An angry visitor e-mails to demand a response to his e-mail that he has sent four times already (the same e-mail). When you do that, no one wants to read it and whomever comes across it just sends it into the trash can. I saw the one tonight where he's complaining about this being the fifth time he's made his point and asked his question.
His point is that I am distorting "General Raymond Odierno's words." It's General Ray Odierno. He declared he'd go by Ray when he was announced as top US commander in Iraq. As for distorting his words, I am accused of distorting what he said "on CBS News." That's what he said on CBS Evening News with Katie Couric and the link has the video and the text. An excerpt was provided Saturday morning and in Monday's snapshot. I say Odierno says the US most likely will not be out of Mosul by the end of June. From Monday's snapshot:
Friday on the CBS Evening News with Katie Couric, Katie Couric spoke to the top US commander in Iraq, General Ray Odierno. She asked him about whether or not US forces would be out of all Iraqi cities by the end of June as the Status Of Forces Agreement 'mandates'. Odierno replied, "I believe we'll make that timeline in every city probably except for, probably, Mosul. There'll be a decision that will be made. We'll provide a joint assessment between Iraqis and the U.S. We'll provide that assessment to the Prime Minister Maliki who will make a final decision." That is consistent with his other comments on this topic. It is not, however, consistent with the pipe dreamers who honestly believe that the SOFA is somehow 'binding.'
I haven't distorted a thing. It's what he said and he said similar things to John King (CNN) and to Deborah Haynes (Times of London) and to many others. But the visitor insists, "Odierno is not saying any such thing! He KNOWS that the U.S. must be out and they will be out and that is what he has consistently said!!!!" In what alternate universe?
Note the following:
However, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, Gen. Raymond Odierno, told CNN on Wednesday that it's possible the Iraqi government may decide to allow boots on the ground in some urban areas past June. Asked about the two volatile regions of Baquba and Mosul, north of Baghdad, Odierno said he believes troops will withdraw from Baquba, but noted that Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki will have to make a decision about Mosul, where al Qaeda in Iraq militants have been active. "We'll see, you know, it's still two months away, so we'll have to see what progress we're able to make, but that will be a joint assessment between us and the Iraqis," Odierno said.
That's from Jomana Karadsheh and Cal Perry's "Bombings kill nearly 90 in Iraq" (CNN) and the 90 dead refers to the two big bombings in Iraq today (one in Baghdad, the other in Diyala Province). If you can't grasp what he's saying now, nothing anyone else is going to tell you will help you because your are intentionally refusing to hear what Odierno is repeatedly saying.
It's over, I'm done writing songs about love There's a war going on So I'm holding my gun with a strap and a glove And I'm writing a song about war And it goes Na na na na na na na I hate the war Na na na na na na na I hate the war Na na na na na na na I hate the war Oh oh oh oh -- "I Hate The War" (written by Greg Goldberg, on The Ballet's Mattachine!)
Last Thursday, ICCC's number of US troops killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war was 4273. Tonight? 4276. That is one more than this afternoon's snapshot. Did M-NF make another announcement?
No.
They skipped it.
As repeatedly noted, M-NF is supposed to announce the death. The Department of Defense is supposed to provide the name of the dead. DoD should never be providing a name to a death that wasn't announced. M-NF even explained that (again) in their most recent announcement: "The names of the service members are announced through the U.S. Department of Defense Official Website at http://www.defenselink.mil/ . The announcements are made on the Web site no earlier than 24 hours after notification of the service member's primary next of kin. MND-B will not release any additional details prior to notification of next of kin and official release by the DoD."
And yet, somehow, they missed another one. DoD announced today: "The Department of Defense announced today the death of a Marine who was supporting Operation Iraqi Freedom. Cpl. William C. Comstock, 21, of Van Buren, Ark., died April 22 as a result of a non-hostile incident in Anbar province, Iraq. He was assigned to 2nd Supply Battalion, Combat Logistics Regiment 25, 2nd Marine Logistics Group, II Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Lejeune, N.C. The incident is under investigation."
Thursday, April 23, 2009. Chaos and violence continue, the US military announces another death, a Democrat and a Republican and a witness all embarrass themselves in Congress today while allegedly discussing PTSD, the Iraq-torture connections, and more..
In Iraq today, multiple bombings, multiple deaths. Al Jazeera noted this morning a Baghdad bombing today which "targeted a police patrol in the Karrada district" with a death toll of 28 and fifty injured. Michael Christie and Jon Boyle (Reuters) added that, along with the 28 killed in Baghdad, a Muqdadiya bombing claimed 32 lives. Reuters state that both bombings were suicide bombings. Jomana Karadsheh and Cal Perry (CNN) explain that the death toll in Muqdadiya rose from 32 to 45 and that twenty-eight is the wounded toll thus far and that the bombing targeted Iranian pilgrims. Timothy Williams (New York Times) notes the toll rose again, to 47, combines the two bombings for a total death toll of 75. Unlike CNN which describes the Baghdad bomber as wearing a "suicide vest," Williams says it was a "suicide belt" and that the bomber was a woman. Corinne Reilly, Sahar Issa and Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) also report a female bomber in Baghdad. They and Timothy Williams mention an arrest. CBS News has that as well: "Iraqi officials told CBS News Terrorism consultant Ali al-Ahmed Thursday that [Abu Omar] al-Baghdadi had been arrested. . . . If true, the arrest could deliver a significant blow to an intensified campaign of attacks - the latest which included two separate suicide bombings that killed at least 54 people Thursday." Ernesto Londono and K.I. Ibrahim (Washington Post) provide context, "The assertion, made by Maj. Gen. Qassim Atta, the spokesman for Iraq's security forces, was startling because many intelligence officials believe Baghdadi is a mythical figure created to give the Sunni insurgent organization an Iraqi face. Iraqi authorities in the past have made similar claims that turned out to be incorrect." The 'capture' may be true and it may, indeed, have taken place today. Then again, it may be an attempt to distract from the large death toll from the two bombings. Back to the bombings, Aseel Kami (Reuters) quotes Diyala Province Governor Abdulnasir al-Muntasirbillah stating, "I just left the hospital of Baquba. The scenes there are catastrophic. Words can't express it. It is a dirty, cowardly terrorist act." [Muqdadiya is in Diyala Province]. Usama Redha and Raheem Salman (Los Angeles Times) observe, "The two attacks bore echoes of the worst violence from Iraq's civil war and was certain to fuel fears that the security strides of the last year and a half were fading away."
This morning US House Rep John Hall chaired a hearing by the House Armed Services Committee's Subcommittee on Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs. It was some hearing. Full of embarrassments from both sides listening in Congress as well as from the witness table. One Congressional member took the hearing for a Mary Kay Convention, another thought it was the time to go crazy and vent all your hatred for US government and, from the witness side, one thought a hearing was a license to lie. Repeating, it was some hearing.
It started off slowly and normally enough with Hall, after noting that New York soldiers stationed in Afghanistan had told him on a recent trip that they want more bandwidth and better showers, making opening remarks. "Today," Hall explained, "we are here to consider legislation, the Compensation Owed for Mental Health Based on Activities in Theater Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder Act or the COMBAT PTSD Act, H.R. 952. During the 110th Congress and most recently during an oversight hearing held on March 24, 2009, the Subcommittee on Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs revisited Congress' intent in establishing presumptive provisions to provide compensation to combat veterans under Section 1154(b) of title 38." Hall noted that the Veterans Affairs Dept appeared to be interpreting qualifications narrowly and that his bill is about "clarifying and expanding the definition of 'combat with the enemy' found in section 1154(b) to include a theater of combat operations during a period of war or in combat against a hostile force during a period of hostilities."
The first panel was John Wilson (Disabled American Veterans), Barton F. Dutchman (National Veterans Legal Services Program), Norman Bessel (American Ex-Prisoners of War) and Richard Paul Cohen (National Organization of Veterans' Advocates, Inc.).
"The definition of what constitutes combat with the enemy is critical to all veterans in a combat theatre of operations," stated John Wilson reading his prepared remarks aloud ( click here), "whether the issue is service connection of post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) or other conditions resulting from combat. The current high standards requried by the Department of Veterans Affairs' internal operating procedures for verifying veterans who 'engaged in combat with the enemy' are impossible for many veterans to satisfy, whether from current or past wars." He noted the various reasons that can prevent someone from being seen (by the VA) as "engaged in combat with the enemy" and offered women serving in Iraq:
The female soldiers who accompany male troops on patrols to conduct house-to-house searches are known as Team Lioness, and have proved to be invaluable. Their presence not only helps calm women and children, but Team Lioness troops are also able to conduct searches of the women, without violating cultural strictures. Against official policy, and at that time without the training given to their male counterparts, and with a firm commitment to serve as needed, these dedicated young women have been drawn onto the frontlines in some of the most violent counterinsurgency battles in Iraq.
Independent Lens, an Emmy award-winning independent film series on PBS, documented their work in a film titled Lioness which profiled five women who saw action in Iraq's Sunni Triangle during 2003 and 2004. As members of the US Army's 1st Engineer Battalion, Shannon Morgan, Rebecca Nava, Kate Pendry Guttormsen, Anastasia Breslow and Ranie Ruthig were sent to Iraq to provide supplies and logistical support to their male colleagues. Not trained for combat duty, the women unexpectedly became involved with fighting in the streets of Ramadi. These women were part of a unit, made up of approsimately 20 women, who went out on combat missions in Iraq. Female soldiers in the Army and Marines continue to perform Lioness work in Iraq and Afghanistan.
I would like to highlight the issues faced by Rebecca Nava as she seeks recognition of her combat experience and subsequent benefits for resulting disabilities. Then US Army Specialist Nava was the Supply Clerk for the 1st Engineering Battalion in Iraq. In conversations with her and as seen in the film Lioness, she recounts several incidents. Two of those incidents are noted in my testimony today.
The first is the roll-over accident of a 5-ton truck that was part of a convoy to Baghdad. In this accident, the driver was attempting to catcuh up with the rest of the convoy but in doing so lost control of the vehicle. The five ton truck swerved off the road and rolled over, killing a Sergeant who was sitting next to her, and severely injuring several others. Specialist Nava was caught in the wreckage. She had to pulled through the fractured windshield of the vehicle. While not severly injured in the accident, she did suffer a permanent spinal injury.
Another incident occurred wherein she was temporarily attached to a Marine unit and her job for this mission was to provide Lioness support for any Iraqi women and children the unit contacted. It was a routine mission patrolling the streets of Ramadi. Before she knew it, the situation erupted into chaos as they came under enemy fire. She had no choice but to fight alongside her male counterparts to suppress the enemy. No one cared that she was a female -- nor did they care that she had a Supply MOS -- their lives were all on the line -- she opened fire. The enemy was taken out. During this fire fight she also made use of her combat lifesaver skills and provided medical aid to several injured personnel.
This and other missions resonate with her to this day. When she filed a claim with the VA, she was confronted with disbelief about her combat role in Iraq as part of Team Lioness. Specialist Nava filed a claim for service connection for hearing loss and tinnitus but was told that she did not qualify because of her logistics career field. Since she does not have a Combat Action Badge, she cannot easily prove that the combat missions occurred which impacted her hearing.
Wilson observed that Nava's "lack of recognition for her combat role can be multiplied countless times for other veterans also caught in the fog of war." Later in the hearing, he would return to Nava to point out her struggle and how she had a team following her in Iraq, recording her (for the documentary) and still was denied and that most service members do not have a document of their service (example: "So we have a troop who has a camera following her around in Iraq [. . .] How much more of a problem is this for other veterans who do not have the visibility she has.") She does not Norman Bussel stated, "To refuse PTSD compensation to veterans because their job titles are not synonymous with combat is unconscionable. There's more than the money involved. Even more important is the colossal insult of telling a combat veteran that he didn't fight for his country. That is an unnecessary stressor to stuff into his or her already overlowing load of emotional baggage." (Bussel read his prepared remarks, click here.) Cohen observed in his opening remarks:
You've heard justice delayed is justice denied well justice denied increases frustration among our combat veterans, increases their anxiety, increases their depression, increases their anger, increases their betrayal -- a sense of betrayal from the VA and, by extension, from the whole country.
Cohen's opening remarks are not the same as he prepared statement in the record (click here for his prepared statement). Stichman noted:
Under current law, VA has to expend more time and resources to decide PTSD claims than almost every other type of claim. A major reason that these claims are so labor intensive is that in most cases, VA believes that the law requires it to conduct an extensive search for evidence that may corroborate that the veteran's testimony that he experienced a stressful event during military service. According to the VA, an extensive search for corroborating evidence is necessary even when the medical evidence shows that the veteran currently suffers from PTSD, and mental health professionals attribute the PTSD to stressful events that occurred during military service.
Click here for Stichman's prepared remarks (which he read into the record). We'll focus on two strong exchanges before we get to the goofballs. US House Reps Ann Kirkpatrick and Ciro Rodriguez were on focus and raised real issues. First Kirkpatrick.
Ann Kirkpatrick: I just spent two weeks in my district meeting with veterans and there's so much anger about how they're being treated by the administration and specifically with regard to PTSD. I've met with veterans who said that -- how difficult it was to show the service connection. One veteran in particular was a Vietnam veteran and he told me how painful it was to try to track down his patrol finding out that so many of them had died since their days in the service. I finally was able to locate someone across the country who was able to validate the service connection. The other problem is also the lack of trained mental health care professionals specific to PTSD in some of these communities. And again they said, 'Please take back to your community our request that we have trained mental health counselors in PTSD in the Veterans Administration' and how specific that is to their treatment in those who qualify. My concern, and my question is for you Mr. Wilson, for a veteran who has PTSD or thinks they have it and can't show the service connection, where do they go for treatment? What services are there for them?
John Wilson: It's a good question. While I was in the field, I also had veterans come through with the same issues -- Vietnam in particular, some WWII -- their entire team wiped out. So who did they go to for support for their particular claim? No letters -- as we were talking about here -- and the distinguished gentleman was providing letters still postmarked from someone overseas at the time, excellent evidence typically. Why that claim was denied, I am not sure. It would, I think normally, I hope, it would be granted. It's difficult circumstances as I say and I have encouraged those people to go back and meet with their reunion websites for people who may be part of that unit, who may be able to provide, perhaps, some other story of 'Yes, I saw Johnny there on that -- on that truck going to that combat zone all geared up.' Those kind of things may all be of benefit. But it is nonetheless very difficult and the fog of war? How is it that you're going to appoint a stenographer or a court reporter, a videographer to accompany each person on that combat? You cannot. It's very difficult circumstance. I would contend that the VA does have the means before it in order to grant those benefits by looking at the lay evidence that a veteran submits and looking at the times, places and circumstances of that particular event, they should in fact be able to grant the service connection. But it nonetheless is a problematic condition.
Ann Kirkpatrick: And for those people who can't -- can't show the connection, are there other places they can go for help?
John Wilson: Ma'am, I wish I could find those. None that I'm aware of.
Ann Kirkpatrick: Mr. Chairman, let me just make one other comment. I asked the veterans I was meeting with if they were concerned about people applying for PTSD treatment who may not really qualify and they said "No." No. The risk really is that those who need treatment are not going to seek it out because of the current system and they emphasized over and over again that they were promised medical treatment for life when they enlisted and that that promise has been broken.
Now for Ciro Rodriguez. He'll refer to some past experiences prior to Congress (and prior to being in the Texas legislature). He's speaking of when he was with Bexar County Department of Mental Health and with Intercultural Development Research Association. Also he had a statement put in the record (click here).
Ciro Rodriguez: Let me also just add that the same people that might suffer from Post Traumatic Stress Disorders initially are the same ones that might not even be aware of the fact that they're suffering it. And a lot of times that's not acknowledged until much later after a lot of difficulties. And it's kind of like, you know, example of getting burned out at work and you're not sure why but it was, you know, an example I can give you in terms of my experience working with the mentally ill, staying there until seven, eight o'clock at night, taking the work back home with me and then all of the sudden telling them, 'No, I can't see you, it's after five.' And it's something wrong. And it doesn't dawn on you until very much later in terms of what's happening to you. The same thing applies with Post Traumatic Stress Disorders and the system is not equipped to handle or to even reach out to those individuals that are not even aware that they're suffering from that. And be able to be aggressive and be able to reach out and work with some of the invidviduals. Your testimony. One of you mentioned the fact that a lot of them deal with it indirectly by going to prescription drugs and going to alcohol and other illegal drugs -- in terms of coping with it. And somehow we've got to get the system to be more responsive. I know the legislation on HR 952 directly addresses the strereotypes by helping to relax the evidentary standards to deployment on a combat area and we know that when you go -- the first two soldiers that were caught, [. . .] remember that one lady that was a cook and the other was a mechanic. [Rodriguez is referring to Shoshana Johnson and Patrick Miller who were part of US Army 507th Maintenance Company which was ambushed March 23, 2003. They were POWs -- along with James Riley, Edgar Hernandez and Joseph Hudson -- until April 13, 2003. Jessica Lynch was part of this unit; however, she was taken to an Iraqi hospital. Anna Mulrine (US News & World Report) spoke with all three -- Lynch, Johnson and Miller -- for a March 18, 2008 article.] Those were the ones that were captured. And it's hard when you get into those situations, especially what we have in Afghanistan and Iraq, that at any given time, you'll be asked to do other things besides your so-called duites as you're there and some of those might not be translated in terms of -- so that you'll be able to justify in the future. So we need to give them the benefit of the doubt under those circumstances and be able to.
