February, 04 2011, 01:05pm EDT

Tunisia: Prison Visit Ends 20-Year Ban
Government Should Ease Overcrowding, Let Families Visit Death Row Inmates
WASHINGTON
Tunisia's interim government should ease overcrowding and reverse a
policy imposed more than 15 years ago to deny inmates facing the death
penalty any contact with their families, Human Rights Watch said today.
Human Rights Watch made the requests to the new justice minister, Lazhar
Karoui Chebbi, after visiting two Tunisian prisons. The visits ended a
20-year ban on access to Tunisian prisons by human rights organizations.
On February 2, 2011, the two-member Human Rights Watch delegation
visited Bourj er-Roumi, a large prison complex near the city of Bizerte
where there was an inmate mutiny as the previous government fell. The
delegation visited Mornaguia Prison, Tunisia's biggest facility, on
February 1. The researchers interviewed prisoners in private, including
two facing the death penalty who had been deprived of all contact with
their family, one for three years and the other for 10.
The events that occurred at Bourj er-Roumi will be the subject of a separate communique.
"By granting us access, Tunisia's transitional government has
taken a step toward transparency in its prison operations that we hope
will continue and extend to local organizations," said Eric Goldstein,
deputy Middle East and North Africa director at Human Rights Watch. "The
transitional government also needs to break with the inhumane treatment
of prisoners practiced by the ousted government."
As an immediate step, Human Rights Watch said, the transitional
government should allow Tunisia's 140 death-row prisoners to receive
family visits like other prisoners. The transitional government should
also allow prisoners confined to severely overcrowded cells more time
outside them each day, Human Rights Watch said.
A Justice Ministry official told Human Rights Watch that prior to
President Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali's ouster, Tunisia, a country of 10.5
million inhabitants, had 31,000 prisoners. It was the highest per capita
prison population of any country in the Middle East and North Africa
except Israel, according to the International Centre for Prison Studies.
One of the first promises made on behalf of the transitional
government by Prime Minister Mohamed Ghannouchi was an imminent amnesty
for all political prisoners. However, a draft law approved by the
cabinet has yet to become law. In the meantime, the judiciary has
granted conditional release or pre-trial provisional release to about
half of Tunisia's more than 500 political prisoners.
Access to Tunisia's Prisons
The Tunisian Human Rights League was the last independent human
rights organization to visit a Tunisian prison, in 1991. But the
government ended the group's visits shortly after it began.
Ben Ali's government promised
on April 19, 2005, to give Human Rights Watch prompt access to prisons.
Five-and-a-half years later, negotiations on the terms of the visits had gone nowhere.
The government set what Human Rights Watch considered unreasonable
conditions for the visits and failed to respond to counter-proposals.
Tunisia has allowed regular visits since 2005 by the
International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), a humanitarian
organization that - in contrast to organizations like Human Rights Watch
- does not make its findings public but instead presents reports to the
ministries in charge. The ICRC visits Tunisia's prisons, which are
administered by the Justice Ministry, as well as the official
pre-arraignment detention centers (garde a vue) administered by the Interior Ministry.
Prison Visits for Death Row Inmates
A Justice Ministry official told Human Rights Watch that Tunisia has
about 140 prisoners facing the death penalty, half of them in Mornaguia
Prison, 14 kilometers west of Tunis. The previous government retained
the death penalty in law, but has practiced a de facto moratorium on
executions since 1994, meaning some inmates have been on death row for
more than 15 years.
The prison administration decided in the mid-1990s to deny death row
inmates any contact with family members. All other prisoners have been
allowed brief weekly visits from family members and may also correspond
with them. This policy also deprives death row prisoners of the
home-cooked meals and fruit that families are allowed to deliver to
other prisoners regularly. Prison staff privately expressed frustration
about this policy to Human Rights Watch, saying it complicates their job
of managing a uniquely challenging group of inmates.
