

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.

US-led Coalition forces carrying out air strikes in Syria must conduct thorough investigations into reports of civilian casualties from its operations and disclose their findings, said Amnesty International. Eleven Coalition attacks examined by the organization appear to have killed some 300 civilians during two years of strikes targeting the armed group calling itself Islamic State (IS).
So far the US authorities have provided no response to a memorandum Amnesty International sent to the US Department of Defense on 28 September 2016 to raise questions about the conduct of Coalition forces in Syria. The memorandum compiles and analyzes information from
various sources, including eyewitnesses to attacks, which suggests that US Central Command (CENTCOM), which directs Coalition forces in Syria, may have failed to take necessary precautions to spare civilians and carried out unlawful attacks that have killed and injured civilians.
"We fear the US-led Coalition is significantly underestimating the harm caused to civilians in its operations in Syria," said Lynn Maalouf Deputy Director for Research at Amnesty International's Beirut regional office.
"Analysis of available evidence suggests that in each of these cases, Coalition forces failed to take adequate precautions to minimize harm to civilians and damage to civilian objects. Some of these attacks may constitute disproportionate or otherwise indiscriminate attacks.
"It's high time the US authorities came clean about the full extent of the civilian damage caused by Coalition attacks in Syria. Independent and impartial investigations must be carried out into any potential violations of international humanitarian law and the findings should be made public."
Amnesty International has reviewed publicly available information from local human rights organizations and monitoring groups as well as media reports, and where feasible it has interviewed eyewitnesses, carried out analysis of satellite imagery, photographs and video evidence, to piece together as much detail as possible about the circumstances of 11 US-led Coalition attacks in which evidence suggests as many as 300 civilians were killed. To date CENTCOM has only acknowledged one single such death in these attacks.
Research and documentation by leading human rights and monitoring organizations including the Syrian Network for Human Rights, Airwars, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights and the Violations Documentation Center indicates that the total number of civilians killed by Coalition forces in Syria since operations began could be as high as 600 or more than 1,000.
Among the most recent incidents highlighted in the memorandum are three US-led Coalition attacks in June and July 2016 on the Manbij area of Aleppo governorate, in northern Syria. Together the three attacks are suspected to have killed more than 100 civilians in the villages of al-Tukhar, al-Hadhadh and al-Ghandoura.
The attack on al-Tukhar on 19 July is believed to have caused the greatest loss of civilian life of any single US-led Coalition attack. At least 73 civilians were killed, including 27 children, and some 30 were injured.
CENTCOM is investigating the attack. In its memorandum to the US authorities Amnesty International asked serious questions about who the intended targets were and the measures taken to verify intelligence or check whether civilians were present in the vicinity.
Air strikes just over a week later on 28 July killed at least 28 civilians, including seven children, in al-Ghandoura village 25km north west of Manbij. The strikes hit a public market which appears in a video clip that Amnesty International was able to geo-locate in al Ghandoura's main street. The video-clip and other photographs show the bodies of many of the children killed.

A US-led Coalition attack which struck two houses where civilians were sheltering in the village of Ayn al-Khan, near al-Hawl in al-Hasakah governorate in northern Syria in the early hours of 7 December 2015, killed 40 civilians, including 19 children, and injured at least 30 others according to local human rights organizations. One media report suggests an unknown number of IS fighters were also killed in the attack.
Amnesty International was able to speak to one survivor from the attack who described how he was awoken by a huge explosion and ran out to dig through the rubble for survivors.
"The house shook and began to crumble. The windows shattered...I ran outside and saw my neighbour's house completely destroyed. I could hear people calling out from beneath the rubble," he said.
As he helped to dig out survivors a helicopter gunship launched a second attack.
"At this point I had a two-month-old baby boy in my arms whom I had rescued. The hit caused me to fall and drop him... I fell into the hole made by the air strike. That was what saved me... My mother, aunt, wife and children - a daughter who was four years old and a son who was two and a half were all killed. The woman and her son who I'd rescued were killed. Everyone but me was killed," he said.
