

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.

United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and key international actors should take steps to bring accountability for Sri Lanka's grave human rights violations so that the thousands of victims will not continue to be denied justice during President Mahinda Rajapaksa's second term, Human Rights Watch said today.
The human rights situation in Sri Lanka deteriorated markedly during Rajapaksa's first term, and he failed to hold perpetrators accountable. During the final months of the 26-year-long war with the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), which ended with the defeat of the LTTE in May 2009, both government and LTTE forces committed numerous serious violations of international humanitarian law, in which more than 7,000 civilians died in what the UN called a "bloodbath."
"The human rights situation in Sri Lanka plummeted to new depths on Rajapaksa's watch," said Brad Adams, Asia director at Human Rights Watch. "The president deftly played a false conflict between rights and the fight against terrorism in his first term. But with the war over, the UN and other international actors should loudly insist on justice for victims."
Rajapaksa was elected to a second term on January 26, 2010, in a hotly contested election in which his former army chief, retired Gen. Sarath Fonseka, was the runner-up. Although election day was relatively peaceful, according to election monitors, the campaign was marked by hundreds of incidents of violence in which at least four people were killed.
During and after the war, Rajapaksa's government confined nearly 300,000 internally displaced persons to large detention camps, where they were deprived of their liberty and freedom of movement in violation of international law. The government has separated more than 11,000 LTTE suspects from their families at checkpoints and in the camps, denying them due process, such as right to legal counsel and the right to have a court review their detention.
Threats and attacks against outspoken and critical civil society figures increased, and the government used anti-terror laws and emergency regulations against peaceful critics, further diminishing the space for public debate. The hostile, sometimes deadly, media environment drove dozens of journalists into exile.
Enforced disappearances and abductions, a longstanding and widespread problem in Sri Lanka, sharply increased in 2006, when military operations between the government and the LTTE intensified following the collapse of the 2002 ceasefire. In 2006 and 2007, the UN Working Group on Enforced and Involuntary Disappearances recorded more new "disappearance" cases from Sri Lanka than from any other country in the world.
Politically motivated killings during Rajapaksa's first term also remain unresolved, including the extrajudicial executions of five students in Trincomalee in January 2006 and of 17 aid workers with Action Contre la Faim in Mutur in August 2006.
Rajapaksa took no effective steps to bring accountability for human rights violations, Human Rights Watch said. In July 2009, Rajapaksa disbanded, before it could complete its work, a presidential commission of inquiry created in 2006 to investigate 16 cases of grave human rights violations. In April 2008, the International Independent Group of Eminent Persons (IIGEP) had withdrawn from monitoring the commission because it had "not been able to conclude ... that the proceedings of the Commission have been transparent or have satisfied basic international norms and standards."
The vast majority of the hundreds of new "disappearances" and politically motivated killings from the past few years have never been seriously investigated, and none of the perpetrators have been punished.
In May 2009 Rajapaksa promised Ban that the Sri Lankan government would investigate allegations of human rights and laws-of-war violations during the war's final months. No such investigation has taken place. Instead, the government has set up a team of lawyers to respond to allegations about rights violations in reports by the US State Department and the UN special envoy on extrajudicial executions.
Because of the government's failure to investigate serious human rights abuses, Human Rights Watch has long called for an independent international investigation into abuses by all parties to the conflict. Thus far, the secretary-general's office has stated that Ban was "considering" establishing a committee of experts to "assist the government" of Sri Lanka to look at evidence that its soldiers committed war crimes last year. "The various investigatory bodies set up by President Rajapaksa have spent more energy trying to deflect serious inquiries into abuses than actually conducting them," Adams said. "Ban and key governments should not fall for the same trick again and instead should call for an independent international investigation. The ball is now in Ban's court."
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.
"Congress must do the right thing by voting to stop this obvious catastrophe."
President Donald Trump's invasion of Venezuela is generating fresh calls for his impeachment and removal from office.
