 |
Friday, April 24, 2009
Friday,
April 24, 2009. Chaos and violence continue, the US military announces
another death, Chris Hill breaks his first Iraq promise, Cliff
Cornell's court-martial is set for next week, and more. We're going to start by looking back. Six years ago, the New York Times [Sunday] Magazine featured Peter Maass' " Good Kills"
which demonstrated all that was wrong with war reporting (April 20,
2003, pp. 32 - 37). Predictions? Maass opened with them: "As the war
in Iraq is debated and turned into history, the emphasis will be on the
role of technology -- precision bombing, cruise missiles, decapitation
strikes." Really? Is that what anyone talks about today? And did
they really talk about it then? No and no. But that was what the
first Gulf War was about and lazy reporters couldn't capture what they
were seeing -- apparently the US education system has failed them and
they lack the ability to put their observations into words -- so they
tried to use a narrative from a previous war. Six
years ago, this story demonstrated how the embeds were a success . . .
for the US military. Reporting on his 'buddies' in The Third
Battalion, Fourth Marines, Maass smoothed over all the edges even when
the edges were dead civilians. Especially when it was dead civilians.
Entering Diyala Province (though Maass didn't use -- and probably
didn't know -- the term), his 'buddies' were drgiving over a bridge. He
calles this attempt to get across the Diyala River (by vehicle, over a
bridge) "a signal event in the war" -- which indicates the other
problem. The reporters were so jacked up on their own sense of being
'history' that they jerked off in print and the audiences back home
were stuck with it. What were minor events were suddenly 'epic' just
because a reporter was embedded. "BATTLE IS
CONFUSION." And you know Maass stood by it because it was in all
caps. But REPORTING IS CONFUSION when reporters forget their role. As
the marines attempt to travel (drive) over the bridge, things get, as
Maass puts it, "complicated." We have wasted four pages on his War Porn
when finally readers learn (in less than two pages) that civilians were
being killed. This 'big battle'? Lt. Bryan McCoy is thrilled that
people are dying. He utters a censored word -- the paper renders it
"[expetives]" -- describing Iraqis and then self-strokes, "Boys are
doing good. Brute force is going to prevail today." He adds, "We'll
drill them." And indeed McCoy and the others did. But they were
civilians attempting to cross the bridge from the other end. Civilians
were attempting to drive across the bridge. Proving what a fool he was
Maass -- even after it's known that civilians were killed -- is still
writing about these precision shootings. A moving car's engine block
is being taken out? Didn't we hear that one after the shooting on the
car containing Giuliana Segrena? And those bullets were everywhere.
Maass writes, "As the half-dozen vehicles approached, some shots were
fired at the ground in front of the cars; others were fired, with great
precision, at their tires or their engine blocks. Marine snipers can
snipe." Can Maas gush over his 'buddies' any more foolishly and any
less journalistically? After he's done gushing,
after approximately two-thirds of another page has been wasted, Maass
finally informs, "The vehicles, it only later became clear, were full
of Iraqi civilians." Now what reader would feel cheated? You got
Maass playing Miss Cleo and offering predictions, you got pages and
pages of rah-rah, you got everything but reporting and there's not a
great deal in what remains of the article. Despite, for example,
speaking to one survivor, Eman Alshamnery, who was shot, whose sister
was shot dead along with two other people in one of the cars, he really
doesn't have much to say. He speaks to another survivor who is digging
graves to bury people and Maass doesn't have much to say. No one knows
how many people were killed -- despite Maass and other journalists
being present, Maass never feels the need to give a death toll. He
estimates at least six cars with people and also one old man walking
(with a cane) on the bridge were shot dead. But the number of dead
isn't important to him. Nor is it important to give voice to the
survivors. But, naturally, he offers plenty
of space for the marines such as Lance Cpl Santiago Venture who
explodes when another journalist (unidentified) disputes a marine's
assertion of "Better safe than sorry" and another's pant of "I wish I
had been here" by noting that "the civilians should not have been
shot." Why is that? That really is what a reporter using six oversize
pages (the Sunday Magazine is the size of Rolling Stone until
the recent 'downsize') in a magazine should be able to answer. Maass
does note that maybe warning shots whipping through the air aren't
readily heard or recognized by civilian populations. And maybe more so
when the firing is coming from people in camo that the civilians can't
see. Just idle observations that readers really have to fill in to
grasp what's being inferred but not said: You don't grasp that these
'tink' sounds hitting your car are bullets being fired by people you
can't see. And the US marines weren't trained to grasp that just
because your instructor tells you someone under fire will stop doesn't
mean that's what happens in the real world (as has been demonstrated in
Iraq over and over). But why did the
journalist say the civilians should not have been shot? The journalist
isn't quoted or even mentioned except for that sentence and another
where "the journalist walked away". Hmm. Maybe because the Genever
Conventions insists that those engaged in combat "distinguish
themselves from the civilian population while they are engaged in an
attack or in a military operation preparatory to an attack.
