State Department Pushes Human Rights Watchdog to Ignore Deadly, Illegal Boat Strike Campaign

Spread the love

Original article by Julia Conley republished from Common Dreams under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). 

US Deputy State Department spokesperson Tommy Pigott speaks during a press briefing at the State Department in Washington, DC on July 31, 2025.
(Photo by Oliver Contreras/AFP via Getty Images)

As the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights was advised not to investigate the bombings, Pentagon officials expressed support for strikes on land, ostensibly against drug traffickers.

The former president of a top international human rights watchdog views the United States’ monthslong campaign of bombing boats in the Caribbean Sea and eastern Pacific Ocean as a clear-cut case of “murder,” he told The Intercept Monday, but he warned that pressure from the Trump administration may stop the body from investigating the Pentagon’s actions.

Juan Méndez, a former president of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, noted that a month after the IACHR held a hearing on the boat bombing campaign, officials “may well feel that this is a very delicate situation, and if they take the initiative, they’re going to incur the wrath of the United States.”

RECOMMENDED…

U.S. Builds Up Military Presence In The Caribbean Amid Rising Tensions With Venezuela

With Nearly 50 Boats Attacked, US Strikes Highlight ‘Pattern of Unlawful Use of Lethal Force’: Human Rights Watch

US boat bombing

‘More Murder’: Trump Admin Kills Two People in Latest Illegal Boat Bombing

The hearing last month was the first of its kind and included testimonies from the ACLU, the Center for Constitutional Rights, International Crisis Group, and Ben Saul, the United Nations special rapporteur on counterterrorism and human rights. The groups presented evidence that the US has been violating both domestic and international law by bombing vessels that it has claimed—without making any evidence publicly available—are involved in drug trafficking. Nearly 170 people have been killed in dozens of strikes, and legal experts worldwide have asserted the US is violating international law and has committed extrajudicial killings—potentially making those involved in the strikes liable for murder.

The hearing was followed by a statement from Tommy Pigott, a State Department spokesperson, who said the IACHR had “strayed far outside its mandate” by looking into the boat attacks—as the family of one man killed in a bombing requested it to—and accused the ACLU of trying to manipulate the body.

“The United States calls on the commission to adhere to its statute and rules of procedure in the future and avoid inserting itself into matters that are in active domestic litigation and fall outside the human rights sphere,” said Pigott. “Convening hearings under these circumstances risks undermining—not strengthening—the credibility of the inter-American human rights system.”

Pigott also called on the commission to “redirect its focus toward the individual petitions languishing on its docket, sometimes for decades.” He did not mention specific petitions or issues the IACHR should focus on.

Carl Anderson, a legal adviser at the State Department, also rebuked the commission for holding the proceedings.

“If the United States cuts the funding, they probably would have to shut down—at least for a while.”

A person with close ties to the IACHR told The Intercept that Pigott’s demand that the commission focus on other topics pointed to a pressure campaign aimed at stoking fear that the IACHR could lose its funding.

President Donald Trump’s zeroed out US contributions to the commission during his first term in 2018, and withdrew some funding the following year due to its support for abortion rights. The administration terminated funding last year for at least 22 programs under the IACHR’s parent body, the Organization of American States, of which the US is the largest international funder.

“They are stretched for funding,” Méndez told The Intercept. “And if the United States cuts the funding, they probably would have to shut down—at least for a while.”

Stuardo Ralón, the IACHR’s current president, denied that there is “pressure from the United States on the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights,” but suggested it may not conduct a comprehensive investigation into the Trump administration’s boat bombings—saying the body “does not conduct investigations.”

The Intercept noted that the IACHR has conducted numerous investigations that it has publicly acknowledged and described as such, including into US immigration detention centers and the kidnapping and apparent killing of 43 students in Mexico in 2014.

Ralón told the outlet that it has not yet taken any steps to launch an investigation into the strikes following the hearing, and said it “will continue to monitor the situation in accordance with its mandate.”

Jamil Dakwar, director of the ACLU’s human rights program, emphasized that “the commission is within its competency and its bounds to fully investigate the egregious violations of international law happening in its own backyard.”

“We have asked the commission to fulfill its responsibilities as the premier regional human rights body to conduct a fact-finding investigation of these heinous killings,” Dakwar told The Intercept, “and to ensure that no country can act in this fashion because that will have severe implications on human rights in the region and beyond.”

As the State Department has pushed the IACHR away from probing the legality of the boat bombings, administration officials like Joseph Humire, acting assistant secretary of war for homeland defense and Americas security affairs, have warned that the attacks at sea are “just the beginning” of what officials claim is an effort to defeat drug cartels—against which Congress has not authorized any military action.

