Catch of the Day," mirroring the federal deployment to not only Minnesota—where ICE officer Jonathan Ross fatally shot Renee Good, a US citizen, in her vehicle earlier this month—but also Illinois and California.
US Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), ranking member of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, opened an inquiry into reports of unconstitutional detentions of US citizens by immigration agents in October and on Wednesday demanded answers about the new whistleblower disclosure.
Blumenthal sent lists of questions and requests for records to Lyons and US Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem as well as Benjamin C. Huffman, director of the Federal Law Enforcement Training Centers. The senator also wrote to Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Chair Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and Judiciary Committee Chair Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), urging them to call the ICE and DHS leaders to testify before their panels.
"Every American should be terrified by this secret ICE policy authorizing its agents to kick down your door and storm into your home," Blumenthal said in a statement. "It is a legally and morally abhorrent policy that exemplifies the kinds of dangerous, disgraceful abuses America is seeing in real time."
"In our democracy, with vanishingly rare exceptions, the government is barred from breaking into your home without a judge giving a green light," he continued. "Government agents have no right to ransack your bedroom or terrorize your kids on a whim or personal desire. I am deeply grateful to brave whistleblowers who have come forward and put the rights of their fellow Americans first."
"My Republican colleagues who claim to value personal rights against government overreach now have an opportunity and obligation to prove that rhetoric is real," the senator added. "They must hold hearings and join me in demanding the Trump administration answer for this lawless policy."
“The search and seizure of Washington Post reporter Hannah Natanson’s records is unconstitutional and illegal in its entirety," said one free press defender.
A US judge on Wednesday blocked federal prosecutors from searching data on a Washington Post reporter's electronic devices seized during what one press freedom group called an "unconstitutional and illegal" raid last week.
US Magistrate Judge William B. Porter in Alexandria, Virginia—who also authorized the January 14 raid of Post reporter Hannah Natanson's home—ruled that "the government must preserve but must not review any of the materials that law enforcement seized pursuant to search warrants the court issued."
The government has until January 28 to respond to the Post's initial legal filings against the agent's actions. Oral arguments in the case are scheduled for February 6.
Natanson—who describes her work as covering "Trump's reshaping of the government"—welcomed Wednesday's order.
"I need my devices back to do my job," she said on Bluesky.
Federal Bureau of Investigation investigators executed a warrant to search Natanson's Virginia home as part of a probe into Aurelio Perez-Lugones, a federal contractor who is accused of illegally possessing classified documents. FBI agents seized Natanson’s cellphone, her smart watch, and her personal and work laptops.
As Politico senior legal affairs reporter Kyle Cheney noted, the criminal complaint for Perez-Lugones’ case contains no allegations that he gave classified documents to any Post reporter, as implied by Attorney General Pam Bondi and FBI Director Kash Patel.
The Post said that the seized devices “contain years of information about past and current confidential sources and other unpublished newsgathering materials, including those she was using for current reporting."
“The government cannot meet its heavy burden to justify this intrusion, and it has ignored narrower, lawful alternatives,” the newspaper added.
As the Post noted Wednesday:
It is exceptionally rare for law enforcement officials to conduct searches at reporters’ homes. The law allows such searches, but federal regulations intended to protect a free press are designed to make it more difficult to use aggressive law enforcement tactics against reporters to obtain the identities of their sources...
The US has no law that explicitly makes it a crime for a journalist to obtain or publish classified information. In 2019, when WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange was indicted under the Espionage Act for disclosing classified information, First Amendment scholars warned that his case could set a precedent that could be used against journalists. That issue was never tested in court because Assange and the government reached a plea deal in 2024.
"The outrageous seizure of our reporter’s confidential newsgathering materials chills speech, cripples reporting, and inflicts irreparable harm every day the government keeps its hands on these materials,” the Post said in a statement. “We have asked the court to order the immediate return of all seized materials and prevent their use. Anything less would license future newsroom raids and normalize censorship by search warrant.”
Free press defenders cheered Porter's order.
“The search and seizure of Washington Post reporter Hannah Natanson’s records is unconstitutional and illegal in its entirety," Freedom of the Press Foundation chief of advocacy Seth Stern said in a statement. "But even the Trump administration’s policies require searches of journalists’ materials to be narrow and targeted and that authorities use filter teams and other measures to avoid searching protected records."