[. . .]
Barton Stichman: The point you made about people not recognizing that they have Post Traumatic Stress Disorder or being in denial about it I think relates to this legislation. A lot of people don't realize that they have it for a long time and then they get treatment and then they apply for benefits. So it may be years, many years, after they finish their military service. And so in order to win benefits for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder in a situation where the VA doesn't believe that they served in combat with the enemy at that point and time, they're going to have to go out and get corroborative evidcne which is very difficult. The length of time effects their ability to do that.
Ciro Rodriguez: Mr. Chairman, I know I've gone over my time.
John Hall: Do you have another question?
Ciro Rodriguez: Just a little statement. [To Stichman] What you've indicated is so true and that that's one of the things the system has to be responsive to in terms of meeting those needs. And as a person goes through denial, you go through a process where you even not acknowledge certain things that might have occured that other people there will tell you, 'No, this and this transpired.' Because you might be going through guilt and other things as you go through that, that you might not have responded as appropriately as you should have and those kind of things and sometimes that's not cleared up until you have time to go through those and be able to think about what actually occurred.
Throughout the hearing, the witnesses did not buy into the notion that veterans were faking PTSD to get some of that 'easy' and apparently 'glorious' treatment. Norman Bussel would respond to the John Hall's question (Hall does not believe that claim either) that "the America veteran does not come in for treatment because he feels there is a stigma and he's ashamed of how he feels" so it doesn't make sense that some veteran would insist he or she was suffering from PTSD when they weren't. Bussel stated they were "in a horrendous state" when they came for help. Bussel also spoke of the harm being done currently with the denial of PTSD claims, noting that the veterans "feel like they are being called liars [when] they're combat experience is denied." He explained his WWII records took forever to catch up with him. And that "in Iraq and Afghanistan," "those records are just kept" which would say you were in combat. He spoke of the collatoral damage on families and veterans relationships as a result of a veteran being denied.
Let's turn to the goofballs. And it's bi-partisan. We have one from each side of the aisle.
Suggestion: US House Rep Deborah Halvorson might want to leave out her personal tales ("I found out I wasn't so tough") and attempt to learn the issue she's talking about. For example, there's no excuse in a hearing on PTSD for a member of Congress to believe it is "PTSB." And Mary Kay Cosmetics is not well served by their chirpy alumni Halvorson failing to learn House procedure, "I yield back -- or I reserve the balance of my time for later!" It's April 23, 2009, long past time for the War Hawk Halvorson to get her act together. Harsh? If you think that's harsh, you don't know Little Debbie.
Democratic Debbie was saved from winning Fool for a Day by US House Rep Brian Bilray who came across like someone who'd gone off their meds. Whether it was floating a theory that those working at the VA hated veterans -- apparently from the top of the VA down to the custodians -- or working in multiple attacks on "welfare" and the "welfare system," Bilray was a rage of beauty to behold. Was anyone spared his toxic accusations? You might think so but around the time he was griping about fire fighters with respitory problems and how they 'claimed' it was from their work but they might be smokers, you realize Bilray had a lot more issue to work out than even the full staff of the VA could assist him with if they worked around the clock just on him.
How bad was it? We already noted Subcommittee Chair John Hall does not believe there is this mad craze of veterans faking PTSD for the 'glory' and 'glamor' but Hall had to pursue that on the record because Bilray had insisted this was a reasonable and reasoned hypothesis and one that should be considered at length (and he certainly spoke of it at length). Another example? As the first panel wound down, Hall felt the need to declare, "I do not intend by this legislation nor do those that support it to minimize or cast aspersions on the value or the bravery of those who have fought in direct combat, in intense firefights, who signed up and served as Special Forces, those who have seen combat of the most intense type." Why did he have to clarify what should be obvious? Because he was responding to Bilray. Yes, Bilray even argued that eliminating a few of the hoops veterans are forced to jump through was somehow doing harm to other veterans. Bilray was a piece of work.
So that's a Democrat and a Republican who made fools of themselves but remember we said a witness did as well. Which one? Not any on the first panel. The second panel is where Bradley G. Mayes would show up, the VA's Compensation and Pension Service cruncher. He was so offensive that had Bilray stood up and screamed, "See! That's what I mean about the VA hating vets!" it probably would have been the first time in his life that the world would have found it hard to disagree with Bilray.
Mayes sniffed:
The short title of the legislation we are discussing today indicates that the intent behind it is principally to ease the burden on veterans in proving their service-connection claims based on PTSD, which is a goal that the Department shares. However, we are concerned about the scope of the bill and also believe it would unduly complicate the adjudication process.
In furtherance of our mutual objective of simplifying the adjudication of wartime veterans' PTSD claims, the Department currently has under development an amendment to our regulations to liberalize in certain cases the evidentiary standards for establishing an in-service stressor for purposes of service connecting PTSD. This amendment would relax in some situations the requirement for corroborating evidence that a claimed in-service stressor occurred. We also recently completed a rulemaking that eliminated the requirement for evidence corroborating the occurrence of a claimed in-service stressor if PTSD is diagnosed in service.
His prepared opening statement can be read [PDF format warning] here but note that he did not deliver it exactly as written (the quote above is word-for-word what he said and word-for-word what was prepared ahead of time). Words were not Mayes' friend such as when he spoke of POWs from past war and declared "an individual was incarcera -- er, interned by the enemy."
Subcommittee Chair Hall registered Mayes strong opposition to the proposed legislation and explained that if this were left to the VA alone and they handled it, it would be under rule making. Rules can be changed, Hall noted, with administrations. So "should that be a consideration" as to whether or not the issue should be resolved by law or by rule?
Mayes inisted he'd never seen or even been aware of efforts -- ever -- to roll back rights for veterans. And no one challenged that assertion.
March 19, 2005, CNN was reporting on Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell's response to Bully Boy Bush's weekly address: "He maintained that budget cuts include 'a $350 million reduction in veterans home funding, which wipes out at least 5,000 veterans' nursing home beds." April 10, 2005, Karen Blakeman and Dennis Camire (Honolulu Advertiser) reported, "President Bush's proposed 2006 budget would * Drastically cut financial support for up to 80 percent of the veterans in the nation's 129 state-run homes. * Let the VA reduce the number of nursing-home beds from the 13,391 required by law. * Put a hold on $104 million in grants slated to rehabilitate and build new state veterans homes." Among the many, many other reports on this 2005 move by the then-administration, you can refer to Joel Wendfand (People's Weekly World) and you can drop back to 2004 for Edward Walsh (Washington Post). There are plenty of other examples we could offer. It would do no good; however. Mayes had insisted "I just can't envision that" when Hall had offered that administrations change and they can change rules (but not laws) to weaken veterans' benefits.
Mayes was pompous and an idiot. (When he's especially proud of one of his responses, he tilts his head to the left, to the right and then tosses his head back. No, it's not attractive.) The hearing was on what topic? PTSD. And the hearing was about whether or not people suffering from it are getting the help they need. So when Hall asks you for the number of those diagnosed with PTSD and the number of the backlog for those who have been diagnosed, you really should never respond, "I would have to get that for you." Exactly what topic did Mayes think he was attending the hearing to discuss? And as Hall pointed out, Mayes refers to the backlog himself on page three of his prepared statement. Apparently the statement was prepared but Mayes was not. He also had prepared remarks about "combat operations" in his written statement and Hall wanted to ask Mayes about that topic. Mayes declined to answer and announced he was "going to defer" that issue to his handler Richard Hipolit. Hipolit speaks like William Hickey (with a wheeze) and has all the charm of an ambulance chasing divorce attorney -- and why do you think that is? Maybe the next hearing could be about the qualifications of those appearing before the panel and how they managed to snare government jobs?
Might the legislation proposed save the VA time and money? A basic question. But Hall had to go through the process of pulling teeth and bringing in Vietnam and Agent Orange before he could get even a weak and qualifed "yes" from Mayes. He blathered on about, "I think, for me, the difficulty [. . .] is because the disaease [ . . .] we know Agent Orange was sprayed in the Republic of Vietnam [. . .] but with PTSD, the difficulty in trying to define what parts of the world at different times in our history . . ."
What an idiot. Agent Orange has been used around the world. It is a problem (a huge one) for Vietnam veterans because they served in Vietnam. PTSD is a problem for veterans because of the experiences while they served. This is not complicated. Mayes wants to make it complicated. But if Agent Orange were used in Iraq, it would be an issue for today's veterans. It has nothing to do with Vietnam, it has to do with the battlefield. Repeating, Agent Orange was used all over the world. It is a hazard during Vietnam because US troops were in Vietnam. That's where they were exposed to it. PTSD is related to where you were exposed to the theatre of war and/or combat. It is not as difficult as Mayes (intentionally) tries to make it out to be.
Hall attempted to nail Mayes down repeatedly but he was like Liquid Metal, always sliding away -- largely by refusing to be consistent in his remarks.
From veterans to the fallen. Last night the US military announced: "A Multi-National Division–Baghdad Soldier died April 22 from combat related injuries while conducting a patrol in eastern Baghdad. The Soldier's name is being withheld pending notification of next of kin. The names of the service members are announced through the U.S. Department of Defense Official Website at http://www.defenselink.mil/ . The announcements are made on the Web site no earlier than 24 hours after notification of the service member's primary next of kin. MND-B will not release any additional details prior to notification of next of kin and official release by the DoD. The incident is currently under investigation." The announcement brings to 4275 the number of US service members killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war.
Today's violence included more than just the two attacks noted earlier.
Bombings?
Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad roadside bombing left two people injured and, in Baquba, two homes "belonging to displaced families from Timim tribe were blown up," a Mosul roadside bombing which wounded two people, a Mosul grenade attack which wounded four, and a roadside bombing outside of Baquba which claimed the life of Sahwa leader Mubarak Hammad al Obadi and 3 of his aids while leaving two more aids wounded.
The Committee's report provides extensive details about how the aggressive techniques made their way from Afghanistan to Iraq. In February 2003, an SMU Task Force designated for operations in Iraq obtained a copy of the SMU interrogation policy from Afghanistan that included aggressive techniques, changed the letterhead, and adopted the policy verbatim. (p. 158) Months later, the Interrogation Officer in Charge at Abu Ghraib obtained a copy of the SMU interrogation policy and submitted it, virtually unchanged, through her chain of command to Combined Joint Task Force 7 (CJTF-7), led at the time by Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez. On September 14, 2003, Lieutenant General Sanchez issued an interrogation policy for CJTF-7 that authorized interrogators to use stress positions, environmental manipulation, sleep management, and military working dogs to exploit detainees' fears in their interrogations of detainees. The Committee's investigation uncovered documents indicating that, almost immediately after LTG Sanchez issued his September 14, 2003, policy, CENTCOM lawyers raised concerns about its legality. One newly declassified email from a CENTCOM lawyer to the Staff Judge Advocate at CJTF-7 – sent just three days after the policy was issued – warned that "Many of the techniques [in the CJTF-7 policy] appear to violate [Geneva Convention] III and IV and should not be used . . ." (p. 203). Even though the Bush administration acknowledged that the Geneva Conventions applied in Iraq, it was not until nearly a month later that CJTF-7 revised that policy. Not only did SERE techniques make their way to Iraq, but SERE instructors did as well. In September 2003, JPRA sent a team to Iraq to provide assistance to interrogation operations at an SMU Task Force. The Chief of Human Intelligence and Counterintelligence at the Task Force testified to the Committee in February 2008 that JPRA personnel demonstrated SERE techniques to SMU personnel including so-called "walling" and striking a detainee as they do in SERE school. (p. 175). As we heard at our September 2008 hearing, JPRA personnel were present during abusive interrogations during that same trip, including one where a detainee was placed on his knees in a stress position and was repeatedly slapped by an interrogator. (p. 176). JPRA personnel even participated in an interrogation, taking physical control of a detainee, forcibly stripping him naked, and giving orders for him to be kept in a stress position for 12 hours. In August 3, 2007, testimony to the Committee, one of the JPRA team members said that, with respect to stripping the detainee, "we [had] done this 100 times, 1000 times with our [SERE school] students." The Committee's investigation revealed that forced nudity continued to be used in interrogations at the SMU Task Force for months after the JPRA visit. (pp. 181-182). Over the course of the investigation, the Committee obtained the statements and interviews of scores of military personnel at Abu Ghraib. These statements reveal that the interrogation techniques authorized by Secretary Rumsfeld in December 2002 for use at GTMO – including stress positions, forced nudity, and military working dogs – were used by military intelligence personnel responsible for interrogations.
The report Levin is referencing is entitled [PDF format warning] "INQUIRY INTO THE TREATMENT OF DETAINEES IN U.S. CUSTODY" and page 76 begins the section on Major General Geoffrey Miller and what he knew, what he oversaw, etc. While Janis Karpinski was punished (administratively) for things she had not done, Miller walked away scott free. As retired Army Col and retired State Dept diplomat Ann Wright told Cindy Sheehan on Cindy's April 5thSoapbox Janis Karpinski was made the fall person for Abu Ghraib. (Wright also spoke of how Karpinski fought back, like no one she'd seen do, refusing to be silent while the military did their 'investigation'.) Karpinski appeared on The Early Show (CBS) yesterday and again noted that the torture was brought in and not something the people serving under her came up with on their own. As Samira Simone (CNN) observed, "She said was a scapegoat. She said she was just following orders. She said she was demoted unfairly. Now, retired Army Col. Janis Karpinski can say: I told you so. . . . Today, Karpinsi has found validation in a few Bush-era memos released last week by the Obama administration." As Ruth asked last night, "So are they going to restore her rank? They should. They busted her down when she was innocent."
The Bush administration put relentless pressure on interrogators to use harsh methods on detainees in part to find evidence of cooperation between al Qaida and the late Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein's regime, according to a former senior U.S. intelligence official and a former Army psychiatrist. Such information would've provided a foundation for one of former President George W. Bush's main arguments for invading Iraq in 2003. No evidence has ever been found of operational ties between Osama bin Laden's terrorist network and Saddam's regime.
I am sure some of these human rights groups will argue that a commission will or can be a first step to prosecutions. Sure, it is possible, but unlikely for the reasons I gave in a letter published in Harper's and available on my blog. The commission process will drag on, statutes of limitation will run and the conclusion of the commission is likely to be: the US should not have tortured, but it was an extraordinary and dangerous moment after 9/11 and the torturers were acting in our best interest to avoid another 9/11. Prosecutions are not recommended.
Michael Ratner, Dalia Hashad, Michael Smith and Heidi Boghosian co-host WBAI's Law and Disorder. Meanwhile of all the domestic organizations only the ACLU, as Elaine noted, is playing it straight and from a position of strength. The ACLU notes:
The ACLU has been calling for years for an independent criminal investigation into the interrogation techniques used by the federal government against detainees held by the United States. Based on documents obtained through Freedom of Information Act litigation brought by the ACLU, several congressional hearings and this latest committee report, it is clear that important decisions on the use of torture and abuse were made in the White House, at the Pentagon, and at the headquarters of the CIA and the Justice Department. "This report makes frighteningly clear that some of the darkest moments in our country's recent past were choreographed at the highest levels of government," said Christopher Anders, ACLU Senior Legislative Counsel. "The days of privates and sergeants being the only people charged with torture or abuse crimes -- while top government officials go free -- should be over. The people who were at the very top of the Bush administration and those at the top of the chain of command must be held accountable. Just as any other American would be investigated by a prosecutor for crimes committed, so must our government officials. We must ensure that our laws are impartially enforced against everyone." To read the OLC memos obtained by the ACLU, go to: www.aclu.org/olcmemos To learn more about the ACLU's work on torture issues, go to: www.aclu.org/torture
Last night the US military announced:
"A Multi-National Division–Baghdad Soldier died April 22 from combat
related injuries while conducting a patrol in eastern Baghdad. The
Soldier’s name is being withheld pending notification of next of kin.
The names of the service members are announced through the U.S.
Department of Defense Official Website at http://www.defenselink.mil/
. The announcements are made on the Web site no earlier than 24 hours
after notification of the service member’s primary next of kin. MND-B
will not release any additional details prior to notification of next
of kin and official release by the DoD. The incident is currently under
investigation." The announcement brings to 4275 the number of US service members killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war.
Al Jazeera notes
a Baghdad bombing today which "targeted a police patrol in the Karrada
district" and claimed, at that point, 28 lives with fifty injured. Michael Christie and Jon Boyle (Reuters) note
that in addition to the 28 killed in Baghdad, a Muqdadiya bombing
claimed 32 lives. Reuters state that both bombings were suicide
bombings.
