As the violence continues, so does the political crisis. May 28th is
supposed to be the deadline for Nouri al-Maliki to announce he is
implementing the Erbil Agreement or face a no-confidence vote. Moqtada al-Sadr publicly announced the deadline.
If you don't stick to a deadline, there's no point in announcing one.
And Nouri may believe that this is just one of many deadllines he's
been given (such as the one regarding Article 140, the Constitutionally
mandated deadline) which he can actually blow off. And he may be right.
March 7, 2010, Iraq held parliamentary elections. Iraqiya, led by Ayad
Allawi, came in first, State of Law, led by Nouri, came in second.
Nouri did not want to give up the post of prime minister and, with
support from the White House and Tehran, Nouri dug his heels in
creating eight months of gridlock, Political Stalemate I. This only
ended in November 2010 when the US brokered a deal known as the Erbil
Agreement. At a big meet-up in Erbil, the various political blocs
signed off on the agreement. Nouri got his second term as prime
minister in exchange for concessions to other political blocs. But
once he became prime minister, Nouri refused to honor the agreement.
By the summer of 2011, the Kurds were publicly demanding that Nouri
return to the Erbil Agreement and Iraqiya and Moqtada al-Sadr joined in
the call. More recently, April 28th,
another meet up took place in Erbil. Participants included KRG
President Massoud Barzani, President of Iraq Jalal Talabani, Speaker of
Parliament Osama al-Nujaifi, Ayad Allawi and Moqtada al-Sadr. The
demands coming out of that meet-up were a return to the Erbil Agreement
and the implementation of 18-point plan by Moqtada.
Who would replace Nouri? A number of names have been floated.
Ibrahiam al-Jaafari has been the most promiment. al-Jaafari has held
the post before and, in 2006, the Iraqi Parliament wanted to name him
to anotehr term; however, the US refused to allow that to happen and
demanded that their puppet Nouri al-Maliki be given the post instead.
Just as Bush protected Nouri in 2006, Barack did in 2010.
Al Rafidayn reports
today that Kurdish leaders say they are comfortable with the choice of
al-Jaafari to replace Nouri as prime minister. They also report that
if Nouri doesn't meet the deadline, the plan is for Moqtada to meet
with the National Alliance (Shi'ite slate that includes Nouri's State
of Law, Moqtada's bloc, the Supreme Islamic Council of Iraq and more)
and to address the issues and options. Alsumaria reports
State of Law's Bahaa Jamal al-Din has declared in an interview with
them that withdrawing confidence from Nouri would pull the country into
a series of crisies. The obvious follow up to that would be: Is that
really a warning because it sounds like a threat? Alsumaria also notes
that al-Din states Moqtada's meeting with the National alliance today.
Al Mada reports
National alliance MP Jawad Albzona confirms the meet-up but places it
more up in the air with details not nailed down yet about issues such
as the time of the meet-up. Dar Addustour notes
the National Alliance has already postponed one meet-up on this issue
this week (they cancelled the planned May 15th meet-up). Alsumaria reported
earlier today that Moqtada al-Sadr is waiting on formal response from
the National Alliance and it's expected to be in written form,
delivered in a few hours, informing him of the National Alliance's
position on the issues raised. Moqtada tells Alsumaria that the response will determine the next move. Al Sabaah is reporting that Nouri's calling for a face-to-face sit-down with political blocs.
Al Rafidayn reports
on rumors that include threats to publish "secret documents" in an
attempt to stop and/or start a no confidence vote. The latest round of
whispers today follow yesterday's allegation by Iraqiya that State of
Law was intentionally circulating false rumors as part of a
disinformation campaign. (It's an allegation many will believe because
State of Law has been doing that for weeks now.)
Nouri's got other troubles as well. Al Mada reports
that his proposal of one firearm per household continues to be
criticized. Women for Peace's Shaza Nagi declares that a group of NGO
members met to discuss the proposal and to put forward various
counter-proposals. The biggest concern remains, according to Nagi, the
presumed acknowledgment of this move: That the government's making
clear it cannot protect the citizens. Also troubling for Nouri is the
report of mass arrests yesterday. Al Sabaah reports 57 people were arrested. Alsumaria notes
that attorneys staged a sit-in today in Diayal in protest against the
random mass arrests taking place. The arrests came on the same day
Nouri gave a speech promising to punish the 'Ba'athists.' Al Mada notes
Nouri is promising to avenge the crimes of the Ba'ath Party. He
declared that the uninformed and the intellectually deviant were
participating in the political process and, sadly, he wasn't confessing
to his own issues. He spoke of "mass graves" and how he will expose
the crimes of the Ba'ath and that he's called on the Minister of Human
Rights to assist with that. Meanwhile Al Sabaah notes
the Ministry of Health is warning that some tribes are objecting to
doctors and pursuing tribal prosecutions of them which is putting
medical health at risk in Iraq.
Yesterday,
the House Veterans Affairs Subcommittee on Health held a hearing. The
House Veterans Affairs Committee issued the following after the hearing:
VA Prosthetic Care at a Crossroads
For more information, contact:
Amy K. Mitchell, (202) 225-3527
May 16, 2012
Issues: Health Care, Veterans
WASHINGTON, D.C.—Today,
the Subcommittee on Health held a hearing to examine VA’s current
capabilities to provide state-of-the-art care to veterans with
amputations. The Committee heard testimony concerning VA’s proposal to
change procurement processes for prostheses, potentially hindering a
veteran’s ability to acquire the latest prosthetic and corresponding
care and support. “VA has been struggling to keep pace with the rising demands of
younger and more active veterans with amputations,” stated Rep. Ann
Marie Buerkle, Chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Health. “VA must
continue to provide multi-disciplinary care to maintain long-term and
life-time quality of life. Placing prosthesis procurement into the hands
of contracting officers is alarming. VA needs to match the
determination and spirit demonstrated by our wounded warriors and
recommit themselves to becoming a leader once again in prosthetic care.” Currently, VA provides care to approximately 42,000 veterans with
limb loss. As of August of 2011, 1,506 servicemembers had experienced
amputations on active duty from Operations Enduring and Iraqi Freedom.
An additional 2,248 veterans underwent major amputations at VA in 2011.
VA prosthetic costs have more than doubled in the past five years, yet,
VA’s care has fallen behind that of the Department of Defense (DoD). “Prosthetics are a truly individualized extension of one person’s
body and mobility, not your typical bulk supply purchase,” stated Jim
Mayer, a Vietnam veteran, double amputee, and wounded warrior advocate
and mentor. “When today’s warriors are referred to VA and seek the
newer, cutting-edge, technologically superior prosthetics they have been
accustomed to [through DoD], will VA be able to meet that demand? DoD
centers of excellence provide state-of-the-art and often newly
evaluative prosthetics that have allowed warriors to thrive, not just in
walking, but also run competitively, compete in the Paralympics, rock
climb, play myriad sports and other endeavors.” “Prosthetic technology and VA have come a long way from the Civil War
era. Following World War II, veterans dissatisfied with the quality of
VA prosthetics stormed the Capitol in protest. Congress responded by
providing VA with increased flexibility for prosthetic options and
federally funded research and development,” said Buerkle. “As a result,
VA has been a leader in helping veterans with amputations regain
mobility and achieve maximum independence. This is why I am troubled by
VA’s proposed changes in procurement policies and procedures which
shifts the emphasis from the doctors to contracting officers.”
Iraq War veteran Spc Dominick J. Liguori died Friday. Bob Kalinowski (Times-Tribune) reports
he died of sarcoidosis, "Family members say Spc. Liguori developed the
disease from exposure to open-air burn pits while serving in Iraq, and
the ailment slowly scarred and destroyed his lungs." Denise Hook says
of her 31-year-old nephew, "They did scans of his lungs. You could see
on the scans that most of his lungs were destroyed. You'll see a lot
more in the future. You really will." She also states, "Since he was
little, he wore camouflage for Halloween every year. He painted his
wagon camouflage. He painted his little trucks camouflage. He hid in
the trees with camouflage. All he ever dreamt about was being in the
military. That was his lifelong dream. I think if God could have made
him better, he would have rejoined."
Burn pits have resulted in many service members and contractors being
exposed to chemicals and toxins that have seriously harmed their
bodies. Back when Democrats made more of an effort for veterans, it
looked like the issue might be addressed. Instead, burnpits are still
being used in Afghanistan. After all the work of now former-Senator
Byron Dorgan and others, the burn pits are still being used. Dorgan
was Chair of the Senate Democratic Policy Committee and they held many
hearings on this very serious issue. Click here to go to the hearing archives page.
As a result of those hearings, there was a push for a burnpit registry,
similar to the Agent Orange registry (finally) created for the veterans
of Vietnam. October 21, 2009, then-Senator Evan Bayh appeared before
the US Senate Veterans Affairs Committee explaining the bill for a
registry he was sponsoring, advocating for it.
I am here today to
testify about a tragedy that took place in 2003 on the outskirts of
Basra in Iraq. I am here on behalf of Lt Col James Gentry and the brave
men and women who served under his command in the First Battalion, 152nd
Infantry of the Indiana National Guard. I spoke with Lt Col Gentry by
phone just this last week. Unfortunately, he is at home with his wife,
Luanne, waging a vliant fight against terminal cancer. The Lt Col was a
healthy man when he left for Iraq. Today, he is fighting for his life.
Tragically, many of his men are facing their own bleak prognosis as a
result of their exposure to sodium dichromate, one of the most lethal
carcinogens in existence. The chemical is used as an anti-corrosive for
pipes. It was strewn all over the water treatment facility guarded by
the 152nd Infantry. More than 600 soldiers from Indiana, Oregon, West
Virginia and South Carolina were exposed. One Indiana Guardsman has
already died from lung disease and the Army has classified it as a
service-related death. Dozens of the others have come forward with a
range of serious-respiratory symptoms. [. . .] Mr. Chairman, today I
would like to tell this Committee about S1779. It is legislation that I
have written to ensure that we provide full and timely medical care to
soldiers exposed to hazardous chemicals during wartime military service
like those on the outskirts of Basra. The Health Care for Veterans
Exposed to Chemical Hazards Act of 2009 is bipartisan legislation that
has already been co-sponsored by Senators Lugar, Dorgan, Rockefeller,
Byrd, Wyden and Merkley. With a CBO score of just $10 million, it is a
bill with a modest cost but a critical objective: To enusre that we do
right by America's soldiers exposed to toxic chemicals while defending
our country. This bill is modeled after similar legislation that
Congress approved in 1978 following the Agent Orange exposure in the
Vietnam conflict.
And that should have been the start of something. Instead, Senator Jim
Webb managed to keep the burnpit bill from leaving the Senate Veterans
Affairs Committee. Why?
Because Jim Webb may be a veteran -- one with a cushy government
pension and health care that go beyond military benefits -- but he
really doesn't care about them. That's why he had to announce he
wasn't seeking re-election. Veterans in Virginia can't stand him.
September 23, 2010,
VA Secretary Eric Shinseki appeared before the Senate Veterans Affairs
Committee to respond to questions about his decision to expand the
pool of recognized victims of Agent Orange. Read the report on that
hearing (use the link). It was an embarrassment. As I noted, we never
got a Senate hearing about the VA's failure to deliver the Post-9/11 GI
Bill checks in a timely fashion but we got a hearing where Webb could
play cheap and Tester could paint veterans as some sort of 'welfare
chislers.' From that day's snapshot:
Tester being convinced that 'bad' veterans are hidden away
somewhere who "pounds a couple of packs of cigarettes a day and a like
amount of alcohol" to get extra monies from the government claiming
heart disease. I'm not really sure what "a like amount of alcohol" is
to a "couple of packs of cigarettes" -- one is liquid. Is Tester that
stupid, really? And could he next hop on a scale since we're paying his
medical bills as well since he serves in the US Congress and since,
when he was in profile returning to his seat, he so closely resembled
William Conrad. What are you pounding, Tester? And why are we paying
for it? If you want to talk risk factors on veterans and claim that its
your playground to do so because of tax payer monies, let me repeat, we
the tax payers pay for your health care Jon Tester -- for the rest of
your life. Maybe it's time we started imposing penalties on
Congressional members with "risk factors"? Especially those who know
they can't win an argument against Agent Orange exposure so they try to
create this little side dialogue that's both meaningless and insulting.
There were many members of the Committee that were geniunely concerned
about veterans in that hearing -- members from the Republican Party,
the Democratic Party and Socialist Bernie Sanders. But Webb and Tester
were bound and determined that the 'wrong people' were getting money.
Let's point out that Barack Obama loves to give a false history of
Vietnam and claim that the American people abandoned veterans. (In his
more 'creative' moments, he says much worse than that.) The American
people did no such thing and you have to be a real piece of work to
make claim like that in public. The government turned its back on
veterans. And you saw that with Jim Webb continuing to fight efforts
-- in 2010, continuing to fight efforts -- to give the veterans exposed
to Agent Orange the benefits they needed. But grasp that Barack is
forever claiming "never again' and blah blah blah. The victims of
Agent Orange were not officially recognized by the US government until
almost two decades after the end of the war. It was 1991 when
Congress finally passed the act that created the Agent Orange registry.
For those too young to remember, prior to 1991, the US government
offered one lie and one cover up after another to deny the veterans
effected by Agent Orange the care they needed. Many died as a result.
And Barack wants to grand stand (on a false 'history' of Vietnam) and
claim "never again" but his administration has done nothing to create a
burnpit registry, not one damn thing. The next time he gives another
one of his ass-backwards speeches on Vietnam, the public would do well
to remember that the burnpit issue is the equivalent of Vietnam's Agent
Orange issue (and in both cases, the native populations were left to
live in the chemical dump the US government created) and that Mr.
"Never Again" can't even mention "burnpit." He won't mention it. He
won't lead on it. But damned if he doesn't think he deserves
veterans' votes.
Currently, US House Rep Todd Akin is proposing a burnpit registry in
the House. If Barack wants to earn veterans votes or to stop his empty
grand standing and actually have an accomplishment to his name, he
could throw some public support being Akin's bill.
People are dying. It's as outrageous as when the government was
denying the effects of Agent Orange. And there's no excuse for it.
His wife, Rosie, has been battling for years with Congress to get
legislation passed that will recognize a connection with toxic exposure
for soldiers and their poor health conditions. "To sum it up, at
39-years-old, he's lost both his careers that he's worked very hard for
because of his health. Toxic exposure is something that it slowly takes
over one organ at a time." Rosie said. According to Rosie, her husband is in stable but she says others
aren't so lucky. "There's several soldiers awaiting lung transplants and
others on full liters of oxygen constantly." She said.
U.S. Army Spc. Dominick Liguori, 31, who completed a yearlong tour of
duty in Iraq in 2009, died Friday after suffering from a disease that
damaged his lungs the past three years, his family said. Hundreds of other military veterans have claimed respiratory problems
linked to the burn pits, prompting U.S. Rep. Todd Akin, R-Missouri, to
propose a bill to investigate the issue and create a database of
potential victims to determine if there is a link. "We have received numerous reports from individuals who have the same
concerns," Akin's spokesman Steve Taylor said Wednesday. "There seems
to be a certain degree of consistency among the complaints."
So today's veterans will have to wait until 16 years from now to get
burnpit registry? Is that how it's going to work? Again, Barack could
provide leadership on this issue. If he wanted to.
Yesterday's snapshot
included coverage of yesterday's House Veterans Affairs Subcommittee on
Health hearing. Quickly in reply to e-mails. 1) I stated we could
revisit the hearing in a later snapshot. I have no problem doing
that. The e-mails indicate we need to because there's a large amount
of "I hadn't heard about the VA's proposal." I hadn't either until
yesterday's hearing but just assumed I'd missed it. Not the first time
that's happened. Judging by the e-mails, a lot of veterans also
learned from the hearing about the proposal to make it more complicated
for veterans to receive prosthetics.
We'll again quote Iraq War veteran Jonathan Pruden on what VA's proposing.
Jonathan Pruden: Under the change, only a contracting officer
could procure a prosthetic item costing more than $3,000. This policy
would effect essential items including most limbs like mine and wheel
chairs. It would require the use of a system designed for bulk
procurement purchases that involves manually processing over three
hundred -- that's 300 -- individual steps to develop a purchase order.
This system may be great for buying cinder blocks and light bulbs but it
is certainly not appropriate for providing timely and appropriate
medical care. Equally troubling, this change offers no promise of
improving service to the warrior. Instead, it would mean greater
delays. The change could realize modest savings but at what cost? A
warrior needing a new leg or wheel chair should not have to wait longer
than is absolutely necessary. I know warriors who have stayed home from
our events, stay home from school, from work, can't play ball with
their kids or live in chronic pain while they wait for a new
prosthesis. I know first hand what it's like to not be able to put my
son into the crib while I'm waiting for a new prosthetic, to live in
chronic pain and to have my daughter ask my wife once again, "Why can't
Daddy come and walk with us?" With VA moving ahead on changing
procurement practices, wounded warriors need this Committee's help. A
prosthetic limb is not a mass produced widget. Prosthetics are
specialized, medical equipment that should be prescribed by a clinician
and promptly delivered to the veteran. We urge this Committee to direct
VA to stop implementation of this change in prosthetic procurement.
Due to the large amount of e-mails on the hearing, we'll return to it
in today's snapshot, that's a promise. 2) Memorial Day's coming up a
few people note -- some veterans, some not. Are we going to promote
any giving? No.
The economy's still awful. And it's not my place to tell you what to
do with your money. In yesterday's snapshot, we covered the second
panel which was " Disabled American Veterans' Joy Ilem, American Orthotic & Prosthetic Association's Michael Oros, Paralyzed Veterans of America's Alethea Predeoux and Southeast Wounded Warrior Project's
Jonathan Pruden." When we cover a hearing and there are advocate
organizations present, I do try to include links to them. Any
organization from yesterday's hearing would appreciate a donation, any
organization from any hearing we've covered where someone with the
organization spoke and it registered with you is someone you could
consider donating too. If you have the money to spare and I know many
don't.
Second, I am friendly with several organizations and people with them.
If I promoted X and not T, then T would feel slighted and wonder what
they did? (And most likely all they did was run into me not focusing
or thinking clearly so I forgot to include them.)
They'd also run into the time issue. At the end of last week, a friend with the VFW
asked if I would note something. I said sure but that it might take a
few days if they wanted it noted during the week. They were fine with
that, so here it is today:
May 02, 2012
On
Monday, three representatives of the Center for American Progress attacked the
Veterans of Foreign Wars of the U.S. in an opinion editorial published in
Politico. Entitled “VFW, Allies Mislead
On Pay, Benefits,” they criticized the VFW for opposing Pentagon
budget-reduction plans that would reduce military pay increase percentages,
civilianize the retirement system, and shift more TRICARE health program costs
onto military dependents and retirees. VFW National Commander Richard L.
