

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.

United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)-backed Afghan forces have committed summary executions and other grave abuses without accountability, Human Rights Watch said in a report released today. These strike forces have unlawfully killed civilians during night raids, forcibly disappeared detainees, and attacked healthcare facilities for allegedly treating insurgent fighters. Civilian casualties from these raids and air operations have dramatically increased in the last two years.
The 53-page report, "'They've Shot Many Like This': Abusive Night Raids by CIA-Backed Afghan Strike Forces," documents 14 cases from late 2017 to mid-2019 in which CIA-backed Afghan strike forces committed serious abuses, some amounting to war crimes. The US should work with the Afghan government to immediately disband and disarm all paramilitary forces that operate outside the ordinary military chain of command and cooperate with independent investigations of all allegations of war crimes and other human rights abuses
"In ramping up operations against the Taliban, the CIA has enabled abusive Afghan forces to commit atrocities including extrajudicial executions and disappearances," said Patricia Gossman, associate Asia director and author of the report. "In case after case, these forces have simply shot people in their custody and consigned entire communities to the terror of abusive night raids and indiscriminate airstrikes."
The report is based on interviews with 39 local residents and other witnesses to night raids in Ghazni, Helmand, Kabul, Kandahar, Nangarhar, Paktia, Uruzgan, Wardak, and Zabul provinces, as well as with Afghan human rights groups that have documented these raids.
Since 2001, the CIA has maintained a counterterrorism operation in Afghanistan parallel to but distinct from the US military operation. It has continued to recruit, equip, train, and deploy Afghan paramilitary forces in pursuit of Al-Qaeda and Taliban forces, and, since 2014, militants affiliated with the Islamic State (also known as ISIS).
Night raids by these strike forces aimed at killing or capturing insurgents largely occur in rural areas that are under Taliban control or contested. The forces breach the walls of residential compounds, search the homes, and question the inhabitants. Some men have been detained without their families knowing their whereabouts. Others have been summarily shot.
In many of the night raids Human Rights Watch investigated, strike forces attacked civilians because of mistaken identity, poor intelligence, or political rivalries in the locality. These units have also sometimes targeted houses based on intelligence that family members had provided food to Taliban or ISIS insurgents, even if under duress.
A resident in Wardak province told Human Rights Watch that the strike force "destroyed the gate to our compound with an explosive device. They killed one of my sons at the back of our home and took the other with them.... The forces accused us, 'Why are you feeding the Taliban?' But the Taliban come asking for food. If you don't feed them, then they harass you."
In Paktia province in August 2019, a paramilitary unit killed eight men who were visiting their families for the Eid holidays and three others in the same village. Witnesses said none offered any resistance before being shot. The forces fatally shot a 60-year-old tribal elder in the eye and his nephew, a student in his 20s, in the mouth
Afghan community elders, health workers, and others described abusive raids as having become a daily fact of life for many communities - with devastating consequences. One diplomat familiar with strike force operations referred to them as "death squads."
Night raids have often been accompanied by airstrikes that have indiscriminately or disproportionately killed Afghan civilians. The dramatic increase in civilian casualties from US air operations over the past year may reflect changes to tactical directives eliminating measures that had formerly reduced civilian harm, including limitations on striking residential buildings. The US and Afghan governments have not adequately investigated alleged unlawful airstrikes in Afghanistan. In one case Human Rights Watch investigated, an airstrike called in by strike forces in Nangarhar killed at least 13 civilian members of two families, including several children.
"The US and Afghan governments should cooperate with independent investigations into these allegations," Gossman said. "These are not isolated cases but illustrative of a larger pattern of serious laws-of-war violations - and even war crimes - by these paramilitary forces."
During night raids on medical facilities, strike forces have assaulted and sometimes killed medical staff and civilian caregivers and damaged facilities. In July, a strike force unit raided a medical clinic in Wardak province, accused clinic staff of treating Taliban fighters, and killed two caregivers, a guard, and a clinic lab worker.
The laws of war protect patients, including wounded fighters, and all medical personnel from attack. While medical facilities can be searched to ensure they are genuinely providing medical services, it is unlawful to disrupt facility operations or confiscate medical equipment.
Taliban forces have frequently committed laws-of-war violations and human rights abuses, including indiscriminate attacks that have killed and injured numerous civilians. However, Taliban atrocities never justify Afghan or US government violations.
