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 Nations-backed Congolese armed forces conducting intensified
military operations in eastern and northern Democratic Republic of
Congo have failed to protect civilians from brutal rebel retaliatory
attacks and instead are themselves attacking and raping Congolese
civilians, Human Rights Watch said today. The attacks on civilians from
all sides have resulted in a significant increase in human rights
violations over the past six months.
"The Congolese government's military operations have been a disaster
for civilians, who are now being attacked from all sides," said Kenneth
Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch, on a visit to eastern
Congo. "Congo and the UN need to take urgent measures to protect people
and keep this human rights catastrophe from getting even worse."
Since January 2009, nine Human Rights Watch fact-finding missions to
frontline areas found a dramatic increase in attacks on civilians and
other human rights abuses in Lubero, Rutshuru, Masisi, and Walikale
territories in North Kivu, Kalehe and Shabunda territories in South
Kivu, and Haute Uele district in northern Congo.
The Congolese army initiated military operations against the Ugandan
Lord's Resistance Army (LRA) rebels in December 2008 in northern Congo,
followed a month later by the launching of operations in eastern Congo
against the Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda (FDLR), the
Rwandan Hutu militia. Since then, the rebel forces and Congolese army
troops combined have killed more than 1,500 civilians, raped thousands
of women and girls, abducted hundreds of adults and children, and
burned to the ground thousands of homes, sometimes entire villages.
According to the UN, more than a million people have been forced to
flee for their lives from these conflict areas, adding to the tens of
thousands of others displaced from earlier waves of violence. Many of
those newly displaced have limited or no access to humanitarian
assistance.
FDLR and LRA combatants are responsible for the great majority of
killings of civilians documented by Human Rights Watch. Both armed
groups are deliberately terrorizing and punishing civilians and
attacking their property as a military tactic in retaliation for
Congolese government military operations. Those who committed or
ordered such attacks are responsible for war crimes.
On May 10, for example, FDLR combatants brutally massacred at least
86 civilians, including 25 children, 23 women, and seven elderly men at
Busurungi, in the Waloaloanda area of Walikale territory, North Kivu.
Twenty-four others were seriously wounded. Some of the victims were
tied up and executed; others were shot or their throats were slit by
knives or machetes as they tried to flee. A number of people were
burned to death when FDLR combatants deliberately locked them in their
homes and torched the village.
One witness who lived near the village outskirts took four of his
children by the hand and ran, calling on his wife to take the other
children. "I was the first out the door holding the children behind me
and calling on my wife to follow," he told Human Rights Watch. "But she
was too late. The FDLR pushed her back in the house with my daughter
and brother and then set it on fire. We heard their screams as we ran
away."
The FDLR carried out similar attacks in Mianga, Walikale territory,
on April 12, killing 45 civilians including decapitating the local
chief, and in Chiriba, Kalehe territory, around May 25, killing 10
civilians. Human Rights Watch found that in total at least 403
civilians were killed by the FDLR since January 2009.
The LRA, whose leaders are wanted by the International Criminal
Court for war crimes and crimes against humanity committed in Uganda,
are currently in northern Congo and continued their brutal attacks
against civilians, bringing the death toll to more than 1,000 civilians
since December. Abductions of children and adults have increased,
indicating that the LRA may be seeking to replenish its ranks. In two
attacks in early June in Dakwa, local sources reported that the LRA
abducted some 135 adults and children.
The Congolese army's operations against these two cross-border
groups were initially supported by Ugandan forces in northern Congo and
Rwandan forces in eastern Congo, and since March by UN peacekeepers in
Congo (MONUC). These forces have provided only limited protection for
civilians from the deliberate and brutal rebel attacks.
"Rebel atrocities against civilians in eastern and northern Congo
seem boundless," said Roth. "The Congolese army should recognize by now
that offensive military operations need to include effective measures
to protect vulnerable civilians from these predictable retaliatory
attacks."
Congolese army soldiers have also committed war crimes against
civilians. Soldiers have deliberately attacked civilians whom they
accused of collaborating with the FDLR, raped women and girls, looted,
unlawfully forced civilians to act as porters, and torched homes in
villages that they claim harbored FDLR supporters.
In an attack on an FDLR position in Shalio, near Busurungi, in late
April, Congolese army soldiers killed an unknown number of FDLR family
members and Rwandan refugees. This possibly led to the brutal May 10
reprisal attack by the FDLR on Busurungi.