DeNoyer responded to the attack in a 300-word letter to editor
that was published in today’s issue of Politico. Below is the expanded version.
By
Richard L. DeNoyer Monday’s
opinion editorial by Lawrence Korb, Alex Rothman and Max Hoffman would have
readers believe that the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States is
misleading America into believing that the Pentagon’s proposals to reform
military compensation, retirement and healthcare are bad for the nation. As
the national commander of America’s oldest and largest combat veterans’
organization, I can guarantee that nothing the VFW says about protecting
military pay and benefits is misleading. The Defense Department’s “budget
first, people second” proposals are bad for America because they threaten the
continued viability of the all-volunteer force. It takes people to fight and
win our nation’s wars — to put boots on the ground as well as to operate our
ships, planes and tanks. The VFW makes no apologies for wanting to protect
those military programs that attract and retain our best and brightest in
uniform. The
authors would have you believe that proposed military pay raises between .5 and
1.7 percent over the next five years will help rebalance the budget, yet they
make no mention of the effect a resurging economy will have on recruiting and
retention, much less the still volatile and unpredictable world that awaits our
military of 2015 and beyond. They and others seem to have forgotten the huge
recruiting and retention bonuses the military services had to offer just seven
short years ago. It
is the constitutional responsibility of Congress to raise, support, and make
rules for the regulation of our armed forces. And while DOD input is crucial
for informed decisions, Congress must not be rushed into any “up or down”
decision, similar to Base Realignment and Closure Commission votes, that could
put a professionally-led, all-volunteer force at risk. Based
on earlier trial balloons, DOD wants a new military retirement system that
would resemble more participatory, 401(k)-type civilian programs, with the
delayed receipt of retirement benefits until almost age 60. Since less than 10
percent of the force stays 20 years or more — not 17 percent as reported by the
authors — a civilianized military retirement system will hurt retention because
a 401(k)-style retirement plan can be earned virtually anywhere, and in
professions far safer than serving in the military. Congress
needs to carefully review and determine the potential impacts of such proposals
on the force, because the immediate receipt of retirement pay and inexpensive
healthcare for life for the retiree and spouse are the only two incentives the
Pentagon offers to entice someone to first donate 20 or more years of their
youth to the nation. Our
entire nation faces a health cost crisis, but change advocates want all
military dependents and retirees to shoulder more TRICARE health program costs.
They cite national averages and what federal civilian employees pay in an
attempt to justify plans to more than quadruple TRICARE premiums for some
retirees. They call military healthcare and the retirement system “too
generous,” with some even referring to these earned benefits as something far
more insulting — “entitlements.” The
authors would also have you believe that the Pentagon’s proposals are
reasonable and fair, and should be supported by groups like the VFW, the
Military Officers Association of America, and other veteran and military
service organizations. They even wrote that “Reforming the system of military
compensation is necessary — and should be supported by all Americans.” Yet
the authors failed to present the whole picture in their argument. They focus
on the overall monetary cost, but not the human cost that first requires
decades of faithful service just to qualify — the multiple moves and hazardous
deployments; children constantly uprooted from schools and spouses from any
semblance of careers; zero home equity; potential age discrimination when
applying for post-military employment; and now, being relegated to the expense
ledger by the very department that was supposed to have your back. Only
1.9 million of America’s 22.2 million veterans are military retirees. Their
ranks include former military service chiefs and commanders, and exponentially
more from the enlisted ranks — the rank and file who also help to define a
professionally led, all-volunteer force. But during this budget debate, nobody
seems to care about the people side of the equation; they only want to compare
military pay, healthcare and retirement programs with civilians who choose not
to serve. Putting
the budget ahead of the troops is going to signal an end to the all-volunteer
force, which for 39 years and more than a decade of continuous war has served
our nation extremely well. That is not a misleading statement; it is a dire
warning, and we urge Congress to focus on the difference.
I haven't followed that issue so I have no intelligent or even faux
intelligent remark to make on it. I am happy to note their statement.
The following community sites -- plus The Diane Rehm Show, Adam Kokesh,
Iraq Veterans Against the War, Antiwar.com, CSPAN, the House Veterans
Affairs Committee (we'll note that in the next entry), Jody Watley and
Susan's On The Edge -- updated last night and this morning:
The Diane Rehm Show will be covered by Ruth (it's the topic she's been
covering for weeks now -- Edwards trial). In addition to the above,
Blogger/Blogspot is STILL NOT READING Trina's site. Her posts this
week are:
Senator Patty Murray is the Chair of
the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee and the Committee issued the
following yesterday:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Wednesday, May 16, 2012
Contact: Murray Press Office
(202) 224-2834
Senator Murray's Statement on Sweeping Army-Wide Review of Behavioral Health Evaluations and Diagnoses
Investigations Will Review Mental Health Diagnoses Since 2001
(Washington,
D.C.) -- Today, U.S. Senator Patty Murray, Chairman of the Senate
Veterans Affairs Committee, released the following statement after the
Army announced that they will begin a comprehensive, Army-wide review of
soldier behavioral health diagnoses and evaluations since 2001. This
major announcement comes after Senator Murray spurred an investigation
into inconsistencies in diagnoses at Joint Base Lewis-McChord in her
home state of Washington. The Army has since returned PTSD diagnoses to
over 100 servicemembers that sought treatment there. Murray has
repeatedly pushed Army leadership to investigate whether problems
similar to those at Madigan were being seen at Army bases across the
country.
For more information on the Army's announcement visit:
"The
Army clearly realizes they have a nationwide, systematic problem on
their hands. I credit them with taking action, but it will be essential
that this vast and truly historic review is done the right way. That
means continued engagement from Army leadership at the highest levels,
prompt attention to the problems of servicemembers identified during the
review, and not only the identification of problems but quick action to
implement and enforce solutions.
"This
comprehensive review is born out of a review I helped initiate in my
home state that has already returned PTSD diagnoses to over 100
servicemembers since the beginning of this year. That review has been
successful because the Army identified and reached out to affected
servicemembers and veterans, conducted reevaluations using the
appropriate tools and best practices, and was made a priority by top
military leaders. This nationwide review must be given the same
attention from leadership in order to succeed.
"But
the bottom line is that the Army needs to fix the inconsistencies we
have seen in diagnosing the invisible wounds of war. Out of this
review, the Army needs to provide a uniform mental health policy so that
service members are given the care they need.
"This
is an issue that affects every aspect of the lives of those returning
from Iraq and Afghanistan. Without proper mental health treatment we
will continue [to] see see servicemembers struggle to readust to family
life, contine to self-medicate, and in far too many cases, take their
own lives.
"Servicemembers, veterans, and
their families should never have to wade through an unending
bureaucratic process to get proper access to care. The Army has an
extrordinary opportunity to go back, correct the mistakes of the past,
and ensure that they are not repeated."
Iraq War veteran Spc Dominick J. Liguori died Friday. Bob Kalinowski (Times-Tribune) reports
he died of sarcoidosis, "Family members say Spc. Liguori developed the
disease from exposure to open-air burn pits while serving in Iraq, and
the ailment slowly scarred and destroyed his lungs." Denise Hook says
of her 31-year-old nephew, "They did scans of his lungs. You could see
on the scans that most of his lungs were destroyed. You'll see a lot
more in the future. You really will." She also states, "Since he was
little, he wore camouflage for Halloween every year. He painted his
wagon camouflage. He painted his little trucks camouflage. He hid in
the trees with camouflage. All he ever dreamt about was being in the
military. That was his lifelong dream. I think if God could have made
him better, he would have rejoined."
Burn pits have resulted in many service members and contractors being
exposed to chemicals and toxins that have seriously harmed their
bodies. Back when Democrats made more of an effort for veterans, it
looked like the issue might be addressed. Instead, burnpits are still
being used in Afghanistan. After all the work of now former-Senator
Byron Dorgan and others, the burn pits are still being used. Dorgan
was Chair of the Senate Democratic Policy Committee and they held many
hearings on this very serious issue. Click here to go to the hearing archives page.
As a result of those hearings, there was a push for a burnpit registry,
similar to the Agent Orange registry (finally) created for the veterans
of Vietnam. October 21, 2009, then-Senator Evan Bayh appeared before
the US Senate Veterans Affairs Committee explaining the bill for a
registry he was sponsoring, advocating for it.
I am here today to
testify about a tragedy that took place in 2003 on the outskirts of
Basra in Iraq. I am here on behalf of Lt Col James Gentry and the brave
men and women who served under his command in the First Battalion, 152nd
Infantry of the Indiana National Guard. I spoke with Lt Col Gentry by
phone just this last week. Unfortunately, he is at home with his wife,
Luanne, waging a vliant fight against terminal cancer. The Lt Col was a
healthy man when he left for Iraq. Today, he is fighting for his life.
Tragically, many of his men are facing their own bleak prognosis as a
result of their exposure to sodium dichromate, one of the most lethal
carcinogens in existence. The chemical is used as an anti-corrosive for
pipes. It was strewn all over the water treatment facility guarded by
the 152nd Infantry. More than 600 soldiers from Indiana, Oregon, West
Virginia and South Carolina were exposed. One Indiana Guardsman has
already died from lung disease and the Army has classified it as a
service-related death. Dozens of the others have come forward with a
range of serious-respiratory symptoms. [. . .] Mr. Chairman, today I
would like to tell this Committee about S1779. It is legislation that I
have written to ensure that we provide full and timely medical care to
soldiers exposed to hazardous chemicals during wartime military service
like those on the outskirts of Basra. The Health Care for Veterans
Exposed to Chemical Hazards Act of 2009 is bipartisan legislation that
has already been co-sponsored by Senators Lugar, Dorgan, Rockefeller,
Byrd, Wyden and Merkley. With a CBO score of just $10 million, it is a
bill with a modest cost but a critical objective: To enusre that we do
right by America's soldiers exposed to toxic chemicals while defending
our country. This bill is modeled after similar legislation that
Congress approved in 1978 following the Agent Orange exposure in the
Vietnam conflict.
And that should have been the start of something. Instead, Senator Jim
Webb managed to keep the burnpit bill from leaving the Senate Veterans
Affairs Committee. Why?
Because Jim Webb may be a veteran -- one with a cushy government
pension and health care that go beyond military benefits -- but he
really doesn't care about them. That's why he had to announce he
wasn't seeking re-election. Veterans in Virginia can't stand him.
September 23, 2010,
VA Secretary Eric Shinseki appeared before the Senate Veterans Affairs
Committee to respond to questions about his decision to expand the
pool of recognized victims of Agent Orange. Read the report on that
hearing (use the link). It was an embarrassment. As I noted, we never
got a Senate hearing about the VA's failure to deliver the Post-9/11 GI
Bill checks in a timely fashion but we got a hearing where Webb could
play cheap and Tester could paint veterans as some sort of 'welfare
chislers.' From that day's snapshot:
Tester being convinced that 'bad' veterans are hidden away
somewhere who "pounds a couple of packs of cigarettes a day and a like
amount of alcohol" to get extra monies from the government claiming
heart disease. I'm not really sure what "a like amount of alcohol" is
to a "couple of packs of cigarettes" -- one is liquid. Is Tester that
stupid, really? And could he next hop on a scale since we're paying his
medical bills as well since he serves in the US Congress and since,
when he was in profile returning to his seat, he so closely resembled
William Conrad. What are you pounding, Tester? And why are we paying
for it? If you want to talk risk factors on veterans and claim that its
your playground to do so because of tax payer monies, let me repeat, we
the tax payers pay for your health care Jon Tester -- for the rest of
your life. Maybe it's time we started imposing penalties on
Congressional members with "risk factors"? Especially those who know
they can't win an argument against Agent Orange exposure so they try to
create this little side dialogue that's both meaningless and insulting.
There were many members of the Committee that were geniunely concerned
about veterans in that hearing -- members from the Republican Party,
the Democratic Party and Socialist Bernie Sanders. But Webb and Tester
were bound and determined that the 'wrong people' were getting money.
Let's point out that Barack Obama loves to give a false history of
Vietnam and claim that the American people abandoned veterans. (In his
more 'creative' moments, he says much worse than that.) The American
people did no such thing and you have to be a real piece of work to
make claim like that in public. The government turned its back on
veterans. And you saw that with Jim Webb continuing to fight efforts
-- in 2010, continuing to fight efforts -- to give the veterans exposed
to Agent Orange the benefits they needed. But grasp that Barack is
forever claiming "never again' and blah blah blah. The victims of
Agent Orange were not officially recognized by the US government until
almost two decades after the end of the war. It was 1991 when
Congress finally passed the act that created the Agent Orange registry.
For those too young to remember, prior to 1991, the US government
offered one lie and one cover up after another to deny the veterans
effected by Agent Orange the care they needed. Many died as a result.
And Barack wants to grand stand (on a false 'history' of Vietnam) and
claim "never again" but his administration has done nothing to create a
burnpit registry, not one damn thing. The next time he gives another
one of his ass-backwards speeches on Vietnam, the public would do well
to remember that the burnpit issue is the equivalent of Vietnam's Agent
Orange issue (and in both cases, the native populations were left to
live in the chemical dump the US government created) and that Mr.
"Never Again" can't even mention "burnpit." He won't mention it. He
won't lead on it. But damned if he doesn't think he deserves
veterans' votes.
Currently, US House Rep Todd Akin is proposing a burnpit registry in
the House. If Barack wants to earn veterans votes or to stop his empty
grand standing and actually have an accomplishment to his name, he
could throw some public support being Akin's bill.
People are dying. It's as outrageous as when the government was
denying the effects of Agent Orange. And there's no excuse for it.
His wife, Rosie, has been battling for years with Congress to get
legislation passed that will recognize a connection with toxic exposure
for soldiers and their poor health conditions. "To sum it up, at
39-years-old, he's lost both his careers that he's worked very hard for
because of his health. Toxic exposure is something that it slowly takes
over one organ at a time." Rosie said. According to Rosie, her husband is in stable but she says others
aren't so lucky. "There's several soldiers awaiting lung transplants and
others on full liters of oxygen constantly." She said.
U.S. Army Spc. Dominick Liguori, 31, who completed a yearlong tour of
duty in Iraq in 2009, died Friday after suffering from a disease that
damaged his lungs the past three years, his family said. Hundreds of other military veterans have claimed respiratory problems
linked to the burn pits, prompting U.S. Rep. Todd Akin, R-Missouri, to
propose a bill to investigate the issue and create a database of
potential victims to determine if there is a link. "We have received numerous reports from individuals who have the same
concerns," Akin's spokesman Steve Taylor said Wednesday. "There seems
to be a certain degree of consistency among the complaints."
So today's veterans will have to wait until 16 years from now to get
burnpit registry? Is that how it's going to work? Again, Barack could
provide leadership on this issue. If he wanted to.
Yesterday's snapshot
included coverage of yesterday's House Veterans Affairs Subcommittee on
Health hearing. Quickly in reply to e-mails. 1) I stated we could
revisit the hearing in a later snapshot. I have no problem doing
that. The e-mails indicate we need to because there's a large amount
of "I hadn't heard about the VA's proposal." I hadn't either until
yesterday's hearing but just assumed I'd missed it. Not the first time
that's happened. Judging by the e-mails, a lot of veterans also
learned from the hearing about the proposal to make it more complicated
for veterans to receive prosthetics.
We'll again quote Iraq War veteran Jonathan Pruden on what VA's proposing.
Jonathan Pruden: Under the change, only a contracting officer
could procure a prosthetic item costing more than $3,000. This policy
would effect essential items including most limbs like mine and wheel
chairs. It would require the use of a system designed for bulk
procurement purchases that involves manually processing over three
hundred -- that's 300 -- individual steps to develop a purchase order.
This system may be great for buying cinder blocks and light bulbs but it
is certainly not appropriate for providing timely and appropriate
medical care. Equally troubling, this change offers no promise of
improving service to the warrior. Instead, it would mean greater
delays. The change could realize modest savings but at what cost? A
warrior needing a new leg or wheel chair should not have to wait longer
than is absolutely necessary. I know warriors who have stayed home from
our events, stay home from school, from work, can't play ball with
their kids or live in chronic pain while they wait for a new
prosthesis. I know first hand what it's like to not be able to put my
son into the crib while I'm waiting for a new prosthetic, to live in
chronic pain and to have my daughter ask my wife once again, "Why can't
Daddy come and walk with us?" With VA moving ahead on changing
procurement practices, wounded warriors need this Committee's help. A
prosthetic limb is not a mass produced widget. Prosthetics are
specialized, medical equipment that should be prescribed by a clinician
and promptly delivered to the veteran. We urge this Committee to direct
VA to stop implementation of this change in prosthetic procurement.
Due to the large amount of e-mails on the hearing, we'll return to it
in today's snapshot, that's a promise. 2) Memorial Day's coming up a
few people note -- some veterans, some not. Are we going to promote
any giving? No.
The economy's still awful. And it's not my place to tell you what to
do with your money. In yesterday's snapshot, we covered the second
panel which was " Disabled American Veterans' Joy Ilem, American Orthotic & Prosthetic Association's Michael Oros, Paralyzed Veterans of America's Alethea Predeoux and Southeast Wounded Warrior Project's
Jonathan Pruden." When we cover a hearing and there are advocate
organizations present, I do try to include links to them. Any
organization from yesterday's hearing would appreciate a donation, any
organization from any hearing we've covered where someone with the
organization spoke and it registered with you is someone you could
consider donating too. If you have the money to spare and I know many
don't.
Second, I am friendly with several organizations and people with them.
If I promoted X and not T, then T would feel slighted and wonder what
they did? (And most likely all they did was run into me not focusing
or thinking clearly so I forgot to include them.)
They'd also run into the time issue. At the end of last week, a friend with the VFW
asked if I would note something. I said sure but that it might take a
few days if they wanted it noted during the week. They were fine with
that, so here it is today:
May 02, 2012
On
Monday, three representatives of the Center for American Progress attacked the
Veterans of Foreign Wars of the U.S. in an opinion editorial published in
Politico. Entitled “VFW, Allies Mislead
On Pay, Benefits,” they criticized the VFW for opposing Pentagon
budget-reduction plans that would reduce military pay increase percentages,
civilianize the retirement system, and shift more TRICARE health program costs
onto military dependents and retirees. VFW National Commander Richard L.
DeNoyer responded to the attack in a 300-word letter to editor
that was published in today’s issue of Politico. Below is the expanded version.