Mike noted
the death of the US soldier last night and for the drive-bys this
morning fretting over the torture issue, we're interested as it applies
to Iraq and, no, we didn't ignore it yesterday. The ten of you
e-mailing that we didn't highlight Jonathan S. Landay's article that "everybody is highlighting" (BW) must mean we didn't highlight it in the snapshot. It was noted yesterday morning. In the snapshot, we had a Congressional hearing to cover. Elsewhere in the community, Ruth addressed some torture coverage at her site last night andElaine noted
the topic as well. Repeating, we had a Congressional hearing to cover
in yesterday's snapshot. That was 23 paragraphs. For what made it into
yesterday's snapshot and what didn't and possible reasons why, you can
see Kat's post
last night. Four of the ten complaining are also complaining because
their action/even or reporting was not noted. What did it have to do
with Iraq? Nothing. So I make a case-by-case decision on whether it's
pertinent or of interest. There wasn't room for everything and I really
don't owe it to strangers to include their every breath and sneeze. (I
have many friends who are on hold with something they want noted
including a friend at CBS. They have to wait. The idea that strangers
can show up at the public e-mail account and demand this or that while
my friends wait indicates some people have a very inflated opinion of
themselves that is not universally shared.)
I know Stephen Vladeck and am including the next item for that reason. (No one requested it.)
Atlanta, Ga.: What exactly does the Constitution say about torture, if anything?
Stephen
Vladeck: The Constitution bars "cruel and unusual punishment" (in the
Eighth Amendment), and the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment
has also been understood to bar governmental conduct that "shocks the
conscience" (in a Supreme Court decision called Rochin v. California). But
separate from the Constitution, federal law (specifically the
anti-torture statute, 18 U.S.C. � 2340 and � 2340A) and the U.N.
Convention Against Torture both make it a serious criminal offense to
torture. Indeed, even the Military Commissions Act of 2006, which
Congress enacted to authorize the trial of terrorism suspects in
military tribunals, includes as one of its 28 specific offenses the
crime of "torture." _______________________
She said she was a scapegoat. She said she was just following orders. She said she was demoted unfairly. Now, retired Army Col. Janis Karpinski can say: I told you so. Karpinski
was one of two officers punished over the aggressive interrogations at
the notorious Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. Pictures of detainees caused
outrage around the world when they were leaked to the news media in May
2004. The photos showed naked prisoners stacked on top of each other or
being threatened by dogs or hooded and wired up as if for electrocution. Throughout
the ordeal, Karpinski maintained that she and her troops were following
interrogation guidelines approved by top brass. Today, Karpinski has
found validation in a few Bush-era memos released last week by the
Obama administration.
Foreign
Minister Hoshyar Zebari received in his office on 21st. Apr .2009 the
British Ambassador in Baghdad Mr. Christopher Prentice upon his request During
the meeting they discussed bilateral relations and the coming visit of
Prime Minister Noori AL-Maliki to Britain and the participation in the
investment conference to be held in London at the end of this month
with more than 400 Iraqi and foreign business men presenting different
sectors in addition to the official meetings to be held on the
sidelines of the visit. They
also discussed the outcomes of the Arab and Foreign Officials' visit to
Baghdad which indicates a significant improvement in Iraq's relations
with other countries as well as the stability in the security situation
and reconstruction process in Iraq.
British Parliamentarians hail Kurdistan Region’s progress and urge closer ties with UK
»
KRG High Representative to the UK Bayan Sami Abdul Rahman with the APPG delegation at Erbil International Airport
London,
UK (KRG.org) -- Following a week-long fact-finding visit to the
Kurdistan Region in Iraq, a delegation of British parliamentarians
hailed the “substantial economic and social progress” made in Kurdistan
since its previous visit last year. The parliamentarians also urged
closer trade, political, cultural and educational ties between the
Region and the UK.
The delegation representing the
All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on the Kurdistan Region, stated in
its press release after the visit, "Respect for the UK remains very
high in Iraqi Kurdistan, thanks to our role in establishing the safe
haven in 1991 and in what is commonly referred to as 'liberation' in
2003. English is also the second language. But we fear that
opportunities for trade, investment and a host of political, cultural
and educational exchanges are not being pursued as vigorously as they
should for the mutual benefit of the UK and the Kurdistan Region as
part of a wider Iraq. We urge the UK to play a bigger role in helping
ease tensions between the Region and the federal government in Baghdad
over issues such as disputed territories and the hydrocarbon law."
The
all-party group visited the three main cities of Ebril, Dohuk and
Suleimaniah, and met President Masoud Barzani, Deputy Prime Minister
Imad Ahmed and Speaker of Parliament Adnan Mufti. They also met several
ministers, provincial governors, journalists, trades union and women's
rights activists, university and business leaders and the Christian
Bishop of Erbil. They also visited the Christian and Yezidi communities.
Ms
Bayan Sami Abdul Rahman, the KRG’s High Representative to the UK,
accompanied the delegation. She said, "The parliamentary group was able
to note areas where Kurdistan has progressed since the group's last
visit in February 2008, and where more needs to be done. Their
continued support for the political, social and economic development of
Kurdistan and Iraq is a sign of the steadfast friendship between
Kurdistan Region and Britain."
The APPG said it will
next compile a detailed report on its findings and will seek meetings
with key British ministers to press for "much deeper and broader
political, diplomatic and commercial relations between the UK and the
Kurdistan Region."
The delegation consisted of Labour
MP Derek Wyatt; Conservative MP Tobias Ellwood Liberal Democrat Peer
Lord Tim Clement Jones; Mr Mark Phillips, Conservative Chief of Staff
to Baroness Neville-Jones Shadow Security Minister; and Mr Gary Kent,
Administrator of the APPG and Director of Labour Friends of Iraq.
It's MediaChannel's 10th year online serving as your media watchdog!
We
are writing to all of our MediaChannel.org readers, friends,
associates, and affiliates to mark our first decade as an online media
issues network. Our survival alone is a cause for celebration - a
decade of growth and impact is impressive in "Internet years."
At
the same time, given the financial crisis, and the lack of funding that
has already claimed some of our independent media colleagues, it is
clear that if we are to survive, and sustain work that has been hailed
worldwide, we have to reach out to the people who know our work best to
become more active in their support on a regular basis.
We hope you share our belief that MediaChannel matters.
Please join us in celebrating our 10th year by giving us a much needed tax-deductible Happy Birthday donation!
Will you join our 10-Years-$10-Challenge by donating monthly to help MediChannel survive?
The Good News:
Thanks to your support we have been "in action" for nearly a decade,
serving as a high quality Internet destination and a source of
information about the way media impacts, and sometimes undermines, our
democracy.
Unique
among websites, MediaChannel.org holds the rest of the media
accountable with the best of the world's media criticism and analysis
-- offering news, diverse global perspectives, and commentaries
tracking international news flows. We cover breaking controversies,
showcase change-makers, trends and cutting edge issues that you need to
know about - produced by journalists for journalists and citizens.
We
have many readers and friends the world over. Our content is
republished widely. Everyday, we receive submissions from readers and
media experts worldwide. Organizations honor us with invitations to
forums and events, and bestowing awards such as the recent James Aronson Award for our contribution to social justice media.
Over
the past 10 years, we have survived financial crises and organized hack
attacks. We have managed to remain relevant and on the cutting edge in
a quickly evolving online landscape when many other sites and
organizations have come… and gone.
We
are still going, and in fact, developing new features that will make
our work more interactive and open to your input. We are about to
launch MediaChannel 2.0 with the latest social networking tools.
We will empower you to create your own blog, profile and presence on
MediaChannel.org -- among other concerned citizens who understand the
value of holding the media accountable. We are almost ready to launch,
with more financial support we can get there within the next few weeks.
If you would like to participate in this upcoming social networking and community effort, please email David@mediachannel.org.
*That's the good news.*
The Bad News: The global financial crisis
-- which is bringing down major companies and markets -- (and a crisis,
incidentally, which we foresaw and focused on before most of the media
we cover) is unfortunately affecting us too.
It
is harder than ever to pay for independent media work, harder than ever
to find grants, and to generate support from readers. Like many
independent media outlets, our survival is at risk unless you, our
readers, once again come to the rescue and make sustaining MediaChannel one of your priorities.
We
know that MediaChannel is valued and appreciated. We know its mission
is needed now more than ever. We know we have the expertise and passion
to make MediaChannel more meaningful and sustainable.
Unless
you take it upon yourself to respond, however, we also know that we
will have to close our doors. Sadly, there is no stimulus package for
stimulating content, no bailout for people like us who want to make
change - not restore an unfair and dysfunctional economy. Will you join
our 10-years-$10-challenge by donating $10 a month to help MediaChannel survive?
And so, we turn to you, to turn your support into donations that can keep us alive.
You
are our only shot. We do not have a big university behind us or
billionaire donors. We don't have big PR firms flacking for us, or
investors looking for a pay day. We are proudly not-for-profit with a tax exempt organization, the Global Center, providing fiscal sponsorship.
Your contributions to the Global Center keep us going.
You can donate online here or mail a check made out to The Global Center at this address:
575 8th Ave, Suite 2200 New York, New York, 10018 (Please write for MediaChannel in the memo section of your check.)
It's
been ten years, probably 70 in "internet years" where trends come and
go. We are committed to making media a tool to strengthen our
democracy. We are committed to continue to serve.
A
young woman imprisoned in Tikrit, north of Baghdad, sent a letter to
her brother last summer, appealing for help. The woman, named Dalal,
wrote that she was pregnant after being raped by prison guards. The
brother asked to visit her. Guards obliged. The brother walked into her
cell, drew a gun and shot his visibly pregnant sister dead. His
goal: to spare his family the taint of a pregnancy out of wedlock, a
disgrace in Iraq often averted through so-called honor killings of
women by their relatives. For prison guards, the killing was also a relief. "They
believed that her death would end the case," said a lab worker at
Baghdad's central morgue, where the victim's body -- still carrying the
5-month-old fetus -- was sent.
The above is from Tina Susman and Caesar Ahmed's "In Iraq, a story of rape, shame and 'honor killing'" (Los Angeles Times)
which explores how common assaults on women are and how easily buried.
No one is imprisoned for either raping Dalal or for murdering her. No
one was fired. Nothing. It's part of the ongoing femicide and you won't
hear about it from the Queen of Panhandle Media
Amy Goodman but she will have time to explore 'grizzlies' because,
after all, there isn't already a Discovery Channel and several Nature
broadcasts on PBS each week already. Next up for Goody, cat photos and
those who love to share them online! Or maybe she'll just find some
more sexism to spew. Listen to the garbage from the grizzly guest and,
if you don't catch what's taking place, pay attention to the film clip
about how "men" and "boys" (and Boy Scouts) have certain "rights" and
if you're not getting that the language is intentionally non-inclusive
wait for the bit on how even the man who murders his wife has these
"rights." Around that time, you may find it harder to justify the
continued crap Amy Goodman serves up daily. Grasp that when the Los
Angeles Times is covering the ongoing femicide in Iraq, Amy Goodman's
serving up murdering wives as something to chuckle over. Grasp again
why this woman decided to publish in Larry F**nt's H**tler
rag. (Not to mention fawn over him on air.) Grasp again how much damage
she does every damn day and that anyone else on Pacifica would be in
huge trouble for the glorification of domestic abuse.
In this morning's New York Times, Timothy Williams' "U.N. Report Lays Out Options for an Oil-Rich Iraqi Region"
covers the United Nations' proposals for Kirkuk. The UN hasn't released
the proposals publicly. Which, after reading Williams, seems even more
strange. Williams has a source serving in the Parliament who explains
the four proposals the UN has made:
A
member of the Iraqi Parliament who read the report said that one of the
four proposed options was the creation of an independent or autonomous
region run by Kurds, Arabs and Turkmens. The budget of the region would
be financed with a percentage of Kirkuk's oil revenues, according to
the United Nations plan. A
second option, according to the member of Parliament, who spoke on the
condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the
report publicly, was for Kirkuk to become a special region, to be
jointly administered by the regional and central governments. Under
this proposal, a referendum would be held within five years to
determine whether residents wanted Kirkuk to become part of the
Kurdistan region or to be incorporated into the central state.
While
Williams notes "Kirkuk was excluded from" the January 31st provincial
elections held in 14 of Iraq's 18 provinces, he fails to note that
Iraq's Constitution required a referendum to be held on Kirkuk back in
2007. The UN appears to have proposed . . . nothing. Nothing. What was
all the work for? To prevent a decision from being made apparently.
In "Simmering in Iraq" today, the Boston Globe editorializes on Kirkuk and also
One
sign of trouble is how Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's government has
been treating the so-called Awakening Movement. Some 96,000 former
insurgents of the Awakening accepted pay from the US military to
eradicate Al Qaeda from its previous stronghold in the Sunni Arab west
of the country. This switch of allegiance by Sunni Arab forces was a
decisive element in bringing down the violence in Iraq. The
Awakening fighters were promised that once Al Qaeda was crushed, they
would get jobs in the police and other security forces. But the
Shi'ite-dominated government appears to be breaking that promise. Not
only has it been slow to hire former Sunni insurgents, but it has
allowed several Awakening leaders to be arrested on the basis of flimsy
allegations. If this
sectarian behavior is not stopped, sooner or later it may result in a
resumption of calamitous Sunni-Shi'ite violence. The reluctance to hire
Awakening members may in part be explained by budgetary strictures
related to the plunge in oil prices. But the broken promises to the
Awakening also reflect deep, unresolved conflicts about the future
character of Iraq.
Wednesday,
April 22, 2009. Chaos and violence continue, the 'surge' continues
Congress is informed, a Marine general fears being 'emasculated', the
price of oil flucuates, and more.
I
stood before the Army. I looked a board of officers in the eyes, and I
told them I thought they were sending people off to participate in war
crimes. And what did they say? Get out of here, Sergeant, and keep your
damn G.I. Bill!!!
Indeed,
folks! The Army awarded me a recommendation for a general discharge
under honorable conditions from the Individual Ready Reserve for my
refusal to deploy to Iraq last summer. This landmark decision means not
only am I a free man, I'm free to continue school this fall with the
"new" G.I. Bill that I earned while on active duty.
Though
this discharge is identical to the one I refused in exchange for having
this hearing, I can now rest easy knowing I never submitted, I never
backed down and the Army has heard my story.
And
not just my story, but the stories of those brave veterans at Winter
Soldier and those who've participated in IVAW's Warrior Writers'
program. Full texts of both books were submitted to the Army this
morning, and I can only imagine the fun they're having transcribing
them into the record.
So
that was the board finding and congratulations to Matthis Chiroux. As
noted yesterday, there is no change in his duty status yet. What
happens next is the board's record is complied and a legal review takes
place. Following that it's forwarded up the chain to, finally, the
Commanding General of Human Resources Command. The Commanding General
will issue a determination and that should take place before the end of
next month.
Monica
Landeros: Well, Laura [Smith], a spokesperson with the U.S. Army tells
me Kristoffer Walker has been demoted several ranks from Specialist to
Private, but that's just part of his punishment. The Army also said
Walker will be fined in the form of docked pay. For two months he will
get half of his usual paycheck. In addition, he will also be fined for
a -- confined to an Army base for 45 days. That means he can't leave
the base and might even have additional duties during that time. Though
Army officials do not know when that confinement will actually start.
That's because right now, Walker is on medical leave from Iraq though
officials won't give details on his medical condition. Once he is
healthy, Army officials said he will begin the base confinement. Now we
were unable to speak to Kristoffer Walker today though his mother tells
us her son was aware of the severity of his absence and that he was
ready for any consequences handed down.
That was in Monday's snapshot but the "n" was left out of Monica Landeros' name. My apologies.
Today
the US Senate was where Marine General James F. Amos blurted out fears
of 'emasculation'. Before that high drama came took place, the US
Senate's Armed Services Subcommittee on Readiness and Management
Support had to be called to order and chair Evan Bayh did that noting,
"The purpose of today's hearing is to address the growing strain placed
upon our Army and Marine Corps. We will receive testimony on the
current readiness of ground forces with respect to deployed, deploying
and non-deployed units. We will also discuss the Army and the Marine
Corps' abilitiy to provide forces to meet combat commanders'
requirements and to respond to unforseen contingincies. We're
particularly interested in your assessment of the risks resulting from
the continued committment of combat forces to Iraq and Afghanistan.
Additionally the subcommittee would be interested to know your views on
the current and projected readiness reporting systems used by the
Department of Defense. Over the last several years, we have observed
total force readiness decline as a result of combat operations in Iraq
and Afghanistan and elsewhere around the globe."
The
witnesses appearing before the Subcommittee were the Army's General
Peter W. Chiarelli and the Marines' General Amos. A surprise witness
was Ranking Republican subcommittee member Richard Burr's tie which was
a ghastly pink thing with silver and blue stripes that appeared to have
just surfaced on his closet floor that morning after having gone
underground at some point in 1975. The tie formed no words but somehow
spoke volumes and may, in fact, have warded off Democrats which would
explain why so few were present. On the Republican side, four serve on
the committee and three showed up: Senators Burr, James Inhofe and John
Thune took part in the hearing. Six Democrats are assigned to the
committee. Bayh was present. We'll note a portion of Senator Roland
Burris' opening remarks since he also showed up for the hearing.
Roland
Burris: . . . I just want to thank our military personnel for all that
they do for us, I will have a few questions. But my favorite saying --
and I want the military personnel to hear this statement: We are able
to do what we do in America because of what you do across the world for
our protection. Just keep that in mind. And we appreciate your
committment, your effort and your dedication to making us the strongest
country in the world. And every time I see one of you, whether you're
a private or a four-star general, I saulte each and every one of you.
