

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.

Both national and southern Sudanese authorities should investigate human rights abuses connected to its April 2010 elections and bring to justice those responsible, Human Rights Watch said in a new report released today. Addressing the abuses is especially important as the country prepares for a referendum on self-determination in Southern Sudan, Human Rights Watch said.
The 32-page report, "Democracy on Hold: Rights Violations in the April 2010 Elections," documents numerous rights violations across Sudan by both northern and southern authorities in the period leading up to, during, and following the April elections. These abuses include restrictions on freedom of speech and assembly, particularly in northern Sudan, and widespread intimidation, arbitrary arrests, and physical violence against monitors and opponents of the incumbent parties by Sudanese security forces across the country. The report is based on research carried out between November 2009 and April 2010 in Khartoum and Southern Sudan.
"The national elections were an important milestone of the 2005 peace agreement, which was meant to pave the way forward for Sudan," said Rona Peligal, Africa director at Human Rights Watch. "But pushing the elections-related abuses under the rug would not bode well for the referendum coming up in January."
The 2005 Comprehensive Peace Agreement, which ended 22 years of civil war between northern and southern forces, called for Sudan to hold national elections and a referendum on southern self-determination. Southern Sudanese, including more than 1.5 million southerners living in Khartoum and northern states, will decide in the January 2011 vote whether to secede from the north.
Human Rights Watch called on the national unity government to enact genuine reforms called for in the peace agreement, including improvements to the national security apparatus. The national security law currently grants broad powers of search, seizure, and arrest, and allows for detention without judicial review for up to four and a half months, in violation of international law.
Human Rights Watch found that in the months leading up to the April elections the ruling National Congress Party suppressed peaceful assembly by opposition party members in the north and prevented free association and speech. During election week, there were fewer cases of such restrictions, but several cases of harassment, intimidation, and arrest of opposition members and elections observers.
In Southern Sudan, Human Rights Watch documented widespread intimidation, arbitrary arrest, detention, and mistreatment of opponents of the southern ruling Sudan People's Liberation Movement (SPLM), as well as of election observers and voters, throughout the elections process in several southern states.
In addition to these rights violations, serious irregularities in the conduct of the election - such as multiple voting, ballot-stuffing, and other acts of fraud - undermined their legitimacy.
On April 26, the elections commission declared both ruling parties the winners in their regions following the vote-counting. Omar al-Bashir, who is wanted by the International Criminal Court on charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity committed in Darfur, was re-elected president of the national unity government.
In the weeks following the April elections, Human Rights Watch documented a worsening human rights situation across Sudan, with renewed repression in the north, incidents of elections-related violence in the south, and ongoing conflict in Darfur.
Human Rights Watch also called on Sudan to cooperate with the International Criminal Court, as required under United Nations Security Council Resolution 1593.
"The elections were supposed to help expand democracy in Sudan, but they have had the opposite effect," Peligal said. "The electoral victory has essentially emboldened the ruling parties, particularly in the north, to crack down on opponents, activists, and journalists."
The post-election crackdown in Khartoum included the May 15 arrest and detention of the opposition figure Hassan al-Turabi and of journalists, the arrest of Darfuri students, and the resumption of pre-print censorship leading to the suspension of three newspapers.
In early June, security forces violently repressed a peaceful demonstration by Sudanese doctors striking for better wages and working conditions, and detained six doctors without charge until June 24, when the doctors called off the strike. Two of them were subjected to physical mistreatment by national security officials.
In Southern Sudan, simmering disputes over election results between the ruling party and independent candidates have led to clashes between armed forces. In Jonglei state, for example, forces loyal to General George Athor, who unsuccessfully ran for state governor, have clashed with the southern army on multiple occasions since the results were announced. Vote-rigging and intimidation during the elections have led to anger and frustration in the south.
In Darfur, where many communities boycotted the elections process, the Sudanese government continues to carry out armed attacks on rebel factions and civilians, using both aerial bombs and ground forces. In May, this violence caused the highest death tolls in two years.
"Democracy on Hold" also examines the reaction of the international community to the widespread abuses during the elections. The report highlights how political considerations related to efforts to carry out the 2005 agreement, in particular the referendum, have made many international actors reluctant to criticize Sudan's human rights record.
"Sudan's international partners have a critical role to play in urging Sudanese authorities to end impunity for abuses," Peligal said. "Timid silence on their part will both jeopardize the prospects for a peaceful and meaningful referendum and derail the democratic transformation envisioned by the peace agreement."
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.
"If the United States attacks another NATO country, everything stops," said Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen.
With the Trump administration signaling that its kidnapping of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro could be followed by more military actions in countries President Donald Trump has threatened in the past, the prime minister of Denmark on Monday said his continued threats, however outlandish, were being taken seriously by her government.