"That the administration wouldn’t follow its own guidelines shows that the raid on Natanson’s home wasn’t about any criminal investigation, and certainly wasn’t about national security," he added.
The search and seizure of @washingtonpost.com reporter @hannahnatanson.bsky.social's records is unconstitutional and illegal in its entirety.The judge was right to block it until a full hearing, at which time he should block it permanently.Read our statement: freedom.press/issues/judge...
[image or embed]
— Freedom of the Press Foundation (@freedom.press) January 21, 2026 at 2:30 PM
“This is the first time in US history that the government has searched a reporter’s home in a national security media leak investigation, seizing potentially a vast amount of confidential data and information," Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press president Bruce Brown said in a statement. "The move imperils public interest reporting and will have ramifications far beyond this specific case."
Wednesday's order came two weeks after the Republican-controlled House Oversight Committee voted to subpoena Seth Harp, a journalist wrongly accused of “leaking classified intel” and “doxing” a US special forces commander involved in President Donald Trump’s invasion of Venezuela and abduction of the South American nation’s president and his wife.
Campaigners at Public Citizen say the unchecked flood of corporate money unleashed by the Supreme Court's 2010 decision "paves the way for demagogues like Donald Trump to seize power."
The consumer watchdog group Public Citizen on Wednesday highlighted how President Donald Trump not only has taken advantage of the "torrent of corporate spending" unleashed by the US Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling 16 years ago, but also is now working to make the fallout from the decision even worse.
“In 2024, the already horrifying amount of money went on steroids, as we witnessed the largest direct corporate spending on elections ever," said the group's co-presidents, Lisa Gilbert and Robert Weissman.
Corporate-funded dark money groups, nonprofits, and shell companies, which are not required by law to disclose their donors, poured more than $1.9 billion into the 2024 federal election cycle, nearly twice as much as in 2020, according to the Brennan Center for Justice. That amount of spending has climbed dramatically since 2010, with $4.3 billion spent to influence elections since the decision.
The most recent election saw spending power more consolidated into the hands of a few powerful individuals than ever before, with top Trump benefactors including Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk, investor Timothy Mellon, pro-Israel megadonor Miriam Adelson, and several others all spending more than $100 million apiece to support his candidacy.
The cryptocurrency industry likewise dumped over $245 million into the election cycle and "drove election outcomes and completely reshaped congressional policy debates, as politicians caved to crypto demands rather than face an onslaught of industry spending in the next election," according to Gilbert and Weissman.
Since Trump took office, his administration has further eroded the guardrails, allowing companies to go unchecked in their political spending.
On Wednesday, Public Citizen also unveiled a report showing that "the Securities Exchange Commission (SEC), under Trump appointee Chair Paul Atkins, acted in unprecedented ways to erect barriers to shareholders holding companies accountable for corporate political spending," most notably telling companies that they would not face objections if they fail to include political activity on shareholder statements.
Public Citizen democracy advocate Jon Golinger said this "ripped away the fig leaf by which the Supreme Court aimed to hide the shame of Citizens United."
The group noted that former Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy, who wrote the majority opinion in the case, had justified it by saying that there is "little evidence of abuse that cannot be corrected by shareholders through the procedures of corporate democracy" and that runaway corruption could be headed off by the "prompt disclosure of expenditures."
"All Americans suffer and our democracy withers when corporations and the superrich have more of a say in elections than regular voters do," Gilbert and Weissman said.
"It’s not only that corporations and the superrich are able to block overwhelmingly popular policies—meaningful cuts to drug prices, raising the minimum wage, making corporations pay their fair share in taxes, cracking down on polluters and much more—that would make our country more just, healthier, and more sustainable," they continued. "It’s also that deep frustration with a failed political system paves the way for demagogues like Donald Trump to seize power."
Across party lines, Americans overwhelmingly say that the corporate spending in elections allowed by Citizens United undermines democracy.
An October poll conducted by Issue One found that 79% of Americans said "large independent expenditures by wealthy donors and corporations in elections give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption." This included 84% of Democrats, 74% of Republicans, and 79% of independents.
Gilbert and Weissman said, “A constitutional amendment to overturn this terrible decision is 16 years overdue.”