Democratic
Senator Mark Udall joined the subcomittee near the end of the hearing
(last third). Dropping back to the start, Gen Chiarelli paraphrased
and summarized his [PDF format warning] prepared statement
and key point was that the army will respond on the budget when its
released by the White House. Gen Amos read his [PDF format warning] prepared statement which used phrases such as "the Long War".
Evan
Bayh (to Gen Chiarelli): You mentioned that we're consuming our
readiness as fast as fast as we're rebuilding it, I think that's what
you said what must be done to change that? So that we're no longer
just kind of treading water, what needs to be done to actually improve
our readiness so that we're not in this constant state of tearing it up
while building it without really making long term progress?
Peter
Chiarelli: Well two things I'd point out, senator, would be first of
all we need to complete the grow the army plan and as you know that
goes to the 45 brigade mark. We are doing that.
Evan Bayh: That would be the top of your priority list?
Peter
Chiarelli: That would -- that is very, very important that we grow
those 45 brigades because this is a question of supply and demand. I
can't control the demand. And the demand right now shows that I have
26 combat brigades that are currently deployed. I have a total of 18
active component brigades and 8 reserve component brigades. And when I
have that many brigades deployed, I have what's called friction.
Best explained by kind of a Navy analogy that -- when you have a --
Evan Bayh: This is a first. The army referencing the Navy.
Peter
Chiarelli: This is a first. But I have a rough time explaining
friction if I don't call on my other services to help me out. When you
have an air craft carrier that's sitting in the middle of the Persian
Gulf and you want to go ahead and relieve it an air craft carrier casts
off from some place in the United States and at that particular point
and time you've got two air craft carriers doing the job of one. And
the same thing happens with Army brigades. When I have 26 deployed,
I've got normally six that are also doing another job so that total
number goes up to 32.
Chiarelli
explained this effects dwell time/reset time with soldiers spending 12
months deployed "and 1.3 years back at home." He also raised the issue
of the 'surge,' "The surge for the United States Amry is not over. We
on't get our last combat brigade off of a 15 month deployment until
June of this year and I won't get my last combat service support or
combat support unit back off a 15 month deployment until September."
He declared the Army had met their recruitment goals, in fact, "we even went a little bit over." Sunday Ann Scott Tyson (Washington Post) reported
that the US Army was now able to be "more selective" as a result of the
(bad) economy in recruiting which has allowed them to cease "accepting
felons and recent drug abusers into its ranks". Tyson added, "The Army
annually granted hundreds of waivers for felons in recent years,
reaching a high of 511 in 2007. Now, that category of waiver, for
'adult major misconduct,' is closed" according to Brig Gen Joseph
Anderson.
You can't have a
Congressional hearing these days without someone saying "Robbing Peter
to pay Paul" and today that phrase was said by Bayh. This took place
in his exchange with Gen Amos. Bayh noted that when people hear that
the non-deployed forces aren't ready, they wonder "just how not ready
are the non-deployed forces?"
"Sir, I think it would take
probably several months I think it would take Global Sourcing for the
Marine Corps [removing Marines from Western Pacific assignments]." The
Congress has doled out $12 billion thus far for reset costs and Amos
stated that the estimate of the total reset costs was $20 billion.
Senator
Burr wanted to know about contractors and Amos referenced Honeywell in
Iraq and how 100 of their "workers do the triage, they do the
preliminary mainteance" on equpiment and vehicles and determine whether
or not something can be salvaged. Senator Burris also wanted to know
about contractors, the ones employed in the US to inspect the
equipment, "determining that it's functional." Gen Amos replied that
they not only ensure that and that "if you pick your nicest car that
you have confidence in when you buy it, that's how" reliable the
equipment that passes inspection and is sent out to the field is.
Senator
Bayh made the point in the last third of the hearing, to General
Chiarelli that, "I think the American people have a right to know that
if something else comes along, we're going to have a hard time meeting
the national security threat to the country, we'll do our best but it
puts you folks in a very difficult position." Bayh brought Gen Amos
into this topic and Amos agreed.
James
Amos: I think it would be very challenging. Difficult, challenging,
for me mean they mean the same thing. I don't think there's any
question about it. You know this is not -- uh -uh
Evan Bayh: It's not an abstract. This is not an abstract problem we're dealing with here.
James
Amos: It's not, sir. I think it's a very worthwhile question and in the
case of the Marine Corps if something happened in Iran or Korea --
North Korea -- we would end up freezing the forces in place.
You'd freeze the ones you had in Iraq and Afghanistan, hold them in
there, and as we said earlier on in the testimony, you would bring
together -- you would build a fighting force that you could deploy but
you'd have to train it, you'd have to figure out how you're going to
get the equipment. We would, in the case of the Marine Corps, would
emasculate all of our strategic reserves which are in our Maritime
Preposition Squardons whatever's left up in the caves of Norway. We
would pull all of that together and uh and deploy that force but we'd
have to train it, we'd have to figure out what we'd need to do in that
environment that we're not training people for right now because we're
predominately a counter-insurgency, a regular warfare focus Marine
Corps right now. So all those other skills -- combined armed fire
manuever forcefible entry -- those things -- we'd have to figure out,
we'd have to figure out, "Okay, what do we need to do for this new --
this new contingency? Is it possible?" The answer is "yes." [General
Chiarelli begins nodding his head in agreement.] Your military, both
your Army and your Marine Corps and Navy and Air Force would come
together and we'd make it happen just like we did prior to the onset of
Korea. We did exactly the same thing. But it would be painful.
Even
Bayh: As I recall in the beginning stages of Korea, it also meant that
our performance suffered because we were just trying to make the best
of a bad situation. And we shouldn't consciously put ourselves in that
spot is that --
James
Amos: Sir, that is absolutely correct. In the case, just instructive
for me as I think about this, we went -- after the president and the
Secretary of War -- after WWII and the great successes of WWII,
emasculated the Marine Corps, even went public and said we don't even
we're not even sure we need a Marine Corps anymore and for certain
we'll never do an amphibious operation and yet in 1949 we took a Fifth
Marine regimentfrom the West Coast which was down to
about 15 to 20% of what it should have been cobbled together Marines
from the East Coast, all across, brought 'em all together to Fifth
Marine, blew that balloon up, trained 'em and then ships together and
made the largest amphibious operation and certainly the most difficult
one we've ever done shortly after so, sir, I think your concerns are
very valid.
Evan Bayh: When a Marine uses a term like emasculate the situation must be fairly dire.
James Amos: I just -- well I just think it certainly was then.
But
he didn't just use it when speaking of Korea back in 1949. He was
speaking of today as well. Which doesn't make him correct. He may
just suffer from castration fears. He also seems to forget that if the
US used the military only when attacked, the costs would be much less.
(And many would argue that a standing military isn't even used --
however, without one, what would US presidents have to play with?)
Turning to the topic of oil, Julianne Pepitone and Ben Rooney (CNN) reported this morning that oil has fallen from $48 per barrel to $45.88. This as Alsumaria explains
Iraq "hopes to expand [its navy] by a third within two years to number
2,500 and expand its small fleet in the process. near the southern city
of Basra" in order to protect their oil ports. Iraq's neighbor Iran
wants the price of oil per barrel to double. Press TV reports Iran
wants higher priced oil -- $80 per barrel -- and quotes Petroleum
Minister Gholam Hossein Nozari stating, "Our aim is to increase crude
oil price from the current $40-$50 per barrel to $80 a barrel." Which
makes the oil-rich city of Kirkuk even more desirable to many
surrounding players. The Kurdistan Regional Government believes Kirkuk
belongs to their region and the centeral government in Baghdad claims
it does not. For months, the UN, led by Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon's
Special Representative for Iraq Staffan de Mistura, has been attempting
to broker potential resolutions and will release their report today.
Reuters provides background on Kirkuk here and notes that the Iraqi government has been handed the report. Corinne Reilly (McClatchy Newspapers) explains
the UN delivered "four options" (none of which have to be follwed)
which have been seen by "Iraqi President Jalal Talabani, Prime Minister
Nouri al Maliki and Massoud Barzani, the president of the Kurdistan
Regional Government" and none of which recommend splitting up Kirkuk. Missy Ryan (Reuters) notes
that, along with Kirkuk, the United Nations has made recommendations
for "14 other contested areas in northern Iraq". Citing an unnamed UN
official, Ryan states, "Each option put forward by the United Nations
would require a political agreement -- a monumental task -- followed by
a confirmatory referendum."
Bombings?
Sahar Issa and Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) report
a Nineveh Province car bombing in which a man killed himself in the
bombing and two Peshmerga were injured in the attack as was one
civilian who was walking by and was shot by Peshmerga, a Mosul roadside
bombing left one Iraq soldier injured, a grenade attack on a Baghdad
police chckpoint which claimed the life of 1 police officer, left
another wounded and also injured two civilians, and a Salahuddin
Province suicide bomber killed "himself among a crowd of prayers at
Al-Khulafa mosque" and also took 5 other lives and left sixteen people
injured.
Friday the US military announced:
"AL ANBAR PROVINCE, Iraq - A Multi National Force -West Marine died as
the result of a non-combat related incident here April 16. The Marine's
name is being withheld pending next-of-kin notification and release by
the Department of Defense. The incident is under investigation."
Yesterday the Department of Defense identifed
the fallen: "The Department of Defense announced today the death of a
Marine who was supporting Operation Iraqi Freedom. Lance Cpl. Ray A.
Spencer II, 20, of Ridgecrest, Calif., died April 16 as a result of a
non-hostile incident in Anbar province, Iraq. He was assigned to 3rd
Battalion, 3rd Marine Regiment, 3rd Marine Division, Kaneohe Bay,
Hawaii. The incident is currently under investigation." The Honolulu Star-Bulletin explains
that he had previously served in Iraq for seven months beginning in
August of 2007 and that Ray Spencer II's "awards include the National
Defense Service Medal, Iraq Campaign Medal, Global War on Terrorism
Service Medal, and Sea Service Deployment Ribbon, according to the
Marines."KITV News adds that Spencer's second tour of duty in Iraq began "this month." Betsy Lambert, Bakersfield's Eyewitness News (link has text and video) explains
Ray Spencer II attended Burrough High School ("2006 graduate") and the
school "will be holding a memorial for Spencer on Thursday at the
school during the lunch hour." Gregg K. Kakesako (Honolulu Star-Bulletin) notes,
"Spencer was the fifth serviceman with Hawaii ties to have died in a
'non-combat-related incident' this year. The Pentagon generally does
not release details of these types of incidents." He also notes that
Ray Spencer II's body is set to return to the US Sunday night (at Dover
Air Force Base). Steven Mayer (Bakersfield Californian) quotes
widow Athena Spencer stating "When I went to the door, I knew" and that
the military "told us probably as much as they've told you. It was on
base, so it wasn't combat." Mayer adds:
Through her tears and confusion, she first thought it was some kind of terrible joke. "Anthony," as she called her husband, had dreamed of joining the Marines since he was a little boy. Not long before his death, he sent his wife a bouquet of white lilies for Easter.
Dan Nakaso (Honolulu Advertiser) explains
that Athena Spencer's husband "was shot in the chest and killed
Thursday while on base in Anbar province". Monday saw the burial of
William Bradley Blanton. "With full military honors," Robert Lee Long (Desoto Times Tribune) explains.
Blanton was set "to leave next week for Camp Shelby and then Iraq" when
he "died in a one-car accident near Tunica after his vehicle ran off
the roadway." Robert Staley died over the weekend. Winston-Salem News reports (link has text and video) the
funeral for the 39-year-old police officer took place today. He
was set "to leave this week for his first deployment to Iraq with the
National Guard"; however, he was hit by a truck while on his motorcyle.
Sunday the 5 US soldiers killed on Friday arrived at Dover Air Force Base. Jeff Montgomery (Delaware's News Journal) observes,
"It was the heaviest loss of American lives in Iraq in 13 months, and
the largest number of casualties returned to America in full sight of
the public since the Defense Department opened the process to news
coverage last week, after a 18-year blackout."
The Defense Dept identified the five as:
"Staff Sgt. Gary L. Woods Jr., 24, of Lebanon Junction, Ky., Staff Sgt.
Bryan E. Hall, 32, of Elk Grove, Calif., Sgt. Edward W. Forrest Jr.,
25, of St. Louis, Mo., Cpl. Jason G. Pautsch, 20, of Davenport, Iowa,
and PV2 Bryce E. Gautier, 22, of Cypress, Calif." Sheryl Edelen (Courier-Journal) reports
on Gary L. Woods Jr., "Woods' father, Gary Woods St., said that his
son, who went by his middle name, Lee, was a talented musician who sang
and played the trombone, drums, piano and guitar while a student at
Bullitt Central High School. He was also a member of the school's
football team. But after finding satisifation in ROTC classes, his son
entered the military after high school, he said." Bob White (Lebanon Junction News Enterprise) adds, "Woods is surived by his parents, siblings and a wife, Christie, his father said." Tony Bizjak (Sacramento Bee) reports
on Bryan Edward Hall, "Hall, 32, had served in the military for 14
years and had been deployed in Iraq since September. . . . Hall had
received three Army commendation medals, according to military records,
as well as several Army achievement, good conduct and war on terrorism
medals." Dave Marquis (Sacramento's News10.net) quotes
Debbie Lords, who is a neighbor of the Bryan Edward Hall's parents,
stating, "I don't know what I'm thinking. I just really feel for John
and Betty right now. It was their oldest son, their oldest child." Paul Hampel (St. Louis Post-Dispatch) reports
on Edward Forrest Jr., "Forrest was based at Fort Carson in Colorado
and lived near the base with his wife and two sons, ages 2 and one
month. Forrest was a 2003 graduate of Rockwood Summit High School. He
was on his third tour of duty in Iraq." His sister Melissa
Forrest-Pliner tells Hampel, "I asked him not to re-enlist. I told him
I didn't want him to be a hero. I just wanted him to be my brother." South County Times adds,
"In high school, Sgt. Forrest, known as 'Eddie,' was a long distance
runner on the track team, and was also on the wrestling team" and
quotes his coach Rolland Garrison stating, "He was a very enthusiastic
member of the track and field program here at Rockwood Summit. He was a
very good kid with a great smile." Molly Hottle (Des Monies Register) reports
on Jason Graham Pautsch, "David Pautsch was informed of his son's death
Friday night, just 12 hours after the two had spoken on the phone. 'He
believed n what he was doing,' David Pautsch said. 'This is what he
wanted to do'." Nicole Murphy (WAQD, link has text and video) spoke
with David Pautsch who explained the call he received, "'On behalf of
the Secretary of the Army I just want to let you know, give our
condolences and notify you that your son was killed in Mosul." Pautsch
continues, "You're stunned and you're shocked and you find it hard to
believe that it could actually be happening but then it seeps and
that's when the emotions hit." Pautsch goes on to explain that he
believes his son was protecting the US from the "terrorists" in Iraq
and he also shares, "I'm thrilled for Jason that he's in heaven." Eugene W. Fields (Orange County Register) reports
on Bryce E. Gautier, "Gauier, a medic, joined the Army in January of
2008 and had been in Iraq since January of this year, according to Army
documents. He received the National Defense Service Medal, the Army
Service Ribbon and the Global War on Terrorism Service Medal. Gautier
graduated in 2005 from Rancho Alamitos High in Garden Grove, according
to school district spokesman Alan Trudell." Tom Roeder and Maria St. Louis-Sanchez (Colorado Springs Gazette) note
Gauier's MySpace page and add, "His sense of humor is evident from a
posting on the site, which Gautier last updated three days before his
death. 'Winners make the rules, losers just follow them,' Gautier
wrote. 'In the Army now.' Gautier's brother, Even, left a simple eulogy
on his Web page: 'My brother Bryce was one of the American soldiers
killed in the suicide bombing in Iraq this morning. I love you bro. I
will miss you'."
That was April 13th's snapshot. CBS 13 reports
that Brian Edward Hall's funeral will be Thursday: "The route of the
procession will begin at the Sacramento Executive Airport, and will go
to Highway 99, head southbound to Elk Grove Boulevard, and will end at
the Elk Grove Funeral Chapel at 9101 Elk Grove Boulevard." KCRA notes, "His family is asking members of the community to show their support for the fallen soldier by lining the route." Jason Kobely (News10.net -- link has text and video) reports
that Brian Edward Hall's body arrived at Sacramento's Executive Airport
yesterday and was greeted by "hundreds of mourners." Kobely quotes
Kristi Hall, Brian's sister, stating, "My brother loved his job. He was
proud of his job everyday. He never boasted about his accomplishments,
or was arrogant. He did his job, and when he was done with his job, he
came home and was a father, and a husband . . . and a son and a
brother." The Bellingham Herald notes
that Melloney Ward attended the funeral of her son Bryce Gautier today
and quotes her stating, "He was just a kind and loving young man. He
had a good heart." Jason Pauch's funeral was yesterday and Erin Jordan (Des Monines Register) notes
that Iowa Governor Chet Culver attended the funeral and told the
family, "Although no one will ever truly know your pain, you're not
alone" while his older brother Jared spoke of their time stationed at
Fort Benning together. Chris Minor (WQAD -- link has text plus video of Jason's sister Jenna remembering him) adds that Illinois Governor Pat Quinn also attended the hearing and spoke calling Jason Paucsh "a genuine hero". Barb Ickes (Quad City Times) explains she rode in the procession with Police Captain Dave Struckman:
We
were on 53rd Street when we passed four men in matching green T-shirts,
pouring a concrete sidewalk. They were sweating, and their cement
needed their attention. But they all stopped what they were doing. They
turned to the approaching hearse and placed their dirty hands over
their hearts.