"Unfortunately, I think the American president should be taken seriously when he says he wants Greenland," Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen told Danish public broadcaster DR.
Frederiksen emphasized that Denmark and Greenland, which is autonomous but part of the Danish kingdom, are also resolute in their repeatedly stated opposition to Trump's goal of taking over the mineral-rich Arctic island nation, and their commitment to fighting back against any military action by the US.
"I have made it very clear where the kingdom of Denmark stands, and Greenland has repeatedly said that it does not want to be part of the United States," she added. "If the United States attacks another [North Atlantic Treaty Organization] country, everything stops."
On Sunday, Trump repeated that "we need Greenland from the standpoint of national security," drawing rebukes both from Frederiksen and the prime minister of Greenland, Jens-Frederik Nielsen, who called Trump's rhetoric about the country "completely unacceptable."
"Our country is not an object in the rhetoric of a superpower," said Nielsen in a social media post. "We are a people. A country. A democracy. That must be respected. Especially by close and loyal friends."
"Threats, pressure, and talk of annexation have no place between friends," he added. "This is not how you talk to a people who have repeatedly demonstrated responsibility, stability, and loyalty. Enough is enough. No more pressure. No more insinuations. No more fantasies about annexation."
Frederiksen and Nielsen's comments followed remarks from Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio about potential US interventions in a number of countries that the administration has previously threatened.
"Enough is enough. No more pressure. No more insinuations. No more fantasies about annexation."
Rubio told NBC's "Meet the Press" on Sunday that Cuba is "in a lot of trouble."
While declining to detail the White House's plans for the country, where the Cuban-American secretary of state has long advocated for regime change, Rubio said Cuba had been "propping up" Maduro before Saturday's military operation in which the US bombed Venezuela and arrested the president and his wife.
“If I lived in Havana and I was in the government, I’d be concerned," said Rubio.
The secretary of state echoed comments from Trump, who said soon after Maduro's capture that "Cuba is going to be something we’ll end up talking about."
"It’s very similar [to Venezuela] in the sense that we want to help the people in Cuba, but we want to also help the people that were forced out of Cuba and are living in this country," said Trump.
The president also expanded his threats in Latin America to Mexico and Colombia, whose leaders he accused of allowing the drug trade to flourish in their countries.
Trump accused Colombian President Gustavo Petro of having "cocaine mills."
"He’s making cocaine. They’re sending it into the United States. So he does have to watch his ass," Trump said, adding that a US military operation against Colombia "sounds good to me."
The Trump administration's claims that it aims to protect the US from drug trafficking have been central to its rapid escalation in Venezuela in recent months. While accusing Maduro, Petro, and Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum of allowing drugs to flow into the US, the president pardoned former Honduran President Juan Orlando Hernández, who was convicted to ensuring more than 400 tons of cocaine were sent to the US.
Petro responded Monday with a warning to Trump, should he carry out an operation like the kidnapping of Maduro.
“If you detain a president whom much of my people want and respect, you will unleash the people’s jaguar," said Petro.
In Denmark, the government was reportedly treating Trump's latest comments about the strategically located Greenland with urgency, with one official at the political risk consulting firm Eurasia Group writing in a LinkedIn post that "the Danish government is in full crisis mode."
"A possible US intervention in Greenland is now the biggest source of risk to the transatlantic alliance and intra-NATO and intra-EU cohesion, arguably far greater than those presented by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine," said Mujtaba Rahman, managing director for Europe at the Eurasia Group.
Other European leaders signaled their intention to come to the defense of Greenland and Denmark should Trump take military action against the Arctic island.
European Commission spokesperson Anitta Hipper said regarding Trump's latest comments that the European Union "will continue to uphold the principles of national sovereignty, territorial integrity, and the inviolability of borders and the [United Nations] Charter.”
British Prime Minister Keir Starmer also expressed support for Frederiksen's demand that Trump "stop the threats against a historically close ally and against another country and another people who have said very clearly that they are not for sale."
"I stand with her, and she’s right about the future of Greenland," Starmer told the Guardian on Monday. "Greenland and the kingdom of Denmark are to decide the future of Greenland, and only Greenland and the kingdom of Denmark."
But European leaders have been far more muted in their comments about the US military intervention that is already underway in a sovereign nation: Venezuela.
A spokesperson for 10 Downing Street suggested the UK would abstain in the UN Security Council vote on a resolution condemning the Venezuela attack, and declined to denounce Trump's threats against Cuba and Colombia.
German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said that "the legal assessment of the US intervention is complex," while EU foreign affairs chief Kaja Kallas called for "restraint" but noted that "the EU has repeatedly stated that Maduro lacks legitimacy."
