

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 new Conservative and Liberal Democrat coalition government
should re-establish Britain's reputation as a champion of human rights
by opening a judicial inquiry into allegations of complicity in torture
and by affirming support for the Human Rights Act, Human Rights Watch
said today.
"The two parties in government have indicated they are in
substantial agreement on civil liberties," said Tom Porteous, London
director at Human Rights Watch. "They should translate that into
practice by making a clean break with the previous government's abusive
approach to counterterrorism and by strengthening the UK's role in
bringing to justice those responsible for international crimes at home
and abroad."
Allegations of complicity by UK intelligence services in the
kidnapping and torture of terrorism suspects, including UK nationals,
have badly damaged the UK's reputation as a nation that respects human
rights, Human Rights Watch said. The Parliamentary Joint Committee on
Human Rights (JCHR) and the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee
have both issued critical reports about this issue. The JCHR, the All
Party Parliamentary Group on Extraordinary Rendition, the Liberal
Democrat Party and several Conservative Members of Parliament have
called for a judicial inquiry.
"An abusive approach to counterterrorism is also a counterproductive
approach," Porteous said. "There's an urgent need to open a thorough
and rapid judicial inquiry into these allegations of torture. Anyone
found responsible for wrongdoing should be held accountable."
In opposition the Conservative and the Liberal Democrat parties both
called for a review of counterterrorism legislation. Human Rights Watch
urged the government make good on its promises of reform by allowing
the 28 days pre-charge detention power to lapse when it comes up for
annual renewal in July, and by committing itself in the first Queen's
speech to the repeal of the discredited system of control orders.
A comprehensive and speedy review of counterterrorism laws and
policies should include a reconsideration of the policy under which
terrorism suspects can be deported to countries where they risk being
tortured, Human Rights Watch said. Research by Human Rights Watch has
shown that the policy, known as "deportations with assurances,"
breaches the UK's human rights obligations.
Human Rights Watch also urged the incoming coalition government to
affirm its support for the Human Rights Act. Since it was introduced by
the Labour government in 1998, the Human Rights Act has delivered
practical benefits and protections against excessive state power.
However, it has come under sustained attack both from the media and
from politicians of the right and left since it was introduced in 1998.
The Liberal Democrat Party has supported the Human Rights Act, but the
Conservative Party pledged in its manifesto to replace it with a Bill
of Rights.
"The attacks on the Human Rights Act are mostly based on myths and
misconceptions," said Porteous. "The Act reflects long-standing
traditions on law in the UK, including the presumption of innocence,
the right to liberty, the right to a fair hearing and the prohibition
of torture. The new ministers should pledge to support the Human Rights
Act and govern according to its principles. Scrapping the Act would
signal that the UK was turning its back on human rights."
One achievement of UK policy under Labour was its support for
international criminal justice, including its support for the creation
of the International Criminal Court (ICC) in 2002. Human Rights Watch
urged the new government to reaffirm its support for the ICC and for
the broader principles of international justice that underpin it,
namely accountability for grave international crimes such as torture
and war crimes. There has been growing evidence during the past year of
torture, deaths and other serious abuses of detainees by British forces
during the occupation of Iraq.
The new government should ensure that British nationals or anyone in
British territory against whom there is evidence of responsibility for
international crimes are investigated and either prosecuted in British
courts or extradited to countries that will prosecute them. Currently
the Attorney General, a government minister, has the power to veto any
prosecution for international crimes.
"The UK needs to ensure that accountability for war crimes is not
just for a few African warlords and dictators," Porteous said. "The new
government should ensure that British police and prosecutors can and
will independently investigate and prosecute those responsible for
torture and other international crimes without interference from
ministers."
The UK has been considering proposals to curtail the authority of
British courts to issue arrest warrants initiated by private parties
under universal jurisdiction, the legal principle by which certain
crimes, including war crimes and crimes against humanity, can be
prosecuted in any jurisdiction. Human Rights Watch urged the government
to retain the right for private individuals to apply for such warrants,
which are only issued after a senior judge is satisfied that there is
credible evidence of wrongdoing, and which serve as an important
mechanism to allow prompt action when alleged war criminals are present
in the UK.
An important concern of UK voters during the election campaign was
immigration and asylum. But there has been little attention from
politicians or the media to the human rights costs of current UK
immigration and asylum policies. In particular, Human Rights Watch's
research has shown that the "Detained Fast Track" asylum procedure is
dysfunctional and unfit to deal with complex refugee claims that go
through it regularly. Human Rights Watch urged the new government to
reform this part of the asylum system in accordance with the right to a
full and fair examination of asylum claims, and to ensure that any
changes to the asylum system enhance access to protection for those
fleeing persecution overseas.
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.