By
Richard L. DeNoyer Monday’s
opinion editorial by Lawrence Korb, Alex Rothman and Max Hoffman would have
readers believe that the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States is
misleading America into believing that the Pentagon’s proposals to reform
military compensation, retirement and healthcare are bad for the nation. As
the national commander of America’s oldest and largest combat veterans’
organization, I can guarantee that nothing the VFW says about protecting
military pay and benefits is misleading. The Defense Department’s “budget
first, people second” proposals are bad for America because they threaten the
continued viability of the all-volunteer force. It takes people to fight and
win our nation’s wars — to put boots on the ground as well as to operate our
ships, planes and tanks. The VFW makes no apologies for wanting to protect
those military programs that attract and retain our best and brightest in
uniform. The
authors would have you believe that proposed military pay raises between .5 and
1.7 percent over the next five years will help rebalance the budget, yet they
make no mention of the effect a resurging economy will have on recruiting and
retention, much less the still volatile and unpredictable world that awaits our
military of 2015 and beyond. They and others seem to have forgotten the huge
recruiting and retention bonuses the military services had to offer just seven
short years ago. It
is the constitutional responsibility of Congress to raise, support, and make
rules for the regulation of our armed forces. And while DOD input is crucial
for informed decisions, Congress must not be rushed into any “up or down”
decision, similar to Base Realignment and Closure Commission votes, that could
put a professionally-led, all-volunteer force at risk. Based
on earlier trial balloons, DOD wants a new military retirement system that
would resemble more participatory, 401(k)-type civilian programs, with the
delayed receipt of retirement benefits until almost age 60. Since less than 10
percent of the force stays 20 years or more — not 17 percent as reported by the
authors — a civilianized military retirement system will hurt retention because
a 401(k)-style retirement plan can be earned virtually anywhere, and in
professions far safer than serving in the military. Congress
needs to carefully review and determine the potential impacts of such proposals
on the force, because the immediate receipt of retirement pay and inexpensive
healthcare for life for the retiree and spouse are the only two incentives the
Pentagon offers to entice someone to first donate 20 or more years of their
youth to the nation. Our
entire nation faces a health cost crisis, but change advocates want all
military dependents and retirees to shoulder more TRICARE health program costs.
They cite national averages and what federal civilian employees pay in an
attempt to justify plans to more than quadruple TRICARE premiums for some
retirees. They call military healthcare and the retirement system “too
generous,” with some even referring to these earned benefits as something far
more insulting — “entitlements.” The
authors would also have you believe that the Pentagon’s proposals are
reasonable and fair, and should be supported by groups like the VFW, the
Military Officers Association of America, and other veteran and military
service organizations. They even wrote that “Reforming the system of military
compensation is necessary — and should be supported by all Americans.” Yet
the authors failed to present the whole picture in their argument. They focus
on the overall monetary cost, but not the human cost that first requires
decades of faithful service just to qualify — the multiple moves and hazardous
deployments; children constantly uprooted from schools and spouses from any
semblance of careers; zero home equity; potential age discrimination when
applying for post-military employment; and now, being relegated to the expense
ledger by the very department that was supposed to have your back. Only
1.9 million of America’s 22.2 million veterans are military retirees. Their
ranks include former military service chiefs and commanders, and exponentially
more from the enlisted ranks — the rank and file who also help to define a
professionally led, all-volunteer force. But during this budget debate, nobody
seems to care about the people side of the equation; they only want to compare
military pay, healthcare and retirement programs with civilians who choose not
to serve. Putting
the budget ahead of the troops is going to signal an end to the all-volunteer
force, which for 39 years and more than a decade of continuous war has served
our nation extremely well. That is not a misleading statement; it is a dire
warning, and we urge Congress to focus on the difference.
I haven't followed that issue so I have no intelligent or even faux
intelligent remark to make on it. I am happy to note their statement.
The following community sites -- plus The Diane Rehm Show, Adam Kokesh,
Iraq Veterans Against the War, Antiwar.com, CSPAN, the House Veterans
Affairs Committee (we'll note that in the next entry), Jody Watley and
Susan's On The Edge -- updated last night and this morning:
The Diane Rehm Show will be covered by Ruth (it's the topic she's been
covering for weeks now -- Edwards trial). In addition to the above,
Blogger/Blogspot is STILL NOT READING Trina's site. Her posts this
week are:
Senator Patty Murray is the Chair of
the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee and the Committee issued the
following yesterday:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Wednesday, May 16, 2012
Contact: Murray Press Office
(202) 224-2834
Senator Murray's Statement on Sweeping Army-Wide Review of Behavioral Health Evaluations and Diagnoses
Investigations Will Review Mental Health Diagnoses Since 2001
(Washington,
D.C.) -- Today, U.S. Senator Patty Murray, Chairman of the Senate
Veterans Affairs Committee, released the following statement after the
Army announced that they will begin a comprehensive, Army-wide review of
soldier behavioral health diagnoses and evaluations since 2001. This
major announcement comes after Senator Murray spurred an investigation
into inconsistencies in diagnoses at Joint Base Lewis-McChord in her
home state of Washington. The Army has since returned PTSD diagnoses to
over 100 servicemembers that sought treatment there. Murray has
repeatedly pushed Army leadership to investigate whether problems
similar to those at Madigan were being seen at Army bases across the
country.
For more information on the Army's announcement visit:
"The
Army clearly realizes they have a nationwide, systematic problem on
their hands. I credit them with taking action, but it will be essential
that this vast and truly historic review is done the right way. That
means continued engagement from Army leadership at the highest levels,
prompt attention to the problems of servicemembers identified during the
review, and not only the identification of problems but quick action to
implement and enforce solutions.
"This
comprehensive review is born out of a review I helped initiate in my
home state that has already returned PTSD diagnoses to over 100
servicemembers since the beginning of this year. That review has been
successful because the Army identified and reached out to affected
servicemembers and veterans, conducted reevaluations using the
appropriate tools and best practices, and was made a priority by top
military leaders. This nationwide review must be given the same
attention from leadership in order to succeed.
"But
the bottom line is that the Army needs to fix the inconsistencies we
have seen in diagnosing the invisible wounds of war. Out of this
review, the Army needs to provide a uniform mental health policy so that
service members are given the care they need.
"This
is an issue that affects every aspect of the lives of those returning
from Iraq and Afghanistan. Without proper mental health treatment we
will continue [to] see see servicemembers struggle to readust to family
life, contine to self-medicate, and in far too many cases, take their
own lives.
"Servicemembers, veterans, and
their families should never have to wade through an unending
bureaucratic process to get proper access to care. The Army has an
extrordinary opportunity to go back, correct the mistakes of the past,
and ensure that they are not repeated."
Wednesday,
May 16, 2012. Chaos and violence continue, Nouri wants his
'accomplishments' acknowledged (if only there was one to point to),
State of Law insists a conspiracy is a foot!, a US House Veterans
Affairs Subcommittee hears that a change VA wants to make will actually
hurt disabled veterans, and more.
"Our
nation's commitment to restoring the capabilities of disabled veterans
struggling with devasting combat wounds resulting in the loss of limb
began with the Civil War," declared US House Rep Ann Marie Buerkle this
morning shortly after she brought the House Veterans Affairs
Subcommittee on Health to order. "Restoring these veterans to wholeness
was a core impetus behind the creation of the Department of Veteran
Affairs and then, now, it continues to play a vital role in the
Department's mission."
Buerkle is the Chair of
the Subcommittee and this morning's hearing was entitled "Optimizing
Care for Veterans With Prosthetics." Chair Burerkle also noted,
"Following WWII, 1945, veterans disatisfied with the quality of VA
prosthetic care stormed the Capitol in protest. " How is the care
today? To answer that question, the Subcommittee heard from
four panels. Gulf War Veteran John Register and Vietnam Veteran Jim
Mayer. Disabled American Veterans' Joy Ilem, American Orthotic & Prosthetic Association's Michael Oros, Paralyzed Veterans of America's Alethea Predeoux and Southeast Wounded Warrior Project's
Jonathan Pruden. The third panel was the VA's Office of Inspector
General's Linda Halliday accompanied by Nicholas Dahl, Kent Wrathall
and Dr. John D. Daigh Jr. and Dr. Robert Yang. The fourth panel was the
VHA's Dr. Lucille Beck accompanied by Dr. Joe Webster, Dr. Joe Miller
and Norbert Doyle. Some of the issues were outlined in the Ranking
Member's opening remarks.
Ranking
Member Mike Michaud: I've said it on this Committee before, but what
seems to be the case, there is little accountability in management and,
once again, procurement procedures and policies were not in place or not
followed in managing nearly $2 billion worth of prosthetics and sensor
aids. The VA, in the last year's budget submission, claims $355 million
in savings in the Fiscal Year 2012 and 2013 due to aquistions
improvements. But if the VA can't follow its own policies and
procedures, how much faith can we have in the claim of acquisition
savings? I hope the VA can help us understand today what accountability
we should expect and to make certain that the VA does not continue to
overpay for prosthetics in the future, that taxpayers and veterans
receive the best value for their devices, and for management to ensure
that the prosthetics and sensor aids services is fully meeting veterans
needs. Finally, it has come to my attention that VA has proposed
changes in the procurement of prosthetics and that there is a high
degree of concern among some of our witnesses today as to the
effectiveness of these changes. I look forward to hearing from the VA on
these changes as well.
A
proposed change that's bothering some veterans? What proposal is
Ranking Member Michaud speaking of? On the second panel, Jonathan
Pruden explained the proposal (and here we're using his opening written
remarks which differ some what from what he delivered):
Under
current practice, VA physicians and prosthetists are able to see a
veteran, make a determination regarding the most appropriate type of
prosthetic equipment for a veteran, and relay that information to a
Prosthetics Service purchasing officer to complete a purchase-order to
obtain the needed item. Those purchasing officers exclusively handle
prosthetics' purchases, and are specialists in ordering medical
equipment specified by health care providers. A major change that the
Veterans Health Administration intends to institute on July 30th, would
require that any prosthetic item whose cost exceeds $3000 -- to include
such essential items as limbs, wheelchairs and limb-repair components –
must be procured by a contracting officer. This is not simply a matter
of substituting a generalist for a specialist. Under the proposed
change, these contracting officers would use a labor-intensive system
(the Electronic Contract Management System (eCMS)) designed to achieve
cost savings. That system, designed for high-dollar bulk-procurement
purchases that benefit from using the Government's purchasing power,
requires over 300 individual steps to manually process a purchasing
order. While well-suited for buying widgets, the system was neither
designed for nor well-suited to procuring highly specific,
individualized medical equipment. Ill-suited to prosthetics, this new
process would also require increased coordination between clinicians and
off-site contracting officers who would be responsible for purchasing
everything from light bulbs to now highly specific prosthetic legs.
This
is not a small change. Moreover, it not only increases the margin for
error but also the potential for prolonged, delaying "back-and-forth,"
with the likelihood of clinicians having to justify why a more expensive
wheelchair is clinically necessary when a seemingly-similar less-
costly model exists. We see no prospect that this planned change in
prosthetics procurement holds any promise for improving service to the
warrior. Instead, it almost certainly threatens greater delay in VA's
ability to provide severely wounded warriors needed prosthetic devices.
This
would be "the wrong path" Iraq War veteran Jonathan Pruden stated. He
was injured in a July 1, 2003 Baghdad bombing resulting in multiple
surgeries including the amputation of his right leg. This next excerpt
is from his oral testimony.
Jonathan
Pruden: Under the change, only a contracting officer could procure a
prosthetic item costing more than $3,000. This policy would effect
essential items including most limbs like mine and wheel chairs. It
would require the use of a system designed for bulk procurement
purchases that involves manually processing over three hundred -- that's
300 -- individual steps to develop a purchase order. This system may
be great for buying cinder blocks and light bulbs but it is certainly
not appropriate for providing timely and appropriate medical care.
Equally troubling, this change offers no promise of improving service to
the warrior. Instead, it would mean greater delays. The change could
realize modest savings but at what cost? A warrior needing a new leg or
wheel chair should not have to wait longer than is absolutely
necessary. I know warriors who have stayed home from our events, stay
home from school, from work, can't play ball with their kids or live
in chronic pain while they wait for a new prosthesis. I know first
hand what it's like to not be able to put my son into the crib while I'm
waiting for a new prosthetic, to live in chronic pain and to have my
daughter ask my wife once again, "Why can't Daddy come and walk with
us?" With VA moving ahead on changing procurement practices, wounded
warriors need this Committee's help. A prosthetic limb is not a mass
produced widget. Prosthetics are specialized, medical equipment that
should be prescribed by a clinician and promptly delivered to the
veteran. We urge this Committee to direct VA to stop implementation of
this change in prosthetic procurement.
We'll note this exchange from the second panel.
Chair
Ann Marie Buerkle: Mr. Pruden, in you testimony, you talked about how
VA prosthetic research has lagged in recent years. Now Mr. Oros talked
about outcomes but I think you're talking more generally in terms of the
research. What impact -- and I shouldn't speak for you. I should let
you say what research you were referring to. And then, if you could,
after you tell us that piece, what impact has that had on veterans and
the service that they need?
Jonathan
Pruden: VA has-has stepped up in a number of capacties in the past few
years. But, as Mr. Mayer pointed out earlier, DoD has taken the lead
on the development of the DEKA Arm [a project DoD and the VA work on
together] and all of these advanced techonology things. In years past,
VA has been -- One of its key roles and one of the reasons it exists is
to provide specialized medical equipment for our combat wounded, for our
veterans. And VA really needs to have the capacity and the focus on
research for durable medical equipment when DoD and Global War on Terror
Dollars go away. And this also ties into the discusssions about the
centers of excellence at Walter Reed, Brooke Army Medical Center and so
forth. When these dollars go away, those DoD facilities will certainly
scale back their capacity both for rehabilitation and for research. And
what we're calling for is for VA through the amputee system of care
and enhancements and research to be prepared to meet the needs as DoD
scales back.
Chair
Ann Marie Buerkle: Thank you. Miss Predeoux, I'm extremely concerned
with regards to your comments about the filing system being outdated and
the backlog that it creates. Could you comment on that for us?
Alethea
Predeoux: Yes, in my written statement with the filing system, it
refers to medical records in one VA medical center. And if, for
instance, one veteran was to relocate -- For example, our director of
benefits relocated to this area from San Diego and it took quite a bit
of time for the medical records to be delivered from San Diego to DC
simply because there's not one central system in which all the medical
centers are able to locate and actually view the medical records of a
veteran. And as the panel before us testified, it's not just a wait
time, it's a matter of being able to be comfortable and actually to be
mobil.
Noting that
Wounded Warrior was favoring a freeze on VA's proposed change, Ranking
Member Michaud asked Oros, "Do you think we should ask the VA to freeze
the reorganization? Bringing everthing in house?" Oros responded,
"Absolutely. Absolutely." US House Rep Gus Bilirakis wanted to know
about the real life effects if VA went through with their change in
procurement?
Jonathan
Pruden: Under the current system, there are safeguards in place to
ensure that VA is being fiscally responsible. And it can take a month,
two months. Some of this is predicated on the clinical needs of the
patient and the availablility of the product in their area which is
appropriate. Our real concern is that -- is that with the new system,
it would be supposition but it may take months and months longer to get
purchase orders for needed equipment. And the veterans should not have
to wait and the clinician's hands should not be tied. If they feel that
a device is appropriate and going to provide the best care for a
warrior, they should be able to prescribe that device. I have had the
opportunity to speak with over a dozen VA clinicians and prosthetists
who are currently serving in several former chiefs of prosthetics. And
every single one of them said that they share our concerns about the
ability to remain timely and potential delays in veterans receiving
needed prosthetic devices under this new system. Dr. Bechel and she'll
say that, 'One of the things that we're going to consider is if a device
is generally available and interchangeable. Then it will fall under
the federal acquisition regulations.' Who is determining what is
generally available and interchangeable? It's going to be somebody in
acquisitions , not a physician, not a clinician who has the patient's
best interest at heart. And that -- that's our real concern.
That's
one of the main points from the hearing. Time permitting, we may cover
some other issues or go deeper into this one in another snapshot.
From
the House to the Senate, Senator Patty Murray is the Chair of the
Senate Veterans Affairs Committee and the Committee issued the following
today:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Wednesday, May 16, 2012
Contact: Murray Press Office
(202) 224-2834
Senator Murray's Statement on Sweeping Army-Wide Review of Behavioral Health Evaluations and Diagnoses
Investigations Will Review Mental Health Diagnoses Since 2001
(Washington,
D.C.) -- Today, U.S. Senator Patty Murray, Chairman of the Senate
Veterans Affairs Committee, released the following statement after the
Army announced that they will begin a comprehensive, Army-wide review of
soldier behavioral health diagnoses and evaluations since 2001. This
major announcement comes after Senator Murray spurred an investigation
into inconsistencies in diagnoses at Joint Base Lewis-McChord in her
home state of Washington. The Army has since returned PTSD diagnoses to
over 100 servicemembers that sought treatment there. Murray has
repeatedly pushed Army leadership to investigate whether problems
similar to those at Madigan were being seen at Army bases across the
country.
For more information on the Army's announcement visit:
"The
Army clearly realizes they have a nationwide, systematic problem on
their hands. I credit them with taking action, but it will be essential
that this vast and truly historic review is done the right way. That
means continued engagement from Army leadership at the highest levels,
prompt attention to the problems of servicemembers identified during the
review, and not only the identification of problems but quick action to
implement and enforce solutions.
"This
comprehensive review is born out of a review I helped initiate in my
home state that has already returned PTSD diagnoses to over 100
servicemembers since the beginning of this year. That review has been
successful because the Army identified and reached out to affected
servicemembers and veterans, conducted reevaluations using the
appropriate tools and best practices, and was made a priority by top
military leaders. This nationwide review must be given the same
attention from leadership in order to succeed.
"But
the bottom line is that the Army needs to fix the inconsistencies we
have seen in diagnosing the invisible wounds of war. Out of this
review, the Army needs to provide a uniform mental health policy so that
service members are given the care they need.
"This
is an issue that affects every aspect of the lives of those returning
from Iraq and Afghanistan. Without proper mental health treatment we
will continue [to] see see servicemembers struggle to readust to family
life, contine to self-medicate, and in far too many cases, take their
own lives.
"Servicemembers, veterans, and
their families should never have to wade through an unending
bureaucratic process to get proper access to care. The Army has an
extrordinary opportunity to go back, correct the mistakes of the past,
and ensure that they are not repeated."
Yesterday the Presidency of the Republic of Iraq's website deleted the image of Vice President Tareq al-Hashemi. Alsumaria reports
that the deletion is being blamed on a "technical issue" and that they
are in the process of rolling out a new website design. Though some
worried this might mean that al-Hashemi had been stripped of his post,
others no doubt found it shocking that the Presidency still has a web
domain. The Ministy of Higher Education & Scientific Research has lost its domain as has the Ministry of Trade. and the Ministry of Displacement and Migration and the Ministry of Culture and . . .
Due
to Nouri al-Maliki's targeting of Tareq al-Hashemi, some were worried
about the disappearnace. At this point, the President's office is
insisting it was merely a "technical issue." Nouri targeted al-Hashemi
at the same time he did Deputy Prime Minister Saleh al-Mutlaq. He
wanted al-Mutlaq stripped of his post for the 'crime' of telling CNN
that Nouri was becoming a dictator. Nouri always feels the need to
punish truth tellers.
