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 Sudanese government should end attacks by its armed forces on
civilians in Darfur and make the major human rights reforms envisioned
in the 2005 Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA), Human Rights Watch
said in a report issued today. Special Envoys to Sudan, concerned
governments, and United Nations and African Union officials meeting in
Moscow today should press Sudan's government to make these legal and
policy changes a matter of urgent priority, Human Rights Watch said.
The 25-page report, "The Way Forward: Ending Human Rights Abuses and Repression across Sudan"
documents human rights violations and repression in Khartoum and
northern states, ongoing violence in Darfur, and the fighting that
threatens civilians in Southern Sudan. It is based on field research in
eastern Chad and Southern Sudan in July and August.
"Sudan is at a crossroads," said Georgette Gagnon, Africa director
at Human Rights Watch. "It can either make good on its promises or
allow the situation to deteriorate further with its repressive
practices."
Today's meeting of concerned governments and intergovernmental
bodies in Moscow including the UN, AU and League of Arab States comes
at a critical time in Sudan. The National Congress Party (NCP)-led
Government of National Unity (GNU) is facing an interlocking mosaic of
human rights and political challenges in the coming months.
Darfur peace talks, which have faltered in recent months, are set to
resume this month in Doha. Under the terms of the 2005 CPA, national
elections are scheduled for April 2010 and a southern referendum on
independence for January 2011. Sudan's failure in any of these
processes can undermine its overall progress.
"Those who care about the Sudanese people should put human rights
first, through strong, comprehensive and coordinated pressure on the
governing party to change its ways in the South, on Darfur and in
Khartoum," said Gagnon.
The government should immediately end attacks on civilians in
Darfur, charge or release people it has arrested arbitrarily, and end
harassment of civil society activists, said Human Rights Watch. It
should prioritize provisions of the CPA that have clear human rights
and security implications, Human Rights Watch said. These include
genuine reform of its national security apparatus, North-South border
demarcation, and security agreements to withdraw and downsize troops
and integrate former militias.
Arbitrary Arrests
Sudanese national security officials, acting under the sweeping
powers of the National Security Forces Act (NSFA), have been arresting
and detaining civil society activists, opposition leaders, and
suspected rebels in Khartoum, Port Sudan, Kassala, Darfur and
elsewhere, often for prolonged periods and without access to family or
lawyers, Human Rights Watch research indicated. For example, at least
seven Darfuri students who are members of the United Popular Front
(UPF) have been in detention since April 2009. Their group held events
at several Sudanese universities supporting the International Criminal
Court (ICC), which on March 4 issued an indictment against Sudan's
president, Omar al-Bashir.
On October 1, security officers arrested two more members of the
student group in Gazeera state following a university debate on Darfur.
Government security forces have also harassed and arrested activists
from Kassala in eastern Sudan and political opposition party members in
Khartoum and Southern Kordofan.
On August 28, security officers arrested another Darfuri activist,
Abdelmajeed Saleh Abaker Haroun, in downtown Khartoum and they continue
to detain him without charge.
"The Sudanese government should end its practice of arbitrary
arrests, release or charge people it has detained without legal basis,
and it should genuinely reform national security laws," said Gagnon.
Harassment of Civil Society and Suppression of Information
The full extent of human rights violations in the northern states
and in Darfur is unknown because of government censorship of the media.
Its closure of three Sudanese human rights organizations following the
ICC indictment further restricted the flow of information about human
rights across Sudan. The expulsion of 13 international humanitarian
organizations from Darfur around the same time has also restricted the
flow of information about humanitarian needs.
The policy of pre-print censorship, which Human Rights Watch has documented,
continued with security officers operating under the Security Forces
Act censoring and suspending newspapers and blocking civil society
activities, particularly on elections, while preparations are beginning
for the April 2010 elections.
Human Rights Watch has found that on at least six occasions in the
last four months, security and humanitarian authorities interrupted or
prevented civil society groups and political parties from holding talks
about elections in Khartoum, Port Sudan, Medani and elsewhere in
northern states and Darfur. In one case, security officials detained
and questioned members of the Communist party for distributing leaflets
in Khartoum.