The somber expressions
on the working men's faces made me cry, and I turned to Struckman to
say I was sorry for going on the way I was. And I realized he was
crying, too.
"How do you keep doing this, Captain?" I asked.
"Thank God for sunglasses," he answered.
WQAD also notes that Davenport Mayor Bill Gluba declared today Jason Pautsh Day.
Moving
over to "If you're going to make an assertion about a book, you need to
have read it." Either Vijay Prashad didn't read the book or he lies to readers at CounterPunch:
A new book by The Washington Post reporter Thomas Ricks, The Gamble: General David Petraeus and the American Military Adventure in Iraq, 2006-2008,
claims that the great victory in Iraq is not far and that the credit
for it should go to the Surge that began in 2007. This sort of account
provides comfort that Obama's gradual withdrawal will now end what
should never have begun in the first place.
That
is a complete distortion of Ricks' book and the bad column has Vijay
Prashad's name on it so he's either STUPID or a LIAR. Ricks argues no
such thing. Ricks does believe -- in the book -- that the Iraq War is
going to continue for many, many years (past 2012). He writes (and
speaks) of the various phases the Iraq War has gone through thus far.
Vijay may believe the war is winding down but don't pin that on Thomas E. Ricks
who wrote no such thing. The 'surge' distortion Vijay's pimping (like
Tom Hayden before him) most likely is based on Joan Walsh's uninformed
review. Joan's "like a staw in the wind" and needed to get 'on board'
with the Iraq War now that Barack was in the White House. Lazy Asses
like Hayden and Vijay don't bother to read. It's too much trouble for
them. So they scan a few reviews and then pontificate in loud voices
pretending that they're informed. Vijay Prashad discredits his entire
column by revealing either how igorant or how deceptive he is. His
column has an interesting theme and it's too bad that, throughout it,
his skills and information gathering are so damn weak that they make
his the most laughable column of the week thus far.
Example:
Prashad writes: "On February 27, Obama made a cautious statement about
drawndown from Iraq, promising to remove 142,000 troops and to end all
combat operations by August 31, 2010." No, he did not. Is Prashad
trying to lie? Is he careless? Is he really that stupid? Barack
didn't promise to remove 142,000 troops by August 31, 2010. The
'promise' is meaningless but, regardless, he didn't give the deadline
for the removal of 142,000 US troops as August 31, 2010. And that
'promise' is meaningless. Barack laid the groundwork to weasel out on
any draw down (when someone spells it "drawdown" they're doing the
White House's bidding) in 2007, as Kat noted last night.
He has repeatedly stated, for two years now, that he will send US
troops back into Iraq in the midst of a 'withdrawal' if 'conditions on
the ground' necessitate it. While offering pretty words on
'withdrawal' (and avoiding tell his adulation rallies about the fine
prints), Barack still refused to promise all US troops would be out by
the end of 2012 if he was elected president in 2008. Idiots like Vijay
need to find a tutor who will assist them in the heavy lifting of
thinking. When presenting himself as the end-the-war candidate, he
refused to promise all US troops would be out in 2012. At the same
time, while courting War Hawks like Michael Gordon in the press, Barack
repeatedly insisted he would send troops back in if conditions on the
ground changed. Put it together. Vijay can't. He tired himself out
too much last year with mind reading (which apparently, for Vijay,
beats book reading).
If Vijay didn't write the
worst column thus far this week, it's only because Pledged Delegate for
Barack Obama surfaced. Normy Solomon, slither on down, spineless.
Barack consort and, yes, Pledged Delegate shows up around the web (here for Dissident Voice)
with more useless garbage. The words Normy's looking for are, "I
apologize for WHORING myself for Barack. I hope that everyone,
including the Iraqi people, can forgive me. I feel great shame for
promoting a War Hawk." Until he can say those words, Norman Solomon
looks (and acts) more and more like Norman Bates. And it takes a lot
of crazy for the Normy (who spent the eighties and nineties calling out
the likes of Michael Kinsley repeatedly for the claim that if both
sides are calling you out you must be doing something right) to
declare that there's a 'middle path' for dealing with a War Hawk. Read
the garbage and grasp that Norman never pushed to let George W. Bush
off the hook, never blamed the continuations of wars on the American
people while Bush was in the White House. Norman's an embarrassment.
He's like an Old Queen who thinks he's just a belly shirt and a blonde
wig away from being Britney Spears. (Or maybe, like the other Norman,
he wants to dress up as Mother?) Doesn't matter. He bores us with 675
words allegedly about the war . . . But never about Iraq. That was
hasn't ended just because sex-starved cowards like Norman don't want to
call their object de lust out. Grow the hell up, Norman, you're about
to the cross the point of no return. (Not unlike you know who -- who
lost his newspaper job because of the scene he made with his much
younger trick who wanted him to bark in the hotel hallway, in his
underwear, like a dog.)
Women
didn't cause this economic crisis, but we sure are paying the price for
the banks' mistakes. Many of us have lost our jobs - in fact,
unmarried women faced a national unemployment rate
of 9.6% in March 2009, compared to the rate of 8.5% for Americans as a
whole (1). We are losing our healthcare coverage. And our pay still
lags behind that of men.
However, many CEOs of the biggest
banks, which helped create this crisis, have not been held accountable
for the mess that they helped create. One example is Ken Lewis of Bank
of America.
Bank of America, one of the biggest
banks in America, took $45 billion in taxpayer bailouts, which means
that we taxpayers have a big stake in that bank (2). So Service Employees International Union
(SEIU), a big national union, and other progressive groups are forming
a huge coalition to demand that Bank of America take action and fire
Ken Lewis.
Ken
Lewis gave billions in bonuses for top bank executives, while
announcing huge layoffs for employees, and taking a $35 million salary
for himself over the past two years - even though he and his fellow
executives had run Bank of America into the ground (3). If we convince
Bank of America to fire Lewis and change its policies, we will be
sending a message to Wall Street
that women expect banks to use taxpayer money to help repair the
economy, not to enrich the top
management.
Friday the US military announced:
"AL ANBAR PROVINCE, Iraq - A Multi National Force -West Marine died as
the result of a non-combat related incident here April 16. The Marine's
name is being withheld pending next-of-kin notification and release by
the Department of Defense. The incident is under investigation."
Yesterday the Department of Defense identifed
the fallen: "The Department of Defense announced today the death of a
Marine who was supporting Operation Iraqi Freedom. Lance Cpl. Ray A.
Spencer II, 20, of Ridgecrest, Calif., died April 16 as a result of a
non-hostile incident in Anbar province, Iraq. He was assigned to 3rd
Battalion, 3rd Marine Regiment, 3rd Marine Division, Kaneohe Bay,
Hawaii. The incident is currently under investigation." The Honolulu Star-Bulletin explains
that he had previously served in Iraq for seven months beginning in
August of 2007 and that Ray Spencer II's "awards include the National
Defense Service Medal, Iraq Campaign Medal, Global War on Terrorism
Service Medal, and Sea Service Deployment Ribbon, according to the
Marines."KITV News adds that Spencer's second tour of duty in Iraq began "this month." Betsy Lambert, Bakersfield's Eyewitness News (link has text and video) explains
Ray Spencer II attended Burrough High School ("2006 graduate") and the
school "will be holding a memorial for Spencer on Thursday at the
school during the lunch hour." Gregg K. Kakesako (Honolulu Star-Bulletin) notes,
"Spencer was the fifth serviceman with Hawaii ties to have died in a
'non-combat-related incident' this year. The Pentagon generally does
not release details of these types of incidents." He also notes that
Ray Spencer II's body is set to return to the US Sunday night (at Dover
Air Force Base). Steven Mayer's "Family, friends remember Marine killed in Iraq"
(Bakersfield Californian) quotes widow Athena Spencer stating "When I
went to the door, I knew" and that the military "told us probably as
much as they've told you. It was on base, so it wasn't combat." Mayer
adds:
Through her tears and confusion, she first thought it was some kind of terrible joke. "Anthony," as she called her husband, had dreamed of joining the Marines since he was a little boy. Not long before his death, he sent his wife a bouquet of white lilies for Easter.
Meanwhile Julianne Pepitone and Ben Rooney (CNN) report oil has fallen from $48 per barrel to $45.88. This as Alsumaria explains
Iraq "hopes to expand [its navy] by a third within two years to number
2,500 and expand its small fleet in the process. near the southern city
of Basra" in order to protect their oil ports. Iraq's neighbor Iran
wants the price of oil per barrel to double. Press TV reports:
Iran
supports a price of $80 a barrel for crude saying that Tehran fails to
develop oil fields if the oil price does not rise to that level. "Our
aim is to increase crude oil price from the current $40-$50 per barrel
to $80 a barrel," Gholam Hossein Nozari told Al-Alam Arabic language
satellite TV on Tuesday, adding that the country cannot continue its
oil projects if the price of oil does not reach that level.
Meanwhile
there may be (may not) some sort of resolution on the oil-rich city of
Kirkuk shortly. The Kurdistan Regional Government believes Kirkuk
belongs to their region and the centeral government in Baghdad claims
it does not. For months, the UN, led by Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon's
Special Representative for Iraq Staffan de Mistura, has been attempting
to broker potential resolutions and will release their report today.
Reuters provides background on Kirkuk here
and notes that the Iraqi government has been handed the report.
Presumably the Kurdistan Regional Government received the report at the
same time.
Meanwhile Iraq is not Bangladesh. As noted here many times, most recently in the April 15th snapshot,
it's not Bangladesh. It's not struggling economically, it's not a
deprived area. (The people are deprived but that's due puppet Nouri
sitting on a stockpile of money. As the world saw in the lead up to the
provincial elections, he can dole out a little bit when he needs to.)
The people of Bangladesh grasp that as well which is why some of them
want to work in Iraq despite all the hazards. This morning's New York Times features Timothy Williams and Tareq Maher's "Foreigners Filling Jobs That Iraqis Often Shun"
which details the way Iraqi businesses take advantage of foreign
workers (that's my take on it, the reporters do not offer a point of
view). For example, Iraqi Hussein Qaduir owns a restaurant in Baghdad
and his five workers from Bangladesh (forty of his workers are Iraqis)
work six days a week for fifteen hours each day and get a whopping
$300. Remember the $300, we're coming back to that. His Iraqi workers
are paid "more than double that" and he defensively argues, "I pay for
their hotel, for their barber, for their medical treatment. Everything
comes directly from me." Well aren't you the all might Allah, Hussein.
Of course Iraqi employment (the reporters go with 40% as the high) such
as it is, the issue of importing workers is a touchy one. And the $300?
Not made clear in the article is that these foreign workers shipped
into Iraq are not taking that amount and putting it into their own
pockets. They are brought in by 'employment agents' which, like any
pimp, demands a cut. The story runs in today's paper and comes as Mohammed Abbas (Reuters) reports
that the US military is hoping that the recently released prisoners
(released by the US military) will leave their vocational rehab
programs and find employment in Iraq.
Leona Liu (WIBW link has text and video) reports
that 30 soldiers from Fort Riley had a deployment ceremony yesterday
(they're going to Iraq). Liu states they are the first soldiers with
the 84th battalion to be deployed to Iraq. Robert Hattabaugh recently
returned from serving in Iraq. Erin Guerra (Gary Post Tribune)reports
he "is accused of threatening to kill and chop us his wife. Police
found an arsenal while searching the couple's Morgan Township home."
Everyone
knows the analogy of the beehive. When it is goaded, countless bees
emerge, attacking the tormentor. Right now in Iraq, the formerly
US-backed al-Sahwa (Sons of Iraq) Sunni militia, ripe with broken
promises from both the occupiers of their country and the Iraqi
government that they would be given respect and jobs, have gone into
attack mode. It is an easily
predictable outcome. An occupying power (the US) sets up a
100,000-strong militia composed of former resistance fighters and even
some members of al-Qaeda, pays them each $300 per month to not attack
occupation forces, and attacks decrease dramatically. Then, stop paying
most of them and tell them they will be incorporated into Iraqi
government security forces. Proceed to leave them high and dry as the
government of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki begins targeting
them - assassinating leaders, detaining fighters and threatening their
families. Allow this plan to continue for over six months, unabated. Not surprisingly, the Sahwa are fighting back against US forces and those of the Iraqi government.
The
Committee's report provides extensive details about how the aggressive
techniques made their way from Afghanistan to Iraq. In February 2003,
an SMU Task Force designated for operations in Iraq obtained a copy of
the SMU interrogation policy from Afghanistan that included aggressive
techniques, changed the letterhead, and adopted the policy verbatim.
(p. 158) Months later, the Interrogation Officer in Charge at Abu
Ghraib obtained a copy of the SMU interrogation policy and submitted
it, virtually unchanged, through her chain of command to Combined Joint
Task Force 7 (CJTF-7), led at the time by Lieutenant General Ricardo
Sanchez. On September 14, 2003, Lieutenant General Sanchez issued an
interrogation policy for CJTF-7 that authorized interrogators to use
stress positions, environmental manipulation, sleep management, and
military working dogs to exploit detainees’ fears in their
interrogations of detainees. The
Committee's investigation uncovered documents indicating that, almost
immediately after LTG Sanchez issued his September 14, 2003, policy,
CENTCOM lawyers raised concerns about its legality. One newly
declassified email from a CENTCOM lawyer to the Staff Judge Advocate at
CJTF-7 – sent just three days after the policy was issued – warned that
"Many of the techniques [in the CJTF-7 policy] appear to violate
[Geneva Convention] III and IV and should not be used . . ." (p. 203).
Even though the Bush administration acknowledged that the Geneva
Conventions applied in Iraq, it was not until nearly a month later that
CJTF-7 revised that policy. Not
only did SERE techniques make their way to Iraq, but SERE instructors
did as well. In September 2003, JPRA sent a team to Iraq to provide
assistance to interrogation operations at an SMU Task Force. The Chief
of Human Intelligence and Counterintelligence at the Task Force
testified to the Committee in February 2008 that JPRA personnel
demonstrated SERE techniques to SMU personnel including so-called
"walling" and striking a detainee as they do in SERE school. (p. 175).
As we heard at our September 2008 hearing, JPRA personnel were present
during abusive interrogations during that same trip, including one
where a detainee was placed on his knees in a stress position and was
repeatedly slapped by an interrogator. (p. 176). JPRA personnel even
participated in an interrogation, taking physical control of a
detainee, forcibly stripping him naked, and giving orders for him to be
kept in a stress position for 12 hours. In August 3, 2007, testimony to
the Committee, one of the JPRA team members said that, with respect to
stripping the detainee, "we [had] done this 100 times, 1000 times with
our [SERE school] students." The Committee’s investigation revealed
that forced nudity continued to be used in interrogations at the SMU
Task Force for months after the JPRA visit. (pp. 181-182). Over
the course of the investigation, the Committee obtained the statements
and interviews of scores of military personnel at Abu Ghraib. These
statements reveal that the interrogation techniques authorized by
Secretary Rumsfeld in December 2002 for use at GTMO – including stress
positions, forced nudity, and military working dogs – were used by
military intelligence personnel responsible for interrogations.
* The Interrogation Officer in Charge in Abu Ghraib in the fall of 2003
acknowledged that stress positions were used in interrogations at Abu
Ghraib. (p. 212). * An Army
dog handler at Abu Ghraib told military investigators in February 2004
that "someone from [military intelligence] gave me a list of cells, for
me to go see, and pretty much have my dog bark at them… Having the dogs
bark at detainees was psychologically breaking them down for
interrogation purposes." (p. 209).
* An intelligence analyst at Abu Ghraib told military investigators in
May 2004 that it was "common that the detainees on [military
intelligence] hold in the hard site were initially kept naked and given
clothing as an incentive to cooperate with us." (p. 212).
* An interrogator told military investigators in May 2004 that it was
"common to see detainees in cells without clothes or naked" and says it
was "one of our approaches." (p. 213).
The
investigation also revealed that interrogation policies authorizing
aggressive techniques were approved months after the CJTF-7 policy was
revised to exclude the techniques, and even after the investigation
into detainee abuses at Abu Ghraib had already begun. For example, an
interrogation policy approved in February 2004 in Iraq included
techniques such as use of military working dogs and stress positions.
(p. 220).
The above is from Carl Levin's "Senate Floor Statement on Report of the Inquiry into the Treatment of Detainees in U.S. Custody" and we'll include the statement in full at the end of this entry. As retired Army Col and retired State Dept diplomat Ann Wright told Cindy Sheehan on Cindy's April 5thSoapbox
Janis Karpinski was made the fall person for Abu Ghraib. (Wright also
spoke of how Karpinski fought back, like no one she'd seen do, refusing
to be silent while the military did their 'investigation'.) Karpinski
appeared on The Early Show (CBS)
yesterday and again noted that the torture was brought in and not
something the people serving under her came up with on their own.
The
report focused solely on interrogations carried out by the military,
not those conducted by the Central Intelligence Agency at its secret
prisons overseas. It rejected claims by former Defense Secretary Donald
H. Rumsfeld and others that Pentagon policies played no role in harsh
treatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq or other military
facilities.