Recognizing, however, that there are situations in armed conflicts
where, owing to the nature of the hostilities an armed combatant cannot
so distinugish himself, he shall retain his status as a combatant,
provided that in such situations, he carries his arms openly; (a)
during each military engagement, and (b) during such time as he is
visble to the adversary while he is engaged in a miliary deployment
preceding the launching of an attack in which he is to participate."
That's the Geneva Convention. That's what Maass can't tell you about,
what he wouldn't tell you about. It's not just
that it's 'bad' and 'sad' that these Iraqis were killed, it's that the
way in which they were killed was, as described by Maass, a violation
of the Geneva Convention. Maass can't be bothered with things such a
the law. Much better to present the whole thing as if it were a
traffic jam on some epic scale. No one's at fault, people died. Oh
well. That is his 'angle.' It's embarrassing, it's not journalism.
While he can't be bothered with explaining or citing the law, he does
make time for the excussed. Ventura is quoted at length with a
'defense' that includes: "We've got to be concerned about our safety.
We dropped pamphlets over these people weeks and weeks ago and told
them to leave the city. You can't blame marines for what happened.
It's bull. What are you doing getting in a taxi in the middle of a war
zone?" "Our safety"? Actually, as the invading
force, you've got to be concerned with the civilian population and, are
in fact, bound by law to protect the civilian population -- protect and
not harm. "Dropped pamphlets" and people were supposed to leave their
homes? And go where? And go why? Because another country told them
to? Can't blame marines? Did the civilians shoot themselves? A taxi
in the middle of a war zone? In the middle of Iraq, in the middle of
their country, in the middle of their lives, in the middle of their
homes. "Their" being the key term as in "theirs" not "ours." Peter Maass, of course, wrote about knowing Salam Pax
-- an Iraqi blogger who worked for the New York Times though Maass'
inflated self-opinion turned it into 'works for me'. The same ego that
allowed him to think he had the right to disclose various details
about Salam Pax without checking with Pax first. Talk about arrogance
and a sense of entitlement. If you're missing it, note "working
alongside -- no, employing --" Pax and "there were occasions when I
stayed in my room and let Salam loose for several hours." Let him
loose for several hours? Is he a dog? For all who whine about Devil Wears Prada type of employees, grasp that it's the pompous employers who write the most insulting 'memoirs.' Last month, at his own website (The Fear), Salam Pax noted AP's
assertion that Baghdad' was "calm . . . in part because the city is now
ethnically divided." To which Pax added, "No s**t! You're not telling
me anything new here. This was government and US army policy. Who put
up the walls cutting the Sunni districts from the rest of the city?"