"By repressing civil society groups and political parties, the
Sudanese government is restricting fundamental political freedoms at
the time they are most important," Gagnon said.
Between January and June, security officials prevented publication
of newspapers on at least 10 occasions through heavy censorship,
harassed or arrested journalists and the author of a book on Darfur,
and shut down an organization that was training and supporting
journalists. In September, government censorship caused suspension of
at least two major papers.
President Bashir announced on September 29 that his government
would stop pre-print censorship, but also warned journalists not to
exceed established "red lines." It remains to be seen whether this
statement will translate into greater freedom of expression on critical
matters of public interest.
Ongoing Clashes in Darfur
In Darfur, recent clashes between the governing party-led Sudan
Armed Forces and rebels in September and the use of indiscriminate
bombings demonstrate that the war is not over. Government air and
ground attacks on villages around Korma North Darfur on September 17
and 18 reportedly killed 16 civilians, including women, and burned
several villages.
Witnesses from the North Darfur town of Um Baru told Human Rights
Watch that government bombing in May hit water pumps and killed and
injured scores of civilians.
"They were dropping 12 bombs a day," one witness told Human Rights Watch. "They dropped in all the areas around the town."
Clashes between government and JEM rebels at Muhajariya, South
Darfur, in February included an intensive government bombing campaign
that killed scores of civilians and displaced 40,000. An estimated 2.7
million people in displaced persons camps in Darfur and 200,000 in Chad
are unable to return to their villages for fear of the attacks and
violence, including sexual violence, by government soldiers and
government-allied militia.
Insecurity in Southern Sudan
In Abyei and other flashpoints along the North-South border, the
GNU's failure to implement the peace agreement provisions on border
demarcation and troop withdrawal and downsizing threatens to expose
civilians to further abuse and danger. Both armies have failed to
downsize and to integrate former militias fully, as required by the
security arrangements in the peace agreement.
During the February clashes in Malakal
between the northern government forces and the southern Sudan People's
Liberation Army soldiers, former militias whom the armed forces failed
to integrate instigated violence and human rights violations. The
presidency has still not taken sufficient action to remove NCP-backed
former militias from the area and reduce the threat of further violence.
Elsewhere in Southern Sudan, intense inter-ethnic fighting
killed at least 1,200 civilians in the first half of 2009. The Sudan
People's Liberation Movement-led Government of Southern Sudan has so
far been unable to protect civilians from the civilian-on-civilian
fighting, or from a steady stream of attacks by the rebel Lord's
Resistance Army operating in Central and Western Equatoria since
September 2008.
"The people of Southern Sudan have borne the brunt of the intense
inter-ethnic fighting, rebel attacks and clashes between the northern
and southern armies," Gagnon said.
Both the southern government and the national government need to do
more to prevent the violence and protect civilians, Human Rights Watch
said. The United Nations Mission in Sudan peacekeeping mission should
also increase efforts to prevent violence and protect civilians, Human
Rights Watch said.
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.
As the latest poll results were released, the Maine governor launched her second ad against her Senate primary opponent, again attacking him for comments he made online 13 years ago.
Days after Maine Gov. Janet Mills released her first attack ad against her rival in the Democratic Senate primary, Graham Platner, focusing on comments he made about sexual assault victims online 13 years ago, Emerson College Polling conducted the latest survey of likely primary voters regarding their support for the two candidates.
Between March 21-23, the polling group surveyed 1,075 Maine Democrats and found that 55% expressed support for Platner, while just 28% supported Mills—giving the first-time political candidate, oyster farmer, and combat veteran nearly a 2-to-1 advantage.
When asked about a hypothetical general election matchup with Republican Sen. Susan Collins, respondents gave both Democratic candidates an edge over her, but Platner had a more comfortable lead.
Forty-eight percent supported him over Collins, while 41% backed Collins and 12% said they were undecided or supported another candidate. Mills had the backing of 46% of voters compared to Collins' 43%, and 11% were undecided.