The
Bush administration put relentless pressure on interrogators to use
harsh methods on detainees in part to find evidence of cooperation
between al Qaida and the late Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein's regime,
according to a former senior U.S. intelligence official and a former
Army psychiatrist. Such
information would've provided a foundation for one of former President
George W. Bush's main arguments for invading Iraq in 2003. No evidence
has ever been found of operational ties between Osama bin Laden's
terrorist network and Saddam's regime.
Today
we’re releasing the declassified report of the Senate Armed Services
Committee’s investigation into the treatment of detainees in U.S.
custody. The report was approved by the Committee on November 20, 2008,
and has, in the intervening period, been under review at the Department
of Defense for declassification.
In my judgment, the report represents a condemnation of both the Bush
administration’s interrogation policies and of senior administration
officials who attempted to shift the blame for abuse – such as that
seen at Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay, and Afghanistan – to low ranking
soldiers. Claims, such as that made by former Deputy Secretary of
Defense Paul Wolfowitz that detainee abuses could be chalked up to the
unauthorized acts of a “few bad apples,” were simply false.
The truth is that, early on, it was senior civilian leaders who set the
tone. On September 16, 2001, Vice President Dick Cheney suggested that
the United States turn to the “dark side” in our response to 9/11. Not
long after that, after White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales called
parts of the Geneva Conventions “quaint,” President Bush determined
that provisions of the Geneva Conventions did not apply to certain
detainees. Other senior officials followed the President and Vice
President’s lead, authorizing policies that included harsh and abusive
interrogation techniques.
The
record established by the Committee’s investigation shows that senior
officials sought out information on, were aware of training in, and
authorized the use of abusive interrogation techniques. Those senior
officials bear significant responsibility for creating the legal and
operational framework for the abuses. As the Committee report
concluded, authorizations of aggressive interrogation techniques by
senior officials resulted in abuse and conveyed the message that
physical pressures and degradation were appropriate treatment for
detainees in U.S. military custody.
In a May 10, 2007, letter to his troops, General David Petraeus said
that “what sets us apart from our enemies in this fight… is how we
behave. In everything we do, we must observe the standards and values
that dictate that we treat noncombatants and detainees with dignity and
respect. While we are warriors, we are also all human beings.” With
last week’s release of the Department of Justice Office of Legal
Counsel (OLC) opinions, it is now widely known that Bush administration
officials distorted Survival Evasion Resistance and Escape “SERE”
training – a legitimate program used by the military to train our
troops to resist abusive enemy interrogations – by authorizing abusive
techniques from SERE for use in detainee interrogations. Those
decisions conveyed the message that abusive treatment was appropriate
for detainees in U.S. custody. They were also an affront to the values
articulated by General Petraeus.
In SERE training, U.S. troops are briefly exposed, in a highly
controlled setting, to abusive interrogation techniques used by enemies
that refuse to follow the Geneva Conventions. The techniques are based
on tactics used by Chinese Communists against American soldiers during
the Korean War for the purpose of eliciting false confessions
for propaganda purposes. Techniques used in SERE training include
stripping trainees of their clothing, placing them in stress positions,
putting hoods over their heads, subjecting them to face and body slaps,
depriving them of sleep, throwing them up against a wall, confining
them in a small box, treating them like animals, subjecting them to
loud music and flashing lights, and exposing them to extreme
temperatures. Until recently, the Navy SERE school also used
waterboarding. The purpose of the SERE program is to provide U.S.
troops who might be captured a taste of the treatment they might face
so that they might have a better chance of surviving captivity and
resisting abusive and coercive interrogations.
SERE training techniques were never intended to be used in the
interrogation of detainees in U.S. custody. The Committee’s report,
however, reveals troubling new details of how SERE techniques came to
be used in interrogations of detainees in U.S. custody.
Influence of SERE on Military Interrogations at Guantanamo Bay
The Committee’s investigation uncovered new details about the influence
of SERE techniques on military interrogations at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba
(GTMO). According to newly released testimony from a military
behavioral scientist who worked with interrogators at GTMO, “By early
October [2002] there was increasing pressure to get ‘tougher’ with
detainee interrogations” at GTMO. (p. 50). As a result, on October 2,
2002, two weeks after attending interrogation training led by SERE
instructors from the Joint Personnel Recovery Agency (JPRA), the DoD
agency that oversees SERE training, the behavioral scientist and a
colleague drafted a memo proposing the use of aggressive interrogation
techniques at GTMO. The behavioral scientist said he was told by GTMO’s
intelligence chief that the interrogation memo needed to contain
coercive techniques or it “wasn’t going to go very far.” (p. 50).
Declassified
excerpts from that memo indicate that it included stress positions,
food deprivation, forced grooming, hooding, removal of clothing,
exposure to cold weather or water, and scenarios designed to convince a
detainee that “he might experience a painful or fatal outcome.” On
October 11, 2002, Major General Michael Dunlavey, the Commander of
JTF-170 at GTMO requested authority to use aggressive techniques. MG
Dunlavey’s request was based on the memo produced by the behavioral
scientists.
MG Dunlavey’s request
eventually made its way to Department of Defense (DoD) General Counsel
Jim Haynes’ desk. Notwithstanding serious legal concerns raised by the
military service lawyers, Haynes recommended that Secretary of Defense
Donald Rumsfeld approve 15 of the interrogation techniques requested by
GTMO. On December 2, 2002, Secretary Rumsfeld approved Haynes’
recommendation, authorizing such techniques as stress positions,
removal of clothing, use of phobias (such as fear of dogs), and
deprivation of light and auditory stimuli.
The Committee’s investigation revealed that, following Secretary
Rumsfeld’s authorization, senior staff at GTMO drafted a standard
operating procedure (SOP) for the use of SERE techniques, including
stress positions, forcibly stripping detainees, slapping, and “walling”
them. That SOP stated that “The premise behind this is that the
interrogation tactics used at U.S. military SERE schools are
appropriate for use in real-world interrogations.” Weeks later, in
January 2003, trainers from the Navy SERE school travelled to GTMO and
provided training to interrogators on the use of SERE techniques on
detainees. (pp. 98-104).
Impact of Secretary Rumsfeld’s Authorization on Interrogations in Iraq and Afghanistan
The influence of Secretary Rumsfeld’s December 2, 2002, authorization
was not limited to interrogations at GTMO. Newly declassified excerpts
from a January 11, 2003, legal review by a Special Mission Unit (SMU)
Task Force lawyer in Afghanistan state that “SECDEF’s approval of these
techniques provides us the most persuasive argument for use of
‘advanced techniques’ as we capture possible [high value targets] … the
fact that SECDEF approved the use of the… techniques at GTMO, [which
is] subject to the same laws, provides an analogy and basis for use of
these techniques [in accordance with] international and U.S. law.”
(p.154).
The Committee’s report
also includes a summary of a July 15, 2004, interview with CENTCOM’s
then-Deputy Staff Judge Advocate (SJA) about Secretary Rumsfeld’s
authorization and its impact in Afghanistan. The Deputy SJA said: “the
methodologies approved for GTMO… would appear to me to be legal
interrogation processes. [The Secretary of Defense] had approved them.
The General Counsel had approved them. .. I believe it is fair to say
the procedures approved for Guantanamo were legal for Afghanistan.” (p.
156).
The Committee’s report
provides extensive details about how the aggressive techniques made
their way from Afghanistan to Iraq. In February 2003, an SMU Task Force
designated for operations in Iraq obtained a copy of the SMU
interrogation policy from Afghanistan that included aggressive
techniques, changed the letterhead, and adopted the policy verbatim.
(p. 158) Months later, the Interrogation Officer in Charge at Abu
Ghraib obtained a copy of the SMU interrogation policy and submitted
it, virtually unchanged, through her chain of command to Combined Joint
Task Force 7 (CJTF-7), led at the time by Lieutenant General Ricardo
Sanchez. On September 14, 2003, Lieutenant General Sanchez issued an
interrogation policy for CJTF-7 that authorized interrogators to use
stress positions, environmental manipulation, sleep management, and
military working dogs to exploit detainees’ fears in their
interrogations of detainees.
The
Committee’s investigation uncovered documents indicating that, almost
immediately after LTG Sanchez issued his September 14, 2003, policy,
CENTCOM lawyers raised concerns about its legality. One newly
declassified email from a CENTCOM lawyer to the Staff Judge Advocate at
CJTF-7 – sent just three days after the policy was issued – warned that
“Many of the techniques [in the CJTF-7 policy] appear to violate
[Geneva Convention] III and IV and should not be used . . .” (p. 203).
Even though the Bush administration acknowledged that the Geneva
Conventions applied in Iraq, it was not until nearly a month later that
CJTF-7 revised that policy.
Not
only did SERE techniques make their way to Iraq, but SERE instructors
did as well. In September 2003, JPRA sent a team to Iraq to provide
assistance to interrogation operations at an SMU Task Force. The Chief
of Human Intelligence and Counterintelligence at the Task Force
testified to the Committee in February 2008 that JPRA personnel
demonstrated SERE techniques to SMU personnel including so-called
“walling” and striking a detainee as they do in SERE school. (p. 175).
As we heard at our September 2008 hearing, JPRA personnel were present
during abusive interrogations during that same trip, including one
where a detainee was placed on his knees in a stress position and was
repeatedly slapped by an interrogator. (p. 176). JPRA personnel even
participated in an interrogation, taking physical control of a
detainee, forcibly stripping him naked, and giving orders for him to be
kept in a stress position for 12 hours. In August 3, 2007, testimony to
the Committee, one of the JPRA team members said that, with respect to
stripping the detainee, “we [had] done this 100 times, 1000 times with
our [SERE school] students.” The Committee’s investigation revealed
that forced nudity continued to be used in interrogations at the SMU
Task Force for months after the JPRA visit. (pp. 181-182).
Over the course of the investigation, the Committee obtained the
statements and interviews of scores of military personnel at Abu
Ghraib. These statements reveal that the interrogation techniques
authorized by Secretary Rumsfeld in December 2002 for use at GTMO –
including stress positions, forced nudity, and military working dogs –
were used by military intelligence personnel responsible for
interrogations.
The
Interrogation Officer in Charge in Abu Ghraib in the fall of 2003
acknowledged that stress positions were used in interrogations at Abu
Ghraib. (p. 212).
An Army dog handler at Abu Ghraib told
military investigators in February 2004 that “someone from [military
intelligence] gave me a list of cells, for me to go see, and pretty
much have my dog bark at them… Having the dogs bark at detainees was
psychologically breaking them down for interrogation purposes.” (p.
209).
An intelligence analyst at Abu Ghraib told military
investigators in May 2004 that it was “common that the detainees on
[military intelligence] hold in the hard site were initially kept naked
and given clothing as an incentive to cooperate with us.” (p. 212).
An
interrogator told military investigators in May 2004 that it was
“common to see detainees in cells without clothes or naked” and says it
was “one of our approaches.” (p. 213).
The
investigation also revealed that interrogation policies authorizing
aggressive techniques were approved months after the CJTF-7 policy was
revised to exclude the techniques, and even after the investigation
into detainee abuses at Abu Ghraib had already begun. For example, an
interrogation policy approved in February 2004 in Iraq included
techniques such as use of military working dogs and stress positions.
(p. 220).
A policy approved for
CJTF-7 units in Iraq in March 2004 also included aggressive techniques.
While much of the March 2004 policy remains classified, newly
declassified excerpts indicate that it warned that interrogators
“should consider the fact that some interrogation techniques are viewed
as inhumane or otherwise inconsistent with international law before
applying each technique. These techniques are labeled with a
[CAUTION].” Among the techniques labeled as such were a technique
involving power tools, stress positions, and the presence of military
working dogs. (pp. 220-221).
Warnings about Using SERE Techniques in Interrogations
Some have asked why, if it is okay for our own U.S. personnel to be
subjected to physical and psychological pressures in SERE school, what
is wrong with using those SERE training techniques on detainees? The
Committee’s investigation answered that question. On October 2,
2002, Lieutenant Colonel Morgan Banks, the senior Army SERE
psychologist warned against using SERE training techniques during
interrogations in an email to personnel at GTMO, writing that:
[T]he use of physical pressures brings with it a large number of
potential negative side effects… When individuals are gradually exposed
to increasing levels of discomfort, it is more common for them to
resist harder… If individuals are put under enough discomfort, i.e.
pain, they will eventually do whatever it takes to stop the pain. This
will increase the amount of information they tell the interrogator, but
it does not mean the information is accurate. In fact, it usually
decreases the reliability of the information because the person will
say whatever he believes will stop the pain… Bottom line: the
likelihood that the use of physical pressures will increase the
delivery of accurate information from a detainee is very low. The
likelihood that the use of physical pressures will increase the level
of resistance in a detainee is very high… (p. 53). Likewise, the
Deputy Commander of DoD’s Criminal Investigative Task Force at GTMO
told the Committee in 2006 that CITF “was troubled with the rationale
that techniques used to harden resistance to interrogations would be
the basis for the utilization of techniques to obtain information.” (p.
69).
Other newly
declassified emails reveal additional warnings. In June 2004, after
many SERE techniques had been authorized in interrogations and JPRA was
considering sending its SERE trainers to interrogation facilities in
Afghanistan, another SERE psychologist warned: “[W]e need to really
stress the difference between what instructors do at SERE school (done
to INCREASE RESISTANCE capability in students) versus what is taught at
interrogator school (done to gather information). What is done by SERE
instructors is by definition ineffective interrogator conduct… Simply
stated, SERE school does not train you on how to interrogate, and
things you ‘learn’ there by osmosis about interrogation are probably
wrong if copied by interrogators.” (p. 229).
Conclusion
If we are to retain our status as a leader in the world, we must
acknowledge and confront the abuse of detainees in our custody. The
Committee’s report and investigation makes significant progress toward
that goal. There is still the question, however, of whether high level
officials who approved and authorized those policies should be held
accountable. I have recommended to Attorney General Holder that he
select a distinguished individual or individuals – either inside or
outside the Justice Department, such as retired federal judges – to
look at the volumes of evidence relating to treatment of detainees,
including evidence in the Senate Armed Services Committee’s report, and
to recommend what steps, if any, should be taken to establish
accountability of high-level officials – including lawyers.
Tuesday, April 21, 2009. Chaos and violence continue, Chris Hill is confirmed by the US Senate to be US Ambassador to Iraq (and the GOP's eyes twinkle with delight), a federal judge rains on Steven D. Green's defense parade, Matthis Chiroux appears before a military board, Widget spreads lies in the US, and more.
President Ahmadinejad Speech at the UN Anti-Racism Conference / Comments Were Unacceptable and Feed Racial Hatred / Rhetoric is Unhelpful and Counterproductive / Durban Declaration / Secretary General Ban Ki-moon Statement
Want to Engage Iran Directly Through Diplomacy / Need to Engage Iran on Number of Issues / Iraq / Hezbollah
Roxana Saberi / No Response from Aide-Memoire / Working Hard on the Case Through our Swiss Protecting Power / Accusation of Espionage is Without Foundation
As you read the above, you may think, "Hmm, that doesn't sound like Iraq." Because it's not. It's Iran. And when the US State Dept doesn't know the difference between the two, be very scared.
But it's Barack Obama's time to tremble now. Proving to be the wet-behind-the-ears checker player and not the 'master chess man,' Barack nominated and stuck with the unqualified Chris Hill to be US Ambassador to Iraq. Today the US Senate confirmed him on a vote of 73 in favor, 23 against. Congratulations to the Obama administration for walking straight into the GOP trap. Iraq is volatile and the 'center will not hold' is the conventional wisdom in DC. The Republicans went on record in their opposition to Hill. If (some say "when") Iraq returns to the pre-surge civil war level of violence (violence has not disappeared in Iraq), guess who the Republicans are going to blame?
You think it's Ray Odierno? No, they're not going to blame the general. They're going to toss the Democratic Congress members words back in their face about "political solutions." For the last few years, Dems in Congress have repeatedly and rightly noted that there has been no progress and that the 'surge' was supposed to create breathing room for the progress to move through. That did not happen. (Nor was the 'surge' solely responsible for the violence. As important was the paying off "Awakening" Council members -- as General David Petreaus and then-US Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker made clear to Congress repeatedly in April of last year. Also important was the walling off neighborhoods, the refugee crisis -- which removed a number of targets and more.) They're going to say "diplomatic solutions." Ray Odierno is the top US commander in Iraq. He's not part of the State Dept. That leaves Chris Hill.
Republicans painted Hill as untrustworthy during the hearing. Hill painted himself as completely clueless on key Iraqi issues (such as Kirkuk and the "Awakenings"). Most importantly, Chris Hill has no experience in the region. Many people did but Barack went with the unkempt Chris Hill. The inexperienced Chris Hill.
And it's amazing how willing to skip into the trap the administration was. (For those still not grasping, see this April 5th entry for how the GOP will use Hill as the fall guy and use Hill to question Barack's judgment.) Maybe Hill will surprise everyone and prove to be truly competent? Could happen. But there's still the fact that Iraq never goes to a turned corner. Just because the wave of Operation Happy Talk comes from Barack and not Bully Boy Bush doesn't make it any more realistic. It just means Barack joins a long list of
Happy Talkers like Donald Rumsfeld in hailing a turned corner when there was none.