Pax also takes on the assertion that "Shia militiamen and death squads"
are now "off the street": Is
the writer being wilfully naïve? I am sure he knows better. The
militias might have disappeared but one of the main reasons why these
Shia neighbourhoods are safer than other districts is because Shia
political parties were allowed to have their own organised security and
militia forces. Like the Kurdish parties no one was allowed to question
the right of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq in having it's own
militarised arm, the Badr Organisation. And al-Dawa under al-Maliki
started their own security brigade, in the guise of a counter terrorism
brigade. The
Sunnis on the other hand were left to fend for themselves. And between
the Mahdi Militias with their ominous slogan 'Our regular programme
will resume after this break' and the other Shia security forces the
'Awakening Groups' were too little and too late. The harm was done. "Awakening," "Sons of Iraq" and Sahwa all refer to the same group and the Boston Globe editorialized
about it yesterday: "One sign of trouble is how Prime Minister Nouri
al-Maliki's government has been treating the so-called Awakening
Movement. . . . The Awakening fighters were promsied 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." independent journalist Dahr Jamail observed this week (at ZNet) that the whole thing was "ripe with broken promises" and: 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. Wayne White of the Middle East Institute in Washington told Tom A. Peter (Christian Science Monitor),
"if you continue arresting and harassing, and shunning Awakening types
-- many of whom were originally derived from the insurgency -- you're
really playing wtih fire." Yesterday, Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reported 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. Violence is increasing (again) in Iraq. James Hider (Times of London) adds
that "Awakenings" "have been repeatedly targeted by militans, and
complain they have not received support from the Shi government, which
views them with deep distrust." Hider notes an investigation by his
paper "revealed that widespread abuse of power and corruption among
Iraq's sprawling new security forces are also stoking resentment among
the population, stirring people to carry out attacks." Hider also reported on that investigation into Iraq's police and he notes,
"In the desperate rush to drag Iraq back from civil war, sweeping
powers were granted to its new security forces. Human rights workers,
MPs and American officials now believe that they are all too often a
law unto themselves: admired when they defeat terrorists but also
feared for their widespread abuse of power." Hider also reports on a
video of a woman being raped (video shot by a mobile phone) and
ex-Falluja Mayor Jassim al-Bidawi identifies the man in the video "as
an Iraqi police officer" and says the one filming the rape is as well:
"They are thought to have drugged the woman as she visited her husband
in a detention centre in Ramadi. Since the rapist's uncle is a senior
policeman in the city the attacker is all but untouchable, Mr al-Bidawi
says." Tina Susman and Caesar Ahmed (Los Angeles Times) reported
Thursday on a woman, Dalal, who was in a Tikrit prison where she was
"raped by prison guards," she informed her brother who visited her
"drew a gun and shot his visibly pregnant sister dead." They explain
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. Just another example of the ongoing femicide in Iraq. Staying on the topic of Iraqi women the Janan Collection is Iraqi women's arts and crafts. Megan Feldman (Dallas Observer) reports
that the collection/colletive was started by Ty Reed who was a US
soldier serving in Iraq when she encountered a young Iraqi widwo named
Fatima who, like many other Iraqi women, was now the sole support for
her family. Fatima explained that she and approximately 24 other
widows "had artistic skills such as basket-making, painting or
leather-working. Could Reed help them find a way to earn a living?" So
Reed and Teresa Nguyen (Ty Reed's sister) started up the collective and
there will be an online auction May 9th. Feldman notes, "The work on
tour now includes traditional baskets, ornaments and jewelry made of
leather, turquoise beads and gold, as well as paintings like Harvest Moon,
a minaret-studded cityscape set against a glowing moon. . . . The
proceeds from just one painting, Reed said, will support the painter's
family for at least a month." More widows and widowers and orphans in Iraq today as yesterday's violent bombings with mass fatalities is echoed. This morning Ernesto Londono and Aziz Alwan (Washington Post) reported
that at least 135 people have been killed in Iraq bombings today and
yesterday with today seeing 55 dead and one-hundred-and-twenty-five
wounded in a double bombings near a Shia mosque in Baghdad. Timothy Williams and Steven Lee Myers (New York Times) explain
the double bombings were suicide bombers ("within five minutes of each
other") outside "the shrine of Imam Musa al-Kadhim and his grandson."
The Times link
also has audio option where Myers says, "The bombers came up and
mingled with the crowd while they were waiting to get into the shrine
that you mentioned and blew themselves up nearly simultaneiously as
near as we can figure." He also stated, "It seems very clear that the
last few attacks have targeted the Shi'ites in Iraq particularly." Corey Flintoff (NPR) adds,
"Until the country can reach power-sharing arrangements among its
ethnic Kurdish and its Shiite and Sunni Arab communities, Iraq remains
vulnerable to attacks by al-Qaida and other militant groups, analysts
say." James Hider (Times of London) notes that the death toll hit 60. Aws Qusay, Zahra Hosseinian, Michael Christie and Louise Ireland (Reuters) observe:
"The attack was the deadliest single incident in Iraq since 63 people
died in a truck bomb blast in Baghdad on June 17 last year, and came
amid growing concerns that a recent drop in violence might turn out to
have been just a temporary lull." Laith Hammoudi and Corinne Reilly (McClatchy Newspapers) quote
eye witness Hammad Faisel stating, "There were piles of bodies. I saw
a man running after the explosions to get away, but he quickly fell. I
watched him die." There was other violence in Iraq today and we'll note that but the bombings and Iraq were a good portion of the second hour of The Diane Rehm Show today so let's note this from Diane and her guests Karen DeYoung ( Washington Post), Daniel Dombey ( Finanical Times of London) and Yochi Dreazen ( Wall St. Journal). Diane
Rehm: Daniel Dombey, let's talk about this latest violence in Iraq.