The poll was consistent with numerous other surveys that have been taken since Mills entered the race last October, at which point it came to light that Platner had written offensive messages on Reddit in the past and had gotten a tattoo while in the Marines that resembled a skull-and-crossbones that appeared on the uniforms of Nazi guards during World War II.
Platner said his views had evolved since he wrote the posts and said he had not been aware that the symbol was associated with Nazis; he then got the tattoo covered up and continued holding rallies in cities and towns across the state—often addressing overflow crowds—where he has been speaking out against oligarchy, pushing for Medicare for All, demanding a billionaire's minimum tax, and condemning the Trump administration's "authoritarian overreach" with its mass deportations agenda.
Polls taken in the weeks after the controversies broke suggested the negative stories about Platner's past weren't sticking. The University of New Hampshire (UNH) found in late October that 58% of voters backed Platner compared to 24% who supported the governor.
He was 20 points ahead of Mills in a poll by the Progressive Change Campaign Committee weeks later, and in February UNH found Platner had widened his already significant lead, with 64% of Maine Democrats supporting him and 26% backing Mills. He also had an 11-point lead over Collins compared to Mills 1-point lead.
Despite the evidence that the attacks on Platner's Reddit history were doing little to damage his chances of winning, Mills made his comments the focus of her first attack ad earlier this month—a move that was panned at a local Democrats meeting days later in Hancock County, with attendees telling the governor directly that the ad was "odious" and "underhanded" and demanding to know: “Do you believe in a Maine and a country where a person can be redeemed? Where they can change and become a better version of themself?”
At the meeting, several voters also expressed disapproval of Mills' record of vetoing drug pricing and labor rights legislation and her opposition to a red flag gun control law.
On Thursday, as the latest Emerson College poll results were released, Mills released a second ad that, like the first one, focused on Platner's 2013 comments about sexual assault.
"Since her last attack ad, he has only climbed in the polls against both Mills and Collins," said journalist Ryan Grim of Drop Site News. "All these ads do is tell voters that the Democratic establishment is still a closed-off world where you are not welcome if you previously held different views or said something offensive on the internet. Nobody wants that world."
"Every single one of this administration's policies is doing what it can to raise prices," said one critic.
The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development on Thursday released a report projecting that President Donald Trump's unconstitutional war with Iran will sharply increase inflation in the US this year.
According to OECD, the disruption in energy markets caused by the war means that "inflation pressures will persist for longer," with inflation in G20 nations "now expected to be higher in 2026 than previously projected."
OECD projects that inflation in the US, which was previously seen coming in at 2.6% in 2026, will instead rise to 4.2% this year thanks in large part to the war, which has spiked prices for oil, gasoline, diesel fuel, and fertilizer.
The report also warns that these numbers could get even worse if the Iran conflict drags on and the Strait of Hormuz remains shut for a prolonged period.
"Further disruptions to trade in the Persian Gulf could also have negative effects on a broader range of products in global supply chains," OECD writes. "For example, ongoing constraints to fertilizer supply could increase global food prices, with potentially serious impacts on household finances and inflation expectations. Furthermore, reduced supply of sulphur, helium or aluminium could impede production in a range of industries."
More ominously, the report finds that "prolonged disruptions to energy supply and growth, or lower-than-expected returns from net AI investment, or rising losses in private capital markets, could all trigger more widespread risk repricing in financial markets," with the result being a higher risk of default across "multiple credit products" and an evaporation of economic liquidity.
Asa Johansson, director of policy studies at OECD, said in an interview with The Wall Street Journal that the organization's forecast is "highly uncertain" at this point because "we don’t know the breadth and the duration of this energy shock" caused by the war.
Tahra Hoops, director of economic analysis at Chamber of Progress, expressed astonishment at the Trump administration's economic mismanagement in launching the Iran war, which came at a time when polling has consistently shown that affordability is the top concern for US voters.
"Every single one of this administration's policies is doing what it can to raise prices," wrote Hoops, "for a political goal that they have yet to coherently articulate, let alone have any chance at achieving."
Phillips O'Brien, professor of strategic studies at the University of St. Andrews, argued that the OECD's inflation forecast was yet another nail in the Republican Party's chances of retaining control of Congress this year.