Reps. Pramila Jayapal and Jonathan Jackson described Trump's blockade of the island as "effectively an economic bombing of the infrastructure of the country that has produced permanent damage."
After returning from a delegation trip to Cuba, US Reps. Pramila Jayapal and Jonathan Jackson on Sunday renewed calls for President Donald Trump to end his illegal fuel blockade of the island, which they described as "cruel collective punishment."
The pair of progressive lawmakers were the first to visit the island since Trump imposed the blockade in January in a bid to cripple the island's economy as part of an effort to overthrow its government, or, in the president's words, "take" the island.
Almost no oil has been allowed to enter for more than three months, which Jayapal (D-Wash.) and Jackson (D-Ill.) described as "effectively an economic bombing of the infrastructure of the country—that has produced permanent damage."
"We witnessed firsthand premature babies in incubators, weighing just two pounds, who are at tremendous risk because their ventilators and incubators cannot function without electricity," they said. "Children cannot attend school because there is no fuel for them or their teachers to travel. Cancer patients cannot receive lifesaving treatments because of a lack of medications."
"There is a water shortage because there is little electricity to pump water," they continued. "Businesses have closed. Families cannot keep food refrigerated, and food production on the island has dropped to just 10% of the people’s needs."
The oil blockade is an escalation of more than 60 years of punitive economic warfare by the US against Cuba, imposed through an embargo that has limited Cuba's ability to trade with the rest of the world and hampered its economic development to the tune of trillions of dollars.
Jayapal had previously visited Cuba in February 2024 on a trip with other members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. Since her last time in Havana, she said, "There's such a big difference."
"So many of the streets of this beautiful city were deserted. People were already lining up for food," she said in an interview with the Cuban outlet Belly of the Beast. "I don't think that any American wants to create this kind of devastation for the Cuban children, for the babies, for the moms, for the people."
She said the phrase "collective punishment," while accurate, almost felt "too technocratic" to describe what she witnessed.
"We are strangling the Cuban people," Jayapal said.
The United Nations General Assembly has voted 33 times to call for the end of the embargo since 1993.
In February, a group of UN experts condemned Trump's fuel blockade as "a serious violation of international law and a grave threat to a democratic and equitable international order" and an "extreme form of unilateral economic coercion."
Cuban President Miguel Diaz-Canel has acknowledged having talks with Trump in recent weeks in order to negotiate an end to the embargo and threats of further aggression.
The Cuban government has taken actions that the lawmakers described as "signs that Cuba is changing." It has released more than 2,000 prisoners, announced economic reforms to allow more involvement of American businesses, and allowed the FBI to investigate Cuban troops' lethal shooting of five armed Cuban exiles as they approached in a speedboat in February.
While hardly softening his threats to Cuba, which he continued to insist was “finished,” Trump last week allowed a Russian oil tanker to dock on the island without incident and deliver around 700,000 barrels of much-needed oil.
But the lawmakers said it's not enough. Jackson, noting the "generosity" of Cuba as a provider of medical treatment around the world, said the US must allow food and fuel to be allowed to return to the island "so that the Cuban people can continue to rise."
Jayapal said that when they spoke with Diaz-Canel, he expressed "a real desire for a real negotiation" with the US, but that he also expressed "sadness" and "frustration" at what was being done to his country.
"These kinds of sanctions, embargoes, they don't get to the government. They hurt the people," Jayapal said. "Perhaps the American people don't understand the violence of an economic sanction versus the violence of dropping a bomb."
Jackson—whose father, the late Rev. Jesse Jackson, took many trips to Cuba during his life—described America's treatment of the nation’s people as a “crucifixion.”
"Americans would not want to see what I saw in that hospital," Jackson said, describing a malnourished baby named Alejandro, whom he said was "fighting for life."
Due to the intermittent power surges caused by the lack of fuel, he said, "We didn't know when the incubator was going to start working."
"That's an act of war," he said. "We have to put an end to that."
He added that Secretary of State Marco Rubio, himself a Cuban-American who has long sought to bring about regime change, "should come before the Congress and explain his policy."
In late March, Jayapal introduced legislation that would block Trump from conducting military action against Cuba without congressional authorization. She said she'd continue to push for bills to block Trump from launching a war and to push for sanctions relief.
The Trump administration has portrayed its economic warfare as part of an effort to "liberate" the Cuban people from an oppressive government.
But the lawmakers, who met with wide swaths of Cuban society—including business and religious leaders, humanitarian groups, and civil society organizations—said that "Cubans across the political spectrum," including anti-government dissidents, expressed similar feelings.
"Across all sectors, there is agreement," they said. "This illegal blockade must end immediately."
Iran's first vice president called the attack a new "symbol of Trump's madness and ignorance."
A wave of US-Israeli airstrikes on Monday hit and extensively damaged Sharif University of Technology, a leading Iranian educational institution that is widely known as "the MIT of Iran" and seen as one of the world's top engineering schools.