The Afghan government should impartially investigate all allegations of abuse by Afghan security forces, prosecute those responsible for war crimes and serious abuses, and disband and disarm paramilitary forces operating outside normal chains of command. The US government should investigate any US personnel involved in these abuses, prosecute those responsible for war crimes, and cease supporting Afghan forces that have been responsible for serious violations.
"CIA-backed Afghan forces in case after case have disregarded protections to which civilians and detainees are entitled, and have committed war crimes," Gossman said. "The US and Afghan governments should end this pathology and disband all irregular forces."
On October 30, 2019, the CIA responded to Human Rights Watch's report.
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.
"Exploiting a single incident to cast suspicion on Afghans—people who have already endured decades of displacement and America's forever wars—is both irresponsible and cruel."
Advocates for refugees in the United States continued to raise alarm Friday after President Donald Trump moved quickly to exploit the murder of one National Guard soldier and the wounding of another—allegedly shot by a national from Afghanistan who worked for the US military and CIA during the war there before seeking asylum in the US—by issuing a sweeping ban against asylum-seekers and halting all immigration from what he termed "all Third World countries" in response to Wednesday's shooting in Washington, DC.
“Regardless of the alleged perpetrator’s nationality, religion or specific legal status," said Matthew Soerens, a vice president with the faith-based World Relief, speaking with the Associated Press, "we urge our country to recognize these evil actions as those of one person, not to unfairly judge others who happen to share those same characteristics.”
Shawn VanDiver, president of the San Diego-based group AfghanEvac, a group that helps resettle Afghans who assisted the US during the war in Afghanistan, explained to the AP that many people in the Afghan refugee community that he knows are terrified by the tone which has been set by Trump after the shooting, afraid to leave their homes for fear of being snatched up by federal agents or otherwise targeted.
“They’re terrified. It’s insane,” VanDiver told AP. “People are acting xenophobic because of one deranged man. He doesn’t represent all Afghans. He represents himself.”
"The perpetrator should face accountability but the entire Afghan community must not be punished due to the actions of one individual." —Richard Bennett, the UN special rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Afghanistan
On Thursday it was announced that Specialist Sarah Beckstrom, deployed with the National Guard under orders from Trump, had died from her injuries while Staff Sgt. Andrew Wolfe, 24, remained in critical condition in a local hospital.
While heartbreak and mourning was widely shared for the victims of the shooting, Trump's xenophobic response to the violent assault, including his racist social media posts on Truth Social that critics said echoed white nationalist rhetoric, proved for many observers once again his shortcomings as a national leader during times of crisis, but also as a human being.
"The perpetrator should face accountability but the entire Afghan community must not be punished due to the actions of one individual," said Richard Bennett, the UN special rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Afghanistan, said Thursday. "That would be terribly unjust and complete nonsense. Cool heads must prevail."
Arash Azizzada, co-director of Afghans For A Better Tomorrow, which long-opposed the US war in Afghanistan in the wake of 9/11 and continues to advocate on behalf of the Afghan-American community, condemned Trump for "using this tragedy as a pretext to demonize, criminalize, and target an entire community. Exploiting a single incident to cast suspicion on Afghans—people who have already endured decades of displacement and America's forever wars—is both irresponsible and cruel."
Azizzada also pointed out how the alleged gunman now in police custody, identified as 29-year-old Rahmanullah Lakanwal, "worked alongside US Special Operations forces and served in a CIA-backed covert paramilitary group known as 'Zero Units' that functioned outside the purview of any accountability and have a documented history of widespread human rights abuses against Afghan civilians over two decades."
"We both condemn the violence by one individual on the streets of Washington, DC as well as the violence perpetrated by the US in Afghanistan and elsewhere," said Azizzada. "America must confront the decades of violence it inflicted on Afghanistan and acknowledge that its forever wars are a major reason why Afghans seek safety here. Blaming refugees for the consequences of those actions is unjust and we call for the promises to Afghans to be honored, not abandoned."
Journalist Ryan Grim, co-founder of Drop Site News, put it this way: "The idea that we should freeze all migration because one of the CIA’s death squad recruits went on a rampage is absurd. Smarter would be to stop training death squads."
Evacuate Our Allies, a group that advocates on behalf of Afghans who helped the US during the war and now seeking to resettle, expressed deep sympathies for the victims of the shooting and their families and condemned the "reprehensible attack." The group also denounced the "alarming vilification of an entire community based on the actions of a lone individual."
"No community, Afghan or otherwise, should be judge, demonized, or collectively punished for the behavior of one person," the group said. "Such narratives cause real harm, inflame tensions, and overlook the truth: one individual does not represent millions. Collective blame is not only unjust but dangerous. It undermines the immense sacrifices our nation's Afghan allies made, sacrifices that cost many their safety, their homes, their loved ones, and, in too many case, their lives."
"We are joining Make Amazon Pay to demand the most basic rights: safety, dignity, and the chance to go home alive," said one Amazon worker from India.
Amazon workers and their allies worldwide took to the streets on Black Friday, the busiest shopping day of the year, to protest the e-commerce behemoth's exploitation of workers, relentless union-busting, contributions to the worsening climate emergency, and plans to replace employees en masse with robots.
“Amazon, Jeff Bezos, and their political allies are betting on a techno-authoritarian future, but this Make Amazon Pay Day, workers everywhere are saying: enough,” said Christy Hoffman, general secretary of UNI Global Union. “For years, Amazon has squashed workers’ right to democracy on the job through a union and the backing of authoritarian political figures. Its model is deepening inequality and undermining the fundamental rights of workers to organize, bargain collectively, and demand safe, fair workplaces.”
From Germany to Bangladesh, thousands of workers walked off the job on Friday and marched against Amazon's labor practices to push for better wages, working conditions, and union protections. Last month, Amazon reported over $21 billion in profits for the third quarter of 2025—a 38% increase compared to the same time last year.
“During the heatwaves, the warehouse feels like a furnace—people faint, but the targets never stop,” said Neha Singh, an Amazon worker in Manesar, India, referring to the company's productivity quotas. "Even if we fainted, we couldn’t take a day off and go home. If we took that day off, our pay would be cut, and if we took three days off, they would fire us. Amazon treats us as expendable."
"We are joining Make Amazon Pay," said Singh, "to demand the most basic rights: safety, dignity, and the chance to go home alive.”
HAPPENING NOW 🌎 Amazon workers and their allies in 38 countries around the world are striking and protesting to #MakeAmazonPay. pic.twitter.com/srMRsymCh7
— Progressive International (@ProgIntl) November 28, 2025
Make Amazon Pay is an alliance of labor unions and advocacy groups organizing to stop Amazon from "squeezing workers, communities and the planet."
The 2025 strikes and protests, which organizers described as the largest mobilization against Amazon to date, mark the sixth consecutive year of global actions organized by the coalition.
The strike in Germany was characterized as the largest in Amazon's history, with around 3,000 workers expected to join picket lines across the country. The union representing Amazon workers in the United States voiced solidarity with striking German workers in a social media post on Friday, crediting them with "inspiring the global Amazon worker movement for over a decade."
Amazon Teamsters stand in solidarity with our German Amazon colleagues today as you engage in courageous strike action. To the long-time strikers - you’ve been inspiring the global Amazon worker movement for over a decade. To those who are joining the growing movement for the… pic.twitter.com/42ul1bbFb5
— Amazon Teamsters (@amazonteamsters) November 28, 2025
"Across the world, Amazon workers are walking off the job, marching through their cities, and standing shoulder-to-shoulder with communities to demand what every worker deserves: fair wages, safe conditions, the right to organize—and a future not dictated by algorithms and billionaires," Progressive International, a member of the alliance, said Friday.
"But the target is not only a company. It is the emerging system that Amazon now anchors: a techno-authoritarian order that fuses the power of Big Tech with the prerogatives of the far right—from Trump’s ICE raids to Israel’s genocide in Gaza," the group added. "This week's actions point toward another horizon. One in which supply chains become sites of struggle, not submission; where warehouse workers link arms with tech workers, garment workers, Indigenous communities, and migrants; where a global labor movement is capable of confronting a global system of power."
“We will use every tool in our toolbox to ensure that this pipeline does not go ahead,” said one First Nations leader after the deal struck between PM Mark Carney and the Conservative premier of Alberta.
First Nations groups backed by environmental and conservationist allies in Canada are denouncing a pipeline and tanker infrastructure agreement announced Thursday between Liberal Prime Minister Mark Carney and Conservative Alberta Premier Danielle Smith, calling the deal a betrayal and promising to fight against its implementation tooth and nail.