"It’s going to be so much fun watching the GOP run on 'affordability' in 2026," O'Brien wrote.
"Looking to the invasion of Iraq in 2003, a similar invasion of Iran, given its population size, would require as many as 1.6 million troops," warned one analyst.
The Trump administration is reportedly considering several options for a massive escalation of its unlawful war on Iran, heightening fears that US troops—possibly as early as Friday or the weekend—could be hurled into a deadly quagmire with no clear objective, legal rationale, or exit strategy.
Axios reported that among the options the Pentagon is considering are "invading or blockading" Kharg Island—Iran's primary oil export hub—and sending American forces "deep inside the interior of Iran" in an effort to seize the country's enriched uranium. The reporting indicates that the administration views the options as a "final blow" against Iran, despite US President Donald Trump's public claim that the war has already been won decisively.
The new reporting marked just the latest signal that the Trump administration could be readying a ground invasion, which—like the ongoing bombing campaign across Iran—has not been approved by the US Congress and would be deeply unpopular with the American public. The US and Iran have both put forth demands for a diplomatic resolution, but Iranian officials have said there are no active negotiations with the Trump administration, contrary to the president's claim earlier this week.
Brandan Buck, a research fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute who has criticized the war from the start, warned in a recent blog post that "any serious American invasion of Iran would likely rival or exceed the scale of Vietnam or the 1991 Gulf War, making it the largest US military undertaking since the Second World War."
"Looking to the invasion of Iraq in 2003, a similar invasion of Iran, given its population size, would require as many as 1.6 million troops," Buck noted. "Trump’s ill-considered decision to launch the war, coupled with his vague-but-ambitious goals, has made this impossible scenario a military possibility. Given the horrific costs such an invasion would entail, however, Trump should choose a different path: declare 'victory' and de-escalate."
Fears of an imminent ground invasion have spread to Republicans who were otherwise supportive of the Trump administration's decision to attack Iran. Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC), who earlier this month voted against a resolution that aimed to stop the war, wrote on social media Wednesday afternoon that she "will not support troops on the ground in Iran."
Mace's post came shortly after she left a closed-door House Armed Services Committee briefing on Iran. The Republican lawmaker said she was "even more" opposed to a ground invasion following Wednesday's briefing.
"The justifications presented to the American public for the war in Iran were not the same military objectives we were briefed on today in the House Armed Services Committee," Mace wrote in a separate post on Wednesday. "This gap is deeply troubling. The longer this war continues, the faster it will lose the support of Congress and the American people."
Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Ala.), who celebrated the US-Israeli bombing of Iran when it kicked off last month, told reporters following Wednesday's briefing—nearly a month into the war—that "we want to know more about what’s going on, what the options are, and why they’re being considered."
"Trump has a well-documented pattern of escalating on Friday night, after the markets close."
House Democratic leaders, meanwhile, faced backlash for reportedly deciding to punt a vote on an Iran war powers resolution until at least mid-April, even amid mounting evidence that the Trump administration is barreling headlong toward an illegal and potentially catastrophic ground assault.
"Congress is in session until Friday, after which they will go on a two-week recess," noted Nathan Thompson, senior policy adviser at Just Foreign Policy. "Trump has a well-documented pattern of escalating on Friday night, after the markets close. If House Democrats and [the House Foreign Affairs Committee] wait until after the recess, the damage could be done."
The Pentagon earlier this week ordered roughly 2,000 soldiers from the Army's 82nd Airborne Division to head to the Middle East. According to the US Central Command, more than 50,000 American troops are currently involved in the war on Iran.
During a briefing on Wednesday, a reporter noted to White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt that the 82nd Airborne Division is "typically deployed at the beginning of conflicts."
"Does the White House consider this conflict as wrapping up, or is it changing shape?" the reporter asked.
Leavitt responded that "the president likes to maintain options at his disposal."
Drop Site's Ryan Grim, citing an unnamed source, reported Thursday that "Naval Special Warfare teams were also given deployment orders yesterday, as well as a bunch of Tier 1 operators."
Taken together, Grim argued, recent developments suggest that "all the pieces are in place for a ground operation within a day."