The attack on the Tehran university—one of dozens of education sites bombed by the US and Israel since they launched their war on Iran in late February—sparked outrage inside Iran and around the world. Mohammad Reza Aref, an engineer currently serving as Iran's first vice president, said the attack on Sharif University "is a symbol of [US President Donald] Trump's madness and ignorance."
"He fails to understand that Iran's knowledge is not embedded in concrete to be destroyed by bombs; the true fortress is the will of our professors and elites," Aref wrote. "No barbarity in history has ever been able to strip science from the Iranian people. Science is rooted in our souls, and this fortress will not crumble."
The National Iranian American Council called the bombing "another outrageous, criminal act in an illegal war."
"This was a center of learning, not a military target," the group wrote on social media, highlighting video footage showing a building in ruins. "The increasing use of the Gaza playbook in Iran is deeply disturbing and will only deepen insecurity for the US and Israel. End this war."
US Rep. Yassamin Ansari (D-Ariz.), the lone Iranian American in Congress, noted that Sharif University has "produced a huge number of engineers who’ve gone on to Silicon Valley and founded some of the most successful American tech companies."
"Why are we bombing a university in a city of 10 million people?" Ansari asked.
Another outrageous, criminal act in an illegal war: U.S.-Israeli strikes have bombed one of the world’s most prestigious universities in Sharif University of Technology in Tehran. This was a center of learning, not a military target. The increasing use of the Gaza playbook in… pic.twitter.com/GE6J8WhgMC
— NIAC (@NIACouncil) April 6, 2026
Al Jazeera's Tohid Asadi reported from Tehran that the university was "severely hit, with extensive damage reported in the compound's mosque and laboratories."
Vira Ameli, an Iranian global health researcher and lecturer at the University of Oxford, decried the US-Israeli strike on Sharif University, where she spent time as a postdoctoral fellow.
"To wake to the news of this war crime, at a distance and unable to return, is difficult to articulate," Ameli wrote. "And yet history has made one thing clear: Iran is not a country undone by bombardment."
Iranian authorities say US-Israeli attacks have hit at least 30 of the nation's universities, including the Isfahan University of Technology and the Iran University of Science and Technology. The US and Israel have justified some of the attacks by claiming the universities were involved in military-related activities.
"Would American and Israeli leaders consider their own equivalent institutions fair game? Of course not," journalist Natasha Lennard wrote in a column for The Intercept last week. "By stated US and Israeli rationale, however, were Iran able to launch airstrikes on American soil, direct ties to the U.S. and Israeli military-industrial complex would make valid targets of at least the University of California, Berkeley; the Massachusetts Institute of Technology; and Johns Hopkins University, among dozens of other schools."
Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey said "bare due diligence" would have exposed ICE officers' falsehoods.
Video footage obtained by The New York Times has exposed lies told by two federal immigration enforcement agents about the circumstances leading up to a non-fatal shooting in Minneapolis that occurred on January 14.
According to a Monday report from the Times, the video directly contradicts claims made by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials that they were attacked by assailants armed with a shovel and a broom for around three minutes before the agents opened fire and wounded one of the attackers.
"Instead, the confrontation depicted in the video lasts about 12 seconds and shows two men struggling with the agent," reported the Times. "It shows no sustained attack with a shovel."
Federal prosecutors had initially pursued assault charges against Venezuelan national Julio Cesar Sosa-Celis, who was shot in the leg by the ICE officers during the January confrontation, and fellow Venezuelan national Alfredo Aljorna.
However, the government abruptly dropped charges against the two men in February, and ICE Acting Director Todd Lyons acknowledged that two federal officers appear “to have made untruthful statements” about the incident.
The Times noted that the government had access to the video of the shooting hours after it took place.
However, one source told the paper that prosecutors didn't watch the video until three weeks after they filed charges against Sosa-Celis and Aljorna, and instead relied on "the ICE agent’s statement and an FBI agent’s affidavit describing the footage."
This revelation prompted a rebuke from Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey, who told the Times that "bare due diligence would have shown that the agents were lying."
Trump administration officials have come under fire in recent weeks for lying about shootings involving federal immigration officials, such as when former US Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem falsely claimed that slain Minneapolis intensive care nurse Alex Pretti was aiming “to inflict maximum damage on individuals and to kill law enforcement."
In reality, video footage showed Pretti never drew his handgun during his confrontation with federal immigration officers, while also clearly showing that officers disarmed him before they opened fire.
Noem also falsely claimed that slain ICE observer Renee Good had attempted "an act of domestic terrorism" by trying to run over a federal immigration officer with her car, even though footage clearly showed Good turning her vehicle away from the officer in an attempt to get away from the scene.