Shortly after the US military bombed the Venezuelan capital of Caracas and abducted Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, many experts on international law argued that the president's actions were completely illegal.
In an interview with the New Yorker's Isaac Chotiner, Yale Law School professor Oona Hathaway said that she didn't believe there "is a legal basis for what we’re seeing in Venezuela," while adding that the arguments the Trump administration will likely make simply "don't hold water."
For instance, Hathaway noted that while the United Nations charter allows nations to use military force in self-defense against military aggression, the administration's claims that attacking Maduro was a defensive measure intended to stop the flow of illegal drugs into the US was completely outside the scope of traditional self-defense.
"If drug trafficking is a reasonable justification, then a whole range of possible arguments can be made that basically mean that self-defense is no longer a real exception," she argued. "It’s the new rule. Why couldn’t you make the same argument about communicable diseases? There’s bird flu coming from a country, and therefore we have a legal justification for the use of military force. Once we start going down that road, the idea that there’s any limit evaporates."
Hathaway also said that Trump's militaristic ambitions seem to have grown throughout his second term, and she warned they could lead to a long and bloody US military occupation of Venezuela.
"In his press conference, Trump said that the United States would 'run the country,'" she said. "And he made it clear that he was not 'afraid' to put boots on the ground—for years, if necessary... it’s nothing like anything Trump has done before today. His previous illegal uses of force were all over shortly after they began. The scale of the operation that will be required is massive, and it means putting US soldiers at long-term risk."
Harvard Law School professor Jack Goldsmith wrote a lengthy analysis after the attack on Venezuela and also concluded that it violated the UN charter. What's more, Goldsmith argued that Trump's state plan to seize Venezuela's oil would likely run afoul of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which limits actions that occupying powers can take on the countries they are overseeing.
"There are a lot of international law rules and restrictions that purport to govern what the United States can do as an occupying power," he explained. "I don’t have space here to review them, but suffice it to say that these rules will touch on President Trump’s stated aim of 'tak[ing] back the oil' and 'get[ting] reimbursed.' We will see if the administration takes these rules seriously."
Many Trump critics also argued that, legality aside, toppling a foreign head of state and vowing to seize their nation's natural resources was morally wrong and deserving of impeachment.
"This is the behavior of a mob boss—but with nuclear weapons and the world's strongest military," argued Zeteo editor-in-chief Medhi Hassan. "None of this is legal. Trump should be impeached by Congress and indicted at The Hague."
Leah Greenberg, co-founder and co-executive director of Indivisible, denounced Trump's attack on Venezuela as "wildly illegal, immoral, and irresponsible," and urged the US Congress to exercise its powers to stop the president from further escalation.
"The power to declare war belongs to Congress and the American people," Greenberg said. "Trump has once again taken power that's not his. He is attempting to drag the country into war by decree, all while treating the presidency like a throne. Congress must act immediately to stop these illegal strikes and hold the Trump regime accountable. No Kings, No War."
Cavan Kharrazian, senior policy adviser for Demand Progress, demanded congressional action to "stop this reckless, unconstitutional act of war."
"We have seen what happens when the White House invents a pretext to launch a regime change war with an oil-rich nation: disaster and suffering for innocent civilians, our troops and their families, all while costing the American taxpayer a fortune as well," said Kharrazian. "Congress must do the right thing by voting to stop this obvious catastrophe."
Kat Abughazaleh, a Democratic candidate for US Congress in Illinois, wrote on Bluesky that the time for Democratic politicians to issue mealy-mouthed statements about Trump's actions was over.
"Democrats need to grow a fucking spine," she wrote. "No more strongly worded letters. It’s time to draft articles of impeachment. Impeach. Convict. Remove."
Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) also demanded that members of his party take a strong stance against Trump's illegal Venezuela attack.
"The silence from many media-hyped 2028 contenders today is shocking," he wrote on X. "If you cannot oppose this regime change war for oil, you don't have the moral clarity or guts to lead our party or nation."