The EU Green Party called on leaders in the bloc to "defend international law consistently."
French entrepreneur Arnaud Bertrand added that "when EU leaders legitimize what Trump did in Venezuela, they're preemptively justifying him taking over Greenland, as he keeps saying he will."
“None of these acts of brazen aggression, violence, and violations of international law have, in any sustained or meaningful way, been referred to as acts of war, a coup, or invasion in US mainstream media reporting."
By the time the Trump administration began its operation this weekend to illegally kidnap Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro before taking control of the country and its oil reserves, two of the United States’ most storied media outlets were well aware that the attack was about to happen.
According to a Saturday report from Semafor, “the New York Times and Washington Post learned of a secret US raid on Venezuela soon before it was scheduled to begin Friday night—but held off publishing what they knew to avoid endangering US troops, two people familiar with the communications between the administration and the news organizations said.”
Semafor wrote that the decision "to maintain official secrecy is in keeping with longstanding American journalistic traditions." But critics say it's part of a different tradition: One in which corporate media outlets act as dutiful stenographers for the US military establishment to help legitimize lawless, imperialist military adventures.
Prior to this weekend, the leading example of this deference was seen during the lead-up to then-President George W. Bush's war in Iraq, where legacy media outlets had been criticized for parroting the government's claims that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction, which turned out to be false.
In 2023, the 20-year anniversary of the invasion, which led to the deaths of an estimated half a million people, Adam Johnson wrote for the Real News Network that many of the journalists who pushed the lies that led to war—including the Atlantic's now-editor-in-chief Jeffrey Goldberg, the marquee MS NOW (formerly MSNBC) morning host Joe Scarborough, and New York nagazine and Atlantic contributor Jonathan Chait—never suffered career consequences for helping to midwife a historic foreign policy crime, and have since seen their careers blossom.
Johnson wrote in the Intercept on Sunday that the Western media's reaction to yet another regime change war in Venezuela has been similarly uncritical of the Trump administration's justifications, even as it states, overtly this time, that its primary aim is to commandeer another country's natural resources:
The administration invaded Venezuela’s sovereign territory, bombing several buildings, killing... its citizens, kidnapping Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife from their bed, and announcing they will, henceforth, "run" the country.
And yet none of these acts of brazen aggression, violence, and violations of international law have, in any sustained or meaningful way, been referred to as acts of war, a coup, or invasion in US mainstream media reporting.
He added that the media has spent months adopting a "pseudo-legal framing" of President Donald Trump's threats against Venezuela and his seizure of its oil tankers.
In particular, he noted that both the Times and CNN had referred to “international sanctions” against Venezuela, which are actually just US sanctions. The Times also cited a Navy lawyer who claimed that by stopping Venezuela from trading its oil by seizing its vessels, the US was enforcing the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, a convention that the US itself has not signed.
"It needed to feel vaguely rules-based and international-y, so unilateral US dictates were passed off as ersatz international law," Johnson wrote.
As numerous legal scholars have pointed out, Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter plainly states that "all members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations," making Trump's actions against Venezuela a blatant violation of the nation's sovereignty.
However, since Trump's invasion of Venezuela on Saturday, many media outlets have continued to adopt the dubious framing that US law, which has remained the Trump administration's sole justification for its kidnapping of Maduro—whom the Department of Justice indicted for alleged drug trafficking—somehow applies across borders and entitles the US to take over the country.
Assal Rad, a fellow at the Arab Center in Washington, DC and a frequent critic of US media coverage of foreign interventions, noted on social media that many outlets—including the Times, as well as Reuters, CNN, and the Associated Press—ran headlines framing the legality of Trump’s kidnapping of Maduro and subsequent assertion of authority to “run” the country as open questions.
"This framing is meant to cast doubt on the most basic principles of international law and sovereignty," Rad said.
Other outlets have simply denied that Trump's actions constituted acts of war at all. CBS News said the US had simply "ratcheted up" its "campaign" against Maduro. The Wall Street Journal used similar euphemistic language, describing it as a “pressure campaign” rather than a war. And others, including CNN, described the attack as a limited law enforcement "operation," rather than the opening salvo of what the White House itself has suggested may be a years-long project of ruling Venezuela for the purpose of converting it into a client state.
While the New York Times editorial board has since criticized Trump's action in Venezuela as "illegal and unwise," the Washington Post's editorial board—which was given a directive by its billionaire owner, Amazon founder Jeff Bezos earlier this year to use its pages to promote "free markets," issued unconditional support for Trump's attack and plans to govern Venezuela on Saturday, calling it a "triumph" and a "a major victory for American interests."
Other outlets have given explicit directives to use whitewashed language to refer to the US's unilateral snatching of Maduro.