Rape cases have also dramatically increased in areas of Congolese
army deployment. In nearly all the health centers, hospitals, and rape
counseling centers visited by Human Rights Watch, rape cases had
doubled or tripled since the start of military operations in the Kivus
in January. While all sides continue to use rape and other sexual
violence as a weapon of war, the majority of the rape cases
investigated by Human Rights Watch were attributed to soldiers from the
Congolese army.
The Congolese army's practice of forcing civilians to provide
dangerous labor has put civilians further at risk. Hundreds of
civilians have been regularly forced at gunpoint to carry heavy
ammunition and other supplies for Congolese forces. On June 21, Human
Rights Watch researchers witnessed dozens of civilians being forced to
carry supplies for the army from Bunyakiri in Kalehe territory while
soldiers deployed to frontline positions in South Kivu.
Salary arrears, limited food rations, and an unclear chain of
command following the integration of more than 12,000 former Congolese
rebel combatants into the army's ranks in early 2009 have contributed
to the rise in abuses against civilians. In Kalehe territory in South
Kivu, soldiers who had not been paid for five months are regularly
pillaging, looting, and extorting the civilian population. On June 15,
government soldiers, angry because they had not been paid, tried to
kill their commander and then attacked a UN base in Pinga, North Kivu.
On June 17, more than 30 armed soldiers who had not been paid deserted
in Ngora, Walikale territory.
Senior army officials conceded the problem of salary arrears and
told Human Rights Watch that soldiers involved in military operations
were now being paid, although Human Rights Watch could not
independently verify the claim.
The integration into the top ranks of the Congolese army of
individuals implicated in serious human rights abuses further
exacerbates an already dangerous human rights environment. The most
glaring example is Bosco Ntaganda, now a general in the Congolese army
involved in military operations in eastern Congo, who is wanted on
war-crimes charges by the International Criminal Court.
"The government's failure to feed and pay its soldiers regularly is
a virtual invitation for them to prey on the civilian population," said
Roth. "Then to allow these troops to be led by commanders like Bosco
Ntaganda with a known track record of horrific abuse creates a climate
in which atrocities flourish."
UN peacekeepers in Congo, MONUC, have provided logistical, planning,
and other support to the Congolese army's operations, known as "Kimia
II." But the peacekeepers have not exerted adequate pressure on the
Congolese army to stop brutal abuses.
The peacekeepers began an initiative in early 2009, known as joint
protection teams, to act as an early-warning system in areas where
civilians might be at risk of attack. While these teams have gathered
important information and sometimes contributed to reducing abuses,
their recommendations to UN peacekeepers and Congolese forces have
rarely been followed.
Following the Busurungi massacre in May, a UN assessment team
visited the area and recommended urgently setting up a base nearby to
protect local people. To date, no base has been established, and there
have been no regular UN patrols from existing bases. UN officials told
Human Rights Watch that a base is due to be established in the coming
days. Congolese soldiers who fled the area following the attack have
also not provided adequate protection for civilians.
"Civilians at risk of rebel attack in the Waloaloanda area have been
left too long without adequate protection even though MONUC has
identified the area as a priority protection zone," said Roth. "The
MONUC command should not delay any further, and should urgently deploy
peacekeepers to the area."
Congolese forces and UN peacekeepers have also yet to establish
promised humanitarian corridors that would allow a safe exit from
conflict zones for thousands of Rwandan refugees and FDLR combatants
who wish to disarm voluntarily. Congolese and UN officials have said
that such individuals will be allowed safe passage.
"UN peacekeepers should not support Congolese armed forces that are
committing war crimes and failing to protect civilians and refugees,"
said Roth. "By continuing to back such military operations, the
peacekeepers risk becoming complicit in abuses."
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.
"Sounds like Trump preparing himself an off-ramp and trying to dump the Hormuz mess on others," said one observer.
President Donald Trump on Friday continued to send contradictory messages on his plans for the US-Israeli assault on Iran, declaring that he is not interested in a ceasefire but is nevertheless considering "winding down" the three-week war, just two days after ordering thousands more troops to the Middle East
Trump wrote on his Truth Social network, "We are getting very close to meeting our objectives as we consider winding down our great Military efforts in the Middle East with respect to the Terrorist Regime of Iran."
Separately, the president told reporters Friday that he does not "want to do a ceasefire" in Iran.
This, after the president reportedly ordered 4,000 additional US troops deployed to the Mideast. On Friday, an unnamed US official told Axios that Trump is considering sending even more troops in order to secure the opening of the Strait of Hormuz and possibly occupy Kharg Island, home to a port from which around 90% of Iran's crude oil is exported.