This policy apparently has no basis in any publicly issued directive,
Human Rights Watch said. It violates Tunisia's Law 2001-52, of May 14,
2001, Governing Prisons, which gives all prisoners without distinction
the right to visits by their relatives "according to the laws in effect"
and to exchange correspondence with them "via the administration"
(article 18 (2) and (3)).
Tunisia's government should move to abolish the death penalty as a
punishment that is inherently cruel and inhuman. Such a measure, if
passed, should also immediately result in the commutation of the
sentences of those condemned to die.
"Tunisia should abolish the death penalty first and foremost, but in
any event, it should immediately give prisoners on death row the same
rights to family visits and correspondence as other prisoners" Goldstein
said.
Prison Conditions
The Human Rights Watch visits to Mornaguia and Bourj er-Roumi prisons
each lasted seven hours, enough time for only initial impressions, Human
Rights Watch said. To make a thorough evaluation and accurately
prioritize the needs and problems of the prison population would require
repeat visits to men's, women's, and juvenile detention centers by a
delegation with medical expertise, and further interviews with staff,
prisoners, their families, and former prisoners.
In Mornaguia, however, the delegation observed severe overcrowding in
the larger cells and inadequate opportunities for physical activity.
Most of the prisoners are held in poorly ventilated group cells of
about 50 square meters, each with about 40 prisoners. The high-ceilinged
rooms have rows of barely separated double-and triple-decker beds
against the side walls and a passageway less than two meters wide down
the middle, leading to toilets set apart from the main room by a wall
but no door. There is no room for tables or chairs.
Confined in rooms with far less than 1.5 square meters per person,
prisoners have no space for exercise. The majority neither work nor
receive vocational training and are only allowed to leave their cells
twice a day for periods of 45 to 60 minutes and for weekly showers and
weekly family visits. They eat in the cells, sitting on their beds and
storing food on the floor or on a ledge above the beds. The outdoor
courtyard Human Rights Watch visited where prisoners go when they are
allowed out of their cells was cramped, damp, draped with prisoner
laundry, and too small to permit exercise.
The cramped conditions appear to constitute inhumane and degrading treatment, Human Rights Watch said.
Interviews with former prisoners and some in these prisons who have
served time in other prisons in Tunisia confirm that these crowded
conditions in large group cells are the norm for most inmates in prisons
around the country. They also said that the crowding and overall
conditions were harsher in the 1990s than today.
International human rights instruments provide no single norm for the
amount of living space that prisoners should have. One standard,
recommended by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture, is a
minimum space per prisoner of four square meters. In any event, for
prisoners confined to cramped quarters, having more time outside the
cell makes the crowding easier to endure.
Each inmate had his own bed in the rooms visited by Human Rights
Watch. However, inmates said that there have been periods when some
inmates lacked their own beds and slept on the floor.
The reduction of the prison population since Ben Ali's departure
should ease overcrowding. Other policy options that could also ease
overcrowding include implementation of the amnesty for political
prisoners, encouraging judges to hand out alternative sentences where
appropriate and to consider the capacity of the prison system to absorb
new prisoners when issuing sentences, paroling prisoners before the
completion of their term, and the construction of additional cells.
These options, however, require a public debate and in some cases
sizable budgetary allocations, Human Rights Watch said.
A comparatively easy and low-cost measure to alleviate overcrowding
in the short-term would be to allow prisoners additional daily time
outside their cells, Human Rights Watch said. The measure would require
additional staff time and the necessary logistical arrangements, but
would constitute a meaningful interim step until the government is able
to ensure that prisoners have adequate living space.
Political Prisoners
The Justice Ministry said that at the time the transitional government
took office, slightly more than 500 prisoners were being held for
politically motivated offenses. The number was close to the estimate
given by the International Association for Solidarity with Political
Prisoners, an independent Tunisian human rights organization.
About 150 remain incarcerated, 87 serving sentences under the
anti-terrorism law and another 56 awaiting trial, according to a Justice
Ministry official. A few additional prisoners are serving politically
motivated sentences not under the anti-terrorism law but under the
ordinary penal code or military law.
