

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 use of anti-personnel landmines, which litter territories in Ukraine formerly and currently occupied by Russian forces, continue to pose a deadly threat to civilians and must be subject to a prompt, thorough, independent and impartial investigation, Amnesty International said in a public statement released today.
According to Landmine Monitor 2023, Ukraine recorded 608 landmine casualties in 2022, more than any country in the world bar Syria. Data gathered by humanitarian mine clearance organizations working in Ukraine shows most casualties come from anti-personnel mines, which are inherently indiscriminate weapons, and as such prohibited by international humanitarian law.
“Mines are scattered across the territory of Ukraine previously and currently occupied by Russian troops. They are a daily, deadly threat to civilians. Some have been deliberately placed in civilian homes where they maim and kill,” said Patrick Thompson, Ukraine Researcher at Amnesty International.
“There must be an effective investigation into all such incidents as possible war crimes. In every region in Ukraine that was formerly occupied by Russia, we have seen evidence of civilians killed and injured by anti-personnel mines left behind by Russian forces.”
Anti-personnel mines have been used regularly in Ukraine since Russia’s full-scale invasion in 2022, and to a lesser extent since 2014. There was a noticeable spike in civilian casualties following the Russian retreat from Mykolaiv, Kherson and Kharkiv oblasts in late 2022, as civilians returned to their houses, homesteads and farms.
In March 2022, Russian forces evicted Oleksandr* (not his real name) and his mother from their flat in Snihurivka, in the region of Mykolaiv. A Russian military unit took over the entire apartment block until it was forced to withdraw following fierce fighting around Snihurivka in November 2022.
After the Russian retreat, Oleksandr returned to the apartment block to assess how badly it had been damaged. Upon entering the basement, he stepped on a disguised PFM-1 anti-personnel mine that had been placed under wooden planks. The mine exploded, Oleksandr fell, and landed on other disguised mines that had apparently, had been deliberately placed to injure or kill anyone entering the building. He lost both his left leg and arm in the incident.
Despite the horrific episode, his story is not unique. Amnesty International researchers documented other incidents of Russian forces laying anti-personnel mines in residential areas in Kherson and Kharkiv oblasts.
“The deminers working to clear Ukraine of this threat are carrying out painstaking, dangerous work every day. While the scale of the problem is undeniably huge, the biggest obstacle to clearing Ukraine of landmines is Russia’s ongoing aggression,” Patrick Thompson said.
“The international community must commit to sustained financial and technical assistance to help Ukraine get rid of a danger that continues to wreck lives and livelihoods.”
Ukraine has itself pledged to investigate its own forces’ use of anti-personnel mines.
Anti-personnel mines deployed today will continue to impact civilians long into the future.
“Countries must uphold the ban on the use, production, stockpiling and transfer of anti-personnel mines worldwide. There must be an end to the use of such indiscriminate weapons,” Patrick Thompson said.
BACKGROUND
Amnesty International wrote to the Government of Ukraine on 12 June 2024 asking for a comment on the progress of the investigation into the Ukrainian forces’ use of anti-personnel mines, and at the time of writing no response has been received.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.
Some Indiana Republicans vocally objected to the president's pressure campaign, with one saying Hoosiers "don’t like to be bullied in any fashion."
Republican Indiana Lt. Gov. Micah Beckwith posted and subsequently deleted a claim that President Donald Trump had threatened to cut off funding to his state unless its legislators approved a mid-decade gerrymander that would have changed the composition of its congressional map to further favor the GOP.
Just over four hours after the Republican-led Indiana state Senate on Thursday voted down the Trump-backed gerrymander—which would have changed the projected balance of Indiana’s current congressional makeup from seven Republicans and two Democrats to a 9-0 map in favor of the GOP—Beckwith took to X to warn that the Hoosier State would soon be feeling the president's wrath.
"The Trump admin was VERY clear about this," he wrote, referring to threats to take away federal funding for Indiana. "They told many lawmakers, cabinet members, and the [governor] and I that this would happen. The Indiana Senate made it clear to the Trump admin today that they do not want to be partners with the [White House]. The WH made it clear to them that they'd oblige."