Sound like Trump preparing himself an offramp and trying to dump the Hormuz mess on others. But as it is Trump, who knows and this could change in short order.
[image or embed]
— Brian Finucane (@bcfinucane.bsky.social) March 20, 2026 at 2:21 PM
Trump also said Friday that the Strait of Hormuz must be "guarded and policed" by other nations that use the vital waterway, through which around 20 million barrels of oil passed daily before the war.
Some observers questioned the timing of Trump's "winding down" post. Investment adviser Amit Kukreja said on X that Trump "obviously saw the market reaction towards the end of the day," and "now once again, he’s trying to convince everyone that the war is done; just not sure if the market believes it anymore."
Others mocked Trump's assertion—which he has repeated for two weeks—that the war is almost won, and his claim that he is winding down the operation as he sends more troops and asks Congress for $200 billion in additional funds.
Still others warned against sending US ground troops into Iran—a move opposed by more than two-thirds of American voters, according to a Data for Progress survey published Thursday.
"I cannot overstate what a disastrous decision it would be for President Trump to order American boots on the ground in this illegal war and send US troops to fight and die in Iran," Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) said Friday on social media.
Noting other Trump contradictions—including his declaration that "we're flying wherever we want" and "have nobody even shooting at us" a day after a US F-35 fighter jet was hit by Iranian air defenses—Chicago technology and political commentator Tom Joseph said Friday on X that "Trump has no idea what he’s doing."
"Call out Trump’s incompetence. This war is like a cartoon to him. He desperately needs a series of a catastrophes to distract from Epstein so he’s letting it happen," Joseph added, referring to the late convicted child sex criminal and former Trump friend Jeffrey Epstein. The war is solvable, but Trump has to go be removed from office first."
"It's unfortunate that it took this long for the Pentagon's ridiculous policy to be thrown in the trash," said one press freedom advocate.
A federal judge in Washington, DC blocked the US Department of Defense's widely decried press policy on Friday, which The New York Times and reporter Julian Barnes had argued violates their rights under the First and Fifth amendments to the Constitution.
The Times filed its lawsuit in December, shortly after the first briefing for the "Pentagon Propaganda Corps," which critics called those who signed the DOD's pledge not to report on any information unless it is explicitly authorized by the Trump administration. Journalists who refused the agreement turned over their press credentials and carried out boxes of their belongings.
"A primary purpose of the First Amendment is to enable the press to publish what it will and the public to read what it chooses, free of any official proscription," Judge Paul Friedman, who was appointed to the US District Court for DC by former President Bill Clinton, wrote in a 40-page opinion.
"Those who drafted the First Amendment believed that the nation's security requires a free press and an informed people and that such security is endangered by governmental suppression of political speech," he continued. "That principle has preserved the nation’s security for almost 250 years. It must not be abandoned now."
Friedman recognized that "national security must be protected, the security of our troops must be protected, and war plans must be protected," but also stressed that "especially in light of the country's recent incursion into Venezuela and its ongoing war with Iran, it is more important than ever that the public have access to information from a variety of perspectives about what its government is doing—so that the public can support government policies, if it wants to support them; protest, if it wants to protest; and decide based on full, complete, and open information who they are going to vote for in the next election."
The newspaper said that Friday's ruling "enforces the constitutionally protected rights for the free press in this country. Americans deserve visibility into how their government is being run, and the actions the military is taking in their name and with their tax dollars. Today's ruling reaffirms the right of the Times and other independent media to continue to ask questions on the public's behalf."
The Times had hired a prominent First Amendment lawyer, Theodore Boutrous Jr. of Gibson Dunn, who celebrated the decision as "a powerful rejection of the Pentagon's effort to impede freedom of the press and the reporting of vital information to the American people during a time of war."
"As the court recognized, those provisions violate not only the First Amendment and the due process clause, but also the founding principle that the nation's security depends upon a free press," Boutrous said. "The district court's opinion is not just a win for the Times, Mr. Barnes, and other journalists, but most importantly, for the American people who benefit from their coverage of the Pentagon."
Seth Stern, chief of advocacy at Freedom of the Press Foundation, also welcomed the ruling, saying that "the judge was right to see the Pentagon's outrageous censorship for what it is, but this wasn't exactly a close call. If the same issue was presented as a hypothetical question on a first-year law school exam, the professor would be criticized for making the test too easy."