US Southern Command announced a joint ground operation with Ecuador last month to defeat “narco-terrorists.”

Humire said the Pentagon supports “joint land strikes,” while Gen. Francis Donovan, the head of US Southern Command who has been directing the boat attacks, told the Senate Armed Service Committee that the Pentagon is moving toward “a counter-cartel campaign process that puts total systemic friction across this network.”

“I believe,” he said, “these kinetic [boat] strikes are just one small part of that.”

Original article by Julia Conley republished from Common Dreams under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). 

Donald Trump sings and dances, says that it's fun to kill everyone ...
Donald Trump sings and dances, says that it’s fun to kill everyone …
Orcas discuss how Trump was re-elected and him being an obviously insane, xenophobic Fascist.
Orcas discuss how Trump was re-elected and him being an obviously insane, xenophobic Fascist.

Continue ReadingState Department Pushes Human Rights Watchdog to Ignore Deadly, Illegal Boat Strike Campaign

Left MPs move to block drive to another Middle East war

Spread the love

https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/left-mps-move-block-drive-another-middle-east-war

 An F-35 arriving back at RAF Akrotiri in Cyprus, June 2019

Corbyn tables Commons Bill requiring Parliament’s approval before allowing foreign militaries to use British bases

LEFT MPs moved today to block Britain from being dragged deeper into the escalating attack against Iran.

Former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn tabled a Commons Bill to require MPs’ approval before allowing foreign militaries to use British military bases.

The move comes as not only are US forces using the bases to pursue their illegal aggression, but British military forces are increasingly becoming directly involved in the conflict.

Mr Corbyn’s Military Action (Parliamentary Approval) Bill is co-sponsored by Labour, Green and Independent Alliance MPs and a response to PM Sir Keir Starmer’s agreement to allow US use of the bases. 

While it has scant chance of becoming law, it signals growing disquiet in Labour’s ranks and beyond about Britain getting bogged down in supporting US President Donald Trump’s attack.

It would “require parliamentary approval for the deployment of UK armed forces and military equipment for armed conflict” and “require parliamentary approval for the granting of permission by ministers for use of UK military bases and equipment by other nations for armed conflict.”

Its co-sponsors are new Green MP Hannah Spencer and her colleague Ellie Chowns, Adnan Hussein and Ayoub Khan from the Independent Alliance and Labour’s Bell Ribeiro-Addy, Brian Leishman, John McDonnell, Richard Burgon, Apsana Begum, as well as suspended Labour MP Diane Abbott.

Sir Keir is under growing pressure from Mr Trump to fall in line as British governments usually do, forcing the premier to assert in the Commons that the “special relationship” did not “depend on hanging on to President Trump’s latest word.”

Article continues at https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/left-mps-move-block-drive-another-middle-east-war

Experiencing issues with this image not appearing. I suspect because it's so critical of Zionist Keir Starmer's support of and complicity in Israel's genocides.
Genocide denier and Current UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer is quoted that he supports Zionism without qualification. He also confirms that UK air force support has been essential in Israel’s mass-murdering genocide. Includes URLs https://www.declassifieduk.org/keir-starmers-100-spy-flights-over-gaza-in-support-of-israel/ and https://youtu.be/O74hZCKKdpA
Donald Trump explains why he established his Bored of Peace
Donald Trump explains why he established his Bored of Peace
Orcas discuss rotting brain. Front Orca says "Wish someone would lock him up".
Orcas discuss rotting brain. Front Orca says “Wish someone would lock him up”.
Continue ReadingLeft MPs move to block drive to another Middle East war

Who fears the truth? The lawfare campaign to silence Francesca Albanese

Spread the love

This work by Middle East Monitor is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

UN Special Rapporteur on Palestine Francesca Albanese holds a press conference at the lower house of the Italian Parliament, the Chamber of Deputies, to present her new report titled “Genocide in Gaza: A Collective Crime” in Rome, Italy on February 03, 2026. [Barış Seçkin – Anadolu Agency]


by Kurniawan Arif Maspul

Francesca Albanese has become one of the most polarising figures in contemporary diplomacy, not because she commands armies or signs treaties, but because she insists on describing what she sees. Since assuming her mandate as United Nations Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories in 2023, the Italian jurist has delivered reports that cut through diplomatic euphemism with the precision of a scalpel. 

In her October 2024 report to the General Assembly, pointedly titled Genocide as Colonial Erasure, she concluded there were ‘reasonable grounds’ to believe that Israel’s conduct in Gaza met the legal threshold of genocide and formed part of a ‘century-long project of eliminatory settler-colonialism’. Few phrases in international law carry such moral weight. Fewer still are uttered so plainly in the marble halls of New York and Geneva.

The reaction was immediate and ferocious. Israeli officials labelled her ‘one of the most antisemitic figures in modern history’. France, Germany, Italy, Austria and the Czech Republic publicly called for her removal after a February 2026 address to a Doha forum in which she condemned ‘the planning and making of a genocide’ in Gaza and decried the complicity of states that had armed and politically shielded Israel since October 2023 (a speech later distorted through a truncated clip that falsely claimed she had labelled Israel “the common enemy of humanity,” a narrative she categorically rejected). 

The edited clip of that speech ricocheted across social media, falsely suggesting she had called Israel ‘the common enemy of humanity’. She responded with weary clarity: the ‘common enemy’, she said, was the system — financial capital, algorithms and weapons — that enables atrocities, not a people or a state.

READ: France’s censorship of voices calling out international complicity with genocide

The United Nations moved swiftly to defend the independence of its mandate.

Special rapporteurs, a spokesperson reminded reporters, are not political appointees but independent experts commissioned by the Human Rights Council and protected by UN privileges and immunities.

Reuters noted there is no precedent for removing a rapporteur mid-term, and diplomats privately concede such an attempt would likely fail. Yet the calls for her resignation were not merely procedural skirmishes. 

They were signals — about who is permitted to speak, and how far the language of international law may stretch before it snaps under political strain.

What makes Albanese’s work so unsettling to some capitals is not only the gravity of her conclusions, but the breadth of her analysis. In her 2025 Human Rights Council report, she traced what she termed a shift ‘from economy of occupation to economy of genocide’, mapping the corporate and financial networks that sustain settlement expansion and military operations.

She placed Western governments within that ecosystem, arguing that political cover and arms transfers had ‘stabbed international law in the heart’. 

Amnesty International echoed this concern, warning that silencing her would distract from ‘Israel’s genocide in Gaza, its system of apartheid and unlawful occupation’.

Whether one agrees with her characterisation or not, the data underpinning the crisis are sobering. By late 2025, Gaza’s health authorities and UN agencies reported tens of thousands of Palestinians killed since October 2023, with vast swathes of housing, hospitals and water infrastructure destroyed. The World Bank estimated economic contraction in Gaza exceeding 80 per cent. UNICEF described levels of child malnutrition unseen in decades. These figures are not rhetorical flourishes; they are the raw arithmetic of devastation. 

They form the backdrop to South Africa’s genocide case before the International Court of Justice and to repeated UN General Assembly resolutions demanding a ceasefire and humanitarian access.

Across global capitals, the language of a “rules-based order” is spoken with conviction. Yet those words hollow out when rules are applied selectively. If international law binds adversaries but spares allies, it ceases to be law and becomes leverage.

The strength of the global system rests on independent scrutiny. When UN experts can be undermined through doctored clips, coordinated outrage and political pressure, the foundations of accountability begin to shake. Today it is Gaza. Tomorrow it could be Ukraine, Myanmar, Sudan, or any conflict where truth unsettles power. Disinformation does not respect borders. Precedents travel fast. If the world tolerates the silencing of inconvenient investigators, it signals that multilateralism is conditional — firm in rhetoric, fragile in practice. 

Trust erodes. Cynicism grows. The Global South watches and remembers.

READ: Trump says Board of Peace members to pledge over $5B for Gaza reconstruction on Thursday

Defending independent mandates is not an attack on any state. It is a defence of the very order governments claim to uphold. If the guardians of international law bend it when tested, the damage will not stay confined to one region. It will echo wherever justice depends on courage rather than convenience.

There is, of course, genuine sensitivity in Europe, shaped by the Holocaust and by the resurgence of antisemitism. Albanese herself has apologised for past remarks that were widely criticised. These complexities demand care. 

Yet conflating sharp legal criticism of a state’s conduct with hatred of a people risks trivialising real antisemitism and impoverishing serious debate. The joint statement of 116 human rights organisations condemning what they described as a ‘targeted smear campaign’ warned that such tactics threaten freedom of expression and the integrity of UN mechanisms.

The UN human rights office has observed an alarming rise in personal attacks and misinformation directed at independent experts.