Although Beckwith deleted his post, he also confirmed to Politico reporter Adam Wren that the White House said that Indiana could lose out on funding for projects if the state did not approve the map, although Beckwith insisted that this was not a "threat" but merely "an honest conversation about who the White House does want to partner with."
Earlier on Thursday, the X account for right-wing advocacy group Heritage Action, a sister organization of the Heritage Foundation think tank, claimed that Trump had threatened to decimate Indiana's state finances unless the state Senate approved his proposed gerrymander.
"President Trump has made it clear to Indiana leaders: if the Indiana Senate fails to pass the map, all federal funding will be stripped from the state," Heritage Action wrote. "Roads will not be paved. Guard bases will close. Major projects will stop. These are the stakes and every NO vote will be to blame."
Trump has not yet publicly threatened to cut off Indiana's federal funds, and it's not clear that the administration actually plans to punish the state for defying the president.
According to a Thursday report from CNN, the Trump White House pressure campaign against Republican Indiana state senators backfired because many legislators resented being subjected to angry threats from Trump supporters, including some incidents in which lawmakers were swatted at their homes.
Republican Indiana state Sen. Jean Leising told CNN that the all-out pressure campaign waged by the president ended up pushing more people into opposing his agenda.
"You wouldn’t change minds by being mean," Leising said. "And the efforts were mean-spirited from the get-go. If you were wanting to change votes, you would probably try to explain why we should be doing this, in a positive way. That never happened, so, you know, I think they get what they get."
Fellow Republican Indiana state Sen. Sue Glick echoed Leinsing's assessment, and said that blunt-force threats against legislators were doomed to failure.
"Hoosiers are a hardy lot, and they don’t like to be threatened," Glick said. "They don’t like to be intimidated. They don’t like to be bullied in any fashion. And I think a lot of them responded with, ‘That isn’t going to work.' And it didn’t."
Indiana’s rejection of the proposed gerrymander this week was a major blow to Trump’s unprecedented mid-decade redistricting crusade, which began in Texas and subsequently spread to Missouri and North Carolina.
"These disturbing images raise even more questions about Epstein and his relationships with some of the most powerful men in the world."
US House Committee on Oversight and Reform Democrats on Friday released 19 of the 95,000 new photos they just received from the estate of deceased sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, as the Department of Justice is preparing to release its files from the federal case against President Donald Trump's former friend following votes in Congress.
"These disturbing images raise even more questions about Epstein and his relationships with some of the most powerful men in the world," the committee's Democrats said on social media, with a link to the photos, all of which Common Dreams has included below, on Dropbox. "Time to end this White House cover-up. Release the files!"
The photos feature sex toys, Trump condoms, and high-profile figures including the president, film director Woody Allen, former Trump adviser Steve Bannon, former President Bill Clinton, lawyer Alan Dershowitz, former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers, billionaires Richard Branson and Bill Gates, and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, previously known as Prince Andrew of United Kingdom.
The committee's Democrats received the photos on Thursday night and have reviewed "maybe about 25,000... so far," Ranking Member Robert Garcia (D-Calif.) told CNBC. "There's an enormous amount of photos we have not gone through... It will take days and weeks to ensure that we got those photos and that a redaction is done in the appropriate way."
"Obviously there are photos of powerful men, and folks that we want to have an opportunity to speak with and ask questions of,” Garcia said, noting that some shots Epstein took himself and others may have been sent to him. "Some of the other photos that we did not put out today are incredibly disturbing."



















"There can be no war crime if there is no war," said one human rights scholar this week. "But there can still be murder, which these attacks were."
What human rights experts and scholars of international law have described as nothing short of calculated and cold-blooded "murder," Republican Speaker of the House Mike Johnson on Thursday claimed was "entirely appropriate"—the extrajudicial killing of two shipwrecked sailors clinging to the side of their exploded boat after it was bombed in the middle of the Caribbean Sea by the US military.
The murder of the two men on Sept 2., which followed approximately 45 minutes after all the others on the boat were already killed in an initial strike that shattered the boat in a ball of fire, has become the center of controversy in terms of the legality of such attacks on nearly two dozen boats that have left at least 87 people dead over recent months.
Following a Thursday briefing, Johnson emerged to say that we was convinced the killings were justified despite the chorus of expert voices who have said—even if you accept the Trump administration's dubious claims about the justifications and authority to eviscerate alleged drug boats and everyone on board them with no due process—that killing people so clearly defenseless and unable to harm anyone, let alone the United States, would be a textbook war crime in the context of war and a murder on the high seas in the context of international maritime law.
In his remarks, Johnson said the killings of the two men was "entirely appropriate," though he has not yet called for the full video of the killing to be released, unlike others among the small handful of lawmakers who have seen it.
"They were able-bodied, they were not injured," Johnson said of the two victims, "and they were attempting to recover the contents of the boat, which was full of narcotics."
"The individuals on that vessel were not helpless castaways," he added. "They were drug runners on a capsized drug boat, and by all indications, attempting to recover it so they could continue pushing drugs to kill Americans."
According to experts, however, the claim—which numerous Republicans and high-ranking Trump officials have now made—that two men who have just survived a massive missile strike on their boat, clinging to life on bits of debris in the middle of the ocean were in the act of "pushing drugs to kill Americans," defies belief.
Kenneth Roth, former executive director of Human Rights Watch and now a visiting professor at Princeton’s School of Public and International Affairs, argued this week in The Guardian that such claims must be resolutely countered and these 87 killings at sea—ordered by President Donald Trump and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth—condemned for what they are: murder.
"The Pentagon has also fallen back on the claim that the two were trying to right the remains of the boat that might have still contained cocaine," wrote Roth. "But the stricken boat was clearly going nowhere and could easily have been intercepted. There was no need to kill the two men clinging to its wreckage."
"In an armed conflict, it is a war crime to attack people who have been shipwrecked at sea, as some in Congress have alleged happened. They are considered hors de combat—outside the fight—and hence no longer combatants who can be shot on sight. They are akin to wounded or surrendering combatants. Opposing forces have a duty to receive and care for them, not kill them."
Going beyond the "war crime" narrative, Roth echoes in his column what many other rights experts have said, that there can be no "war crimes," in fact, when there is no declared armed conflict that constitutes a war.
"There can be no war crime if there is no war," argues Roth. "But there can still be murder, which these attacks were. So were every one of the other killings at sea that Trump and Hegseth have ordered."
Baher Azmy, legal director of the Center for Constitutional Rights, which earlier this week filed a lawsuit demanding release of the internal Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) memo justifying the killings, accused the administration of warping the law beyond recognition in defense of what people should recognize as a murder spree, not legal military operations.
“The Trump administration is displacing the fundamental mandates of international law with the phony wartime rhetoric of a basic autocrat,” Azmy said. “If the OLC opinion seeks to dress up legalese in order to provide cover for the obvious illegality of these serial homicides, the public needs to see this analysis and ultimately hold accountable all those who facilitate murder in the United States’ name.”