Owen Jones, an independent British journalist and columnist, reported that the BBC had directed reporters not to refer to Maduro—who was whisked away in the dead of night by US soldiers along with his wife and shown bound and blindfolded by the US government—as having been “kidnapped” by the US, but rather “seized” or “captured.”
According to Johnson, CBS News editor-in-chief Bari Weiss, who has previously spiked stories damaging to the Trump administration at the behest of the network's new owners, directed the network's newly installed "Evening News" anchor to always refer to Maduro as a "dictator," echoing the government's line.
Johnson pointed out that the owner of CBS, Trump-aligned billionaire David Ellison, “recently partnered with Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates” as part of his bid to take over CBS parent company Paramount, “so rest assured these dictatorships will not be getting the label.”
The New York Times has since updated the death toll from Trump's bombing of Caracas and other sites in Venezuela to at least 80 civilians and military personnel.
Sarah Lazare, an investigative reporter for Workday magazine, questioned why the Times and Post were concerned with the safety of US personnel, but "the danger posed to the Venezuelans killed in the bombing did not enter into the equation" when they decided to keep the story from public view until after the damage was done.
"This kind of fealty to perceived US interests is so ordinary because it's rewarded—it's the surest way to rise as a foreign policy reporter," Lazare added. "Makes me think of all the Iraq War cheerleaders who failed upward, now helm major news outlets, and narrate the events unfolding today. Being wrong about WMDs, being on the wrong side of history, did not hurt them professionally, and probably helped."
"I will fight this with everything I've got," Sen. Mark Kelly said, slamming Pete Hegseth as "the most unqualified secretary of defense in our country's history."
On the heels of the Trump administration abducting Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on Monday announced a move to reduce Sen. Mark Kelly's retirement pay over a video in which the Arizona Democrat reminded service members of their duty not to obey illegal orders.
The retired Navy captain is the only veteran in the November video still subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice—which, as he and the other former military and intelligence community members highlighted, does require active-duty troops to refuse to follow illegal orders.
President Donald Trump swiftly lashed out over the video—released as his administration continued bombing alleged drug smuggling boats and ramped up threats against Venezuela—by accusing the six Democrats of "SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH!" Hegseth launched a probe into Kelly and threatened to call him back to active duty to face a court-martial.
Describing the fact-based recording as "a reckless and seditious video that was clearly intended to undermine good order and military discipline," Hegseth said on social media Monday that Department of Defense is attempting to reduce Kelly's retirement pay and "has also issued a formal letter of censure."
"These actions are based on Captain Kelly's public statements from June through December 2025 in which he characterized lawful military operations as illegal and counseled members of the Armed Forces to refuse lawful orders," Hegseth added, noting that the senator has 30 days to appeal the decision and the case should be finalized within 45 days.
According to Politico: "Kelly receives about $6,000 a month in military retirement pay, based on his 25 years of military service and his rank as a Navy Captain. A reduction in rank, from O-6 to O-5, could cost him about $1,000 a month in payouts."
Kelly—also a former astronaut—responded with a lengthy statement on social media Monday:
Over 25 years in the US Navy, 39 combat missions, and four missions to space, I risked my life for this country and to defend our Constitution–including the First Amendment rights of every American to speak out. I never expected that the president of the United States and the secretary of defense would attack me for doing exactly that.
My rank and retirement are things that I earned through my service and sacrifice for this country. I got shot at. I missed holidays and birthdays. I commanded a space shuttle mission while my wife Gabby recovered from a gunshot wound to the head—all while proudly wearing the American flag on my shoulder. Generations of service members have made these same patriotic sacrifices for this country, earning the respect, appreciation, and rank they deserve.
Pete Hegseth wants to send the message to every single retired service member that if they say something he or Donald Trump doesn't like, they will come after them the same way. It's outrageous and it is wrong. There is nothing more un-American than that.
If Pete Hegseth, the most unqualified secretary of defense in our country's history, thinks he can intimidate me with a censure or threats to demote me or prosecute me, he still doesn't get it. I will fight this with everything I've got—not for myself, but to send a message back that Pete Hegseth and Donald Trump don't get to decide what Americans in this country get to say about their government.
Others also jumped to his defense, including Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), who said: "Mark Kelly is a hero and a patriot committed to serving the American people. Pete Hegseth is a lap dog committed to serving one man—Donald Trump. This is a despicable act of political retribution. I stand with Sen. Kelly, who will always do the right thing no matter the consequences."
Kelly and the other video participants—Democratic Sen. Elissa Slotkin (Mich.) and Reps. Jason Crow (Colo.), Chris Deluzio (Pa.), Maggie Goodlander (NH), and Chrissy Houlahan (Pa.)—also face a probe by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.