During the events surrounding the president's ouster, 11,029
prisoners escaped, of whom 2,425 had voluntarily surrendered as of
February 3, a Justice Ministry official said. Since then, the judiciary
has used its prerogative under the law to release conditionally 3,240
criminal prisoners, some of them first-time offenders who had served
half their sentences and others who are recidivists and who were
eligible for release after having served two-thirds of their sentences.
A Justice Ministry official said that 128 prisoners convicted under
Tunisia's 2003 anti-terrorism law were among those who escaped and that
they have been urged to return to custody. Another 177 serving sentences
under the anti-terrorism law were among those released conditionally
and another 100 facing trial under that law were freed provisionally.
The escapes and releases have cut Tunisia's prison population by more
than one-third in three weeks. This has reduced overcrowding, but less
than might be expected because the severe damage inflicted during the
recent events on some prisons, including Bourj er-Roumi, Monastir, and
Kasserine, has reduced the number of available beds and led to massive
transfers to other prisons.
The Anti-Terrorism Law
Nearly all of those still in detention for politically motivated
offenses were convicted under the anti-terrorism law. Among this
population, almost none were convicted in connection with specific
terrorist acts or possession of weapons or explosives. Instead, they
were charged with such offenses as "membership in a terrorist
organization," planning to join jihadists in Iraq or Somalia, recruiting
others for that purpose, or of having knowledge of crimes and failing
to notify the police.
Only two prisoners from the banned Islamist Nahdha party
remain in prison: Ali Farhat, 52, and Ali Abdallah Saleh Harrabi, 53,
both from the southern city of Douz. Like the majority of Nahdha members
imprisoned in the past, they were convicted of nonviolent offenses such
as membership in, or collecting funds for, an "unrecognized"
association, and attending "unauthorized" meetings. Human Rights Watch
met both men at Mornaguia, where they are serving sentences of about six
months.
Allegations of Torture, Unfair Trials
Those imprisoned under the anti-terrorism law, practically
without exception, gave more emphasis in their interviews this week to
the conditions they endured while in garde a vue detention at
the Ministry of Interior in Tunis than to their post-conviction
conditions in prison. They said that while they were held incommunicado
in the Interior Ministry, officers in street clothes beat or otherwise
tortured them into confessing and/or signing a statement that they were
prevented from reading.
At their trials they repudiated their statements, they said. Those
who said they had raised the allegations of torture got no response from
the court, which ended up convicting them. In most cases, these
detainees said that Judge Mehrez Hammami had presided over their trial.
Hammami, who gained a reputation for his record in convicting people
charged with politically motivated offenses, has reportedly been
transferred since Ben Ali's departure from the courtroom to a research
post in the Justice Ministry.
The allegations of torture and unfair trials raise questions about
the disposition of current prisoners who are not released under any
eventual amnesty law and who claim they were convicted on the basis of
confessions extracted through torture, or who otherwise claim to have
been the victims of patently unfair trials, Human Rights Watch said.
Given the routine practice of torture and of the multiple violations
of the rights of defendants to a fair trial under the prior government,
the transitional government should ensure there are effective appeal
mechanisms for prisoners who believe they were unfairly excluded from
the amnesty, Human Rights Watch said.
The Prison Visits
The Mornaguia administration imposed no obstacles to Human
Rights Watch interviews with three prisoners whose names it had
submitted in advance and four others it had selected on the spot. They
included four sentenced for politically motivated offenses and three for
ordinary criminal offenses. The prisoners chose the interview locations
and were told they could decline.
Bourj er-Roumi is one of several prisons where there was severe
violence in the days surrounding the ouster of Ben Ali, costing the
lives of 2 guards and 72 prisoners, including 48 in a fire in Monastir
Prison, according to the Ministry of Justice. At Bourj er-Roumi, on
January 14, prisoners broke down the doors of their cells and set fire
to them. The facility's administration says that guards shot dead ten
prisoners before order was restored three days later. Another died of a
heart attack and a twelfth died at the hands of other prisoners.