Another explosion this morning, a suicide bomber killing perhaps as
many as 125. Daniel
Dombey: These are obviously awful events with terrible human costs. I
think, however, the key thing to bear in mind is this is a crucial year
and any easy assumption that meant -- that went from the progress of
last year in terms of safety and security to believing that this coming
year would mean that Iraq would just go on getting better was always
going to be a perilous one. There are lots of longterm political
problems in Iraq. Maybe those have been papered over. Maybe we focus
too much on the military side. And this is becoming ever more clear.
It's a very important year in Iraq. There are an awful lot of tensions
in the country. Diane Rehm: What does this mean or what could this mean for US plans to reduce the military in Iraq, Karen? Karen
DeYoung: The statements that have been made as various withdrawals have
been announced have been very careful to say 'We know it's not going to
be totally peaceful in Iraq when we leave. We believe we have set up
political and economic structures that are lasting and it's up to them
to deal with it.' I think that you -- it's interesting that these
attacks in -- over the past two days in Baghdad and Diyala are believed
to have been Sunni groups against Shi'ites in at least two cases at
mosques where people were worshiping [and] don't involve US troops. I
think that we're concerned about the north where we believe al Qaeda
still is around Mosul and we're concerned about Kirkuk which is the
kind of oil center in the north which is being contested by the Kurds
and the Arabs. Uh, it's been intimated that we might be asked to stay a
bit in those cities but I think these kind of bombings -- Iraqi on
Iraqi in Baghdad and father south -- I think are not going to hold up
the plan to depart. Diane Rehm: Yochi Dreazen, would you agree? Yochi
Dreazen: I think it depends on which part of the plan one is
scrapping. US troops have already made clear that they're going to
stay in bases that they consider to be 'joint bases.' So if there is
-- pretty much all US bases now have Iraqis on them. The
interpretation that US commanders have is that they're allowed to stay
on those bases beyond summer of 2010. They can stay on those bases
pretty much until all troops leave. So I think that the US footprint
in major cities will shrink further but it's not going to be as if we
disappear. I mean, we will still have a fairly large footprint in
Baghdad, we'll still have one in Mosul. Falluja, which we've pulled out
of entirely, has had a spate of bombings lately so now US troops at
Ramadi and Taqaddum -- the two bases closest to Falluja -- have begun
inching closer back to that city as well. I think the broader point is
that if they're had been a broader political consensus that the US
hoped would emerge from stability consensus wise and that consensus is
very fragile in part because the decisions about Kirkuk, about
Arab-Kurdish delineation of powers and oil money were never made.
They've been kicked down the road, down the road, down the road. Now
we're leaving so the vacuum is re-emerging and those questions still
have to be answered. Daniel
Dombey: Yes, I would absolutely agree with that. I mean there are some
very fundamental problems in Kirkuk where you have this Kurdish-Arab
tension and, actually, US forces have increased in Kirkuk in recent
months. You also have this basic critique that Obama always made of
the Bush policy which was it didn't concentrate enough on the politics
and, in fact, we don't really see a political initiative so far in
terms of the US to try and push deals in Iraq. But you haven't had a
US ambassador there so there is a US ambassador who is headed out this
week. But it's an enormous struggle to reach any kind of an accord in
Iraq. It's a very important year though as we've seen Maliki really
try to consolidate his power and lots of tensions emerging as well. Diane
Rehm: But you know what's interesting? What's happened is that Iraq
has completely knocked Afghanistan off the front pages. Now we see
concentration on the suicide bombings in Iraq but also what's happening
in Pakistan. We were planning to send more troops to Afghanistan,
removing them from Iraq. Now how is all of this going to be effected,
Karen? Karen
DeYoung: I think the, you know, this year, they've already settled on
which troops are going to Afghanistan and the request from the
commanders there is for another 10,000 next year which has not been
authorized. I don't think that's going to seriously impinge on plans
to withdrawal from Iraq. Right now those are the only requests. The
