

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 Angolan government should immediately end its use of unnecessary force against peaceful anti-government protesters, human rights activists, journalists, and opposition politicians, Human Rights Watch said today. Ensuring that people can exercise their basic rights to freedom of association, expression, and peaceful assembly, and prosecuting those who violate those rights, is crucial for creating a peaceful environment for parliamentary elections slated for later in 2012, Human Rights Watch said. On April 4, Angola will celebrate 10 years of peace since the end of the decades-long civil war.
Since January 2012, Angolan authorities have banned and cracked down on five anti-government rallies and arrested at least 46 protesters, 11 of whom courts sentenced to prison terms of up to 90 days. This appears to be an attempt by the government to curb an incipient protest movement promoted by youth groups and others since March 2011, Human Rights Watch said. Human Rights Watch also expressed concern that state media appear to be promoting anonymous groups that incite violence against anti-government protesters.
"The increasing violence against protesters, observers and opposition politicians signals a deteriorating rights environment ahead of the upcoming parliamentary elections," said Leslie Lefkow, deputy Africa director at Human Rights Watch. "The Angolan government should take urgent steps to end this crackdown on peaceful protest and activism."
Uniformed police, in apparent coordination with armed police in civilian clothes and other security agents, violently attacked anti-government protesters in the capital, Luanda, on January 27, February 3 and March 10. In Benguela, on March 10, police arbitrarily arrested a demonstration leader, a human rights activist, and a bystander, and on March 17 police prevented a further protest from taking place. In Cabinda, on February 4, police violently attacked striking health workers.
Uniformed and plainclothes police and people believed to be allied to the government have acted with increasing violence and total impunity during peaceful protests, Human Rights Watch said. The police have not intervened to protect peaceful demonstrators and opposition politicians who were being violently attacked by armed individuals, seemingly acting in coordination with and under the protection of the police.
Interior Minister Sebastiao Martins recently denied any police involvement in the violence. The evening after the March 10 crackdown, state television aired threats by anonymous groups that claimed they were defending the peace against anti-government protesters.
Investigations announced by the authorities into the violence have not resulted in prosecutions of attackers identified by demonstrators and eyewitnesses. And new politically motivated assaults, threats and harassment against protesters and observers have been reported.
On March 10, youth groups called for demonstrations in Luanda's Cazenga neighborhood and in the city of Benguela, to protest the appointment in January by the Superior Council of Magistrates of Suzana Ingles as chairperson of the National Electoral Commission. Opposition parties contend that her profile does not comply with legal requirements for the position and that she lacks impartiality as a senior member of the ruling party's women's mass organization. Some opposition parties had agreed to join the protests.
In the days before the March 10 demonstrations, groups of unknown individuals harassed, intimidated and beat several protest leaders in Luanda. In the afternoon of March 9, a dozen people wearing sunglasses and hats forced their way into the home of Dionisio Casimiro "Carbono," a rap musician and protest leader, and beat him and other youth protesters, injuring three of them. On March7, six people in several cars abducted, beat and injured two protest organizers, Mario Domingos and "Kebamba," who were on their way to the demonstration site in Cazenga. The victims filed complaints with the police.
In Benguela and Luanda, days before the planned protests, pamphlets were circulated, allegedly from unknown youth groups that claim to defend peace. The pamphlets called on people not to join the protests, which they allege were aimed at creating instability in the country.
On the morning of March 10, in Cazenga, a dozen police in plainclothes, including sunglasses and hats, and armed with wood and metal clubs, knives and pistols attacked a crowd of 40 demonstrators and a number of bystanders, injuring a protest leader, Luaty Beirao "Mata Frakus," and two other protesters. Demonstrators and three journalists covering the event - from Voice of America, Radio Despertar and a freelance journalist - sought refuge in nearby private residences to escape the violence.
Witnesses told Human Rights Watch that the police agents at the site withdrew when the armed police in civilian clothes arrived, and did not intervene against their assaults, despite calls for help. Journalists and demonstrators heard shots being fired behind them while they were fleeing.
That afternoon, unknown people attacked and seriously injured Filomeno Vieira Lopes, a senior leader of the opposition party Bloco Democratico, and Ermelinda Freitas, the party's municipal secretary, in Luanda's city center. Both were waiting for a colleague who had volunteered to rescue journalists and injured demonstrators in Cazenga. Freitas told Human Rights Watch that two police agents were present during the attacks but did not intervene, ignoring calls for help by the victims and bystanders.
That evening, the state television, Televisao Publica de Angola (TPA), aired, during prime time, a phone call from an anonymous person alleging to speak for a group of citizens who claimed responsibility for the crackdown. Denying any link to the police and the authorities, the caller threatened to "react" again "with determination" to any anti-government demonstration. State television did not, at any time, air a statement from protesters, opposition parties or the civil society organizations that publicly condemned the violent crackdown.
On the morning of March 10 in Benguela, police deployed rapid intervention units, dog squads, and water cannons, around the city. Uniformed and plain-clothes police, armed with pistols, dispersed a crowd of around 60 peaceful demonstrators and arrested three men: Hugo Kalumba, a demonstration leader; Jesse Lufendo, an activist from the human rights organization Omunga, who was taking pictures, and a taxi driver who was there as a bystander.
On March 16, a court in Benguela sentenced the three men to 45 days in prison on charges of disobedience and aggression against police agents, despite the lack of any evidence against them. In court, the organizers showed evidence that they had informed the authorities about the protest in advance, according to legal requirements, and had requested police protection. They said the authorities responded only orally, two days before the planned rally, banning the protest under the pretext that the initially planned site was less than 100 meters away from the seat of a political party. The detained men were later released on bail.
On the following day, the authorities banned another protest in Benguela called by Omunga, demanding the right to peaceful assembly, under the pretext that the organization had not completed its legal registration. Faced with massive police deployment on March 17, the organization called off the protest.
Harassment, intimidation, and violence against participants and supporters or perceived sympathizers with the protests have continued since.
In a second attack on Freitas, the municipal secretary for Bloco Democratico, seven people one of them masked, forced their way into her home on March 23. They threatened her and her family and stole computers, flash drives, photo cameras, and personal documents.
On March 21, Coque Mukuta, a journalist at the privately owned Radio Despertar, found a pamphlet at his residence in Cazenga from an alleged "movement of the youth organized to defend peace." Human Rights Watch saw the pamphlet, which contained a hand-written note addressed personally to the journalist: "You should move to another neighborhood. Beware, bandit. You are not afraid, but beware."
Earlier in the year, police violently cracked down on a strike in Cabinda and on two protests in Luanda's peripheral Cacuaco neighborhood.
On February 4, police arrested 21 health workers union strikers in Cabinda city, including two senior union officials. The health workers had gone on strike in the whole province on January 30, to press for improvements of working conditions and the disbursement of overdue subsidy payments. Police deployed rapid intervention police, water cannons, and dog squads, dispersed and violently attacked the strikers in front of union's office, where the strikers had withdrawn after being forced to move from in front of the hospital. They were released on the same day without formal charges. A union official told Human Rights Watch that police also temporarily arrested, jailed, and mistreated a striking nurse in Cabinda's interior city Buco Zau on the same day.
On January 27, police dispersed a demonstration by Cacuaco residents demanding water and electricity and arrested 12 demonstrators. On January 31, a court sentenced eight of them to 90 days in prison plus fines and acquitted the others. The imprisoned demonstrators were later released on US$400 bail.
On February 3, public order and rapid intervention police armed with military assault rifles dispersed a crowd of around 50 youth, local residents, and family members of the jailed protesters, calling for their release. A protest organizer told Human Rights Watch that a dozen police in civilian clothes, armed with pistols, violently beat participants. Police arrested 10 demonstrators, but released them on the same day without charge. The organizers said they had informed the authorities in advance about the demonstration, but had not received any response.
Human Rights Watch has reported extensively on unnecessary or excessive use of force by police at antigovernment protests, and threats, intimidation, and arbitrary arrests of journalists and political activists by police and other security agents in Angola, in the past year, including a crackdown on an anti-government rally on December 5, 2011in Luanda.
Many demonstrators involved in demonstrations since March 2011 have told Human Rights Watch that they have been subjected to intimidation, received anonymous phone calls threatening them and their families, and been followed by people in cars. Some said theyfiled complaints, but have not been able to get any information from the police about whether an investigation had taken place.
"The Angolan government should respect people's fundamental rights to peaceful assembly and free speech rather than punishing critics and the political opposition," Lefkow said, "The repressive actions of the government do not bode well for peaceful parliamentary elections."
The Human Rights Campaign represents a grassroots force of over 750,000 members and supporters nationwide. As the largest national lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender civil rights organization, HRC envisions an America where LGBT people are ensured of their basic equal rights, and can be open, honest and safe at home, at work and in the community.
"This is about the BBC’s independence," said one former BBC official. "So they should definitely fight it."
The British Broadcasting Corporation vowed to fight back against President Donald Trump's $10 billion lawsuit filed on Monday—the latest legal challenge brought by the president against a media organization over its coverage of him.
A spokesperson for the BBC said in a brief statement on Tuesday, "We will be defending this case" after Trump filed a lawsuit in a federal court in Florida, alleging that the network defamed him and violated the state's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act when it aired edited comments he made in a speech on January 6, 2021, just before thousands of his supporters attacked the US Capitol.
Before last year's presidential election, the BBC series Panorama aired a documentary titled "Trump: A Second Chance?" The film includes a section featuring Trump's speech to a crowd in Washington, DC on January 6, with two clips of him speaking about 50 minutes apart spliced together, making it appear as though he directly urged people to march to the Capitol.
With his lawsuit, Trump has suggested the edited clip created the impression that he incited violence—though several journalists have noted that those allegations predate the documentary. The edited clip received little attention until recent months when the right-wing Daily Telegraph published details from a memo by Michael Prescott, a former BBC standards adviser with links to the Conservative Party.
In the memo, Prescott took aim at the documentary's editing and alleged a "pro-transgender bias" and "anti-Israel bias"in the BBC's news coverage.
Trump's lawsuit cites the internal review mentioned in Prescott's memo, alleging “a string of incidents that demonstrate serious bias in the corporation’s reporting.”
The BBC has publicly apologized for the editing of the documentary, but has denied that Trump has a legitimate basis for a defamation claim.
The lawsuit is Trump's latest against a media company over coverage of him. At least two cases—against ABC and CBS and its parent company, Paramount, have ended in settlements, with the companies agreeing to pay the president $16 million each. He also has a defamation case pending against the New York Times.
On Monday, Trump gave a muddled explanation of his latest lawsuit while speaking to the press at the White House, falsely claiming the BBC was accused of using AI to make him say "things [he] never said" in the documentary.
"Trump is suing the BBC. He doesn’t know why. But he’s suing anyway," said BBC presenter Sangita Myska.
Trump: "I'm suing the BBC for putting words in my mouth ... I guess they used AI or something" pic.twitter.com/VxYMDp6oZ2
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) December 15, 2025
Richard Tice, deputy leader of the right-wing Reform Party, expressed support for Trump's lawsuit on Tuesday and agreed with the push for "wholesale change" at the BBC. Christopher Ruddy of the Trump-aligned network Newsmax also told The Guardian that the BBC should "figure out a quick and easy settlement."
But on the network's "Today" program, former BBC Radio 4 controller Mark Damazer said that "it would be extremely damaging to the BBC’s reputation not to fight the case."
"This is about the BBC’s independence," said Damazer. "And, unlike American media organizations which have coughed up the money, the BBC doesn’t have commercial business interests that depend on President Trump’s beneficence in the White House. So they should definitely fight it."
"The BBC has likely an extremely strong case," he added. "The 1960s established a very wide margin of press freedom in a case called Sullivan v. The New York Times, from which the BBC would undoubtedly benefit... President Trump was not harmed by what the BBC mistakenly did in its Panorama edit. The program wasn’t shown in the United States. He was neither financially nor politically hurt, and the BBC should definitely fight this case."
Zoe Gardner, a researcher and commentator on migration policy in the UK, denounced "far-right politicians and pundits" for "cheering" Trump's lawsuit.
"Given the BBC is publicly funded, this is Donald Trump suing you and me," Gardner said. "It’s a pathetic cry-bully attack on journalism by a wannabe dictator and an attack on every British person."
One expert said the Trump White House is "replaying the Bush administration's greatest hits as farce."
US President Donald Trump on Monday signed an executive order designating fentanyl a "weapon of mass destruction," a move that came hours before his administration carried out another flurry of deadly strikes on vessels in the eastern Pacific accused—without evidence—of drug trafficking.
Trump's order instructs the Pentagon and other US agencies to "take appropriate action" to "eliminate the threat of illicit fentanyl and its core precursor chemicals to the United States." The order also warns of "the potential for fentanyl to be weaponized for concentrated, large-scale terror attacks by organized adversaries."
Brian Finucane, a senior adviser with the US Program at the International Crisis Group, said in response to the executive action that Trump is "replaying the Bush administration's greatest hits as farce," referencing the lead-up to the Iraq War. Trump has repeatedly threatened military attacks on Venezuela, Colombia, and Mexico, citing fentanyl trafficking as the pretext.
Ahead of the official signing of the fentanyl order, an anonymous State Department official suggested to the independent outlet The Handbasket that the directive's "purpose is a combination of designating fentanyl cartels as terrorist organizations and creating justification for conducting military operations in Mexico and Canada."
The official also suspected "that it will be used domestically as justification for rounding up homeless encampments and deporting drug users who are not citizens," reported The Handbasket's Marisa Kabas.