"It's shocking that this sweeping prior restraint was the official policy of our federal government and that Department of Justice lawyers had the nerve to argue that journalists asking questions of the government is criminal," Stern declared. "Fifty years ago, the Supreme Court called prior restraints on the press 'the most serious and the least tolerable' of First Amendment violations. At the time, the court was talking about relatively targeted orders restraining specific reporting because of a specific alleged threat—like in the Pentagon Papers case, where the government falsely claimed that the documents about the Vietnam War leaked by Daniel Ellsberg threatened national security."
"Courts back then could never have anticipated the government broadly restraining all reporting that it doesn't authorize without any justification beyond hypothetical speculation," he added. "It's unfortunate that it took this long for the Pentagon's ridiculous policy to be thrown in the trash. Especially now that we are spending money and blood on yet another war based on constantly shifting pretexts, journalists should double down on their commitment to finding out what the Pentagon does not want the public to know rather than parroting 'authorized' narratives."
The Trump administration has not yet said whether it will appeal the decision in the case, which was brought against the DOD—which President Donald Trump calls the Department of War—as well as Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and the Pentagon’s chief spokesperson, Sean Parnell.
"When the international community didn't stop Israel as it deliberately killed nearly 75,000 Palestinians in Gaza, including 20,000 children, Israel knew they could kill civilians with impunity," said one critic.
Eighty percent of Lebanese people killed in Israel's renewed airstrikes on its northern neighbor were slain in attacks targeting only or mainly civilians, a leading international conflict monitor said Friday.
Reuters, using data provided by the Madison, Wisconsin-based Armed Conflict Location and Event Data (ACLED), reported that 666 people were killed by Israeli strikes on Lebanon between March 1-16. As of Thursday, Lebanese officials said the death toll from Israeli attacks had topped 1,000.
While Lebanese authorities do not break down the combatant status of those killed and wounded during the war, Israel's targeting of civilian infrastructure, including entire apartment buildings, and reports of whole families being wiped out, have belied Israeli officials' claims that they do everything possible to avoid harming civilians.
Classified Israel Defense Forces (IDF) data leaked last year revealed that—despite Israeli government claims of a historically low civilian-to-combatant kill ratio—83% of Palestinians killed during the first 19 weeks of the genocidal war on Gaza were civilians.
According to Gaza officials, 2,700 families were erased from the civil registry in the Palestinian exclave during Israel's genocidal assault.
"When the international community didn't stop Israel as it deliberately killed nearly 75,000 Palestinians in Gaza, including 20,000 children, Israel knew they could kill civilians with impunity," Lebanese diplomat Mohamad Safa said on social media earlier this week. "The result is exactly what we're seeing in Lebanon and Iran right now."
US-Israeli bombing of Iran has killed at least 1,444 people, according to officials in Tehran. The independent, Washington, DC-based monitor Human Rights Activists in Iran (HRAI) says the death toll is over twice as high as the official count and includes nearly 1,400 civilians.
The February 28 US massacre of around 175 children and staff at an elementary school for girls in the southern city of Minab—which US President Donald Trump initially tried to blame on Iran—remains the deadliest known incident of the three-week war.
As Israeli airstrikes intensify and the IDF prepares for a possible ground invasion of southern Lebanon—which Israel occupied from 1982-2000—experts are warning that noncombatants will once again pay the heaviest price.
United Nations officials and others assert that Israel's intentional attacks on civilians are war crimes. Israel is the subject of an ongoing genocide case filed by South Africa at the International Court of Justice, and the International Criminal Court has issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, who are accused of crimes against humanity and war crimes in Gaza.
"Deliberately attacking civilians or civilian objects amounts to a war crime," UN High Commissioner for Human Rights spokesperson Thameen al-Kheetan said earlier this week. "In addition, international law provides for specific protections for healthcare workers, as well as people at heightened risk, such as the elderly, women, and displaced people."
As was the case during Israel's bombing of Gaza and Lebanon following the October 7, 2023 attack, journalists are apparently being deliberately targeted again. Reporters Without Borders said in December that, for the third straight year, Israel was the world's leading killer of journalists in 2025.
"This was a deliberate, targeted attack on journalists," said RT correspondent Steve Sweeney after narrowly surviving an IDF airstrike on Thursday. "There's no mistake about it. This was an Israeli precision strike from a fighter jet."
"But if they think they’re going to silence us, if they think we're going to stay out of the field, they’re very, very much mistaken," he added.