Human Rights Watch will publish a separate communique about the events at Bourj er-Roumi prison.
Given the recent violence, the atmosphere was far tenser at Bourj
er-Roumi. The Human Rights Watch visitors were accompanied to the
cellblocks by armed soldiers and large numbers of officials. The prison
was just beginning to repair the damage, so it was not possible to
assess normal conditions there, even preliminarily. Four prisoners at
Bourj er-Roumi agreed to speak individually to Human Rights Watch in a
private office and appeared to speak candidly. Three others declined to
be interviewed.
Imed Dridi, Mornaguia's director, said the prison was built in 2006
to accommodate 4,600 prisoners. It held 5,200 prisoners at the end of
2010 and now holds about 4,900, all adult men. The population includes
both pre-trial and convicted prisoners.
Hilmi ech-Cherif, Bourj er-Roumi director, said the prison, built
during the French colonial era, now has 1,429 prisoners, about half the
population it had before the mutiny. The other prisoners were either
released or transferred to other prisons; 12 died in the mutiny, as
noted above.
Human Rights Watch thanked the prisoners and administration of
Mornaguia and Bourj er-Roumi prisons for their willingness to receive
and speak to the delegation.
"Tunisia's transitional government has taken a critical step toward
transparency in opening prisons to outside observers who can share their
findings publicly," Goldstein said. "It should now resolve to improve
the treatment of prisoners, which was one of the darkest aspects of the
human rights picture under President Ben Ali."
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.
LATEST NEWS
British Activist Blasts 'Sociopathic Greed' of Big Tech After US Judge Blocks His Detention
"I chose to take on the biggest companies in the world, to hold them accountable, to speak truth to power. There is a cost attached to that," said Imran Ahmed, one of five Europeans targeted by the Trump administration.
Dec 26, 2025
After a US judge on Thursday blocked President Donald Trump's administration from detaining one of the European anti-disinformation advocates hit with a travel ban earlier this week, Imran Ahmed suggested that he is being targeted because artificial intelligence and social media companies "are increasingly under pressure as a result of organizations like mine."
Ahmed is the CEO of the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH). The 47-year-old Brit lives in Washington, DC with his wife and infant daughter, who are both US citizens. While the Trump administration on Tuesday also singled out Clare Melford of the Global Disinformation Index, Josephine Ballon and Anna-Lena von Hodenberg of HateAid, and Thierry Breton, a former European commissioner who helped craft the Digital Services Act, Ahmed is reportedly the only one currently in the United States.
On Wednesday, Ahmed, who is a legal permanent resident, sued top Trump officials including US Attorney General Pam Bondi, Immigration and Customs Enforcement acting Director Todd Lyons, Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem, and Secretary of State Marco Rubio in the District Court for the Southern District of New York.
"Rather than disguise its retaliatory motive, the federal government was clear that Mr. Ahmed is being 'SANCTIONED' as punishment for the research and public reporting carried out by the nonprofit organization that Mr. Ahmed founded and runs," the complaint states. "In other words, Mr. Ahmed faces the imminent prospect of unconstitutional arrest, punitive detention, and expulsion for exercising his basic First Amendment rights."
"The government's actions are the latest in a string of escalating and unjustifiable assaults on the First Amendment and other rights, one that cannot stand basic legal scrutiny," the filing continues. "Simply put, immigration enforcement—here, immigration detention and threatened deportation—may not be used as a tool to punish noncitizen speakers who express views disfavored by the current administration."
Just a day later, Judge Vernon Broderick, an appointee of former President Barack Obama, issued a temporary restraining order, blocking the administration from arresting or detaining Ahmed. The judge also scheduled a conference for Monday afternoon.
The US Department of State said Thursday that "the Supreme Court and Congress have repeatedly made clear: The United States is under no obligation to allow foreign aliens to come to our country or reside here."