“We will use every tool in our toolbox to ensure that this pipeline does not go ahead,” said Heiltsuk Nation Chief Marilyn Slett in response to the Carney-Smith deal that would bring tens of millions of barrels of tar sands oil from Alberta to the coast of British Columbia for export by building new pipeline and lifting a moratorium against oil tankers operating in fragile British Columbia coastal water .
While Carney, who argues that the pipeline is in Canada's economic interest, had vowed to secure the support of First Nations before finalizing any agreement with the Alberta, furious reactions to the deal made it clear that promise was not met.
Xhaaidlagha Gwaayaai, the president of the Haida nation, was emphatic: "This project is not going to happen."
The agreement, according to the New York Times, is part of Carney’s "plan to curb Canada’s trade dependence on the United States, swings Canadian policy away from measures meant to fight climate change to focus instead on growing the oil and gas industry."
In a statement, the Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs (UBCIC) "loudly" voiced its opposition to the memorandum of understanding signed by Carney and Smith.
"This MOU is nothing less than a high risk and deeply irresponsible agreement that sacrifices Indigenous peoples, coastal communities, and the environment for political convenience," said Grand Chief Stewart Phillip, president of the UBCIC. "By explicitly endorsing a new bitumen pipeline to BC's coast and promising to rewrite the Oil Tanker Moratorium Act, the federal government is resurrecting one of the most deeply flawed and divisive ideas in Canadian energy politics."
Slett, who serves as secretary-treasurer of the UBCIC, said the agreement "was negotiated without the involvement of the very Nations who would shoulder those risks, and to suggest ‘Indigenous co-ownership’ of a pipeline while ignoring the clear opposition of Coastal First Nations is unacceptable."
Avi Lewis, running for the leadership of the progressive New Democratic Party (NDP) in upcoming elections, decried the agreement as a failure of historic proportions.
"Carney’s deal with Danielle Smith is the sellout of the century: scrapping climate legislation for a pipeline that will never be built," said Lewis, a veteran journalist and climate activist. "We need power lines, not pipelines. Our path is through climate leadership and building good jobs in the clean economy."
Carney’s deal with Danielle Smith is the sellout of the century: scrapping climate legislation for a pipeline that will never be built.We need powerlines, not pipelines. Our path is through climate leadership & building good jobs in the clean economy.
[image or embed]
— Avi Lewis (@avilewis.ca) November 28, 2025 at 12:05 AM
In response to the deal, the minister of Canadian culture, Steven Guilbeault, who formerly served as environment minister under the previous Liberal administration, resigned in protest.
“Despite this difficult economic context, I remain one of those for whom environmental issues must remain front and center,” Guilbeault said in a statement.
"Over the past few months, several elements of the climate action plan I worked on as Minister of the Environment have been, or are about to be, dismantled,” he said. “In my view, these measures remain essential to our climate action plan.”
David Eby, the premier of British Columbia who opposes the new pipeline into his province and was not included in the discussions between Carney and Smith, echoed those who said the project is more dead than alive, despite the MOU, calling it a potential "energy vampire" that would distracts from better energy solutions that don't carry all the baggage of this proposed project.
“With all of the variables that have yet to be fulfilled—no proponent, no route, no money, no First Nations support—that it cannot draw limited federal resources, limited Indigenous governance resources, limited provincial resources away from the real projects that will employ people,” Eby added.
Keith Brooks, the programs director at Environmental Defence, decried the deal as "worse than we had anticipated" and "a gift to the oil industry and Alberta Premier Smith, at the expense of practically everyone else."
"Filling this pipeline and expansion would require more oil sands mining, leading to more carbon pollution, more tailings, and worse impacts for communities near the tar sands," warned Brooks. "The pipeline to BC would have to cross some of the most challenging terrain in Canada. The impacts of construction would be severe, and the impacts of a spill, devastating."
Jessica Green, a professor at the University of Toronto with a focus on environmental politics, equated the "reckless" deal to a "climate dumpster fire" and called the push for more tar sands pipelines in Canada "the energy equivalent [of] investing in VHS tapes in 2025."
At least the United States under President Donald Trump, she added, "has the cojones to say it doesn’t give a shit about climate" while Carney, despite the contents of the deal with Alberta, "is still pretending that Canada does."