Problems on the horizon, NPR's Peter Kenyon (Morning Edition) reported today on the continued conflicts between Iraq and Turkey and how the Kurds appear to be aligning with Turkey in anticipation of the US draw down. This as the tensions continue to simmer.
Peter Kenyon: Iraqi Kurds are also engaged in a potentially explosive power struggle with the central government in Baghdad. Kurdish peshmerga forces have been deployed in disputed territories south of the so-called Green Line that denotes the Kurdish north. The area has a mixed population of Kurds, Arabs, Turkomans, Christians and others and the stakes are especially high in the oil-rich city of Kirkuk.
In Iraq, Deborah Haynes (Inside Iraq, Times of London) reports on cell phones. Not in the usual useless manner in which so many male reporters have bored us with 'gadget' 'reports' that were like so many foul breathed, car stereo salesmen, but in a way that's honestly abou Iraqis and not a product. Haynes explains that while the civil war was raging in 2007, "when it was too dangerous to step out on a date with someone you fancy, people used the mobile phone as their only form of contact." She notes that dialing random numbers grew popular with males and females: "There are even cases of marriages blossoming from these blind-date style phone encounters." And there was also stalking including of Deborah Haynes who has been cell phone stalked for approximately two years now by one 21-year-old Iraqi male who does not take hints -- nice ones or harsh ones.
And that may be reflective of the culture the US created by installing the fundamentalist fanatics they selected to staff the puppet government. Amnesty International noted yesterday, "Women are faced with systematic discrimination and violence and are targeted specifically because of their gender. They are being attacked in the street by men with different political agendas, but who all want to impose veiling, gender segregation and discrimination. Islamist armed groups have said they were responsible for carrying out violent attacks on women, and have sought to justify them, for failing to abide by their interpretation of how women should behave. In addition, as in many other countries, women also suffer violence at the hands of their fathers, brothers and other relatives, particularly if they try to choose how to lead their lives." The human rights organization notes that abuse is enshrined in the currentl law due to the fact that any man killing his wife can claim it was an 'honor' killing and be sentended to only six months in prison. In addition: "It also effectively allows husbands to use violence against their wives. The 'exercise of a legal right' to exemption from criminal liability is permitted for: 'Disciplining a wife by her husband, the disciplining by parents and teachers of children under their authority within certain limits prescribed by Islamic law (Shari'a), by law or by custom'." And grasp that this legislation was written and passed with US guidance. Grasp how damn little the US government cared about Iraqi women.
Case in point, Abeer Qassim Hamza al-Janabi. Abeer is the 14-year-old girl who was gang-raped by US soldiers March 12, 2006 while her parents and five-year-old sister were murdered (by US soldiers) in the next room. As the gang-rape wound down, Abeer was shot dead -- allegedly by Steven D. Green, All the other US soldiers have either been convicted or entered guilty pleas. They all fingered Steven D. Green as their ringleader, as part of the gang-rape, as the man who did all the killing and as the man who thought up and planned the conspiracy -- which included attempting to make it appear 'insurgents' had attacked Abeer and her family.
When the truth finally emerged that it wasn't 'insurgents' and that it appeared US soliders might be involved, the US military swung into action . . . to insist that Abeer was 24-years-old. As if gang-rape and murder would be less appalling if the rape victim was 24-years-old? In July of 2006, Time magazine noted:
Family members describe Abeer Qasim Hamza al-Janabi as tall for her age, skinny, but not eye-catchingly beautiful. As one of her uncles put it, "She was an ordinary girl." So perhaps it was sheer proximity that made the 15-year-old so tantalizing. Her house was less than 1,000 ft. from a U.S. military checkpoint just outside the Iraqi town of Mahmudiyah, and soldiers manning the gate started stopping by just to look at her. Her mother, who grew concerned enough to make plans for Abeer to move in with a cousin, told relatives that whenever she caught the Americans ogling her daughter, they would give her the thumbs-up sign, point to the girl and say, "Very good, very good."
Abeer's brother Mohammed, 13, told TIME he once watched his sister, frozen in fear, as a U.S. soldier ran his index finger down her cheek. Mohammed has since learned that soldier's name: Steven Green. Last week Green, 21, a former Army private first class who was honorably discharged because of a "personality disorder" a month before the criminal allegations came to light, pleaded not guilty to charges of raping Abeer and killing her along with her parents and 7-year-old sister. Five other soldiers have been charged, four of them for conspiring with Green and one for dereliction of duty for not reporting the crimes. The grisly March 12 slayings--in which Abeer's skull was smashed and her legs and torso set on fire--sparked the military's fifth investigation into U.S. personnel accused of murdering Iraqi civilians. But unlike the massacre in Haditha, where Marines are suspected of shooting up to 24 innocent people in November following the death of a beloved comrade, the butchering of Abeer's family does not appear to be the result of vengeance or confusion. Instead, all signs point to premeditated depravity.
Steven D. Green is the last to be tried and he will be tried in a federal court in Kentucky. He had already been discharged before the realities began emerging about the attack on Abeer and her family. That still doesn't explain the long delay. From the Monday, July 3, 2006 snapshot: "Green, is 21 and was with the 101st Airborne Division of the US Army. Friday [June30th] , in Asheville, North Carolina, he was arrested and charged with both the four deaths as well as the rape. According to the US government press release, if convicted on the charge of murder, 'the maximum statutory penalty . . . is death' while, if convicted on the charge of rape, 'the maxmium statutory penalty for the rape is life in prison'." They did attempt to begin last year; however, it was stopped due to a quilting fair. Currently the trial is set to start at nine a.m. April 27th. As Ruth noted Friday, Brette Barrouquere (AP) reported jury selection was completed last week and the witnesses for the prosectuion may include "nearly half-dozen members of the al-Janabi family". Barrouquere also noted that the court had prepared this year for "the 25th annual American Quilter's Society show in Paducah, an event that draws thousands and fills hotel rooms that were needed for trial lawyers and witnesses." Today Green's defense received a set back. His attorneys had repeatedly made embarrassing statements to the press that it was impossible for people in Kentucky to know what it was like in war and that the jury wouldn't know warfare and blah, blah, blah embarrassing bulls**t that demonstrates just what feather-weights Green's attorneys are. It was embarrassing and shameful. And they couldn't stop shooting their mouths off to the press about this 'defense.' Which led the prosecution to file a motion which the judge responded to today with an Order:
THIS CAUSE is before the Court on the United States' Motion in Limine.
The Court having considered the Motion, and the Court being otherwise sufficiently advised, IT IS ORDERED that:
The defendant is prohibited from eleciting, offering, or commenting on the following evidence during the guilt phase of trial:
1. Evidence or argument that the United States could have, or should have, prosecuted the defendant under the Uniform Code of Military Justice;
2. Evidence or argument concerning the resonableness, wisdom, fairness, or consequences of prosecuting the defendant under Federal criminal law instead of under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
3. Evidence concerning the defendant's desire and willingness to be tried under the Uniform Code of Military Justice and his efforts to reenlist in the Army for that purpose;
4. Evidence concering differences or similarities between Federal criminal law and the Uniform Code of Military Justice, including with respect to available charges, criminal penalities, sentencing, and eligibility of parole; and
5. Evidence or argument that only individuals who are in the military or who have military experience, and not civilians, can or should evaluate the defendant's conduct.
The fifth one applies to the defense testing the argument that no one could 'judge' Green who hadn't been in war. Possibly the prosecution should have let the defense present that embarrassing argument and then mused whether or not, by that logic, the jury should be composed of 12 rapists? Is a rapist the only one qualified to judge a rapist?
The prosecution just cleaned away the defense strategy and either the defense was launching the biggest fake out and are master geniuses or they are now scrambling for a new game plan.
Let's stay with legal but move to the US, Matthis Chiroux faced a military body today. Matthis was honorably discharged and placed in IRR and then, many months later, informed he was being pulled back into the military and sent to Iraq. He announced May 15, 2008 that he would not deploy to Iraq. Sunday, June 15, 2008 (Father's Day), he explained his reasons in a speech which included the following:
I stand here today as a Winter Soldier. To serve our nation, its military and its people in this dark time of confusion and corruption. I stand here to make it known that my duty as a soldier is first to the higher ideals and guiding principles of this country which our leaders have failed to uphold. I stand here today in defense of the US Constitution which has known no greater enemy, foreign or domestic, than those highest in this land who are sworn to be governed by its word. I stand here today in defense of those who have been stripped of their voices in this occupation for the warriors of this nation have been silenced to the people who need to start listening. We are here to honor the memory of our fathers who more than two centuries ago brought forth upon this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal, as Abraham Lincoln once noted. We are here to honor the struggle of our fathers and their fathers and their fathers before them to build this nation and bring it together -- through slavery and poverty, to sexism and racism, through materialism and imperialism. They built this nation and struggled to keep it alive as we've blundered and learned and blundered again. We owe it to our fathers to stand for this nation now when a dark cloud has descended upon it in the form of an administration who is stealing the lives of us all to wage an illegal war -- conceived in lies and birthed [born] of manipulation. As a soldier I was told it was not my place to question the orders of those appointed above me. I had that lie trained into me from my first day of basic training to my last day of active duty. But I have learned the truth, the truth that the occupation of Iraq is inherently illegal and that it is my duty as a soldier to refuse illegal orders to reactivate and deploy in support of it. I have learned that in these times of crisis one must look deep into their own values to know the path that they must walk. I have learned that feeling and thinking and speaking and acting and keeping with courage and honesty in preservation of a righteous cause is blessed and may give a person strength to utter truths that may calm the vicious and the vengeful alike. I believe that this nation and this military may come to know the same truth: That the rule of law has been forsaken and we must return to it or be doomed to continue disaster. I believe in the goodness of the American people and I believe that justice is not dead because we as a people believe that it is our responsibility to resist the injustices done by our government in our names. We know this truth to be self-evident that our nation can unite to oppose an illegal occupation which is killing and scarring and shattering the lives of our youth and the Iraqi people. On this Fathers Day, know, America, that your children need you. We need you to care for us and to care for our country which we will inherit when you are finished with her. We need you to end this occupation of Iraq which has destroyed a country and scattered its people to the wind like ashes in the tempest -- a tempest that has engulfed the nation of Iraq and scrubbed any sign of peace and prosperity from the surface of a civilization older than even history itself. Fathers, we need you to care for your children and the children of Iraq for they know not why you fight and carry no fault in the conflict. Fathers, your sons and daughters need you now to embrace peace for though we were attacked, we have dealt in retaliation that same suffering one-thousand times over to a people who never wronged us. The nation will know little healing until first we stem off the flow of blood and human life for justice and healing will never be done by a blade or a bullet or a bomb or a torture cell. By continuing to participate in the unjust occupation of Iraq, we, as service members, are contributing to that flow of human life and we cannot now -- nor could we ever -- call the Iraqi people an enemy in the fight against the use of terror. But terror is all we now know. We are terrified of the prospect that we have been lied to. We are terrified by the idea that we have killed for nothing. We are terrified to break the silence. We are terrified to do what we know is right. But never again will I allow terror to silence me. Nor will I allow it to govern my actions. I refuse terror as a tactic for uniting a people around an unjust cause. I refuse to allow terror to motivate me to do violence on my fellow man especially those who never wronged me in the first place. I refuse to be terrified to stand in defense of my Constitution. And I refuse to be terrified of doing so in great adversity. As a resister to the Iraq Occupation, I refuse to be terrified by what may come for I know those who stand against me are in terror of the truth. But I will speak my truth, and I will stand by it firmly and forever will my soul know peace. Thank you.
Phillip O'Connor (St. Louis Post-Dispatch) explained this morning, "An administrative separation board at the Army Human Resources Command could grant Chiroux a general discharge or an other-than-honorable discharge, either of which could harm his ability to receive benefits available to honorable discharged veterans." The hearing took place today and there is no change in Matthis duty status at present. What happens next is the board's record is complied and a legal review takes place. Following that it's forwarded up the chain to, finally, the Commanding General of Human Resources Command. The Commanding General will issue a determination and that should take place before the end of next month.
Back to Iraq and some of today's reported violence . . .
Bombings?
Sahar Issa and Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) report a Baghdad roadside bombing which claimed the life of 1 police officer and left three more injured and a Baghdad roadside bombing which left three Iraqi soldiers injured. This is the the third day in a row that Iraqi soldiers have been wounded or killed in bombings.
In other Iraq news, Ed O'Keefe (Washington Post) notes, "Several executives from well-known high tech firms are in Iraq this week as guests of the State Department, part of an effort to boost the use of online and social media in the war-torn country." CNN adds that they represent Autmattic, Twitter, "Google, AT&T, YouTube and others." This visit follows the news that Iraq's stock exchange has gone electric.
While the greedy try to make money in Iraq, Peace Mom Cindy Sheehan attempts to use her name to get the word out on the system that supports the illegal wars. Her latest is Myth America: 10 Greatest Myths of the Robber Class and the Case for Revolution. In a must read column, Cindy explains the reality of what can be expected from the Democratically controlled White and Congress -- the same nothings the Democratically controlled Congress gave two-years-running:
I left the Democratic Party in May of 2007 because of the continued war funding and the continued lack of accountability and I was roundly, thoroughly and viciously attacked by the same "progressives" who are beginning to doubt the "hope" that they bought into, or allowed themselves to be co-opted by. Some are even calling for an "independent third party" movement here in the US to challenge the corrupt two parties! Really? Where were these "progressives" when I was running against the Queen of the Robber Class here in SF as an independent? Their heads were buried in the sand, or they were wearing the Rose Colored Glasses of denial and now we are mired in a situation that cannot be remedied: once the Genie is out of the bottle, she can't be easily put back in. Do you think the Democrats will hold Obama to account, when they failed to hold Bush to account? I doubt it and we will continue to see the Obama-Summers-Geithner-Bernanke collapse of the economy and the continued war crimes of the Obama-Clinton-Gates occupations for profit. It's way past time to stop giving the "Two" Party Robber Class system "a chance." It's time to stop the "inside" part of an "inside-outside" strategy. We have virtually nobody on the inside who will speak for us besides a token bone thrown out of those marble cesspools and we have to stand up for our class. Warren Buffet, a famous Robber Class business man who loves to dabble in the Democratic part of the One-Robber Class party said: "It is a class war, and my class is winning." They are only winning because we allow them to.
April 21: Albuquerque Smith Brasher Hall (CNM Campus, corner of University and Coal) 7-9 pm and then book signing.
April 23: Eureka Springs Arkansas Sweet Spring Antiques Mart 2 Pine Street (across from P.O.) 7-9 pm Eureka Springs Contact: Gerry Fonseca, geraldt7@earthlink.net
April 26: Kansas City, Mo (Sponsored by KKFI and joint fundraiser with Cindy) 3:30 - Anti-War vigil on the Plaza with Cindy Sheehan 5:00 - Meet & Greet with Cindy 6:30 - Music by Seed Love 7:00 - Music by The Herrmannators 7:30 - Cindy Sheehan speaks Venue: Uptown Theater - Valentine Room 3700 Broadway Contact for KCMO: Anne Pritchett, pritchett.anne@gmail.com
Also touring the US, orbiting DC, is the laughable Wijdan Mikha'il Salim, a puppet for the puppet Nouri al-Maliki. She holds the title "Minister of Human Rights." She holds the title and holds the place and does nothing. But she's on a charm offensive because it's been noted that the Foreign Ministry is heavily cast male and she's the 'spot of color' to convince Americans that Iraqi women do get to do more than be beat up, raped or killed.
Her charm mission found her declaring Friday, at the Woodrow Wilson International Center, the laughable claim that Iraqi society needs to be educated in order for the suppression of women to cease. Really, Wijit? Do they just wind you up and point you towards the mike?
The stupid liar wants Americans to believe that Iraq was Afghanistan when, in fact, it was no such thing. Prior to the 2003 invasion and the installation -- by the US -- of religious fanatics, Iraq was a sectarian society with women's rights in their contitution (gone now, thank the US for that) and a society in which women participated and held many jobs and duties. The fanatics the US government used in an effort to scare the Iraqi people into sumbission are the ones who destroyed women's rights. This is the woman who is the Human Rights Minister. A puppet position granted, but one in which she could have called out the assault on Iraq's LGBT community. (She has REFUSED to respond to the letter on this topic noted in yesterday's snapshot.)
Don't come to the US with your bulls**t propaganda and your 'my hands are tied but we will educate and in decades . . .' Spare us all your garbage. And spare us your repeated use of "man" for "human" when you claim to want to help Iraqi women. You continue the sexism and don't pretend otherwise. There's something truly appalling about anyone stating that rights will come when "we" "educate the people about the real Islam." What does that mean? It means no wall between church and state. Making the statement even more offensive is the fact that Widget isn't Muslim. She's Christian. That statement's not just a lie (she's blaming Islam for the lack of women's rights), it's also patronizing and scapegoating.
A
decorated Army reservist from Alabama who refused deployment to Iraq
last year will appear at a military hearing today to determine whether
he will receive an honorable discharge. Sgt.
Matthis Chiroux, had served in the Army since 2002 and was a member of
the Individual Ready Reserve when he was informed last year that he was
being returned to active duty and sent to Iraq. He refused to
participate in what he described as an "illegal and immoral occupation." An
administrative separation board at the Army Human Resources Command
could grant Chiroux a general discharge or an other-than-honorable
discharge, either of which could harm his ability to receive benefits
available to honorably discharged veterans.
The above is from Phillip O'Connor's "Soldier who said no to Iraq gets hearing" (St. Louis Post-Dispatch). Matthis Chiroux
was honorably discharged and placed in IRR and then, many months later,
informed he was being pulled back into the military and sent to Iraq.
He announced May 15, 2008 that he would not deploy to Iraq. Sunday, June 15, 2008 (Father's Day), he gave the following speech:
I
am here on this Father's Day, the day I am supposed to report to Fort
Jackson South Carolina for subsequent deployment to Iraq, the Iraq
occupation. And first of all I'd like to thank my father for being here
on Father's Day. Thank you for coming up from Alabama, Dad. I want to
thank my fellow members of Iraq Veterans Against the War for standing
in solidarity with me today in my decision not to deploy to Iraq. And I
have a short statement I would like to read. Good
afternoon. We gather here this Father's Day on a very somber note. The
American occupation of Iraq -- an illegal, immoral war which is ripping
this nation apart as well causing an immeasurable harm to the Iraqi
people and the people of the world alike. We gather in the remembrance
of the sacrifice of many whose fathers weep on this joyous day for they
know their own flesh and blood has been torn and siphoned from them for
what we collectively hope will be this last blunder of American
military might. We gather here and hope that our fathers will forgive
us for the wrongs we have perpetrated on our bodies, hearts and minds
alike in this cruel decade of disaster which stems from the very city
in which we stand. This
father's day, we gather here to calm the vicious and vengeful alike.
The first day I came to Washington, D.C. was less than one month before
I shipped out to basic training. I was so moved by this country and its
history that it reinvigorated my belief in the righteousness of what I
was doing: Joining the army not only in search of personal progress but
to participate in the efforts to bring justice to the individuals
responsible for 9-11. I
remember standing at the base of the Washington Monument and watching
the fireworks explode in the sky that Fourth of July and wondering how
it was that we could have come under attack on American soil and
believing firmly that I would be participatingin dealing justice for
September 11th. I remember
standing before the Lincoln Memorial and feeling the presence of not
just the former president and emancipator but of Martin Luther King and
his dream for a brighter and more united future for the children of
this nation. That young me
could not have known where he'd be standing almost six years later and
what he would be saying this Father's Day. I am Sgt. Matthis Chiroux
and tonight at midnight I may face further action from the army for
refusing to reactive to participate in the Iraq occupation. This
fact hangs heavy on my heart as I look back at my five years of service
in uniform. But I understand that what I am doing is in keeping with
the values I shared with my friends-in-arms while we wondered if things
could really get any worse? Today
I stand in resistance to the occupation of Iraq because I believe in
our nation, its military and her people. I resist because I swore an
oath to this nation that I would not allow it to fall into decay when I
may be serving on the side of right. And my country is in decay and in
these times of crisis Thomas Paine once said, "The summer soldier and
sunshine patriot will flee from service to our country." I
stand here today as a Winter Soldier. To serve our nation, its military
and its people in this dark time of confusion and corruption. I
stand here to make it known that my duty as a soldier is first to the
higher ideals and guiding principles of this country which our leaders
have failed to uphold. I
stand here today in defense of the US Constitution which has known no
greater enemy, foreign or domestic, than those highest in this land who
are sworn to be governed by its word. I
stand here today in defense of those who have been stripped of their
voices in this occupation for the warriors of this nation have been
silenced to the people who need to start listening. We
are here to honor the memory of our fathers who more than two centuries
ago brought forth upon this continent a new nation, conceived in
liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created
equal, as Abraham Lincoln once noted. We
are here to honor the struggle of our fathers and their fathers and
their fathers before them to build this nation and bring it together --
through slavery and poverty, to sexism and racism, through materialism
and imperialism. They built this nation and struggled to keep it alive
as we've blundered and learned and blundered again. We owe it to our
fathers to stand for this nation now when a dark cloud has descended
upon it in the form of an administration who is stealing the lives of
us all to wage an illegal war -- conceived in lies and birthed [born]
of manipulation. As a
soldier I was told it was not my place to question the orders of those
appointed above me. I had that lie trained into me from my first day of
basic training to my last day of active duty. But I have learned the
truth, the truth that the occupation of Iraq is inherently illegal and
that it is my duty as a soldier to refuse illegal orders to reactivate
and deploy in support of it. I
have learned that in these times of crisis one must look deep into
their own values to know the path that they must walk. I have learned
that feeling and thinking and speaking and acting and keeping with
courage and honesty in preservation of a righteous cause is blessed and
may give a person strength to utter truths that may calm the vicious
and the vengeful alike. I
believe that this nation and this military may come to know the same
truth: That the rule of law has been forsaken and we must return to it
or be doomed to continue disaster. I believe in the goodness of the
American people and I believe that justice is not dead because we as a
people believe that it is our responsibility to resist the injustices
done by our government in our names. We know this truth to be
self-evident that our nation can unite to oppose an illegal occupation
which is killing and scarring and shattering the lives of our youth and
the Iraqi people. On this
Fathers Day, know, America, that your children need you. We need you to
care for us and to care for our country which we will inherit when you
are finished with her. We need you to end this occupation of Iraq which
has destroyed a country and scattered its people to the wind like ashes
in the tempest -- a tempest that has engulfed the nation of Iraq and
scrubbed any sign of peace and prosperity from the surface of a
civilization older than even history itself. Fathers,
we need you to care for your children and the children of Iraq for they
know not why you fight and carry no fault in the conflict. Fathers,
your sons and daughters need you now to embrace peace for though we
were attacked, we have dealt in retaliation that same suffering
one-thousand times over to a people who never wronged us. The nation
will know little healing until first we stem off the flow of blood and
human life for justice and healing will never be done by a blade or a
bullet or a bomb or a torture cell. By
continuing to participate in the unjust occupation of Iraq, we, as
service members, are contributing to that flow of human life and we
cannot now -- nor could we ever -- call the Iraqi people an enemy in
the fight against the use of terror. But terror is all we now know. We
are terrified of the prospect that we have been lied to. We are
terrified by the idea that we have killed for nothing. We are terrified
to break the silence. We are terrified to do what we know is right. But
never again will I allow terror to silence me. Nor will I allow it to
govern my actions. I refuse terror as a tactic for uniting a people
around an unjust cause. I refuse to allow terror to motivate me to do
violence on my fellow man especially those who never wronged me in the
first place. I refuse to be terrified to stand in defense of my
Constitution. And I refuse to be terrified of doing so in great
adversity. As a resister to
the Iraq Occupation, I refuse to be terrified by what may come for I
know those who stand against me are in terror of the truth. But I will
speak my truth, and I will stand by it firmly and forever will my soul
know peace. Thank you.
Today Matthis stands in front of a
military body and continues fighting for the US Constitution. If he's
made a 'mistake,' it's been to value the oath he took -- an oath that
few appear to take seriously as evidenced by the White House refusal to
prosecute those who broke national and international laws in order to
illegally torture. More information can be found in "Resistance to an Abhorrent Occupation: Press Release of Matthis Chiroux" (World Can't Wait):
(ST.
LOUIS, MO) The U.S. Army will hear the case of Sgt. Matthis Chiroux, an
Individual Ready Reservist who last summer publicly refused activation
and deployment orders to Iraq, on April 21 at 1 Reserve Way in
Overland, St. Louis, MO, at 9 a.m. Chiroux, a member of Iraq
Veterans Against the War, refused to participate in what he described
as "an illegal and immoral occupation" May 15th, 2008, in Washington
D.C., after nine other veterans testified to Members of the U.S.
Congress about atrocities they experienced during deployments to Iraq.
Chiroux also vowed to remain public in the U.S. to defend himself from
any charges brought against him by the military. (see matthisresists.us for a record of that speech and others by Chiroux) "My
resistance as a noncommissioned officer to this abhorrent occupation is
just as legitimate now as it was last year," said Chiroux, adding,
"Soldiers have a duty to adhere to the international laws of war
described as supreme in Art. 6 Para. 2 of the U.S. Constitution, which
we swear to abide by before the orders of any superior, including our
former or current president." Following Chiroux's refusal to
deploy, the military did not contact him until after he and 10 other
IVAW members marched on the final presidential debate Oct. 15, 2008, in
Hempstead, N.Y. demanding to question then Senators Obama and McCain
regarding their war policies and plans to care for returning veterans.
After the veterans were brutalized and arrested by police, (one
suffered a fractured skull and is currently suing the police for
damages) the Army charged Chiroux with "misconduct" for refusing to
deploy, announcing their intentions to discharge him from the reserves
as a result. "I go now to St. Louis to honor my promises and
convictions," said Chiroux. "Obama or No-Bama, the military must cease
prosecuting Soldiers of conscience, and we will demonstrate to them
why." Following the hearing, Chiroux and other IVAW members will
testify about their military experiences which led them all to resist
in different capacities the U.S.'s Overseas Contingency Operation
(formerly the Global War on Terror). For more information, see matthisresists.us and ivaw.org.
Moving to the topic of Iraqi refugees . . .
In
Iraq, they were doctors, lawyers, teachers and engineers. Now they
consider themselves lucky if they're selling computers at Fry's. For
many Iraqi refugees, however, it's only the latest in a string of
hardships spanning three decades. There was the takeover by Saddam
Hussein, the blood-spilling war with Iran, the first Gulf War, the
punishing economic boycott and the U.S.-led invasion -- triggering an
orgy of car bombings, kidnappings, beheadings and the flight of 2
million refugees.
The above is from Ken McLaughlin's "Safe, but not secure: Iraqi refugees struggle to make it in Silicon Valley" (San Jose Mercury News
-- link has text and video)on Iraq's external refugees. The US accepts
far too few Iraqi refugees. One 'modification' in the program has
allowed those Iraqis with US 'ties' to be fast-tracked on a special
policy. Click here
for the US State Dept's fact sheet on that. We'll return to that
program in a moment but the US has another 'contribution' this year. Last month they announced:
U.S. Contributes More Than $150 Million to Help Displaced Iraqis
Bureau of Public Affairs
Office of the Spokesman
Washington, DC
March 20, 2009
The
United States is pleased to announce new FY 2009 contributions of more
than $141 million to help Iraqis who remain displaced as a result of
the war. These contributions come in addition to the $9 million that
the United States committed earlier this fiscal year, to total $150
million thus far in FY 2009. These contributions show an ongoing U.S.
focus on the needs of this vulnerable population, a focus that
continues even as the security conditions inside Iraq improve, making
returns of the displaced persons a more viable option in some areas.
Between October 1, 2006 and September 30, 2008 (FY 2007 and FY 2008),
the United States provided approximately $570 million to support
humanitarian assistance for Iraqis. This year’s funding has
supported the 2009 United Nations Consolidated Appeal for Iraq and the
region, and key international non-governmental organizations. The
Appeal for $547 million will support relief efforts by the United
Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), the United Nations
Children’s Fund (UNICEF), the World Health Organization (WHO), the
World Food Program (WFP) and others. The United States calls on other
donors to respond to the United Nations Appeal with substantial
contributions of their own. Through these organizations, U.S. funding will support a range of services for displaced Iraqis and conflict victims, including:
continued provision of emergency relief supplies to the most vulnerable Iraqis;
rehabilitation of water systems for internally displaced persons and local communities in Iraq;
informal education activities for Iraqi students unable to attend public schools in Jordan and Syria;
school reconstruction to support the influx of Iraqi students into Syrian public schools;
mental health services for displaced Iraqis;
repairs to clinics in Iraq, including donation of medical equipment; and
mobile health units for Iraqi refugees in Jordan and Syria.
Agency
U.S. Contribution (in millions)
UNHCR
$90
UNICEF
$15.5
WHO
$ 3.1
WFP
$ 8.0
Other International Organizations and Non-governmental Organizations
$34
FY 2009 Contributions to Date
$150.6 million
For
those wrongly impressed with the above, they might try grasping how
much money is spent each day continuing the illegal war as well as how
much money Bully Boy Bush was providing. As Roberta Cohen notes (here for HTML intro, here for PFD format article in full)
in "Iraq's Displaced: Where to Turn?" (at the center-right Brookings
Institution), the US provided $95.4 million for these same tasks in
2008 and the actual amount needed is approximately $2.6 billion.
Billion.
The new program created allows for Iraqi media workers,
Iraqi translators and others who assisted the US to have their
applications for asylum to the US fast-tracked. One of the people who
have been admitted under this program is Sahar S. Gabriel who worked
for the New York Times in Iraq. At the paper's blog last week, she updated on her latest experiences in the US.
Along
with people such as Sahar S. Gabriel who are not controversial asylum
requests, the program also allows the fast tracking of Iraqis who
worked for the US military in various capacities (not just as
translators).
Amir
Jabbar doesn't know how many of his friends have been murdered since
the Iraq war started six years ago. He stopped counting sometime back
in 2007. The numbers just got too high, he said. "Maybe 10. Maybe more," the 31-year-old parking lot attendant said, shrugging. "It's too many." Most
of them were blown up in bomb attacks, he explained. A few just
disappeared. They've been gone so long that he figures they aren't
coming back. "In my neighborhood, Sadriyah, it was very bad," said
Jabbar, who stopped to talk on a busy Baghdad street corner as he ran
errands. "Maybe I know more who died than most people, but everybody
knows somebody killed by the war, of course."
Watching
Iraq spiral out of control, I can't help but be haunted by a terrible
day more than 10 years ago, when I answered a knock at the front door
to see a man in a military uniform. He
introduced himself and did not waste time saying, "I am sorry to inform
you that your brother Gordon Curry has died in the line of duty." My
chest still seizes, thinking of the pain of that news, and as I report
now daily on the dying of Americans in Iraq, I shudder, knowing that
knock at the door is coming for the families they leave behind.
At
a time when most outlets have pulled out of Iraq, Curry's coverage is
not just appreciated but also needed. She is not the only one flying
the opposite way. KXLY's Dave Erickson is back in Iraq, arriving in
Kuwait over the weekend. For some of his video reports from Iraq click here.
Yesterday, another bomber in Iraqi military garb took his own life. This time in Baquba. Steven Lee Myers' "Bomber Attacks G.I.'s Meeting With Baquba Officials" (New York Times) covers the bombing and notes 3 Iraqis dead, eight US soldiers injured and notes:
The
Americans were attending what Iraqi officials described as a regular
weekly meeting with city officials, a far more typical mission for
American troops these days than direct combat with insurgents. At least
11 other Iraqis were also wounded, including police officers and
civilians, according to the American military. An Iraqi police major
said that casualties would have almost certainly been higher had the
armored vehicles not shielded many more people. The
Americans opened fire immediately after the blast. "There was random
shooting everywhere," said Hamid al-Zaidy, who was on his way to the
city's electricity department when the explosion occurred. "I lay on
the ground because the American forces were in a complete state."
Meanwhile Ed O'Keefe (Washington Post) notes,
"Several executives from well-known high tech firms are in Iraq this
week as guests of the State Department, part of an effort to boost the
use of online and social media in the war-torn country." CNN adds that they represent Autmattic, Twitter, "Google, AT&T, YouTube and others." This visit follows the news that Iraq's stock exchange has gone electric.
(ST.
LOUIS, MO) The U.S. Army will hear the case of Sgt. Matthis Chiroux, an
Individual Ready Reservist who last summer publicly refused activation
and deployment orders to Iraq, on April 21 at 1 Reserve Way in
Overland, St. Louis, MO, at 9 a.m. Chiroux, a member of Iraq
Veterans Against the War, refused to participate in what he described
as "an illegal and immoral occupation" May 15th, 2008, in Washington
D.C., after nine other veterans testified to Members of the U.S.
Congress about atrocities they experienced during deployments to Iraq.
Chiroux also vowed to remain public in the U.S. to defend himself from
any charges brought against him by the military. (see matthisresists.us for a record of that speech and others by Chiroux) "My
resistance as a noncommissioned officer to this abhorrent occupation is
just as legitimate now as it was last year," said Chiroux, adding,
"Soldiers have a duty to adhere to the international laws of war
described as supreme in Art. 6 Para. 2 of the U.S. Constitution, which
we swear to abide by before the orders of any superior, including our
former or current president." Following Chiroux's refusal to
deploy, the military did not contact him until after he and 10 other
IVAW members marched on the final presidential debate Oct. 15, 2008, in
Hempstead, N.Y. demanding to question then Senators Obama and McCain
regarding their war policies and plans to care for returning veterans.
After the veterans were brutalized and arrested by police, (one
suffered a fractured skull and is currently suing the police for
damages) the Army charged Chiroux with "misconduct" for refusing to
deploy, announcing their intentions to discharge him from the reserves
as a result. "I go now to St. Louis to honor my promises and
convictions," said Chiroux. "Obama or No-Bama, the military must cease
prosecuting Soldiers of conscience, and we will demonstrate to them
why." Following the hearing, Chiroux and other IVAW members will
testify about their military experiences which led them all to resist
in different capacities the U.S.'s Overseas Contingency Operation
(formerly the Global War on Terror). For more information, see matthisresists.us and ivaw.org.
caesar ahmed