Ahmed's lawyer, Roberta Kaplan, said that "the federal government can't deport a green-card holder like Imran Ahmed, with a wife and young child who are American, simply because it doesn't like what he has to say."
In the complaint and interviews published Friday, Ahmed pointed to his group's interactions with Elon Musk, a former member of the Trump and administration and the richest person on Earth. He also controls the social media platform X, which sued CCDH in 2023.
"We were sued by Elon Musk a couple of years ago, unsuccessfully; a court found that he was trying to impinge on our First Amendment rights to free speech by using law to try and silence our accountability work," Ahmed told the BBC.
Months after a federal judge in California threw out that case last year, Musk publicly declared "war" on the watchdog.
CCDH's work is being targeted by the U.S. State Department trying to sanction and deport our CEO, Imran Ahmed. This is an unconstitutional attempt to silence anyone who dares to criticize social media giants. But a federal judge has temporarily blocked his detention.More in BBC ⤵️
[image or embed]
— Center for Countering Digital Hate (@counterhate.com) December 26, 2025 at 4:05 PM
"What it has been about is companies that simply do not want to be held accountable and, because of the influence of big money in Washington, are corrupting the system and trying to bend it to their will, and their will is to be unable to be held accountable," Ahmed told the Guardian. "There is no other industry, that acts with such arrogance, indifference, and a lack of humility and sociopathic greed at the expense of people."
Ahmed explained that he spent Christmas away from his wife and daughter because of the Trump administration's track record of quickly sending targeted green-card holders far away from their families. He said: "I chose to take on the biggest companies in the world, to hold them accountable, to speak truth to power. There is a cost attached to that. My family understands that."
The British newspaper noted that when asked whether he thought UK politicians should use X, the former Labour Party adviser told the Press Association, "Politicians have to make decisions for themselves, but every time they post on X, they are putting a buck in Mr. Musk's pocket and I think they need to question their own consciences and ask themselves whether or not they think they can carry on doing that."
Ahmed also said that it was "telling that Mr. Musk was one of the first and most vociferous in celebrating the press release" about the sanctions against him and the others.
"He said it was great, and it is great, but not for the reasons that he thinks," the campaigner said. "Because what it has actually done is give a chance for the system to show that the advocacy that we do is both important and protected by the First Amendment."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Free Them All': One Year After Dr. Abu Safiya Abducted, Israel Urged to Release Gaza Health Workers
"We won't forget him nor the 360+ health workers Israel has abducted from Gaza since October 2023," said CodePink.
Dec 26, 2025
Ahead of Saturday's one-year anniversary of Israel abducting Dr. Hussam Abu Safiya from the Gaza hospital he ran, advocates demanded the release the scores of health workers still imprisoned by Israeli occupation forces.
"One year ago, Dr. Hussam Abu Safiya was abducted by the Israeli military along with dozens of other medical staff during a horrific raid on the Kamal Adwan Hospital in Gaza," Dr. Yipeng Ge, a member of Doctors Against Genocide, said Friday on social media. "Free Hussam Abu Safiya. Free them all."
Activist Petra Schurenhofer said on X: "It's been a year since Israel abducted and illegally detained Dr Hussam Abu Safiya. And since then he has been languishing in an Israeli jail, being subjected to cruel and inhumane treatment. Don't forget him. And don't stop calling for his release."
Dr. Hussam Abu Safiya was abducted by the IOF from Kamal Adwan Hospital one year ago this week.Israel has detained & tortured Dr. Abu Safiya for one whole year.We won't forget him nor the 360+ health workers Israel has abducted from Gaza since October 2023.
[image or embed]
— CODEPINK (@codepink.bsky.social) December 24, 2025 at 6:53 PM
Abu Safiya, the 52-year-old director of Kamal Adwan Hospital, was seized on December 27, 2024 as Israel Defense Forces (IDF) troops continued their yearlong siege and raids on the facility in Beit Lahia, northern Gaza. The IDF claimed without evidence that Kamal Adwan—the last major functioning hospital in northern Gaza at the time—was a Hamas command center.