He also said that a commander from the Kurdish People's Protection Unit (YPG) forces who villagers spoke to after the attack told them the YPG had warned Coalition forces of civilians in in the area.
The attack is believed to have been targeting a group of IS fighters who had moved into a house on the edge of the village five days earlier and were later joined by more fighters.
Despite evidence indicating multiple civilian casualties were caused, CENTCOM has not acknowledged responsibility, although it admits it carried out air strikes in the vicinity at around the same time. It is unclear whether the investigation promptly set up by CENTCOM has reached any findings.
In another attack on 11 August 2015 an air strike hit a building in Atmeh in Aleppo governorate which was being used by an armed group to produce mortars, but also destroyed two adjacent civilian homes, killing eight civilians. Six children aged between four and 17 years old were killed. There are conflicting reports about whether or not 10 fighters were also killed in the attack. CENTCOM has admitted carrying out the strike but denied there were any civilian casualties.
Satellite images obtained and reviewed by Amnesty International indicate that the two civilian houses were completely destroyed in addition to the building being used by the armed group.

Talha al-Amouri an eye-witness told Amnesty International that his sister-in-law, mother of five of the children killed, was eight months' pregnant at the time of the attack and had a stillbirth as a consequence of it. He said he and his brother had gone to a nearby shop a short distance away and returned to find children buried beneath the rubble.
"How could they have known that there was an ammunitions factory but not that there were homes with civilians nearby?" he said.
Although this attack was directed at a legitimate military target it also destroyed neighbouring homes and killed eight civilians and therefore may amount to a disproportionate attack.

"Due to the presence of populated civilian homes adjacent to the target, it should have been clear that the attack would pose a significant risk to civilians, including from secondary explosions. The US authorities should have taken steps to minimize that risk, including by issuing a warning, if feasible, or delaying the attack until civilians could be adequately protected, or cancelling it if it was likely to be disproportionate," said Lynn Maalouf.
As the military campaign to re-take the city of Mosul in northern Iraq from IS enters its second week, fears for civilians there are running high. US-led Coalition forces are providing air and ground support for the operation.
"Given the likely increase in air strikes by the US-led Coalition as part of the Iraqi offensive to recapture Mosul, it is even more pressing that CENTCOM be fully transparent about the impact of their military actions on civilians. And it is crucial that they adhere scrupulously to international humanitarian law, including by taking all feasible precautions to spare civilians and to minimize harm to civilian homes and infrastructure," said Lynn Maalouf.
More than 200 Syrian civilians are believed to have been killed in Coalition attacks during the campaign in Syria to oust IS from Manbij, which is far smaller than Mosul.
Amnesty International's previous research on Pakistan and Afghanistan has also found that the US military has failed to effectively investigate possible violations of international humanitarian law and to acknowledge responsibility for civilian casualties.
The failure to adequately and transparently investigate reports of civilian casualties and of violations of international humanitarian law falls short of international standards and contrasts starkly with commitments by President Barack Obama in a July 2016 Executive Order to address civilian casualties from US military operations. The lack of acknowledgment, apology or compensation is also at odds with this Executive Order, which committed the USA to strengthening post-strike investigations and offering condolence and compensation.
Background
Amnesty International has researched and published findings on violations of international humanitarian law and human rights violations, including war crimes and crimes against humanity, committed by several parties to the conflict in Syria, namely: the Syrian government and its allies (including Russia), who are responsible for the vast majority of violations; the group calling itself Islamic State; the predominantly Kurdish forces of the Autonomous Administration; and several armed opposition groups.
Amnesty International is a worldwide movement of people who campaign for internationally recognized human rights for all. Our supporters are outraged by human rights abuses but inspired by hope for a better world - so we work to improve human rights through campaigning and international solidarity. We have more than 2.2 million members and subscribers in more than 150 countries and regions and we coordinate this support to act for justice on a wide range of issues.