For an overview of the political crisis, we'll note this from Marina Ottaway and Danial Kaysi's [PDF format warning] "The State Of Iraq" (Carnegie Endowment for International Peace) reviewed events and noted:
Within
days of the official ceremonies marking the end of the U.S. mission in
Iraq, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki moved to indict Vice President
Tariq al-Hashemi on terrorism charges and sought to remove Deputy Prime
Minister Saleh al-Mutlaq from his position, triggering a major political
crisis that fully revealed Iraq as an unstable, undemocractic country
governed by raw competition for power and barely affected by
institutional arrangements. Large-scale violence immediately flared up
again, with a series of terrorist attacks against mostly Shi'i targets
reminiscent of the worst days of 2006.
But there is
more to the crisis than an escalation of violence. The tenuous
political agreement among parties and factions reached at the end of
2010 has collapsed. The government of national unity has stopped
functioning, and provinces that want to become regions with autonomous
power comparable to Kurdistan's are putting increasing pressure on the
central government. Unless a new political agreement is reached soon,
Iraq may plunge into civil war or split apart.
Alsumaria reports that an Iraqiya offshoot, White Iraqiya, is stating al-Mutalq will be at a Council of Ministers meeting next week. Ali Hussein (Al Mada) offers
a column on the drama of Nouri and Saleh and notes that, throughout,
there was always the pretense of shedding tears over how this was
preventing the people's business. Iraqiya made clear that they are fine with the various names tossed around as possible replacements for Nouri. Alsumaria reports
that Nouri's political slate, State of Law, is insisting that there's a
conspiracy to replace Nouri and that KRG President Massoud Barzani is
behind the conspiracy. In addition, Nouri says that his achievements should not be overlooked.
Presumably, Nouri doesn't mean for people to look at the potable water
issue. Though Nouri's been prime minister since 2006, potable water
is still an aspiration in Iraq. The cholera season will soon, once
again, be upon Iraq. Al Mada reports that only 15% of Nineveh Province are serviced by networks of potable water.
Not a ringing endorsement. May 7th, the Iraqi government acknowledged that it can't protect the people, Al Rafidayn reported
that Nouri's agreed to allow every Iraqi household to keep one gun
provided they register it with the nearest police department. Dar Addustour added that Nouri's spokesperson Ali al-Dabbagh has explained the one gun can be either a rifle or a pistol. Al Sabaah noted that the Ministry of the Interior will issue guidelines on how the new procedure will be implemented. Kitabat explained that the current policy had been for the Iraqi forces to confiscate any weapon they found during a house raid. May 10th, the pushback began. Alsumaria reported
that State of Law MP Shirwan Waeli is questioning the wisdom of the
decision and stating State of Law shouldn't be giving legitimacy to
arming people and that, futhermore, it suggests that the government is
unable to protect Iraqis so it is now the direct responsibility of the
citizens to protect themselves. Supporters argue that the move was an
attempt to limit guns and that the one-gun rule will greatly reduce the
number of firearms in each home. Alsumaria noted
that objections to Nouri's one-gun policy are also coming from the
Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq and the Kurdistan Alliance. Ala
Talabani, spokesperson for the Kurdistan Alliance, spoke publicly today
about the issue and declared that they fear making each household
register their one gun with the nearest police station in their areas
will provide temptation for corruption. Talabani also states that
they fear the rule could lead to an increase in so-called 'honor'
killings as well as an increase in domestic violence. Mustafa Habib (Niqash) reports:
But
a source inside the Ministry of Interior said the authorities actually
felt this was an acknowledgement of the reality in Iraq, an idea that
would allow them to better control security inside the country. By
getting locals to register their firearms, the government would get a
better idea of what kinds of weapons were in the country and how many
there were.
Up
until recently, the right to own a firearm in Iraq was reserved for
members of the security forces and those in certain other professions.
However, in reality, it would be fair to say that most Iraqi households
own at least one gun, whether permitted or not.
UPI notes, "A
prison that Iraq's government said it closed a year ago is still open
and being used for torture and unlawful detentions, a human rights group
said Tuesday." Al Mada notes Human Rights Watch published their report
yesterday and that the secret prisons are in the Green Zone, one of
which is Camp Honor which the government insists was closed. Mohammed Tawfeeq and CNN quote
Human Rights Watch's Joe Stork stating "It's a matter of grave concern
that Iraqis in so many walks of life, officials included, are afraid
for their own well-being and fear great harm if they discuss allegations
of serious human rights abuses." Al Arabiya adds,
"The rights group called for Baghdad to start an independent
investigation into allegations of torture and mistreatment, as well as
other issues, at Camp Honor and other jails." Ahram Online explains:
The
HRW report cited testimonies and acknowledgments by former prisoners,
lawyers, parliamentarians, family members, government and security
officials. Based on the interviews, HRW concluded that the Iraqi
government carries out mass arrests, illegally detaining hundreds of
citizens, dozens of them transferred to Camp Honor.
Two
particular waves of mass arrests were mentioned in HRW's account. The
first occurred in October and November 2011 when officials and officers
were targeted. Those were allegedly Baath Party and Saddam Hussein
loyalists and were ordered detained directly through Prime Minister
Nouri Al-Maliki's military office.
The
"Baathist arrests" were supposedly to round up plotters against Iraq's
regime. Testimonies said those released were forced to sign pledges
against public criticism of the government as well as false confessions.
Threats of torture (or further torture), family member raping and
prolonging imprisonment preceded the signings.
The
second wave of arrests was prior to the March 2012 Arab summit in
Baghdad. This wave was preemptive, an effort to secure the summit not
hosted in Baghdad for decades because of insecurity, claimed now to be
secure by Iraq's government.
Alsumaria reports a Kirkuk roadside bombing injured one police officer and the burned corpse of 1 young man was discovered in Kirkuk "handcuffed and blindfolded." Xinhua notes
that a Jalawla roadside bombing left four police officers injured, a
garage continer bombing in Jalawla left a young boy injured, a Baghdad
construction cite bombing left three construction workers wounded. In
addition, KUNA adds,
"Up to three Iraqis were killed and 11 others suffered injuries violent
incidents close to the nothern cities of Kukuk and Mosul on Tuesday."
Noting 96 deaths from violence in Iraq so far this month, Iraq Body Count
notes 10 dead yesterday: "Mosul: 2 by gunfire. Shirqat: 2 by gunfire, 1
body. Al-Zaeraiah: 2 Sahwa members by fungire. Taza: 2 bodies found
in grave. Mosul: 1 by mortars."
Meanwhile some of the targeted in Iraq do get out of alive. Suheil Damouny (SBS' World News Australia, link is text and video) reports
that a group of Iraqi Palestinians have made it to Sydney where they
have family, "They say they have suffered great human rights violations
in Iraq, especially since the fall of Saddam Hussein in 2003."
Suheil
Damouny: Almost as soon as the government fell in 2003, Iraqis wanted
Palestinians out -- anywhere, except Iraq. Human rights groups are
still cataloguing the intense harassment, kidnappings and even murders.
Shia landlords wanted to reclaim properties Saddam's government had
forced them to rent to Palestinians virtually for free.
Shhadi
Ameen Badwan: They would come to our homes and draw a noose on the
door, saying that they will hang us if we do not leave. We were targeted
as Palestinians. They would say that the buildings we live in are
theirs. They say that Iraqi families are living on the streets while we
are living in buildings. They say they do not want us there at all and
we have to leave.
Suheil
Damouny: Subhi and his wife left Iraq with their daughter in 2007.
They left behind a son. His fate? Still unknown, another kidnapped in
Iraq in 2006 presumed dead.
Rihaneh
Ibrahim Khalil Badwan: They too my son. They took him from the shop
and he was never seen again! Until now I have not seen him. The Mehdi
Army took him. We were humiliated. How many times have we been
displaced! From Palestine we were kicked out. They do not want us in
Iraq. We went to Syria and look what happened there.
Suheil
Damouny: They made their way into Syria using forged Iraqi documents.
In Damascus, left with nothing, they turned themselves in. They were
then sent back to the border where they remained in barren refugee camps
for five years. It was as far as they could go. No country would let
them in.
Subhi
Ameen Badwan: For Palestinians, this card, our passports, wouldn't
even allow us to travel for 20 metres. They would fight us simply based
on this Iraqi card. Once someone is idnetified as a Palestinian we
would be kidnapped, then they would demand ransom money.
Suheil Damouny: Amnesty International's Graham Thom visited the camp. The conditions were appalling.
Graham
Thom: There were scorpians, there were snake bites. And, again, these
camps were on the sides of busy highways and so we had small children
who were being run over and killed by trucks in the middle of the
desert.
The
American Civil Liberties Union has come to the defense of a former
State Department employee who looks likely to be fired for blogging and
writing critically about the reconstruction efforts in Iraq. The ACLU says doing so would violate the constitutional rights of veteran State Department employee Peter Van Buren, according to a letter the group sent the government on Tuesday. The
letter further accuses the government of unlawful retaliation against
Van Buren for publishing critical comments about U.S. foreign policy on
his personal blog last year. "The Supreme Court has repeatedly
held that public employees retain their First Amendment rights even
when speaking about issues directly related to their employment, as long
as they are speaking as private citizens," and as long as they're
writing about matters of public concern, the ACLU wrote in its letter
(.pdf). "There can be no dispute that the subject matter of Mr. Van
Buren's book, blog posts, and news articles -- the reconstruction effort
in Iraq -- is a matter of immense public concern."
Thank you, Justin Raimondo, for ruining my morning with your sexist
b.s. Antiwar.com is not concerned at all with building a right-left
coalition. For all his whining, Justin just wants things the way he
wants them. Which mainly means he wants women in no positions ideally
but in token positions if they have to be present at all -- which is
why there are three and only three women at Antiwar.com. But tons and
tons of men. And don't you dare point that out because they get so
damn sensitive and start acting as if making a very basic and obvious
observation has now somehow harmed them greatly.
I'm really sorry for whatever Justin's Mommy did or didn't do for him
or to him. But he really needs to grow the hell up. His piece is
called "Hillary's Terrorists"
and that's because stoning a woman is a lot of fun to the misogynist
Justin Raimondo. Remember, boys and girls, libertarians are all for
individual rights! Except at Antiwar.com when it comes to abortion
rights . . . And birth control . . . And anything else that has to do
with women's lives more than men's lives. The men of Antiwar.com write
about every topic under the sun -- not just war -- but they don't fret
over the status or rights of women. Not domestically, not
internationally.
And then they can't understand why women try the site out and then flee
it in disgust. This despite the fact that many women over the years --
including TCI community members -- have left comments on posts calling
out the sexism. But they just dismiss it while still whining about how
they want to grow their audience.
They want readers . . . if the readers have a penis.
So the 'scary' vagina results in another attack from Antiwar.com on
Hillary. It really is something to watch little boys play Kill Mommy.
Hillary's what? Secretary of State? Barack's president. But the
little boys scared of vaginas and hating women don't care about that.
They're just hoping to put their toxins out in the environment and they
do as much damage as air pollution. The world is weary of this crap.
Forget what was said in open court just last week, Antiwar.com wants to
'report' things that didn't happen. We covered this yesterday in the
snapshot -- in fact, I continued that thread at Betty's site last night where I wrote "The Glenn Greenwald Brigade (C.I.)."
It is no secret that I do not care for Barack Obama. I would not be
idiotic enough to call the MEK "Barack's terrorists" (or Hillary's or
Joe Biden's or Arne Duncan's or . . .). The administration has not
sought to do anything with the MEK's status. A court has ordered them
to. Over two years ago. They have resisted and resisted. That's why
it's two years later and nothing's been done. The legal system wasn't
really impressed with the foot dragging and maybe if Antiwar.com -- an
alleged 'news outlet' -- had gotten someone into that courtroom, they'd
be able to report on what was said. Or maybe if they interviewed
someone in that courtroom, they'd be able to report that.
But that would require dealing with reality and instead it's so much
more fun to them to foam at the mouth repeatedly and act like crazy
people.
The State Dept's position -- as stated in court by the attorney of
record -- is that they are currently in the process of a review. They
state that they expect to form a conclusion. In sixty days? Possibly
but they can't promise sixty days because, among other things, they
will be evaluating the move of the Camp Ashraf residents to Camp
Liberty and they will also be searching Camp Ashraf
after it's empty. During that period, they might discover something
they didn't previously know. As a result, the ideal 60 day time period
might be extended.
That was stated in court to the judges. Yet Antiwar.com continues to
proclaim that the State Dept will be taking the MEK off the terrorist
list in 60 days. That's not what was stated in court. If you've got
reasons for thinking the judge was misled, why don't you make that
argument but don't provide us a link to yet another report from an
outside source that Antiwar.com has failed to read properly -- leading
them most recently to claim that Ed Rendall was convicted of a crime
(hasn't happened yet and, again, falsely reporting that is actionable)
and that the UN Secretary-General's Special Envoy to Iraq Martin Kobler
decleared 600 people had died in Iraq since the start of the year (no,
he didn't say that, he said 600 in Baghdad) -- both of these things
were covered in yesterday's snapshot. Again, your outlet's inability
to accurately address facts from other outlets doesn't instill
confidence.
But if Antiwar.com knows that the State Dept lied to the judges, please
come forward with that information. I'm sure that the judges wouldn't
appreciate being lied to and would move to sanction the State Dept in
some manner.
Saturday, we were sent something that Antiwar.com had posted and I
spent an hour debating whether or not I should write about it. It was
one error after another. I finally justified ignoring it with there
was too much out of Iraq that day. And then finally got to work on
writing the two Saturday night entries so I could go on help out on
Third's edition. I don't set out each day to trash Antiwar.com. I
would prefer not to have to say a damn word about it. But that would
require them doing their job and apparently their job is making up
'facts' and distortions and repeating them. Where's the accountability?
I'm happy to put up any message of error and happy to write "My
mistake, my apologies." And admit that I was wrong and have been many
times before and will be many times more. I'm not seeing the same from
Antiwar.com although it does love to criticize other outlets for
getting things wrong.
Ditz article from Monday still wrongly states that Ed Rendell violated
federal law -- a charge that has not been proven. (Again, I know and
like Ed.) I'm tired of trying to run interference. If you get sued, go
whine to someone else. I've stated it as actionable and I have noted
that as someone who knows Ed, I would suggest you correct your error by
putting in the term "allegedly." If Ed does decide to sue you in a few
months, it's really your own damn fault at this point. And if he does
sue, he wins. There is no defense for your false assertion that Ed's
been convicted of a federal crime when he's not been. You can call him
a "dirt bag" or "scum" or a "whore" or any other judgment call you want
and be on firm ground. But when you say he's been convicted of a
federal crime, the courts don't see that as opinion. It's actionable
and a real outlet would have rushed to have added "alleged" while being
embarrassed that they didn't in the first place.
Maybe we should just be glad Justy's finally found a woman he can
praise? Elizabeth Rubin for her "remarkable piece"? Except what was
remarkable about Rubin's column for the New York Times
isn't how fact-free was it but how fact mangled it was. She
deliberately distorted a RAND report to come up with a "fact" that was
clearly not a fact (and not in the RAND report but in an appendix). We called out that awful report.
Justin rushes to embarace it because he's apparently ethically
challenged. If the left (Justin's not left) wanted to be smarter, we
would have tried to pursue Bob Somerby's
path and not Media Matters' path. Somerby's path means you do
criticize your own. Media Matters path means you spend all day hurling
stuff at the people across the aisle hoping something sticks and you
ignore it when shoddy work comes from your own side.
That relates to Raimondo in that he slams the New York Times
repeatedly but he rushes to embrace a bad column (bad factually, badly
written) just because he agrees with the opinion of the writer. He's
just like the looniest lefty enthralled with one of Frank Rich's bad
columns a few years back. Frank Rich couldn't even get the facts right
when he was reviewing plays. Nothing in his body of work -- columns,
reviews -- stands up to a serious fact check. But he said just what
some on the left wanted to hear so they rushed to embrace him. (I am
particularly harsh face to face with a friend who cried over what Rich
wrote about one of her performances but suddenly found Rich to be a
genius in the Bush years and began praising him publicly. He's the
same ass who distorted her to attack her. That's all he's ever done.
And he is an ass.)
The US will never get anywhere until a left-right coalition is formed
against wars. But a coalition will not be formed when women are either
tokens or targets of public stoning. When those are the only roles are
offered, there will be left-right coalition.
And apparently Antiwar.com isn't too concerned about that because the
criticisms of it in this piece are not unique to me, I'm not the first
one to make them, I'm not even the first one to make them publicly.
And nothing has changed at Antiwar.com. It remains a place where -- on
staff -- women are a tiny, tiny number and where women are mentioned
most frequently (and prominently) to attack them.
On another topic, as I explained at Betty's site last night, if the MEK
is their big issue -- the Glenn Glenn Brigade -- they're idiots because
they should have spent the last years addressing the issue of Camp
Ashraf, not ignoring it or attacking the residents.
Justin wants to give the world a history lesson on the residents -- at
a time when Antiwar.com's already seen as estranged from the factual --
and anyone reading it will most likely think, "What a dick?"
And they'll be right.
What is to be done with the residents of Camp Ashraf?
It's a point that doesn't concern him.
They can't remain in Iraq and countries are reluctant to take them because the MEK remains on the US terrorist list.
So what's supposed to happen to them?
According to the shrill Raimondo, they apparently get whatever comes to them because they worked with Saddam Hussein.
Petty minds with petty scores forever intent to hold the whole world
back. What happened in 1980 or 1970, it really isn't the issue right
now. The issue right now is getting Camp Ashraf residents out of Iraq
before the end of the year. If he's got any suggestions on that, he
should offer them. If all he's got is more hate, the world has
enough. I don't care what they did or what they allegedly did. They
are protected persons under international law -- a fact that the writer
Justy loves ignored in her NYT column -- those of us who care about the law and who care about human rights wonder how they get out of Iraq safely?
Then there's Justin Raimondo with his nasty little rants and skewed
history lessons, stomping his feet and not understanding why the whole
world won't embrace him and his site.
(I'm not looking for a world embarce. My role is the critic. My role,
in fact, is to be the bitch who annoys the hell out of so many. That's
fine and dandy. I'll live with that online role. And we'll continue
to be the advocate for those who are ignored whether it's Iraqi women
or Iraq's LGBT community or Iraqi youth or the religious minorities or
the Camp Ashraf residents or -- get the point?)
My apologies that this is going up late but there was a lot to cover
and I had to do it in shifts because we're in a hearing and I'm also
taking notes on that.
10.54am:
Straw denies that the discussions to go to war in Iraq in 2003 was
influenced by Rupert Murdoch or his newspapers. "It would have been
disgusting were it true," he says.
Straw was foreign secretary at
the time of the invasion. He is asked about the three telephone calls
between Murdoch and Blair in the runup to war. Straw says he was vaguely aware of them at the time, but emphasises the speed of events in those weeks. "Frankly
who Mr Blair was talking to on the telephone was neither here nor
there, unless it was about getting support for the [EU] second
resolution." He adds that it was certainly important to have newspapers onside, but that it was never part of his discussions around the war.
Straw was giving testimony to the Leveson Inquiry. BBC reports, "The ex-foreign secretary denied Daily Mail claims that the UK would not
have committed to war in 2003 without the backing of News International
papers." The Leveson Inquiry is an inquiry into the UK phone hacking scandal. British judge Brian Leveson is presiding over the inquiry.
In England, the Iraq War is never long out of the news. In the US,
except for the stupid bromides of Barack, it's rarely in the news
cycle. It's almost as though the Iraq War was a UK-led invasion and
the US sat it out a la France. It's amazing how much silence and
denial there is in the US media. The economy remains in the toilet
and, all around the country, the effects of borrowing money to fight an
illegal war can be seen. But the Iraq War is a topic to be avoided.
In both the US and the UK, the Iraq War can still be used as a backdrop
for a report or column from a major outlet, but see if you catch the
difference in two random pieces in the current news cycle. At the Guardian, Seumas Milne uses it to explore conflicts:
Libya was supposed to be different. The lessons of Iraq and
Afghanistan had been learned, David Cameron and Nicolas Sarkozy insisted
last year. This would be a real humanitarian intervention. Unlike Iraq,
there would be no boots on the ground. Unlike in Afghanistan, Nato air
power would be used to support a fight for freedom and prevent a
massacre. Unlike the Kosovo campaign, there would be no indiscriminate cluster bombs: only precision weapons would be used. This would be a war to save civilian lives. Seven months on from Muammar Gaddafi's butchering
in the ruins of Sirte, the fruits of liberal intervention in Libya are
now cruelly clear, and documented by the UN and human rights groups: 8,000 prisoners held without trial, rampant torture and routine deaths in detention, the ethnic cleansing of Tawerga,
a town of 30,000 mainly black Libyans (already in the frame as a crime
against humanity) and continuing violent persecution of sub-Saharan
Africans across the country.
No one should argue that the US press doesn't 'reflect' on the illegal war as well -- or, at least gush. Like when David Rising (AP) opens with, "American military advisers in
Uganda are drawing on lessons learned from Iraq and Afghanistan to help
train African Union soldiers to fight Somalia's most powerful insurgent
group, al-Shabab."
See, that illegal war, that cost millions of lives and billions of
dollars, it was a wonderful test run -- that's how the US press treats
it when referencing the war. That's even more clear when Rising's
article is run by non-US outlets and the title changes from "Americans train Ugandans for Somalia mission" to "Americans use Iraq lessons for Somalia mission training."
Americans use Iraq lessons for Somalia? Oh, okay, that makes it all
worth it! The deaths, the library closings in the US, the public
schools that can no longer afford a full time nurse on campus, the
people who've lost jobs, the cuts to the safety net? Suddenly it all
seems worth it!
If you believe the US press which is still trying to stamp a happy face on an illegal war.
And as they continue to whore for that illegal war, they'll make sure not to inform about the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission and its findings of guilt.
They'll insist it's not important because it didn't carry any legal
consequence. But strange, isn't it, the US press that lives to
ridicule will work very hard to avoid ridiculing that tribunal . . .
almost as if they fear giving it any publicity at all.
And the 'alternative' press is no better than the corporate press in
the US. Robert Parry was once so brave and became a boot licker for
Barack. But I was told he gave a great speech at a conference in
Germany last week. I doubted it. He sold his soul long ago. But I
could be wrong. Have been many times before and will be many times
again.
But I was right. Middle East Online posts the speech.
It's 81 paragraphs. For those afraid Robert Parry's crush on Barack
Obama would mean he didn't mention Barack, rest assured, he did mention
in. It was a blistering speech, calling out the press for many crimes
including the Iraq War coverage and calling out several past US
presidents as well. Did Barack get called out? Did the press get
called out for fawning over Barack? What do you think:
Upon
taking office in 2009, President Obama saw little choice but to “look
forward, not backward.” And, in all honesty, given the state of the
American political/media process, it is hard to envision how he would
have proceeded against what would have been a powerful phalanx of
Establishment forces opposed to prosecuting Bush, Wall Street CEOs and
their underlings.
That's paragraph 77 of an 81 paragraph speech and that's all the
'tough' 'criticism' Robert Parry had for Barack. If he seems a little
grumpy, apparently the conference woke in the midst of a wet dream. He
"saw little choice." Poor Barack. Who knew when Parry was whoring for
him in 2008 that, if elected, Barack would be so powerless? Poor
little tyke.
Well at least he's not started new wars or upped the drone war -- Oh.
Right. He has. Well at least he's gotten Congressional authorization
for those wars and -- Oh. Yeah. He hasn't. Well at least whistle
blowers are better off with him in office, especially when compared to
Bully Boy Bush's days in -- Oh, right, the current administration goes
after whistle blowers like they're foreign spies.
The American Civil Liberties Union has come to the defense of a
former State Department employee who looks likely to be fired for
blogging and writing critically about the reconstruction efforts in
Iraq. The ACLU says doing so would violate the constitutional rights of veteran State Department employee Peter Van Buren, according to a letter the group sent the government on Tuesday. The letter further accuses the government of unlawful retaliation
against Van Buren for publishing critical comments about U.S. foreign
policy on his personal blog last year. “The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that public employees retain
their First Amendment rights even when speaking about issues directly
related to their employment, as long as they are speaking as private
citizens,” and as long as they’re writing about matters of public
concern, the ACLU wrote in its letter
(.pdf). “There can be no dispute that the subject matter of Mr. Van
Buren’s book, blog posts, and news articles – the reconstruction effort
in Iraq – is a matter of immense public concern.”
Of course, all this neglects what was best for the average Iraqi,
which none of America’s, Iraq’s, or Iran’s leaders much cared about.
As bad as the oppression was under Saddam, a foreign invasion
followed by a violent insurgency and sectarian civil war probably
ruined the social fabric of Iraq even more. Throughout history,
wars — even good-intentioned ones — usually don’t make countries
better places. The result of an increasingly fragmented postwar
society portends ill for Iraq.
Remembering the similar effects of the Vietnam War, “the
Vietnam Syndrome,” cooled American passions to remodel
political systems of countries by armed force, but only for a time.
Because the U.S. finally seemed to contain the Iraqi violence until
it could get out and didn’t suffer an embarrassing all-out
humiliation à la Vietnam, the “Iraq Syndrome”
unfortunately has apparently been attenuated. Even while the Iraqi
misadventure was trailing off, President Barack Obama couldn’t
resist providing crucial air power to help rebels in Libya overthrow
another old American nemesis, Moammar Gadhafi. With all the armed
tribal militias running around that country now, a renewed civil war
is also possible there. But as Bill Clinton before him learned from
Somalia in the early 1990s, President Obama seems to have learned
from Bush’s Iraq fiasco only that when meddling abroad,
try to avoid a quagmire with ground troops.
The following community sites -- plus Adam Kokesh, FPIF, the Guardian,
Reporters Without Border, Chocolate City, the World Can't Wait,
Antiwar.com and On The Wilder Side -- updated last night and this
morning:
10 Years after Timor's Independence, Where Is the Justice?
Contact: John M. Miller, john@etan.org
May 16, 2012 - The East Timor and IndonesiaActionNetwork
(ETAN) congratulated the people of Timor-Leste as they prepared to
celebrate the 10th anniversary of the restoration of their country's
independence on May 20.
"This
important milestone is the result of the persistent struggle and great
suffering of the people of Timor-Leste," said ETAN's National
Coordinator John M. Miller. "ETAN is proud to have played our part in
supporting Timor's self-determination and now independence."
"The
nation faces many challenges. With independence, its people are in a
position to decide its future rather then have Indonesia impose its
will on them," he added.
Timor's independence was prevented for
nearly 25 years by the U.S. and other governments' support for
Indonesia's illegal invasion and occupation. Yet, no senior officials
of any country have been held accountable for the horrific human right
violations and war crimes that took place."The
U.S., other governments and the United Nations must commit themselves
to achieve justice for the victims and their families." said Miller.
"ETAN will not rest until justice is done."
"Human rights
violators from elsewhere have been prosecuted, often long after their
crimes were committed. But Indonesia and others continue to obstruct
holding accountable those who facilitated and carried out crimes during
the occupation," he added.
“Ongoing impunity for the systematic
Indonesian military and police crimes prevents the people of
Timor-Leste and Indonesia from consolidating their democracies and
moving on with their lives. While Timor-Leste is now independent, its
people will not be able to overcome their tragic past without justice
for what was done to them and their families,” said Miller.
Neither
Congress nor the administrations of George W. Bush and Barack Obama
have responded to the recommendations of Timor-Leste's Commission for
Truth, Reception and Reconciliation, although many of them are directly
addressed to the U.S. and other governments. These include the
Commission's call for an international tribunal to try perpetrators of
crimes against humanity during the Indonesian occupation, reparations
from Indonesia and other countries that supported the occupation, and
restrictions on foreign assistance to the Indonesian military.
"The
U.S. and others should press President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono to
immediately release all information that can help identify and locate
those who were disappeared during the occupation,” said Miller.
The
recent conviction of former Liberian President Charles Taylor for his
support of rights violators in Sierra Leone should sound a note of
caution for members of the Obama and former US administrations. Thisruling provides a precedentfor
prosecuting those who arm, train and politically support those who
commit the worst abuses, even if they do not directly organize or carry
them out.
"The Obama
administration should restrict U.S. military assistance to Indonesia
until the Indonesian generals and political leaders who organized and
directed numerous crimes against humanity during the 24-years of
illegal occupation are credibly tried," Miller added. Instead, the
Obama administration isconsidering the sale of deadly Apache attack helicoptersto the Indonesian military.
Background
As detailed in declassified documents released by the National Security Archive and elsewhere, on December 6, 1975, then-U.S.President Ford and Secretary of State Kissinger gave Indonesian dictator Suharto a green light to invade East Timor,
which his military did the next day. The U.S. supplied 90 percent of
the weapons used during the invasion. From Ford to President Clinton,
successive U.S. administrations consistently backed Indonesia's
occupation, providing Jakarta diplomatic cover and billions of dollars
in weaponry, military training, and economic assistance.
During
more than two decades of occupation of Timor-Leste, Indonesian soldiers
committed serious crimes with impunity, taking as many as 184,000
Timorese lives and torturing, raping and displacing countless others.
Timor-Leste became independent in 2002.
Timor-Leste'sCommission for Reception, Truth and Reconciliationresearched
and documented the nation's experiences during the occupation. The
Commission's comprehensive 2,500-page report recommended establishment
of an international criminal tribunal and also advocated that countries
(including the U.S.) which backed the occupation and corporations which
sold weapons to Indonesia during that period should pay reparations to
victims. The Commission urged the international community not to
support Indonesia's military until it was thoroughly reformed and
respectful of human rights.
Last year,ANTI (Timor-Leste National Alliance for an International Tribunal) demandedthat
the United Nations Security Council "cut the chain of impunity in
Timor-Leste and other countries by establishing a credible
International Tribunal in order to judge the principal perpetrators of
serious crimes and crimes against humanity in Timor-Leste during the
Indonesian occupation."
The UN-supported serious crimes process
filed a number of indictments of a number of Indonesian officials and
East Timorese militia leaders for crimes against humanity committed
during the referendum on independence in 1999.
ETAN was formed in reaction to the1991 Santa Cruz massacre,
when hundreds of peaceful demonstrators were gunned down by Indonesian
troops carrying U.S.-supplied weapons. On May 20, ETAN members will be
honored by the Timorese government with the Laran Luak medal for its
contribution to the liberation of Timor-Leste. The U.S.-based
organization, whichcelebrated its 20th anniversarylast
December 10, advocates for democracy, justice and human rights for
Timor-Leste and Indonesia. For more information see ETAN's web site:http://www.etan.org. see alsoHuman Rights, Accountability & Justicepage
Congratulations to Timor on 10 years of independence
Read about ETAN's 20 years of work for for human rights, justice and democracy:http://etan.org/etan/20anniv/default.htmETAN needs you support in 2012.John M. Miller, National Coordinator East Timor & IndonesiaActionNetwork (ETAN) PO Box 21873, Brooklyn, NY 11202-1873 USA Phone: +1-718-596-7668 Mobile phone: +1-917-690-4391 Email: etan@igc.org Skype: john.m.miller
Tuesday,
May 15, 2012. Chaos and violence continues, the secret prisons and
torture continue in Iraq, Tareq al-Hashemi's trial starts without him,
Jason Ditz is a dunce, and much more.
Today
is a really sad day as the BBC spits on human rights and treats
'confessions' most likely stemming from torture as being real.
Americans (wrongly) built a shrine to the BBC in 2003. And, yes, by
comparison to American outlets, the BBC coverage of the lead up to the
war was better. But compared to the basic standards of journalism, the
BBC didn't even cut it. It was as much a failure as the American
outlets. (And the providing of a confidential source's name to Blair's
cabinet goes far beyond any known crimes of US outlets.) No surprise
that it would again be Iraq that saw the BBC reveal its true nature.
KUNA reports,
"The first session for the trial of former Vice President Tareq
Al-Hashemi began here Tuesday with the charges being guiding and
financing terrorist attacks." Tareq al-Hashemi (pictured above) has
been a vice president since 2006. He is currently serving his second
term. Currently serving. He has not been removed from office so this
trial is legally not supposed to take place. But the law's never
mattered in Nouri's Iraq. Nouri waited until the bulk of US forces had
left to Iraq to suddenly declare his political rival al-Hashemi a
"terrorist." The vice president remains in Turkey.
Iraq
practices forced confessions and, despite the Iraqi Constitution
insisting upon innocence until proven guilty, the Baghdad court declared
al-Hashemi guilty back in Februray. Tareq al-Hashemi has repeatedly
requested that the trial be moved elsewhere -- a request that should
have been honored the moment the Baghdad
judges declared him guilty in February at their press conference and
while one judge was stating that he had been threatened by al-Hashemi!
(He actually claims to have been threatened by 'supporters' of
al-Hashemi -- he can't even make the claim if press for proof that it
was by a bodyguard of al-Hasehmi.) Today, after being pushed back twice,
the kangaroo court finally hopped into session.
Chen Zhi (Xinhua) reports
that, as the trial started this morning, the court sent out
spokesperson Abdul-Sattar al-Birqdar to insist, "There are many crimes
that Hashimi and his bodyguards are accused of and we have confessions
from them, including the assassination of six judges." A court that's
dropped even the pretense of being impartial is exactly the sort that
would send out a spokesperson to declare they had confessions.
AFP had a confusing report
which was confusing for many reasons including: "Three other witnesses
gave testimony, accusing Hashemi of masterminding the assassinations,
before reporters were led out of the room." If reporters are led out of
the courtroom while a trial is going on, hate to break it to AFP,
but that's your lede, not the fifth sentence and fifth paragraph of
your report. And that's all the more true when there were calls for
international observers in advance of the trial and that call does not
appear to have been heeded. Equally true, if reporters are led out of
the courtroom, you explain why they were. And if no reason given to the
reporters, you include that: "Reporters were ushered out of the
courtroom. No reason was given for the removal."
AFP
declares there were three witnesses who testified after "families of
three victims whose deaths Hasemi is accused of orchestrating." They
tell you nothing about those three witnesses. As noted this morning,
"But I do expect to know if these people could even offer any testimony
against al-Hashemi. By that I mean, victims families can testify to
losses. That's all they can do unless they're eye witnesses. Even if
they are eye witnesses, they have no testimony on al-Hashemi." This was
confirmed by this afternoon by Sinan Salaheddin (AP)
when Salaheddin reported of the family witnesses, "They said they did
not witness the attacks, and only complained against al-Hashemi after
hearing the accusations against him in Iraqi media." Salaheddin also
states there was one other witness, someone who was an ex-employee of
al-Hashemi's (worked in the vice president's "media office") and that
reporters "were ordered to leave the court during" that testimony. Suadad al-Salhy, Ahmed Rasheed, Barry Malone and Alistair Lyon (Reuters) note
two bodyguards and "five relatives of people allegedly killed by the
death squads" and that the court is now adjourned until May 20th.
BBC files a report
that indicates they had no one in the courtroom and that they didn't
bother to do anything other than scan the wire reports quickly and then
(also quickly) dash off a 'report.' It's very shoddy. But let's skip
their bad journalism to note their shame: "Mr Hashemi's supporters have
also claimed that some of his bodyguards made allegations about death
squads under torture. The Iraqi judiciary dismissed the accusations of
torture." How very sad that the BBC chooses to self-embarrass and
self-shame on a day when the world learns (yet again) that Nouri
al-Maliki is still running secret prisons and torture chambers. Equally
true, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty are not "supporters" of Tareq
al-Hashemi. They are human rights organizations.
March 23rd, Human Rights Watch called for
an investigation into the death of Amir Sarbut Zaidan al-Batawi, a
bodyguard of al-Hashemi's who died in custody, whose family states he
was tortured to death and whom photos show "a burn mark and wounds."
The Iraqi government tried to say his kidneys failed. As though he had
some pre-existing condition (which the family denies). If he did, that
would still be on the Iraqi government. If someone has a medical
condition when you take them into custody, you're having custody of them
means in you're responsible for their well being. Had the alleged
kidney failure resulted from natural causes, the Iraqi government would
still need to explain how they failed to provide treatment for a known
condition? But most likely the kidneys were damaged in torture which
isn't at all uncommon, especially in Latin America. Especially in
Latin America? The US government taught the thugs of Iraq to behave
like the death squads of El Salvador in the 80s.
The
Prospect has learned that part of a secret $3 billion in new funds
tucked away in the $87 billion Iraq appropriation that Congress approved
in early November will go toward the creation of a paramilitary unit
manned by militiamen associated with former Iraqi exile groups. Experts
say it could lead to a wave of extrajudicial killings, not only of armed
rebels but of nationalists, other opponents of the U.S. occupation and
thousands of civilian Baaathists up to 120,000 of the estimated 2.5
million former Baath Party members in Iraq.
"They're
clearly cooking up joint teams to do Phoenix-like things, like they did
in Vietnam," says Vincent Cannistraro, former CIA chief of
counterterrorism. Ironically, he says, the U.S. forces in Iraq are
working with key members of Saddam Hussein's now-defunct intelligence
agency to set the program in motion.
[. . .]
But
the bulk of the covert money will support U.S. efforts to create a
lethal, and revenge-minded, Iraqi security force. "The big money would
be for standing up an Iraqi secret police to liquidate the resistance,"
says [John] Pike. "And it has to be politically loyal to the United States."
Rasha
Narneer Jaafer al-Hussain and Bassima Saleem Kiryakos were arrested by
security forces at their homes on 1 January. Both women work in the
media team of Iraqi Vice-President Tareq al-Hashemi, who is wanted by
the Iraqi authorities on terrorism-related charges.
Al-Hasehmi has denied the charges, saying the accusations are politically motivated.
"The
arrest of the two women appears to be part of a wider move targeting
individuals connected to Tareq al-Hashemi," said Hassiba Hadj Sahraoui,
Amnest International's Deputy Director for Middle East and North Africa.
"The
Iraqi authorities must immediately disclose the whereabouts of Rash
al-Hussain and Bassima Kiryakos. At the very minimum they should have
immediate access to their family and a lawyer.
"The
circumstances of their arrest and their incommunicado detention when we
know that torture is rife in Iraq can only raise the greatest fears for
their safety," she said.
One
of the two women working for the Iraqi Vice-President's Office who were
arrested on 1 January has been released. The other woman's whereabouts
are still unknown.
Rasha Nameer Jaafer
al-Hussain, who was working at the Iraqi Vice President's Office, was
arrested without a warrant at her parents' house in Baghdad's al-Zayuna
district on 1 January 2012. The security forces claimed they were taking
her away for questioning and that she would return two hours later.
Since her arrest her family has not known her whereabouts. However, the
Iraqi media reported on 30 January that a Human Rights Parliamentary
Committee had visited several of the Iraqi Vice-Preisdent's employees,
including both arrested women, who claimed they had been tortured in
detention. It is believed she was arrested in connection with a warrant
for the arrest of the Iraqi Vice-President Tareq al-Hashemi, who has
been wanted by the authorities since December 2011. He is accused of
terrorism-related offenses, an accusation which he has publicly said is
politically motivated.
But
let's all make like the BBC and pretend as if torture never happens in
Iraq and that the only ones claiming it does are "supporters" of Tareq
al-Hashemi.
(Beirut) --
Iraq's government has been carrying out mass arrests and unlawfully
detaining people in the notorious Camp Honor prison facility in
Baghdad's Green Zone, based on numerous interviews with victims,
witnesses, family members, and government officials. The government had
claimed a year ago that it had closed the prison, where Human Rights
Watch had documented rampant torture. Since October 2011 Iraqi
authorities have conducted several waves of detentions, one of which
arresting officers and officials termed "precautionary." Numerous
witnesses told Human Rights Watch that security forces have typically
surrounded neighborhoods in Baghdad and other provinces and gone
door-to-door with long lists of names of people they wanted to detain.
The government has held hundreds of detainees for months, refusing to
disclose the number of those detained, their identities, any charges
against them, and where they are being held. "Iraqi security
forces are grabbing people outside of the law, without trial or known
charges, and hiding them away in incommunicado sites," said Joe Stork,
deputy Middle East director at Human Rights Watch. "The Iraqi government
should immediately reveal the names and locations of all detainees,
promptly free those not charged with crimes, and bring those facing
charges before an independent judicial authority." The
government should appoint an independent judicial commission to
investigate continuing allegations of torture and other ill-treatment,
disappearances, and arbitrary detention in Camp Honor and elsewhere,
Human Rights Watch said. Multiple witnesses told Human Rights
Watch that some detainees arrested since December 2011 have been held in
the Camp Honor prison in Baghdad's International Zone, known as the
Green Zone. In March 2011 the government announced it had closed Camp Honor prison, after legislators visited the site in response to evidence Human Rights Watch provided of repeated torture at the facility. The
two most sweeping arrest dragnets occurred in October and November
2011, detaining people alleged to be Baath Party and Saddam Hussein
loyalists, and in March 2012, ahead of the Arab summit in Baghdad at the
end of that month. In April two Justice Ministry officials
separately told Human Rights Watch that since the roundups began in
October, security forces often have not transferred prisoners into the
full custody of the justice system, as required by Iraq law. Instead,
the officials said, security forces have transported dozens of prisoners
at a time in and out of various prison facilities, sometimes without
adequate paperwork or explanation, under the authority of the military
office of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki. Fourteen lawyers,
detainees, and government officials interviewed by Human Rights Watch
said that recent detainees have been held at Camp Honor prison. Some of
the officials said that detainees have also been held at two secret
detention facilities, also inside Baghdad's Green Zone. These
allegations are consistent with concerns raised in a confidential letter
from the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) obtained by
Human Rights Watch in July 2011 after the letter's existence was made
public by the Los Angeles Times. Officials, lawyers,
and former detainees also told Human Rights Watch that judicial
investigators from the Supreme Judicial Council continue to conduct
interrogations at the Camp Honor prison. Between December and May, Human
Rights Watch interviewed over 35 former detainees, family members,
lawyers, legislators, and Iraqi government and security officials from
the Defense, Interior, and Justice Ministries. Without exception, they
expressed great concern for their own safety and requested that Human
Rights Watch withhold all names, dates, and places of interviews to
protect their identities. "It's a matter of grave concern that
Iraqis in so many walks of life, officials included, are afraid for
their own well-being and fear great harm if they discuss allegations of
serious human rights abuses," Stork said. "Precautionary" Detentions ahead of March 2012 Arab Summit The
most recent mass arrests occurred in March as the government
dramatically tightened security throughout Baghdad in preparation for
the Arab League summit there on March 29. Family members and witnesses
told Human Rights Watch that arresting officers characterized the
roundups as a "precautionary" measure to prevent terrorist attacks
during the summit. Six detainees released in April told Human Rights
Watch that while they were in detention, interrogators told them that
they were being held to curb criminal activity during the summit and any
"embarrassing" public protests. Legislators from Prime
Minister al-Maliki's State of Law party have denied in the news media
that any preemptive arrests took place, claiming that all arrests were
of suspected criminals and in response to judicial warrants. All
detainees and witnesses interviewed, over 20 in all, said they had not
been shown arrest warrants. In Baghdad neighborhoods where
multiple arrests were made, including Adhamiya, Furat, Jihad, Abu
Ghraib, and Rathwaniya, residents told Human Rights Watch it appeared
that a large proportion of those detained had previously spent time in
prisons run by the US military, including Abu Ghraib, Camp Bucca, and
Camp Cropper. Some family members and legislators concluded that people
were being arrested not because of suspected current criminal activity,
but simply because they had been detained before. In May an
Interior Ministry official told Human Rights Watch that "security
forces, in the interest of keeping security incidents to a minimum
during the summit, while the world was watching, sometimes decided it
was easier to just round up people who had been imprisoned years before,
regardless of what crime they may have committed." In April a Justice
Ministry official told Human Rights Watch that of the hundreds arrested,
"some have been released, about 100 will be officially charged within
the justice system, and the rest are somewhere else. We do not know
where." During an April 9 parliament session, Hassan
al-Sinead, head of the parliament's Security and Defense Committee and
a member of Prime Minister al-Maliki's State of Law Party, held up what
he said were official security reports of Baghdad Operation Command and
said, in response to allegations of pre-emptive arrests by other
legislators, that there were only 532 arrests in all of Baghdad during
the month of March, and that none were pre-emptive. Two other
members of the parliamentary committee subsequently told Human Rights
Watch that this figure greatly underreported arrests that month. At the
April 9 session an investigative committee was formed, made up of
members of the Security and Defense and Human Rights committees. Members
of the investigative committee told Human Rights Watch that plans to
visit detainees never happened. To date, no investigation results have
been released. "Baathist" Arrests In October
and November 2011, security forces arrested hundreds of people in
Baghdad and outlying provinces, almost all during nighttime raids on
residential neighborhoods. State television reported that Prime Minister
al-Maliki ordered these arrests. Government statements, including by
the prime minister, claimed that those arrested were Saddam Hussein
loyalists plotting against the government. Family members told Human
Rights Watch that security forces came to their doors with lists and
read off names. Some of those listed were former Baath party members and
others were not, including people who had died years ago. Three
officials separately told Human Rights Watch that the total number
arrested in the campaign approached 1,500. A man whose
57-year-old father was arrested along with 11 neighbors on October 30
told Human Rights Watch in December, "A week after my father was
arrested, some of the same police officers who arrested him came back
and found family members to give them belongings [of neighborhood men
who had been arrested], like clothes or money or IDs, but they still
said they had no information about where they were being held, or what
they were being charged with." The man's son showed Human
Rights Watch a document the police had given to him that listed the date
his father was arrested but left blank the space reserved for the name
of the detention facility. Upon learning that some prisoners
were being held in Baghdad's Rusafa prisons, run by the Justice
Ministry, Human Rights Watch asked Justice Minister Hassan al-Shimmari
on January 4 for access to the prisoners. The request was refused. Though
not all arrests have been on the same scale as those in October,
November, and March, regular arrest campaigns have taken place, often in
largely Sunni neighborhoods in Baghdad as well as in several outlying
provinces, said witnesses, family members and media reports. Strict
government secrecy regarding the number of arrests and exact charges
makes it difficult to assess the scope. While some prisoners
were released within hours or days and say they were not mistreated,
others told Human Rights Watch they were tortured, including with
repeated electric shocks. Most said interrogators forced them to sign
pledges not to criticize the government publicly or to sign confessions.
They said interrogators threatened that unless they signed these
documents they would suffer physical violence, female family members
would be raped, or they would never be released. Some families told
Human Rights Watch that they were told to pay thousands of dollars in
bribes to secure their loved ones' release. In two cases known to Human
Rights Watch, detainees were released after the families made such
payments. Camp Honor Prison Camp Honor is a
military base of more than 15 buildings within Baghdad's fortified
International Zone, which Iraqis and others continue to refer to as the
Green Zone. The Iraqi Army's 56thBrigade, also
known as the Baghdad Brigade, which falls under direct command of the
Office of the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, controls the Camp
Honor complex and is responsible for the security of the Green Zone. On
March 29, 2011, Justice Minister al-Shimmari told Human Rights Watch
that the government had closed the camp's main detention facility, Camp
Honor prison (often simply referred to as "Camp Honor"). Al-Shimmari
said that authorities had moved all its detainees, whom he alleged were
terrorists and Islamist militants, to three other facilities under the
control of his ministry. Contrary to this assurance,
Human Rights Watch has received information from government and security
officials indicating that some detainees from the "Baathist" and
"Summit" roundups were held in Camp Honor prison and that it is still
being used at least as a temporary holding site, or as a place to
extract confessions before moving detainees into the official
correctional system. This use of military prisons outside the control of
the Justice Ministry is consistent with known procedures at other
publicly acknowledged facilities outside of the ministry's control, such
as Muthanna Airport Prison and a facility in western Baghdad run by the
army's Muthanna Brigade, both of which have also housed hundreds of
detainees from the recent arrests, according to government officials and
former detainees. A security official from the Defense
Ministry told Human Rights Watch in April that judicial investigators
attached to the Supreme Judicial Council go to the Camp Honor prison on a
regular basis, where they participate in investigations and
interrogations, alongside military investigators from the 56th Brigade. A
lawyer who works for the government but did not want his department
identified corroborated this allegation in an April interview with
Human Rights Watch. Three former detainees who spoke with
Human Rights Watch between December and April gave credible accounts of
what they said were their interactions with judicial investigators in
Camp Honor prison. These allegations are consistent with judicial
procedures known to have taken place there in the past. One detainee
told Human Rights Watch in April that he had been held for over a month
in Camp Honor prison, from late October to early December. In a
March interview, another man told Human Rights Watch he had been
detained in Baghdad in early November and taken to a prison inside the
Green Zone, which guards and other detainees told him was Camp Honor
prison. His description and a sketch he made of the layout of the cells
and interrogation trailers were consistent with the known layout of the
facility. Another detainee said in early December that he
could confirm that he was in Camp Honor prison in May 2011 by the
proximity of clearly recognizable surrounding buildings. When he was
taken from the main holding facility to adjacent trailers for violent
interrogations on three separate occasions, he said, he was not
blindfolded. "The Defense Ministry and the old Council of Ministers
[Hall] are right there," he said. "I'm a former military man, and I used
to work very close to there, so I knew right where I was." In
July Human Rights Watch obtained a copy of a May 22,2011 letter written
by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), which said the
ICRC had "collected reliable allegations" of two separate secret
detention facilities attached to Camp Honor military base, plus another
facility next to the headquarters of the Counter-Terrorism Service, also
in the Green Zone, "that are used to this day to hold and conceal
detainees when committees visit the primary prison." In the
letter, the ICRC also documented the methods of torture used inside
Camp Honor prison and affiliated facilities, consistent with torture
methods Human Rights Watch had previously reported.The ICRC addressed
the letter to Prime Minister al-Maliki and copied Farouq al-Araji, head
of al-Maliki's military office, General Mahmoud al-Khazraji, commander
of the 56th Brigade, other defense officials, Justice Minister
al-Shimmari, and Judge Midhat al-Mahmoud, head of the Supreme Judicial
Council. After the Los Angeles Times made public the
letter's existence on July 14, the ICRC released a statement declining
to confirm or deny its authenticity, as per long-standing policy to
confine its communications to officials of the government concerned. In
July and August, two Iraqi government officials and one former official
familiar with the letter assured Human Rights Watch of the letter's
legitimacy. Two defense lawyers separately told Human Rights
Watch in May 2012 that clients of theirs had been held in Camp Honor
prison as recently as August 2011. Another lawyer told Human Rights
Watch that while working at the Supreme Judicial Council over the past
year he encountered frequent references in comments by judges and
others, as well as in court paperwork, to prisoners being held in Camp
Honor prison and in "two other prisons in the Green Zone also run by the
56thBrigade." Four officials from the Defense and Justice
ministries, plus two former officials, also told Human Rights Watch of
the existence of these secret prisons, one also part of the Camp Honor
complex, unofficially called "Five Stars," and another outside the base,
but still within the Green Zone. Treatment of Detainees Statements
to Human Rights Watch by those captured in the roundups and detained in
various prisons, including those run by the Justice Ministry, varied in
describing the treatment they received. Some said they were not
physically mistreated. Three people detained in the "Summit" dragnet
told Human Rights Watch that security officers assured them that they
just had to wait until the Arab Summit was over and they would be
released -- that holding them "was just a precautionary measure." Others
described multiple beatings and threats and some described abuse that
amounts to torture. In May, a 59-year-old man told Human
Rights Watch that he was arrested in late October in a southern province
of Iraq and transported with more than 60 other prisoners to a
detention facility in Baghdad, which he identified but asked Human
Rights Watch to keep confidential. "When I first arrived, I was
blindfolded and had my hands tied behind my back, and I had to walk down
a long line of men, each of whom punched me in the face and hit my head
with wire cables as I passed them," he said. "After that, I was in
solitary confinement for some time, and then they brought me before
the judicial investigators. I couldn't believe that they beat so hard
and gave me electric shocks for three continuous hours, without even
asking me any questions." He also said that during other
interrogations his captors stripped him naked, hit him with wire cables,
boxed his ears, poured cold water over him, and shocked him with
electrodes attached to his back. He was released in March,
five months later, after his family paid over US $10,000 in bribes and
an influential politician intervened on his behalf. Before leaving
custody, he was forced to sign what he said was a confession, though he
is not sure of its contents, as well as a pledge to never speak "against
the government" and never to talk to the media about his arrest. "They
told me that if I break any of these rules, they will bring in my sons
and destroy them, and rape my wife," he said. "As I left, they told me,
'We will arrest you again, and make sure you're executed.'" Family
members of detainees who spoke with Human Rights Watch said they had no
idea where their loved ones were being held, despite multiple inquiries
to the Ministry of Human Rights and the headquarters of the security
forces that arrested them. In cases in which the government disclosed
where prisoners were being held, security forces hindered or completely
blocked detainees' access to legal and family visits. "On
paper, a defendant can be defended by a lawyer, but in real life, it is
next to impossible," said a defense lawyer who is attempting to
represent two men arrested in the "Summit" sweep in March. He told Human
Rights Watch that when he is actually informed of the location of a
detainee and allowed in, he is kept waiting for hours, and then told to
go home because it is the end of the day. "Any lawyer attempting to see
his client will be subjected to threats by the security forces holding
the detainees," the lawyer told Human Rights Watch. "Several times in
the past few months, they said, 'So, you want to represent a Baathist
and a terrorist? I wonder what is making you do this, why you are on his
side.' This is clearly an attempt to intimidate attorneys from standing
up for their victims." Families who tried to hire lawyers to
defend relatives arrested in the "Baathist" sweep gave strikingly
similar accounts. In December, one man told Human Rights Watch that his
family went to four separate criminal defense lawyers who were at first
cooperative. But when they learned that his father was taken in the
"Baathist" arrests, he said, "each immediately told us that they could
not interfere in this case because the arrests were by order of the
prime minister's office." He cited one lawyer as saying: "This case is
already decided. It's a lost case, and I can't be part of it, because
they were arrested by the order of the prime minister.'" "It
is amazing that all four had the same reaction and this made us lose
hope," the family member said. "We did not try to get another lawyer,
and have no idea where my father is."
The Los Angeles Times can't find a writer in Iraq to touch it so it's left to Carol J. Williams to note, "The continued operation of the Camp Honor detention site was disclosed by Los Angeles Times staff
writer Ned Parker in July, four months after Maliki's government said
the facility had been closed at the urging of Iraqi lawmakers and human
rights advocates." Ned Parker can't cover it because he's currently on
sabbatical (he's an Edward R. Murrow Press Fellow with the Council on
Foreign Relations). The Telegraph of London adds,
"Amnesty International also said in a February 2011 report that Iraq
operates secret jails and routinely tortures prisoners to extract
confessions that are used to convict them."
It is not, however, surprising. Drop back to Friday's "Iraq snapshot" and you'll find:
Kobler
also attempted to spin the violence today insisting 600 people died
this year. Pay a little closer attention and you realize he's just
talking about Baghdad. Since the UN's supposedly concerned with all of
Iraq, Kobler's little stunt is pretty offensive. Iraq Body Count
not only notes 55 dead so far this month, they noted 290 dead for the
month of April, 295 for the month of March, 278 for the month of
February and 458 for the month of January. That's 1376 reported deaths
from violence in Iraq since the start of the year. That's twice as many
as "600." Again, Kobler was being deliberately misleading. When the
United Nations whores what people remember are the rapes by UN peace
keepers (many, many times, but try these two who raped a 14-year-old boy in Haiti), the times the UN did nothing while countries were attacked (Iraq for starters -- and then-UN Secretary General Kofi Annan declared the Iraq War illegal) and
so much more. Kobler didn't just make himself into a cheap whore with
that little stunt, he reminded everyone of just how flawed -- some would
say criminal -- the United Nations can be. A far more realistic
picture on the continued violence came not from Kobler but from
a business decision. Jamal al-Badrani (Reuters) reports, "Mobile
phone operator Asiacell has closed its offices in the Iraqi city of
Mosul, an al Qaeda stronghold, after attacks and threats by militants,
security officials and employees said this week."