"I can’t begin to tell you how insane this is," said one critic. "He did not inform Congress but he’s saying he informed the oil companies."
President Donald Trump on Sunday told reporters that the heads of American oil companies were informed of the US military's attack on Venezuela—described as "brazenly illegal" by scholars and experts—even before it took place.
Trump's admission, a renowned liar, sparked condemnation because the administration refused to consult with US lawmakers about the operation, citing fears of a leak that would compromise operational security.
"Before and after," Trump told reporters aboard Air Force One on Sunday when asked if he'd spoken with oil executives or perhaps "tipped them off" about the operation. "They want to go in, and they're going to do a great job for the people of Venezuela."
Reporter: Did you speak with the oil companies before the operation? Did you tip them off?
Trump: Before and after. They want to go in and they’re going to do a great job. pic.twitter.com/zxOG648Ww0
— Acyn (@Acyn) January 5, 2026
Trump's remarks were condemned by those critical of the president's actions in recent days, including his failure to consult with or seek authorization from Congress.
"I can’t begin to tell you how insane this is," said Fred Wellman, an Army combat veteran now running for Congress as a Democrat in Missouri. "He did not inform Congress, but he’s saying he informed the oil companies."
"Keep in mind who he means," Wellman added. "The billionaire mega donor that just got control of Citgo. Our service members were used directly to move the interests of Trump’s donors."
"The oil companies were notified before Congress," said Melanie D'Arrigo, executive director of the Campaign for New York Health. "This is what an authoritarian oligarchy looks like."
Rep. Yassamin Ansari (D-Ariz.) echoed that statement. "The oil companies were informed about an act of war before it happened, Congress was not. That, my friends, is what an authoritarian regime run by oligarchs looks like."
Asked repeatedly during his exchange with reporters about whether "free and fair" elections were a priority for Venezuela, Trump said the country was a "mess"—calling it a "dead country"—and that priority would be on getting the oil flowing.
"We're gonna have the big oil companies go in, and they're gonna fix the infrastructure, and they're going to invest money. We're not going to invest anything; we're gonna just take care of the country," Trump said. "We're gonna cherish the country."
When asked which oil companies he spoke with, Trump said, "All of them, basically," though he did not mention which ones specifically by name.
"They want to go in so badly," the president claimed.
Despite Trump's remarks, oil industry experts have said it's not nearly so clear-cut that oil majors in the US will want to re-enter the Venezuela oil market—or be tasked with funding a significant rebuild of the nation's oil infrastructure—given the political uncertainty unleashed by Trump's unlawful military operation and the kidnapping of Venezuela President Nicolas Maduro.
"The issue is not just that the infrastructure is in bad shape, but it's mostly about how do you get foreign companies to start pouring money in before they have a clear perspective on the political stability, the contract situation, and the like," Francisco Monaldi, director of the Latin American energy program at Rice University, told NPR.
The infrastructure investments alone are huge, even under normal political circumstances.
"The estimate is that in order for Venezuela to increase from one million barrels per day—that is what it produces today—to four million barrels, it will take about a decade and about a hundred billion dollars of investment," Monaldi said.
In an interview with The New Yorker over the weekend, Oona Hathaway, a professor at Yale Law School and the director of its Center for Global Legal Challenges, said there is absolutely no legal justification for Trump's assault on Venezuela or the kidnapping of Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores.
"I don’t think there is a legal basis for what we’re seeing in Venezuela," Hathaway said. "There are certainly legal arguments that the Administration is going to make, but all the arguments that I’ve heard so far don’t hold water. None of them really justify what the President seems to have ordered to take place in Venezuela."
In a statement on Saturday, Elizabeth Bast, executive director of Oil Change International, said Trump's assault on Venezuela "defies the US Constitution’s delegation of Congress’s war-making authority and disregards international rules that prevent acts of war without debate or authorization. The US must stop treating Latin America as a resource colony. The Venezuelan people, not US oil executives, must shape their country’s future."