The Trump administration last week sued Minnesota after it passed a law banning prediction markets from operating in the state.
A Sunday report in The New York Times revealed how the Trump administration is using a key government agency to shut down any efforts to regulate online betting markets such as Kalshi and Polymarket.
According to the Times, the administration has stacked the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) with industry insiders who have systematically "mowed down" staffers at the agency who have expressed interest in providing oversight on prediction markets.
Among other things, the report documented how multiple officials at CTFC have been put on leave simply for asking questions about the betting markets' ties to members of President Donald Trump's family or for having past experience enforcing regulations related to cryptocurrencies.
What's more, the Times found that even being an industry insider isn't enough to guarantee good standing in the agency. Brian Quintenz, who was tapped by Trump to lead CTFC last year, saw his nomination withdrawn after he drew the ire of Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss for refusing to support their cryptocurrency exchange's complaint against the agency.
Revelations about industry insiders rolling over regulators at CTFC come as the Trump administration is fighting any attempts by states to regulate prediction markets.
As explained in a Thursday report from CNBC, the Trump administration is "fighting a multi-front battle to stop the state actions and assert its regulatory authority," with CTFC arguing that it is "the only entity that can regulate" betting platforms.
16 different states are engaged in legal proceedings against the platforms, and Minnesota last week passed a law to ban them outright, which immediately drew a lawsuit from the administration.
The new Minnesota law, which is scheduled to take effect in August, bans prediction markets "from hosting, creating or advertising in the state," according to ABC News.
In an interview with ABC, Minnesota state Rep. Emma Greenman (D-63B) said she authored the legislation because she has grown increasingly concerned about young people in the state seeing their finances drained from placing online bets.
"We're seeing studies come out that say [the companies] are targeting 18- to 21-year-olds," said Greenman, "and we are seeing gambling starting younger and younger."
CFTC Chair Michael Selig last month warned states against trying to regulate prediction markets, which he said would "circumvent the clear directive of Congress."
"Our message to Wisconsin is the same as to New York, Arizona, and others," said Selig. "If you interfere with the operation of federal law in regulating financial markets, we will sue you."
"Nothing was accomplished by Operation Epic Fury except putting the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps in charge of Iran and the Strait of Hormuz," said one critic of the war.
President Donald Trump revealed on Saturday that he is mulling a deal that would end his illegal war with Iran, and some hawks within the Republican Party are expressing alarm.
According to a Sunday report in The New York Times, many details of the agreement to end the war remain murky, with the fate of Iran's enriched uranium up in the air. US and Iranian officials have also given contradictory messages about the proposed deal's contents, suggesting there is much work still to be done before any agreement is finalized.
Regardless, three hawkish GOP senators on Saturday raised major concerns about the contents of the deal, warning against accepting any agreement that will leave Iran in a stronger position than before Trump illegally launched a war against it without any authorization from Congress in late February.
"If it is perceived in the region that a deal with Iran allows the regime to survive and become more powerful over time, we will have poured gasoline on the conflicts in Lebanon and Iraq," wrote Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), who lobbied Trump to attack Iran repeatedly before the start of the war. "A deal that is perceived to allow Iran to survive and possess the ability to control the [Strait of Hormuz] in the future will put Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Shia militias in Iraq on steroids.
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), another longtime Iran hawk, said he was "deeply concerned" about what he's been hearing about the deal and expressed particular worry about Iran getting relief from US sanctions while still maintaining the ability to shut down the Strait of Hormuz.
"If the result of all that is to be an Iranian regime—still run by Islamists who chant 'death to America'—now receiving billions of dollars," Cruz wrote, "being able to enrich uranium and develop nuclear weapons, and having effective control over the Strait of Hormuz, then that outcome would be a disastrous mistake."
Sen. Roger Wicker (D-Miss.) was even blunter in his condemnation of the reported agreement.