See,
we called it out for a reason, Kobler's wording ensured that there was a
good chance people would misunderstand the 600 figure and assume it
applied to all of Iraq when it only applied to Baghdad. Griffis'
mistake will most likely be made by many others and Kobler seems to have
intentionally sought that rection.
While Griffis' mistake may be understandable, there's no excuse for what Jason Ditz has done here.
He laments that the residents of Camp Ashraf might be taken off the
terrorist list, this "is almost certain to be delisted in the next 60
days, in a mover that is likely to dramatically increase tensions
between the US and Iran." And he amplifies his error and ignorance with
this: "Technically speaking, officials say, Secretary of State Hillary
Clinton hasn't made an official decision on the matter, but has promised
to do so in the next 60 days."
No, she hasn't.
Maybe
before you write about something, you should read several different
reports and not just one outlet. Had Ditz bothered to do that, he would
know that the attorney representing the State Dept and Hillary in court
refused to give a deadline when prompted by the judge and specifically
stated that anything they discovered in the 60 day time period, in the
search of Camp Ashraf, could add additional time.
Ashish Kumar Sen (Washington Times) maintains,
"Mrs. Clinton will decide on removing the MEK from the list no later
than 60 days after Camp Ashraf has been vacated, and data gathered from
the relocation has been studied to verify the group's claims that it is
not a terror group, Mr. Loeb said." However, that's not accurate. The
sixty days is a projection, it's not a promise and Loeb stated in court
that information may result from a search of the then-empty Camp Ashraf
that could delay any decision by Hillary on the issue beyond the 60
days. How far beyond the sixty days? Loeb didn't have specific
numbers. This is among the reasons Dinh made the argument that the
residents want a decision even if it's a decision against them because
they can appeal that. The limbo status that they've been in for two
years now is something very different.
How very sad to show up days after (Ditz published Monday) and not have nailed down any of the facts.
But
what do facts matter to Antiwar.com? Apparently damn little. Ditz has
been allowed to be 'creative' with 'news' if the topic was the MEK. He
does so again in a way -- take a warning, I know Ed -- that could
result in a lawsuit.
Ditz writes, "The move would be a great relief to several officials, including former Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell, who violated federal law
by taking funds from a still-listed terrorist organization in return
for giving speeches on their behalf." That's not just a lie, Jason Ditz,
it's one that can get your ass sued.
Again,
I know Ed and I wouldn't be the least surprised if, months from now, he
filed a lawsuit over that statement. He'd win too. Justin Raimondo
better start providing supervision of his little outlet and that
includes telling Scott Horton and Jason Ditz that they can't liable
(Ditz) and slander (Horton). They've been given free reign by Raimondo
on the MEK and allowed to say any crazy ass thing they wanted. Not as
opinion, mind you, but to lie and present as fact.
Does Justin want the next fundraiser to be about Antiwar.com's legal fees?
If
you click on the link that Jason Ditz has supplied, what you find is
another bad article by Jason Ditz from March with a link to this Philadelphia Inquirer article that speaks of "reportedly" in terms of a probe.
Ed
Rendell has not been found guilty of anything nor has he entered any
plea on any charge. In what's supposed to be a news report from Antiwar.com
-- an outlet that promotes itself as a news outlet every time they beg
for money -- Jason The Ditz is declaring that Ed "violated federal law
by taking funds . . ." Jason The Ditz can't prove that. If he can
prove it, he should consider filling in for the federal prosecutor.
If Antiwar.com
wants to be an opinion journal that's fine and dandy but while they're
promoting themselves as an alternative news outlet and while Ditz is
billed as the "news editor," they need to learn that you can't write a
news story and call someone guilty before they've either admitted guilt
or been convicted. One careful word could have taken Ditz's 'report'
from potential lawsuit to just bitchy. That word is "allegedly." Ditz
should try to familiarize himself with the term.
The superficial libertarian media lobby has spoken, if you missed it, Glenn Greenwald among them.
He weighs in today playing tough talker. ("Superficial libertarian
media lobby" does not refer to all libertarians in media. Adam Kokesh,
certainly, is not superficial. But there is a set among the lobby that
is. Glenn Glenn represents them.)
Everytime
Little Glenn Glenn tries to legalize, you realize just how uninformed he
is and why he's such a joke in legal circles. He dealt with civil
liberties -- specifically those of people accused of -- and convicted of
-- violent crimes. There's nothing wrong with that and there is a need
for it but don't turn around and try to pimp that as "I'm a
Constitutional lawyer." No, you weren't.
Glenn
manages to fool people because most don't know what a litigator is.
That's not about the Constitution and, as he rightly notes sometimes, he
was a litigator.
There are Constitutional
attorneys. Glenn doesn't have the academic background or the courtroom
history to be trusted with those issues by anyone but the most
desperate. Constitutional cases go before the Supreme Court. Glenn
argued before them how many times?
Yeah. Exactly.
In
his bad column today, Glenn provides an 'update' where he explains,
having just learned (oh, he's a smart one!), that the Bush
administration originally declared the residents of Camp Ashraf
terrorists -- specifically the residents of Camp Ashraf not just MEK.
That would be news to anyone not paying attention to the issue. Good
going, Glenn, you 've established that you've written repeatedly about a
subject you knew nothing about.
Being on that
list is why the US had them disarm. This was all known by the adults
long ago. Who knows what Glenn was doing while the rest of us were
paying attention?
Camp Ashraf residents have
to leave Iraq. That is a reality. They have been twice attacked by
Nouri's forces. That is a reality. It is why Amnesty issued an alert.
Glenn and his boy squad of faux crusaders want to pretend they're doing
something. But all they're doing is slamming the residents of Camp
Ashraf. The residents -- my opinion -- have been used as a political
football by many including some MEK spokespeople. It's a damn shame
that here in the US you have the Glenn Brigade working overtime to trash
a people who are basically a sinking lifeboat and need assistance
immediately.
But that's how the Glenn Brigade rolls.
And Antiwar.com better
their act together real damn quick because, as I understand it, their
house of cards could collapse real quick and they can't afford a law
suit. The very smart thing to do right now would be for Jason Ditzy to
do a correction to that post -- immediately. But, again, Justin's
provided no oversight and allowed Scott Horton (Antiwar Radio) and Jason Ditz to slander and libel repeatedly if it was MEK related.
I'm going to repeat it one more time and hope that even Jason Ditz can grasp what I'm saying: What you have written is actionable.
You can be sued for it. I would not make a point to go after Ed
Rendell period (I like Ed) but, if I were to do so, I'd be damn sure I
didn't say or write anything that left me open to a lawsuit. Hopefully
that's clear enough for even Jason Ditz.
In Iraq, the political crisis intensifies, Al Rafidayn reports
that MP Mohammed Jawad (of Moqtada al-Sadr's bloc) is stating that,
should a no-confidence vote take place, the names on the list to replace
Nouri al-Maliki are Ahmed Chalabi, Ibrahim al-Jaafari, Hussein
al-Shahristani and Khudayr Musa Jafar Abbas al-Khuzai. Ahmed Chalabi
-- like Nouri -- has very tight connections to Iran. So much so that
his compound was raided by the US military despite the fact that he was
once one of the prized exiles (he was also Dexter Filkins' favorite
Iraqi source for 'reporting'). Ibrahim al-Jaafari was previously prime
minister. (The US refused to allow him a second term in 2006 and
demanded that Nouri al-Maliki be named prime minister.) Hussain
al-Shahristani is the Deputy Prime Minister for Energy. He was
educated in London and Toronto. He's a nuclear scientist who fled
Saddam Hussein's Abu Ghraib prison during the first Gulf War and went
through Iran onto Canada. al-Khuzai is the Shi'ite Vice President. Alsumaria notes
that MP Abdul Amir Mayahi (also of the Sadr bloc) stated that Ibrahim
al-Jaafari is their ideal candidate, calling him a national figure and a
moderate. (al-Jaafari was prime minister from April 2005 until May
2006.) Meanwhile Al Mada has interesting article
where State of Law and Dawa officials state that, if Nouri is replaced,
the replacement must come from the National Alliance. The argument
goes that Nouri wouldn't have been prime minister without the
consolidated support and backing of the National Alliance therefore they
should be the pool from which a different prime minister was selected.
All the names being tossed around are from the National Alliance (a
slate of various Shi'ite political groups). What makes it interesting
is that Dawa -- Nouri's own political party -- and State of Law --
Nouri's own political slate -- appear to be preparing for the
possibility that Nouri might be replaced. Prior to this, they've
insisted that it wasn't happening. Now their public presentation is: If
it does, the prime minister has to come from the National Allaince.
This shift in public strategy may result from the meeting Alsumaria reports took place last night and was chaired by Ibrahim al-Jaafari. All the political blocs of the National Alliance were present.
Nouri al-Maliki has a second term as prime minister not because the
Iraqi people wanted him but because the White House wanted him. Nouri
was installed by the Bush administration in 2006 to block Ibrahim
al-Jafaari (the choide of Iraqi legislatures). His term was an
overwhelming failure by every standard possible.
He signed off on the White House benchmarks and these were a set of
goals Bush and company came up with as Congress was (rightly) noting
there was no progress in Iraq. Congress wanted metrics. The White
House wanted funding. So they proposed a set of measurements. These
were not things that would be achieved in 2012. These were things that
were, at the time they were proposed, thought to be possible by 2008 if
not in 2007. And Nouri agreed to them and signed off on them. He
accomplished none of them. Even now, there is no benchmark which can
be checked off as "completed in full." Five years later and he never
finished them.
He failed legally and did so repeatedly. Nouri took an oath to uphold
the 2005 Constitution. It was written before he became prime minister,
he should have been familiar with it. Article 140 mandated that, by
the end of 2007, a referendum and census would take place in Kirkuk to
determine the fate of disputed Kirkuk. Nouri al-Maliki never
implemented Article 140. He was (and remains in his second term) in
violation of the Constitution -- the one he took an oath to uphold. If
the prime minister of the country is not bound by the Constitution, who
is?
If the prime minister doesn't have to follow the law, who does?
The ethnic cleansing took place during his first term. And that didn't matter apparently.
Iraqis remained without basic services and he repeatedly promised improvements that never came. And that didn't matter.
He sat on billions while he played cheap. He refused to use them on
public services despite claiming he would. He refused to use them to
help the Iraqi refugees in surrounding countries despite claiming he
would. When widows and orphans needs were exposed in the media, he
would insist that money would be forthcoming. It never was.
Time and again, on every measure Nouri failed. But among the most
awful aspects of Nouri al-Maliki was his continued reliance on secret
prisons and torture chambers.
(Beirut) – Iraq’s government has been carrying
out mass arrests and unlawfully detaining people in the notorious Camp
Honor prison facility in Baghdad’s Green Zone, based on numerous
interviews with victims, witnesses, family members, and government
officials. The government had claimed a year ago that it had closed the
prison, where Human Rights Watch had documented rampant torture. Since October 2011 Iraqi authorities have conducted several waves of
detentions, one of which arresting officers and officials termed
“precautionary.” Numerous witnesses told Human Rights Watch that
security forces have typically surrounded neighborhoods in Baghdad and
other provinces and gone door-to-door with long lists of names of people
they wanted to detain. The government has held hundreds of detainees
for months, refusing to disclose the number of those detained, their
identities, any charges against them, and where they are being held. “Iraqi security forces are grabbing people outside of the law,
without trial or known charges, and hiding them away in incommunicado
sites,” said Joe Stork, deputy Middle East director at Human Rights
Watch. “The Iraqi government should immediately reveal the names and
locations of all detainees, promptly free those not charged with crimes,
and bring those facing charges before an independent judicial
authority.” The government should appoint an independent judicial commission to
investigate continuing allegations of torture and other ill-treatment,
disappearances, and arbitrary detention in Camp Honor and elsewhere,
Human Rights Watch said. Multiple witnesses told Human Rights Watch that some detainees
arrested since December 2011 have been held in the Camp Honor prison in
Baghdad’s International Zone, known as the Green Zone. In March 2011 the government announced it had closed Camp Honor prison, after legislators visited the site in response to evidence Human Rights Watch provided of repeated torture at the facility. The two most sweeping arrest dragnets occurred in October and
November 2011, detaining people alleged to be Baath Party and Saddam
Hussein loyalists, and in March 2012, ahead of the Arab summit in
Baghdad at the end of that month. In April two Justice Ministry officials separately told Human Rights
Watch that since the roundups began in October, security forces often
have not transferred prisoners into the full custody of the justice
system, as required by Iraq law. Instead, the officials said, security
forces have transported dozens of prisoners at a time in and out of
various prison facilities, sometimes without adequate paperwork or
explanation, under the authority of the military office of Prime
Minister Nuri al-Maliki. Fourteen lawyers, detainees, and government officials interviewed by
Human Rights Watch said that recent detainees have been held at Camp
Honor prison. Some of the officials said that detainees have also been
held at two secret detention facilities, also inside Baghdad’s Green
Zone. These allegations are consistent with concerns raised in a
confidential letter from the International Committee of the Red Cross
(ICRC) obtained by Human Rights Watch in July 2011 after the letter’s
existence was made public by the Los Angeles Times. Officials, lawyers, and former detainees also told Human Rights Watch
that judicial investigators from the Supreme Judicial Council continue
to conduct interrogations at the Camp Honor prison. Between December and
May, Human Rights Watch interviewed over 35 former detainees, family
members, lawyers, legislators, and Iraqi government and security
officials from the Defense, Interior, and Justice Ministries. Without
exception, they expressed great concern for their own safety and
requested that Human Rights Watch withhold all names, dates, and places
of interviews to protect their identities. “It’s a matter of grave concern that Iraqis in so many walks of life,
officials included, are afraid for their own well-being and fear great
harm if they discuss allegations of serious human rights abuses,” Stork
said. “Precautionary” Detentions ahead of March 2012 Arab Summit The most recent mass arrests occurred in March as the government
dramatically tightened security throughout Baghdad in preparation for
the Arab League summit there on March 29. Family members and witnesses
told Human Rights Watch that arresting officers characterized the
roundups as a “precautionary” measure to prevent terrorist attacks
during the summit. Six detainees released in April told Human Rights
Watch that while they were in detention, interrogators told them that
they were being held to curb criminal activity during the summit and any
“embarrassing” public protests. Legislators from Prime Minister al-Maliki’s State of Law party have
denied in the news media that any preemptive arrests took place,
claiming that all arrests were of suspected criminals and in response to
judicial warrants. All detainees and witnesses interviewed, over 20 in
all, said they had not been shown arrest warrants. In Baghdad neighborhoods where multiple arrests were made, including
Adhamiya, Furat, Jihad, Abu Ghraib, and Rathwaniya, residents told Human
Rights Watch it appeared that a large proportion of those detained had
previously spent time in prisons run by the US military, including Abu
Ghraib, Camp Bucca, and Camp Cropper. Some family members and
legislators concluded that people were being arrested not because of
suspected current criminal activity, but simply because they had been
detained before. In May an Interior Ministry official told Human Rights Watch that
“security forces, in the interest of keeping security incidents to a
minimum during the summit, while the world was watching, sometimes
decided it was easier to just round up people who had been imprisoned
years before, regardless of what crime they may have committed.” In
April a Justice Ministry official told Human Rights Watch that of the
hundreds arrested, “some have been released, about 100 will be
officially charged within the justice system, and the rest are somewhere
else. We do not know where.” During an April 9 parliament session, Hassan al-Sinead, head of the
parliament’s Security and Defense Committee and a member of Prime
Minister al-Maliki’s State of Law Party, held up what he said were
official security reports of Baghdad Operation Command and said, in
response to allegations of pre-emptive arrests by other legislators,
that there were only 532 arrests in all of Baghdad during the month of
March, and that none were pre-emptive. Two other members of the parliamentary committee subsequently told
Human Rights Watch that this figure greatly underreported arrests that
month. At the April 9 session an investigative committee was formed,
made up of members of the Security and Defense and Human Rights
committees. Members of the investigative committee told Human Rights
Watch that plans to visit detainees never happened. To date, no
investigation results have been released. “Baathist” Arrests In October and November 2011, security forces arrested hundreds of
people in Baghdad and outlying provinces, almost all during nighttime
raids on residential neighborhoods. State television reported that Prime
Minister al-Maliki ordered these arrests. Government statements,
including by the prime minister, claimed that those arrested were Saddam
Hussein loyalists plotting against the government. Family members told
Human Rights Watch that security forces came to their doors with lists
and read off names. Some of those listed were former Baath party members
and others were not, including people who had died years ago. Three
officials separately told Human Rights Watch that the total number
arrested in the campaign approached 1,500. A man whose 57-year-old father was arrested along with 11 neighbors
on October 30 told Human Rights Watch in December, “A week after my
father was arrested, some of the same police officers who arrested him
came back and found family members to give them belongings [of
neighborhood men who had been arrested], like clothes or money or IDs,
but they still said they had no information about where they were being
held, or what they were being charged with.” The man’s son showed Human Rights Watch a document the police had
given to him that listed the date his father was arrested but left blank
the space reserved for the name of the detention facility. Upon learning that some prisoners were being held in Baghdad’s Rusafa
prisons, run by the Justice Ministry, Human Rights Watch asked Justice
Minister Hassan al-Shimmari on January 4 for access to the prisoners.
The request was refused. Though not all arrests have been on the same scale as those in
October, November, and March, regular arrest campaigns have taken place,
often in largely Sunni neighborhoods in Baghdad as well as in several
outlying provinces, said witnesses, family members and media reports.
Strict government secrecy regarding the number of arrests and exact
charges makes it difficult to assess the scope. While some prisoners were released within hours or days and say they
were not mistreated, others told Human Rights Watch they were tortured,
including with repeated electric shocks. Most said interrogators forced
them to sign pledges not to criticize the government publicly or to sign
confessions. They said interrogators threatened that unless they signed
these documents they would suffer physical violence, female family
members would be raped, or they would never be released. Some families
told Human Rights Watch that they were told to pay thousands of dollars
in bribes to secure their loved ones’ release. In two cases known to
Human Rights Watch, detainees were released after the families made such
payments. Camp Honor Prison Camp Honor is a military base of more than 15 buildings within
Baghdad’s fortified International Zone, which Iraqis and others continue
to refer to as the Green Zone. The Iraqi Army’s 56th
Brigade, also known as the Baghdad Brigade, which falls under direct
command of the Office of the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces,
controls the Camp Honor complex and is responsible for the security of
the Green Zone. On March 29, 2011, Justice Minister al-Shimmari told Human Rights
Watch that the government had closed the camp’s main detention facility,
Camp Honor prison (often simply referred to as “Camp Honor”).