Hours after Trump formally announced the order, the US Southern Command said it carried out strikes on three boats in the eastern Pacific, killing at least eight people.
"The lawless killing spree continues," Finucane wrote late Monday. "The administration justifies this slaughter by claiming there’s an armed conflict. But it won’t even tell the US public who the supposed enemies are. Of course, there’s no armed conflict. And outside armed conflict, we call premeditated killing murder."
Kenneth Roth, former executive director of Human Rights Watch, argued that "Trump's classification of fentanyl as a 'weapon of mass destruction' will do nothing to salvage the blatant illegality of his summary executions off the coasts of Venezuela and Colombia because fentanyl largely enters the United States from Mexico."
On Dec. 15, at the direction of @SecWar Pete Hegseth, Joint Task Force Southern Spear conducted lethal kinetic strikes on three vessels operated by Designated Terrorist Organizations in international waters. Intelligence confirmed that the vessels were transiting along known… pic.twitter.com/IQfCVvUpau
— U.S. Southern Command (@Southcom) December 16, 2025
Monday's boat bombings brought the death toll from the Trump administration's illegal strikes in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific, which began in early September, to at least 95.
Writing for Salon last week, Drug Policy Alliance executive director Kassandra Frederique and former counternarcotics official James Saenz observed that "the US is bombing boats that have nothing to do with fentanyl or the overdose crisis devastating American communities."
"These recent military actions have negligible impact on the transshipment of illicit drugs and absolutely no impact on the production or movement of synthetic opioids. And fentanyl, the synthetic opioid responsible for most US overdoses, is not produced in Venezuela," they wrote. "These developments raise serious questions about the direction of US drug policy. We must ask ourselves: If these extrajudicial strikes are not stopping fentanyl, then what are the motives?"
"History should be a warning to us. In the Philippines under Rodrigo Duterte, the drug war became a tool of fear," Frederique and Saenz added. "Thousands were killed without trial, democratic institutions were hollowed out, and civil liberties stripped away—all while drugs continued to flow into the country."
Israel is seeking to invalidate the ICC's arrest warrants for fugitive Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant for alleged crimes against humanity and war crimes.
Appellate judges at the embattled International Criminal Court on Monday rejected Israel's attempt to block an investigation into alleged Israeli war crimes committed during the Gaza genocide.
The ICC Appeals Chamber dismissed an Israeli challenge to the assertion that the October 7, 2023, attacks and subsequent war on Gaza were part of the same ongoing "situation" under investigation by the Hague-based tribunal since 2021. Israel argued they were separate matters that required new notice; however, the ICC panel found that the initial probe encompasses events on and after October 7.
The ruling—which focuses on but one of several Israeli legal challenges to the ICC—comes amid the tribunal's investigation into an Israeli war and siege that have left at least 250,000 Palestinians dead, maimed, or missing and 2 million more displaced, starved, or sickened.
The probe led to last year's ICC arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyhau and former Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity, including murder and forced starvation. The ICC also issued warrants for the arrest of three Hamas commanders—all of whom have since been killed by Israel.
Israel and the United States, neither of which are party to the Rome Statute governing the ICC, vehemently reject the tribunal's investigation. In the US—which has provided Israel with more than $21 billion in armed aid as well as diplomatic cover throughout the genocide—the Trump administration has sanctioned nine ICC jurists, leaving them and their families "wiped out socially and financially."
The other Hague-based global tribunal, the International Court of Justice, is currently weighing a genocide case against Israel filed in December 2023 by South Africa and backed by more than a dozen nations, as well as regional blocs representing dozens of countries.
University of Copenhagen international law professor Kevin Jon Heller—who is also a special adviser to the ICC prosecutor on war crimes—told Courthouse News Service that “the real importance of the decision is that it strongly implies Israel will lose its far more important challenge to the court’s jurisdiction over Israeli actions in Palestine."
Although Israel is not an ICC member and does not recognize its jurisdiction, Palestine is a state party to the Rome Statute, under which individuals from non-signatory nations can be held liable for crimes committed in the territory of a member state.
The Israeli Foreign Ministry condemned Monday's decision, calling it "yet another example of the ongoing politicization of the ICC and its blatant disregard for the sovereign rights of non-party states, as well as its own obligations under the Rome Statute."
The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), a Washington, DC-based advocacy group, welcomed the ICC decision.
“This ruling by the International Criminal Court affirms that no state is above the law and that war crimes must be fully and independently investigated," CAIR said in a statement. "Accountability is essential for justice, for the victims, and survivors, and for deterring future crimes against humanity.”