21,000 that were authorized, actually 21,000, for this year and a
request that the president has not signed off on for an additional
10,000 next year. Right now there are not additional requests to send
more troops to Afghanistan and, in fact, the Secretary of Defense, Bob
Gates, has said many times, as have others, there's a limit to the
number of troops you can send to Afghanistan. Diane Rehm: Have Americans, with the exception of military families, stopped caring about Iraq, Yochi? Yochi
Dreazen: I think even in the military there's been a massive shift of
military manpower and military mental power. Within the military the
question now is how do you try to win Afghanistan and stabilize
Pakistan. It's less Iraq. I think there was a bit of
false complacency that came in when violence fell and Obama won and
made clear his plan to leave. To the degree that anybody was still
following Iraq, and I think many people had tuned it out, at least a
year earlier if not longer, there's a belief that we won, that the war
was over. Violence was down, we were going to leave. Things were not
great but there was a somewhat functioning government and now we could
do something else. And when that happened, I remember getting an
e-mail from someone in Baghdad saying that we in the US could decide to
leave and we could say we're done with our part of the fighting come
2010 or 2011 but there's another side and that side might want to keep
fighting. And I think what you're seeing now is that there is another
side, it does want to keep fighting and we're going to decide do we
keep fighting to? [. . .] Yochi
Dreazen: I think that the intent of those carrying out the attacks is
precisely that issue. You're trying to stir up renewed Shia on Sunni
violence and reprisals. To be honest, I don't think it's going to work
-- in part because Shia political power is stronger and more stable
across the Arab portions of Iraq then it's been at any point since
2003. Moqtada al-Sadr's Mehdi army which had been the main form for
Shia reprisals is largely receded into the background. A lot of its
members no longer affiliate themselves with him or his movement. I
think the intent is clearly that if a Sunni group carries out an attack
big enough or horrific enough, some Shia group will carry out a revenge
attack. So the hope would be -- obviously, I use 'hope' not in the way
we would use it -- the hope would be that if you kill 500 Shia at
prayer one day, something bad will happen, Shia on Sunni. To be
honest, I think that was what happened in '05, '06, '07. I think to a
degree early '08. I think that has largely played out. Diane
Rehm: So do you all believe that what's happening in Iraq now is not
going to effect US plans to draw down troops moving forward? Karen? Karen DeYoung: Uh, not right now, I don't think it will. Diane Rehm: Not right now. Karen
DeYoung: I think that what was said previously, that what we think of
as a complete withdrawal eventually is not going to be a complete
withdrawal as soon as we -- as we think it will. Diane Rehm: And what happens to those large bases that the United States has built in Iraq?
Karen DeYoung: They're supposed to be turned over to Iraq eventually -- Daniel Dombey: You've got. Oh, I'm sorry. Karen DeYoung: No, go ahead. Daniel
Dombey: You've got to remember a three-stage process. By June of this
year, the US is supposed to be out of major cities although with the
conditions that Yochi mentioned before. By August 2010, it's supposed
to cease combat operations which is an Obama phrase that probably
doesn't mean anything very much. And by the end of 2011, it's supposed
to be out completely. Now that's actually according to a deal
negotiated with the Bush administration. Whether that's going to
happen -- that's a long way off One criticism of Bush and a criticism
of Obama is that you really need to get the politics right. The real
priority, however, for the US, is for Iraq not to provoke a regional
conflict. Diane Rehm: Mmm-hmm. Daniel
Dombey: That's why something like Kirkuk, which is something that
involves the Kurds, the Arabs and Turkey -- which does not want Kirkuk
to fall under Kurdish control, is so sensitive. They do not want Iraq
to be a source of instability in the region. I think that they're
prepared for Iraq to be a less than wonderful place for Iraqis to live
in. Yochi
Dreazen: If I -- if I was a betting man, which I would never publicly
admit to being, I would put considerable money that there is absolutely
no chance that we would be out of those big bases by the end of 2011.
The bases are so beyond-belief enormous. I mean, the Victory
compound out by Baghdad airport is roughly 50 square miles, it's huge.