"The rumored 60-day ceasefire—with the belief that Iran will ever engage in good faith—would be a disaster," Wicker wrote. "Everything accomplished by Operation Epic Fury would be for naught!"
Ben Rhodes, a former deputy national security adviser for President Barack Obama, challenged Wicker's claims that Trump's illegal war had achieved anything of value.
"Nothing was accomplished by Operation Epic Fury," Rhodes wrote, "except putting the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps in charge of Iran and the Strait of Hormuz."
Rhodes' criticism was echoed by Stephen Wertheim, senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, who wrote that "everything accomplished by Operation Epic Fury is already for naught."
Ali Vaez, director of the Iran Project at the International Crisis Group, accused the Iran hawks of being delusional for thinking further bombing would force Iran to capitulate.
"DC's Iran hawks got two wars, nearly every conceivable sanction designation, a blockade, threw a wrench in global economy," Vaez wrote, "and will still claim that just a little more pressure and a touch more bombing will magically yield the concessions they still won't be satisfied with."
Data released by the University of Michigan and Gallup this week showed US consumer sentiment cratering even as stock markets hit record highs.
Multiple polls and surveys released in recent days have shown US consumer sentiment cratering—and all the while, the US stock market keeps hitting record highs.
The Kobeissi Letter, a financial newsletter, posted a graphic Saturday that matched consumer sentiment as measured by the University of Michigan's Surveys of Consumers with the performance of the S&P 500 stock index over a 30-year span.
The graphic shows that, up until around 2020, consumer sentiment matched stock market performance closely, although there was a large divergence between the two leading up to the 2008 financial crisis, where stocks briefly outperformed consumer sentiment before crashing downward as the housing bubble burst.
But throughout the last six years, the graphic shows, the S&P 500 has produced an almost continuous upward surge even as consumer sentiment spirals downward.
Absolutely incredible:
Over the last 6 years, the S&P 500 has risen +130% while US Consumer Sentiment has collapsed by -55%, to its lowest since data began in 1952.
We are witnessing the formation of the biggest wealth divide in modern history. https://t.co/XGMR6DfuNc pic.twitter.com/2w7cRvn7ok
— The Kobeissi Letter (@KobeissiLetter) May 23, 2026
"Absolutely incredible," commented Kobeissi Letter. "Over the last six years, the S&P 500 has risen +130% while US Consumer Sentiment has collapsed by -55%, to its lowest since data began in 1952. We are witnessing the formation of the biggest wealth divide in modern history."
Kobeissi Letter produced the graphic one day after the University of Michigan's latest survey found consumer sentiment hitting the lowest level on record.
Joanne Hsu, director of the survey, observed that "the cost of living continues to be a first-order concern, with 57% of consumers spontaneously mentioning that high prices were eroding their personal finances, up from 50% last month."
On the same day, Gallup published new data showing that Americans' economic confidence has fallen to its lowest level since October 2022, with just 16% of Americans rating the economy as excellent or good, and nearly half describing it as poor.
Axios reported on Saturday that even Republicans have been growing sour on the US economy, citing a recent poll from The Associated Press showing GOP approval of President Donald Trump on the economy to be at around 60%, down from 80% just three months ago.
"The growing GOP gloom could hardly come at a worse time for Trump and the party," Axios noted, "less than six months out from a midterm election that's likely to turn on the economy."
The gap between overall consumer sentiment and stock market performance also lines up with recent consumer spending trends. Data published by The Financial Times earlier this year showed that the top 10% of earners in the US now account for nearly half of all consumer spending, while the bottom 80% of earners now account for less than 40% of all consumer spending.
A February report from TD Economics economist Ksenia Bushmeneva noted that “the economic divide between America’s households at the top of the income spectrum and everyone else continued to widen last year,” as “upper-income households benefited from the still-robust wage growth, strong gains in equity markets, and better access to consumer credit.”