As Trump and other members of the administration continued to threaten other countries in the region—including Mexico, Colombia, and Cuba—Zeteo editor-in-chief Mehdi Hasan said, "This is the behavior of a mob boss—but with nuclear weapons and the world's strongest military. None of this is legal. Trump should be impeached by Congress and indicted at The Hague."
"This is militarized authoritarianism," said one advocacy group. "We must act to stop it now, before it spreads to enflame the entire region, if not the entire globe, in a dangerous, unnecessary conflict."
Protests broke out at US diplomatic outposts across the globe Saturday and Sunday following the Trump administration's deadly attack on Venezuela and abduction of the nation's president, brazen violations of international law that—according to the American president—were just the start of a sustained intervention in Venezuela's politics and oil industry.
Demonstrators took to the streets of Brussels, Madrid, Ankara, Mexico City, Los Angeles, and other major cities worldwide to voice opposition to the US assault on Venezuela and Trump administration officials' pledge to "run" the country's government for an unspecified period of time, a plan that Venezuelan leaders have publicly met with defiance.
The US Mission to Mexico—one of several Latin American countries Trump threatened in the aftermath of the attack on Venezuela—warned in an alert issued Saturday that "a protest denouncing US actions against Venezuela continues to take place in front of the US Embassy in the Polanco neighborhood of Mexico City."
"Protestors have thrown rocks and painted vandalism on exterior walls," the alert read. "Social media posts about the protest have included anti-American sentiment. Embassy personnel have been advised to avoid the area."





The global demonstrations came as some world leaders, including top European officials, faced backlash for failing to adequately condemn—or condemn at all—the US attack on Venezuela and continued menacing of a sovereign nation.
Ursula von der Leyen, president of the European Commission, said she supports "a peaceful and democratic transition," without mentioning or denouncing the illegal abduction of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and US bombings that reportedly killed at least 40 people, including civilians.
Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis declared that "this is not the time to comment on the legality of the recent actions" as protesters gathered in Athens in opposition to the US assault.
"If you still believe that the European Union cares about international law, then look no further," wrote Progressive International co-general coordinator David Adler, pointing to Mitsotakis' statement.
"We are outraged, but this moment demands more than outrage. It demands organized, coordinated resistance."
Mass protests and demands for international action to halt US aggression proliferated amid ongoing questions about how the Trump administration intends to carry out its stated plan to control Venezuela and exploit its oil reserves—objectives that experts say would run afoul of domestic and international law.
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who played a central role in planning the Venezuela attack and has been chosen by Trump to manage the aftermath, said Sunday that the administration intends to keep in place a military "quarantine" around the South American nation—including the massive naval force amassed in the Caribbean in recent months—to pressure the country's leadership to bow to US demands.
"That's a tremendous amount of leverage that will continue to be in place until we see changes, not just to further the national interest of the United States, which is number one, but also that lead to a better future for the people of Venezuela," Rubio said in a television interview.
Rubio also suggested the president could deploy US troops to Venezuela and dodged questions about the legal authority the Trump administration has to intervene in the country. The administration has not sought congressional authorization for any of its attacks on vessels in the Caribbean or Venezuela directly.
US Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas), chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, said Sunday that "in recent history, we've tried 'running' multiple countries in Latin America and the Middle East. It's been a disaster for us, and for them, every single time."
"Congress must pass a War Powers Resolution to get our military back to defending the US, instead of 'running' Venezuela," Casar added.
Progressive Democrats of America echoed that demand, saying in a statement that "this is militarized authoritarianism."
"We must act to stop it now, before it spreads to enflame the entire region, if not the entire globe, in a dangerous, unnecessary conflict," the group added. "We are outraged, but this moment demands more than outrage. It demands organized, coordinated resistance."