You have thousands and thousands of tons of equipment, tens of
thousands of vehicles. So the idea that somehow in the next two years
all of these bases will be dismantled is non-existant. Beyond the fact
that US officials have made clear all along that, should the Iraqis
request it, maybe we'd stay beyond 2011. And you can envision a 100
scenarios -- Diane Rehm: Of course Yochi Dreazen: -- in which the Iraqi government says we need you. Steven Lee Myers of NYT
(audio link again): "The fact is that not many American troops have yet
withdrawn so the numbers are still high." That's an important point
and also one made in a Congressional hearing this week that Jim, Dona, Ava and I have already decided is part of an editorial for Third
Sunday. There are parts you probably agree with above and parts you
don't. Some you may strongly disagree with. What's interesting is how
November 2007 is actually the crucial period if you want to talk US
draw down. That was avoided. We may cover it at Third or here next
week. But right now, some of the other violence. Hussein Kahim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports
a Baghdad sticky bombing which killed police Maj Raad meki and left
three people in his car injured and a Jalwlaa car bombing which claimed
2 lives and left twenty-six people injured. Reuters notes
a Mosul roadside bombing claimed the life of 1 Iraqi soldier and
injured another, a Sinjar sticky bombing claimed the life of "the son
of a local sheikh" and, dropping back to Friday, a police major was
shot dead in Kirkuk. Today the US military announced:
"TIKRIT, Iraq -- A Multi-National Division - North Soldier died in a
non-combat related incident in Salah ad Din province April 24. The name
of the deceased is being withheld pending notification of next of kin
and release by the Department of Defense. The incident is under
investigation." The announcement brings to 4277
the number of US service members killed in Iraq since the start of the
illegal war. This is the third death of a US service member announced
this week and the 14th for the month thus far -- already putting
April's death toll ahead of March's. Tuesday Chris Hill was confirmed as US Ambassador to Iraq. AP reports
Hill arrived in Baghdad today. And they seem on the point of gushing
that it's only "three days after" his Senate confirmation. What the
hell have they been drinking? Reality, the unqualified Hill has
already broken his first promise. As John Kerry noted in the Senate Foreign Committee's hearing on Hill March 25th,
Hill stated he would leave for Iraq "within a day of his Senate
confirmation." Does it matter? Yeah it does. You say you'll do
something, you better do it. This is another example of Hill telling
the Congress one thing and then doing another. And it makes John Kerry
look like an idiot because, in his opening remarks at that hearing,
Kerry argued against any attempts to delay Hill's confirmation stating
that it "would do a serious disservice to our efforts" in Iraq if
senators attempted "holding up a vote on Ambassador Hill's nomination."
Kerry said, "This is not a time for delay." He added, "The committee
will move to quickly discharge Ambassador Hill, who has committed to
depart for Iraq within a day of his Senate confirmation." Committed.
And he already broke it. It's not a minor issue and one more sign that
Hill's a little 'too casual' when it comes to job responsibilities. Winding down on Iraq, Mattis Chiroux faced a military board this week (see Tuesday and Wednesday's snapshots). The board has a recommendation. Yesterday, Matthis wrote a very intense and moving account of his life thus far.
We've noted the process here and a few people have e-mailed to dispute
where it stands now. In Tuesday's snapshot, I'm going by
three officers I spoke to on the phone and one JAG attorney I spoke
with in addition to a woman Jess spoke with and she typed up the process and e-mailed it. Here is that e-mail: SGT Chiroux's duty status will not change today because his case is not
complete. HRC-St. Louis will compile the board record and complete a
legal review prior to forwarding the case through the Commander, HRC-STL
to the Commanding General, Human Resources Command.
Before he left today, SGT Chiroux was informed of the Board's findings
and recommendations. Due to Privacy Act constraints, I am not able to
discuss this with you.
SGT Chiroux remains a member of the Individual Ready Reserve until the
Commanding General takes final action. This is expected to occur in
several weeks' time.
Thank you,
v/r,
Maria Quon
LTC, U.S. Army
Public Affairs Officer
U.S. Army Human Resources Command-St. Louis
1 Reserve Way
St. Louis, MO 63132-5200
(314) 592-0726
[. . .]