During a previous Israeli attack on Kamal Adwan, Abu Safiya's 15-year-old son was killed in a drone strike. Abu Safiya was seriously wounded in a separate drone attack that left six pieces of shrapnel in his leg.
After his capture, Abu Safiya was first jailed at the notorious Sde Teiman prison in Israel's Negev Desert—where dozens of detainees have died and where torture, rape, and other abuses have been reported—and then Ofer Prison in the illegally occupied West Bank.
Abu Safiya said he has endured torture by his captors—including beatings with batons and electric shocks—and suffered severe weight loss, broken ribs, and other injuries, for which he was allegedly denied adequate medical care.
Israeli authorities deny these accusations. However, there have been many documented and otherwise credible reports of health and medical workers being tortured by Israeli forces—sometimes fatally, as in the case of Dr. Adnan al-Bursh, who headed the orthopedic department at al-Shifa Hospital in Gaza City.
According to Francesca Albanese, the United Nations special rapporteur on the occupied Palestinian territories, al-Bursh was "likely raped to death," a fate allegedly suffered by multiple Palestinians imprisoned by Israel.
Abu Safiya remains in Israeli custody, despite having not been charged with any crimes. Israeli courts have extended his detention multiple times under so-called “unlawful combatant” legal provisions.
In January, Abu Safiya’s mother died of a heart attack that MedGlobal, the Illinois-based nonprofit for which Abu Safiya worked as lead Gaza physician, attributed to “severe sadness” over her son’s plight.
According to United Nations agencies and other experts, Israeli forces have destroyed or damaged nearly all of Gaza's hospitals in hundreds of attacks since the Hamas-led October 7, 2023 attack on Israel. More than 1,500 Palestinian health workers have been killed.
Last year, an independent United Nations commission found that “Israel has perpetrated a concerted policy to destroy Gaza’s healthcare system as part of a broader assault on Gaza, committing war crimes and the crime against humanity of extermination with relentless and deliberate attacks on medical personnel and facilities.”
Israel is currently facing an ongoing genocide case filed by South Africa at the International Court of Justice. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant are wanted by the International Criminal Court for alleged crimes against humanity and war crimes including murder and forced starvation.
Albina Abu Safiya, the imprisoned doctor's wife, pleaded last week: “Save my husband before it is too late. His only ‘crime’ was saving the wounded and tending to the wounds of children.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Critics Argue Striking Nigeria Won't 'Make Americans Safer' as US Warns of 'More to Come'
"Seems like the Armed Services committees ought to do some oversight regarding the expensive and pointless Christmas fireworks display in Nigeria," said one legal expert.
Dec 26, 2025
After the Trump administration bombed alleged Islamic State targets in Nigeria on Christmas Day, Gen. Dagvin Anderson of US Africa Command claimed that "our goal is to protect Americans and disrupt violent extremist organizations wherever they are," and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth warned of "more to come," while critics advocated against any more American violence.
President Donald Trump said Thursday that he launched a "powerful and deadly strike against ISIS Terrorist Scum in Northwest Nigeria, who have been targeting and viciously killing, primarily, innocent Christians, at levels not seen for many years, and even Centuries!"
Specifically, according to the New York Times, which spoke with an unnamed US military source, "the strike involved more than a dozen Tomahawk cruise missiles fired off a Navy ship in the Gulf of Guinea, hitting insurgents in two ISIS camps in northwest Nigeria's Sokoto State."
The Nigerian Ministry of Foreign Affairs acknowledged cooperation with the United States that "includes the exchange of intelligence, strategic coordination, and other forms of support."
However, Nigerian Foreign Minister Yusuf Maitama Tuggar also countered the Trump administration's framing of the airstrikes as part of a battle against a "Christian genocide."