Al-Shimmari said that authorities had moved all its detainees, whom he
alleged were terrorists and Islamist militants, to three other
facilities under the control of his ministry. Contrary to this assurance, Human Rights Watch has received
information from government and security officials indicating that some
detainees from the “Baathist” and “Summit” roundups were held in Camp
Honor prison and that it is still being used at least as a temporary
holding site, or as a place to extract confessions before moving
detainees into the official correctional system. This use of military
prisons outside the control of the Justice Ministry is consistent with
known procedures at other publicly acknowledged facilities outside of
the ministry’s control, such as Muthanna Airport Prison and a facility
in western Baghdad run by the army’s Muthanna Brigade, both of which
have also housed hundreds of detainees from the recent arrests,
according to government officials and former detainees. A security official from the Defense Ministry told Human Rights Watch
in April that judicial investigators attached to the Supreme Judicial
Council go to the Camp Honor prison on a regular basis, where they
participate in investigations and interrogations, alongside military
investigators from the 56th Brigade. A lawyer who works for
the government but did not want his department identified corroborated
this allegation in an April interview with Human Rights Watch. Three former detainees who spoke with Human Rights Watch between
December and April gave credible accounts of what they said were their
interactions with judicial investigators in Camp Honor prison. These
allegations are consistent with judicial procedures known to have taken
place there in the past. One detainee told Human Rights Watch in April
that he had been held for over a month in Camp Honor prison, from late
October to early December. In a March interview, another man told Human Rights Watch he had been
detained in Baghdad in early November and taken to a prison inside the
Green Zone, which guards and other detainees told him was Camp Honor
prison. His description and a sketch he made of the layout of the cells
and interrogation trailers were consistent with the known layout of the
facility. Another detainee said in early December that he could confirm that he
was in Camp Honor prison in May 2011 by the proximity of clearly
recognizable surrounding buildings. When he was taken from the main
holding facility to adjacent trailers for violent interrogations on
three separate occasions, he said, he was not blindfolded. “The Defense
Ministry and the old Council of Ministers [Hall] are right there,” he
said. “I’m a former military man, and I used to work very close to
there, so I knew right where I was.” In July Human Rights Watch obtained a copy of a May 22,2011 letter
written by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), which
said the ICRC had “collected reliable allegations” of two separate
secret detention facilities attached to Camp Honor military base, plus
another facility next to the headquarters of the Counter-Terrorism
Service, also in the Green Zone, “that are used to this day to hold and
conceal detainees when committees visit the primary prison.” In the letter, the ICRC also documented the methods of torture used
inside Camp Honor prison and affiliated facilities, consistent
with torture methods Human Rights Watch had previously reported.The ICRC
addressed the letter to Prime Minister al-Maliki and copied Farouq
al-Araji, head of al-Maliki’s military office, General Mahmoud
al-Khazraji, commander of the 56th Brigade, other defense officials,
Justice Minister al-Shimmari, and Judge Midhat al-Mahmoud, head of the
Supreme Judicial Council. After the Los Angeles Times made public the letter’s
existence on July 14, the ICRC released a statement declining to confirm
or deny its authenticity, as per long-standing policy to confine its
communications to officials of the government concerned. In July and
August, two Iraqi government officials and one former official familiar
with the letter assured Human Rights Watch of the letter’s legitimacy. Two defense lawyers separately told Human Rights Watch in May 2012
that clients of theirs had been held in Camp Honor prison as recently as
August 2011. Another lawyer told Human Rights Watch that while working
at the Supreme Judicial Council over the past year he encountered
frequent references in comments by judges and others, as well as in
court paperwork, to prisoners being held in Camp Honor prison and in
“two other prisons in the Green Zone also run by the 56thBrigade.” Four officials from the Defense and Justice ministries, plus
two former officials, also told Human Rights Watch of the existence of
these secret prisons, one also part of the Camp Honor complex,
unofficially called “Five Stars,” and another outside the base, but
still within the Green Zone. Treatment of Detainees Statements to Human Rights Watch by those captured in the roundups
and detained in various prisons, including those run by the Justice
Ministry, varied in describing the treatment they received. Some said
they were not physically mistreated. Three people detained in the
“Summit” dragnet told Human Rights Watch that security officers assured
them that they just had to wait until the Arab Summit was over and they
would be released – that holding them “was just a precautionary
measure.” Others described multiple beatings and threats and some
described abuse that amounts to torture. In May, a 59-year-old man told Human Rights Watch that he was
arrested in late October in a southern province of Iraq and transported
with more than 60 other prisoners to a detention facility in Baghdad,
which he identified but asked Human Rights Watch to keep confidential.
“When I first arrived, I was blindfolded and had my hands tied behind my
back, and I had to walk down a long line of men, each of whom punched
me in the face and hit my head with wire cables as I passed them,” he
said. “After that, I was in solitary confinement for some time, and then
they brought me before the judicial investigators. I couldn’t believe
that they beat so hard and gave me electric shocks for three continuous
hours, without even asking me any questions.” He also said that during other interrogations his captors stripped
him naked, hit him with wire cables, boxed his ears, poured cold water
over him, and shocked him with electrodes attached to his back. He was released in March, five months later, after his family paid
over US $10,000 in bribes and an influential politician intervened on
his behalf. Before leaving custody, he was forced to sign what he said
was a confession, though he is not sure of its contents, as well as a
pledge to never speak “against the government” and never to talk to the
media about his arrest. “They told me that if I break any of these
rules, they will bring in my sons and destroy them, and rape my wife,”
he said. “As I left, they told me, ‘We will arrest you again, and make
sure you’re executed.’” Family members of detainees who spoke with Human Rights Watch said
they had no idea where their loved ones were being held, despite
multiple inquiries to the Ministry of Human Rights and the headquarters
of the security forces that arrested them. In cases in which the
government disclosed where prisoners were being held, security forces
hindered or completely blocked detainees’ access to legal and family
visits. “On paper, a defendant can be defended by a lawyer, but in real life,
it is next to impossible,” said a defense lawyer who is attempting to
represent two men arrested in the “Summit” sweep in March. He told Human
Rights Watch that when he is actually informed of the location of a
detainee and allowed in, he is kept waiting for hours, and then told to
go home because it is the end of the day. “Any lawyer attempting to see
his client will be subjected to threats by the security forces holding
the detainees,” the lawyer told Human Rights Watch. “Several times in
the past few months, they said, ‘So, you want to represent a Baathist
and a terrorist? I wonder what is making you do this, why you are on his
side.’ This is clearly an attempt to intimidate attorneys from standing
up for their victims.” Families who tried to hire lawyers to defend relatives arrested in
the “Baathist” sweep gave strikingly similar accounts. In December, one
man told Human Rights Watch that his family went to four separate
criminal defense lawyers who were at first cooperative. But when they
learned that his father was taken in the “Baathist” arrests, he said,
“each immediately told us that they could not interfere in this case
because the arrests were by order of the prime minister’s office.” He
cited one lawyer as saying: “This case is already decided. It’s a lost
case, and I can’t be part of it, because they were arrested by the order
of the prime minister.’” “It is amazing that all four had the same reaction and this made us
lose hope,” the family member said. “We did not try to get another
lawyer, and have no idea where my father is.”
The Los Angeles Times can't find a writer in Iraq to touch it so it's left to Carol J. Williams to note, "The continued operation of the Camp Honor detention site was disclosed
by Los Angeles Times staff
writer Ned Parker in July, four months after Maliki's government said
the facility had been closed at the urging of Iraqi lawmakers and human
rights advocates." Ned Parker can't cover it because he's currently on
sabbatical (he's an Edward R. Murrow Press Fellow with the Council on
Foreign Relations). Hopefully, he'll do a video a paper on it for CFR
this week or next. He has owned this story and one of the things that
the Los Angeles Times can point to with strong pride in the last decade
was Ned Parker's repeated coverage of this topic.
The Telegraph of London adds, "Amnesty International also said in a February 2011 report that Iraq operates
secret jails and routinely tortures prisoners to extract confessions that
are used to convict them."
Nouri's record of secret prisons and tortures was well established
before March 2010 when the parliamentary elections were held. All of
this was known.
And despite the fact that his political slate came in second, despite
the Constitution, despite the will of the Iraqi people as expressed at
the ballot box, the White House sided with minature despot Nouri. This
administration can claim to give a damn about human rights, but it's
hard to take that claim seriously when they chose to trash the will of
the people, the Iraqi Constitution, the notion of democracy and the
safety of the Iraqi people in order to keep Nouri al-Maliki on.
If they hadn't backed him, if the White House had cut him loose after
the 2010 elections, he would not be prime minister now. Would
something worse be in office? Maybe, maybe not. But the reality is
that Iraqis wanted something else, that's what they voted for and the
White House demonstrated as little concern for the results of a
democratic election as they did for the safety of the Iraqi people.
And now? Now they've got US Ambassdor James Jefrrey trying desperately
to shore up support for Nouri al-Maliki, meeting with blocs and trying
to cut deals and offer 'gifts' (bribes) if the blocs will support
Nouri. Even now, the administration refuses to do the right thing.
Again, they can claim to value human rights but they can't back up that claim.
KUNA reports, "The first session for the trial of former Vice President Tareq Al-Hashemi began here Tuesday with the charges being guiding and financing terrorist attacks." Tareq al-Hashemi (pictured above) has been a vice president since 2006. He is currently serving his second term. Currently serving. He has not been removed from office so this trial is legally not supposed to take place. But the law's never mattered in Nouri's Iraq. Nouri waited until the bulk of US forces had left to Iraq to suddenly declare his political rival al-Hashemi a "terrorist." The vice president remains in Turkey.
Iraq practices forced confessions and, despite the Iraqi Constitution insisting upon innocence until proven guilty, the Baghdad court declared al-Hashemi guilty back in Februray. Tareq al-Hashemi has repeatedly requested that the trial be moved elsewhere -- a request that should have been honored the moment the Baghdad judges declared him guilty in February at their press conference and while one judge was stating that he had been threatened by al-Hashemi! (He actually claims to have been threatened by 'supporters' of al-Hashemi -- he can't even make the claim if press for proof that it was by a bodyguard of al-Hasehmi.) Today, after being pushed back twice, the kangaroo court finally hopped into session.
Chen Zhi (Xinhua) reports that, as the trial started this morning, the court sent out spokesperson Abdul-Sattar al-Birqdar to insist, "There are many crimes that Hashimi and his bodyguards are accused of and we have confessions from them, including the assassination of six judges." No, you don't have "confessions." Leaving aside that Iraq forces "confessions" by torture, what you have is testimony -- and it may or may not be convincing. Someone needs to educate the IDIOTS posing as judges in Baghdad and their little spokesperson on the law and on how the judiciary is always, ALWAYS, to come off impartial. If a columnist, a police officer, a pundit wants to call them "confessions" that's fine and dandy. But with a judiciary, we're always supposed to believe that they weighed the comments seriously before coming to a decision.
Chen Zhi has the best report on the day thus far. AFP's report would be stronger if they had taken the raw information they had and done journalism with it. AFP notes that the first witnesses were "families of three victims whose deaths Hasemi is accused of orchestrating." In addition, there were three other witnesses. It would be nice to know who they were. I don't mean names, I don't expect names -- it's not like this is a truly public hearing, get real. But I do expect to know if these people could even offer any testimony against al-Hashemi.
By that I mean, victims families can testify to losses. That's all they can do unless they're eye witnesses. Even if they are eye witnesses, they have no testimony on al-Hashemi. So this was to set a mood for the court and nothing more. Those other three witnesses? Who were they? Are they in the position to have seen something or are we just getting accusations and hearsay presented as direct testimony?
Most importantly, this sentence from AFP doesn't cut it: "Three other witnesses gave testimony, accusing Hashemi of masterminding the assassinations, before reporters were led out of the room." Why? Was secret testimony being introduced? What was going on? If reporters are led out of the courtroom while a trial is going on, hate to break it to AFP, but that's your lede, not the fifth sentence and fifth paragraph of your report. And that's all the more true when there were calls for international observers in advance of the trial and that call does not appear to have been heeded.
As the political crisis intensifies, Al Rafidayn reports that MP Mohammed Jawad (of Moqtada al-Sadr's bloc) is stating that, should a no-confidence vote take place, the names on the list to replace Nouri al-Maliki are Ahmed Chalabi, Ibrahim al-Jaafari, Hussein al-Shahristani and Khudayr Musa Jafar Abbas al-Khuzai. Ahmed Chalabi -- like Nouri -- has very tight connections to Iran. So much so that his compound was raided by the US military despite the fact that he was once one of the prized exiles (he was also Dexter Filkins' favorite Iraqi source for 'reporting'). Ibrahim al-Jaafari was previously prime minister. (The US refused to allow him a second term in 2006 and demanded that Nouri al-Maliki be named prime minister.) Hussain al-Shahristani is the Deputy Prime Minister for Energy. He was educated in London and Toronto. He's a nuclear scientist who fled Saddam Hussein's Abu Ghraib prison during the first Gulf War and went through Iran onto Canada. al-Khuzai is the Shi'ite Vice President. Alsumaria notes that MP Abdul Amir Mayahi (also of the Sadr bloc) stated that Ibrahim al-Jaafari is their ideal candidate, calling him a national figure and a moderate. (al-Jaafari was prime minister from April 2005 until May 2006.) Meanwhile Al Mada has interesting article where State of Law and Dawa officials state that, if Nouri is replaced, the replacement must come from the National Alliance. The argument goes that Nouri wouldn't have been prime minister without the consolidated support and backing of the National Alliance therefore they should be the pool from which a different prime minister was selected. All the names being tossed around are from the National Alliance (a slate of various Shi'ite political groups). What makes it interesting is that Dawa -- Nouri's own political party -- and State of Law -- Nouri's own political slate -- appear to be preparing for the possibility that Nouri might be replaced. Prior to this, they've insisted that it wasn't happening. Now their public presentation is: If it does, the prime minister has to come from the National Allaince. This shift in public strategy may result from the meeting Alsumaria reports took place last night and was chaired by Ibrahim al-Jaafari. All the political blocs of the National Alliance were present.
The following community sites -- plus Antiwar.com, Susan's On Edge, Salon, CSPAN, Black Agenda Report and Chocolate City -- updated last night and this morning:
Yesterday there was violence in Iraq. Not at all surprising. What is
surprising is that if you open today's New York Times, you'll find Jack
Healy's report on it. And that's a good thing. The headline isn't: "Period of Relative Calm in Iraq Is Brought to End by Fatal Bomb Blasts." We're told, in the article (Healy's not responsible for the headline), that six people died from bombings. But . . .
As Iraq Body Count notes
12 people died from bombings, 1 corpse was discovered and 1 police
officer was shot to death. (Also note 75 dead for the month so far.)
Healy had a deadline that closed before all the deaths were known,
that's fine. But what's not fine -- and this is with the headline
writer and not with Healy, criticism of the headline writer -- is that
Sunday didn't see violence return.
I state repeatedly here that violence has not stopped and it hasn't.
But 6 deaths on Sunday wasn't even the most deaths in the last 7 days.
Thursday there were 12 deaths (check IBC) and 7 of those were corpses
and maybe the headline writer at the New York Times doesn't count
corpses? Well Wednesday saw 6 deaths -- five from shootings and
bombing in al-Hadith and 1 from a Baghdad bombing. Monday saw 9 dead
-- three from Basra bombings, 1 from a Balad bombing, 2 from Baghdad
bombings and three from Baquba bombings and shootings.
So how does the New York Times get off presenting the
FALSE 'reality' that yesterday's deaths were the first big numbers in
some time in Iraq? That's irresponsible.
The press has stopped covering violence in Iraq so I do appreciate
Healy's article and I have a few quibbles here and there with it (I'm a
tough grader) but I do appreciate it and I even applaud it. It's a
real shame that a headline degrades what Healy did accomplish by
presenting a false picture of what's taking place in Iraq.
Yesterday Al Rafidayn reported
that the prime minister stated he was willing to dialogue about the
issue of Saleh al-Mutlaq -- Deputy Prime Minister whom Nouri's State of
Law is still trying to have stripped of his post in Parliament -- but
that there would be no discussions or meetings on the issue of Vice
President Tareq al-Hashemi. Al Mada notes
that al-Hashemi declared yesterday that he was optimistic about the
possibility of returning to Baghdad and that he feels negotiations will
result in the charges against him being dropped. Alsumaria reports
that Moqtada al-Sadr's bloc is declaring that they have candidates to
replace Nouri and are ready to go forward with a no-confidence vote if
Nouri doesn't meet the demands. The demands include a multi-point
agreement by Moqtada which the press still hasn't reported on in any
real depth. The demands also include the implementation of the Erbil
Agreement.
The March 2010 elections were followed by eight months of political
stalemate after Iraqiya (led by Ayad Allawi) came in first, besting
State of Law (led by Nouri). Nouri didn't want to give up the post of
prime minister and with both Tehran and the White House backing him, he
knew he could dig his heels in. The US-brokered the Erbil Agreement in
November 2010. Allowing Nouri to have the second term the White House
wanted meant that Nouri would conceed on various other points. Nouri
used the agreement to become prime minister and then went back on his
word and refused to honor the agreement.
This is the cause of the current political crisis in Iraq and it's been
ongoing for over a year and a half. Moqtada al-Sadr has given Nouri a
15 day deadline to take action on the demands agreed to at the April 28th meet-up in Erbil
attended by, among others, Moqtada, Allawi, Iraqi President Jalal
Talabani, KRG President Massoud Barzani and Speaker of Parliament Osama
al-Nujaifi. Al Mada reports
State of Law states that they don't understand the deadline and that
Nouri didn't attend because the meeting was with the Kurds and the
Kurds follow their bloc and the KRG Prime Minister and not Nouri.
State of Law does love the insults. But, reality, Nouri wasn't invited
to the April 28th meeting.
When not exhibiting PDAs, Nouri and State of Law thunder, Al Rafidayn reports,
that Speaker of Parliament al-Nujaifi must declare where he stands on
the disputed areas of Iraq. Presumably, since Osama al-Nujaifi took an
oath to the Constitution, he stands on the idea that a referendum and
census should be held. That is what Article 140 of the Constitution
requires.
Maybe it's confusing to Nouri? That would explain why it never took
place in Nouri's first term even though the Constitution said it was
supposed to take place by the end of 2007.
Bonnie reminds that Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Barack's Shrinking Stature" went up last night. On this week's Law and Disorder Radio-- a weekly hour long program that airs Monday mornings at 9:00 a.m. EST on WBAI and around the country throughout the week, hosted by attorneys Heidi Boghosian, Michael S. Smith and Michael Ratner (Center for Constitutional Rights),
topics
exploredinclude the federal government spying on the Occupy movement --
a topic they discuss with attorney Mara Verheyden-Hilliard, the Chino
Hill murders with J Patrick O'Connor, the late Karen Detamore and a lawsuit against Yelp.