International relations theory offers several lenses through which to view this moment. Realists see states defending allies and interests. Liberals see institutions under strain. Constructivists note how narratives of historical trauma and identity shape policy reflexes. Yet beyond theory lies a simpler question: can the international system tolerate uncomfortable truths when they implicate powerful actors?

Albanese’s language is undeniably stark. She speaks of apartheid, of settler colonialism, of genocide. For some diplomats, such words close doors. For others, they are the only vocabulary adequate to the scale of suffering. History suggests that terms once dismissed as inflammatory — apartheid in South Africa, ethnic cleansing in the Balkans — can become anchors for accountability. 

The 1963 UN Special Committee against Apartheid was once derided as politicised; it later formed part of the scaffolding that supported global sanctions and eventual transition.

The future of Gaza and Palestine will not be secured by rhetoric alone. Reconstruction will require tens of billions of dollars, credible governance reform within Palestinian institutions, security guarantees for Israel, and a political horizon that restores dignity and agency to Palestinians. A common argument is that the absence of a viable political process will simply harden cycles of violence. Sustainable development in the region hinges on accountability and inclusion; impunity breeds instability.

There is space here for Australian diplomacy — measured, principled, pragmatic. Supporting humanitarian ceasefire efforts, backing the independence of international courts, conditioning arms exports on compliance with international humanitarian law, and investing in Palestinian civil society are not radical steps. They are consistent with long-stated commitments. A middle power need not shout to be heard; it must simply be consistent.

Francesca Albanese’s tenure has illuminated an uncomfortable paradox. The United Nations is often criticised as toothless, yet when one of its independent experts speaks with legal bluntness, the reaction suggests that words still matter. Attempts to sideline her have so far failed, not because she is beyond reproach, but because the mandate she holds embodies a principle larger than any individual: that human rights scrutiny must not bend to political convenience.

For a global audience weary of endless conflict, the path to a better future for Gaza and Palestine lies not in silencing dissenting voices but in confronting evidence with honesty. The credibility of the international system — and of those states that claim to steward it — depends on that courage. 

In the end, the debate is less about one rapporteur than about whether the promise of ‘never again’ retains meaning when tested by the tragedies of the present.

OPINION: Indonesia’s 8,000: Can stabilisation proceed without normalisation?

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.

This work by Middle East Monitor is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Experiencing issues with this image not appearing. I suspect because it's so critical of Zionist Keir Starmer's support of and complicity in Israel's genocides.
Genocide denier and Current UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer is quoted that he supports Zionism without qualification. He also confirms that UK air force support has been essential in Israel’s mass-murdering genocide. Includes URLs https://www.declassifieduk.org/keir-starmers-100-spy-flights-over-gaza-in-support-of-israel/ and https://youtu.be/O74hZCKKdpA
Keir Starmer objects to criticism of the IDF. He asks how could anyone object to them starving people to death, forced marches like the Nazis did, bombing Gaza's hospitals and universities, mass-murdering journalists, healthworkers and starving people queuing for food, killing and raping prisoners and murdering children. He calls for people to stop obstructing his genocide for Israel.
Keir Starmer objects to criticism of the IDF. He asks how could anyone object to them starving people to death, forced marches like the Nazis did, bombing Gaza’s hospitals and universities, mass-murdering journalists, healthworkers and starving people queuing for food, killing and raping prisoners and murdering children. He calls for people to stop obstructing his genocide for Israel.
Orcas discuss Genocide-supporting and complicit Zionists. Donald Trump, Keith Starmer, David Lammy, Rachel Reeves, Angela Rayner and Wes Streeting are acknowledged as evil genocide-complicit and supporting cnuts.
Orcas discuss Genocide-supporting and complicit Zionists. Donald Trump, Keith Starmer, David Lammy, Rachel Reeves, Angela Rayner and Wes Streeting are acknowledged as evil genocide-complicit and supporting cnuts.
Continue ReadingWho fears the truth? The lawfare campaign to silence Francesca Albanese

Spread the love

Donald Fuhrump says that Amerikkka doesn't bother with crimes or charges anymore, not being 100% Amerikkkan and opposing his real estate intentions is enough.
Donald Fuhrump says that Amerikkka doesn’t bother with crimes or charges anymore, not being 100% Amerikkkan and opposing his real estate intentions is enough.
Elon Musk urges you to be a Fascist like him, says that you can ignore facts and reality then.
Elon Musk urges you to be a Fascist like him, says that you can ignore facts and reality then.
Orcas discuss how Trump was re-elected and him being an obviously insane, xenophobic Fascist.
Orcas discuss how Trump was re-elected and him being an obviously insane, xenophobic Fascist.

Continue Reading