The minister stressed during a Friday appearance on CNN that "terrorism in Nigeria is not a religious conflict; it is a regional security threat."
The Associated Press spoke with residents of Jabo, a village in Sokoto, about the confusion and panic spurred by the strikes:
They... said the village had never been attacked by armed gangs as part of the violence the US says is widespread, though such attacks regularly occur in neighboring villages.
"As it approached our area, the heat became intense," recalled Abubakar Sani, who lives just a few houses from the scene of the explosion.
"Our rooms began to shake, and then fire broke out," he told AP. "The Nigerian government should take appropriate measures to protect us as citizens. We have never experienced anything like this before."
Jennifer Kavanagh, director of military analysis at Defense Priorities, a US think tank that that promotes restraint, and diplomacy, said in a statement that "the US action taken in Nigeria while Americans celebrated the Christmas holiday is an unnecessary and unjustified use of US military force that violates Mr. Trump's promises to his supporters to put American interests first and avoid risky and wasteful military campaigns abroad."
As Common Dreams reported after the strikes, despite dubbing himself the "most anti-war president in history" and even seeking a Nobel Peace Prize, Trump has now bombed not only Nigeria but also Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Pakistan, Somalia, Syria, and Yemen, plus alleged drug trafficking boats in the Caribbean Sea and Pacific Ocean, since the start of his first term in 2017.
The Dove
[image or embed]
— Brian Finucane (@bcfinucane.bsky.social) December 25, 2025 at 9:06 PM
"Airstrikes in Nigeria will not make Americans safer, no matter the target," Kavanagh argued. "There are no real US interests at stake in Nigeria, a country that is an ocean and over 5,000 miles away. The country is home to a long-running insurgency, but violence and unrest in Nigeria pose no threat to the US homeland or national security interests abroad. Furthermore, despite Mr. Trump's claims, there is no evidence that Christians are targeted by Nigeria's extremist groups at a rate higher than any other religious or ethnic group in the country. Killings of civilians, to the extent they occur, are indiscriminate."
As CNN reported:
"Yes, these (extremist) groups have sadly killed many Christians. However, they have also massacred tens of thousands of Muslims," said Bulama Bukarti, a Nigerian human rights advocate specializing in security and development.
He added that attacks in public spaces disproportionately harm Muslims, as these radical groups operate in predominantly Muslim states...
Out of more than 20,400 civilians killed in attacks between January 2020 and September 2025, 317 deaths were from attacks targeting Christians while 417 were from attacks targeting Muslims, according to crisis monitoring group Armed Conflict Location & Event Data.
Kavanagh noted that "the United States has been conducting strikes on ISIS and other terrorist group targets in Africa now for over two decades and the number and power of militant groups on the continent has only increased. The whack-a-mole strategy is ineffective at controlling insurgencies or eliminating terrorist groups. It also needlessly expends scarce US resources and does so at a time when Americans are concerned about economic challenges at home."
"Chasing terrorist groups around the globe is the opposite of the 'America First' foreign policy voters expected when they returned Mr. Trump to the White House," she added. "To keep his commitment, he must make the attack in Nigeria a one-off."
Medea Benjamin of the anti-war group CodePink similarly says in a video shared on social media Friday: "We have to ask, is this Donald Trump's idea of America First? The American people do not want to be dragged into yet another conflict, and this was done without congressional approval, without public debate, without any transparency."
Former libertarian US Congressman Justin Amash (R-Mich.) has also emphasized in multiple social media posts since Thursday that "to carry out an offensive military action in another country, the approval the president of the United States needs is from the Congress of the United States, not from a foreign government."
Brian Finucane, a senior adviser at the International Crisis Group and nonresident senior fellow at the New York University School of Law, suggested congressional action, saying that it "seems like the Armed Services committees ought to do some oversight regarding the expensive and pointless Christmas fireworks display in Nigeria."
Meanwhile, progressive campaigner Melissa Byrne asked, "What kind of Christianity murders people on Christmas?"
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular