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE
Based
on the conversations and the e-mail, the board made a recommendation or
even a decision but it goes on up the chain of command. No one is
attempting to insult Matthis in any way. Nor to, as two e-mails
suggest, take something away from his victory. But I'm not Scott
Horton. Translation, I can't know the truth and say something else. I
can't say "Bush is going to be indicted!" when I don't know that's
true. The e-mail published above is censored only to take out Quon's
e-mail -- which is her business one but I'm not comfortable having that
in there. I didn't speak to anyone in public affairs. Jess spoke to
her and she e-mailed him. What she's stating in that e-mail is what I
was told by three officers familiar with the procedure and by one
JAG attorney who knows the drill. We met the three-source rule with two
extra. At Courage to Resist, a piece by Matthis Chiroux states he was awarded a recommendation by the board.
I don't know where people are seeing something other than that but I've
explained why we have worded it the way we have and, again, it's also
the way Chiroux himself does. Also at Courage to Resist: Cliff Cornell was denied sanctuary in Canada; will face general courts martial Tuesday, April 28 at Ft. Stewart, Georgia By Friends of Cliff Cornell. Updated April 22, 2009 The
U.S. Army has charged Specialist Clifford Cornell, with desertion.
Cornell, 28, surrendered himself to authorities at Fort Stewart,
Georgia on February 17, after being denied refugee status in Canada.
The Arkansas native left Fort Stewart four years ago, when his
artillery unit was ordered to Iraq. According to family and friends,
Cornell did not want to kill civilians, and said that Army trainers
told him he must shoot any Iraqi who came near his vehicle. That's this Tuesday. Turning to public television NOW on PBS examines rape in "Justice Delayed:" A
terrible statistic: one in six women will be a victim of rape or
attempted rape in her lifetime. But an even more shocking reality: A
backlog in processing rape kits--crucial evidence in arresting violent
predators -- is delaying and sometimes denying justice for tens of
thousands of American women. NOW
travels to Los Angeles County to investigate why it has the largest
known rape kit backlog in the country--over 12,000 kits are sitting
untested in police storage facilities. An internal audit found that
more than 50 of these cases have exceeded the 10-year statute of
limitations on rape. "The
evidence that we're talking about represents human lives," Los Angeles
Controller Laura Chick tells NOW. "Those are lives stacked up on the
shelves waiting for justice." NOW
talks with courageous rape survivors and law enforcement experts for
insight and answers in this disturbing but important report. Are these
women being victimized twice? NOW on PBS begins airing on many PBS stations tonight (check local listings) as does PBS' Washington Week which finds Gwen sitting around the table with Dan Balz ( Washington Post), Joan Biskupic ( USA Today), Jeanne Cummings ( Rona Barrett's DC) and Mark Mazetti ( New York Times). Also on PBS (and starts airing tonight on many PBS stations, check local listings), Bonnie Erbe sits down with Kim Gandy, Amanda Carpenter and Avis Jones-DeWeever to discuss this week's news on To The Contrary. And turning to broadcast TV, Sunday CBS' 60 Minutes offers: Vice President BidenIn this profile of Joe Biden, Lesley Stahl
spends three days with the vice president and also interviews his wife,
Dr. Jill Biden, and his boss, President Barack Obama. | Watch Video
Powered By CoalCoal is America's most abundant and cheap fossil fuel, but burning it happens to be the biggest contributor to global warming. Scott Pelley reports. | Watch Video
The OrphanageIvory
is selling for nearly $1,000 a tusk, causing more elephants to be
slaughtered and more orphaned babies in need of special care provided
by an elephant orphanage in Kenya. Bob Simon reports. | Watch Video |
Posted at 03:57 pm by thecommonills
Permalink
The US military announces another death, at least 60 Iraqis killed in Baghdad bombing today
Today the US military announced:
"TIKRIT, Iraq -- A Multi-National Division - North Soldier died in a
non-combat related incident in Salah ad Din province April 24. The name
of the deceased is being withheld pending notification of next of kin
and release by the Department of Defense. The incident is under
investigation." The announcement brings to 4277
the number of US service members killed in Iraq since the start of the
illegal war. This is the third death of a US service member announced
this week and the 14th for the month thus far -- already putting
April's death toll ahead of March's. [On
Friday, at least 55 more people were killed, and 125 were injured, in
back-to-back suicide bombings outside the most important Shiite shrine
in the capital, the Associated Press reported. Bombers detonated
explosive belts within minutes of each other near the gates of the tomb
of the prominent Shiite saint Imam Mousa al-Kazim.]
Insurgent
groups, which controlled vast areas of Iraq in 2006 and 2007, had lost
considerable support, mobility and financial backing over the past two
years. The most recent bombings follow a series of attacks that began
last month after the Islamic State of Iraq, an umbrella organization
that includes the Sunni insurgent group al-Qaeda in Iraq, announced
that it would carry out a wave of violence code-named "The Good
Harvest."
The violent campaign coincides with plans for a U.S.
pullback. The first deadline in a phased American withdrawal agreed
upon by Iraq and the United States comes this summer, when combat
troops are supposed to move out of urban areas. Top U.S. commanders
have recently said the Iraqi government may ask them to keep American
forces in cities in northern Iraq -- where the insurgency remains
entrenched -- beyond the summer deadline. In Baghdad, the military has
closed some inner-city bases and small outposts, but appears intent on
keeping American soldiers at urban facilities shared with Iraqi troops
well beyond the summer. The above is from Ernesto Londono and Aziz Alwan's " Blasts Kill More Than 135 in Two Days in Iraq" ( Washington Post). Yes, another day with two major bombings in Iraq. Steven Lee Myers and Timothy Williams have already filed " Two Suicide Bombers Kill at Least 60 in Baghdad" online at the New York Times: Friday's
bombings occurred near the shrine of Imam Musa al-Kadhim, one of the
twelve imams of Shiite Islam, in the Kadhimiya neighborhood of Baghdad.
Like the previous bombings, the attacks appeared to target Shiites in
particular.An interior
ministry official said that most of those killed appeared to be
Iranians making pilgrimages to the shrine. Two suicide bombers blew
themselves up as they mingled with crowds gathered in front of
checkpoints at the main entrance to the shrine, the official said,
speaking on condition of anonymity, because he was not authorized to
speak publicly. In addition to those killed, at least 125 others were
wounded.Please note that the Times article
also has audio by Steven Lee Myers. February saw an increase in
violence, March saw an increase in violence and it appears April's
final figures will also show an increase. Yesterday's bombings may have
claimed as many as 90 lives [see Jomana Karadsheh and Cal Perry's " Bombings kill nearly 90 in Iraq" (CNN), for example]. Aws Qusay, Zahra Hosseinian, Michael Christie and Louise Ireland (Reuters) observe:
"The attack was the deadliest single incident in Iraq since 63 people
died in a truck bomb blast in Baghdad on June 17 last year, and came
amid growing concerns that a recent drop in violence might turn out to
have been just a temporary lull." *** From Paul Krugman's " Reclaiming Ameirca's Soul" ( New York Times) arguing for a government investigation into the torture: Others, I suspect, would rather not revisit those years because they don't want to be reminded of their own sins of omission.For
the fact is that officials in the Bush administration instituted
torture as a policy, misled the nation into a war they wanted to fight
and, probably, tortured people in the attempt to extract "confessions"
that would justify that war. And during the march to war, most of the
political and media establishment looked the other way.This
section bracketed with "***" is added after the entry originally
posted. Krugman's column's worth reading in full; however, that section
especially goes to the link between the illegal war and torture. ********** Turning to public television NOW on PBS examines rape in "Justice Delayed:" A
terrible statistic: one in six women will be a victim of rape or
attempted rape in her lifetime. But an even more shocking reality: A
backlog in processing rape kits--crucial evidence in arresting violent
predators--is delaying and sometimes denying justice for tens of
thousands of American women.NOW
travels to Los Angeles County to investigate why it has the largest
known rape kit backlog in the country--over 12,000 kits are sitting
untested in police storage facilities. An internal audit found that
more than 50 of these cases have exceeded the 10-year statute of
limitations on rape."The
evidence that we're talking about represents human lives," Los Angeles
Controller Laura Chick tells NOW. "Those are lives stacked up on the
shelves waiting for justice."NOW
talks with courageous rape survivors and law enforcement experts for
insight and answers in this disturbing but important report. Are these
women being victimized twice?Related Links and ResourcesRAINN: What should I do if I am sexually assaulted?, advice from the Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network on what to do immediately after an attack.NOW: In Your State: Rape Counseling ResourcesHuman Rights Watch: Testing Justice, a report on the rape kit backlog in Los Angeles city and county.An Abuse, Rape, and Domestic Violence Aid and Resource Collection, offers extensive information, legal advice, and FAQ's on domestic violence, stalking, and sexual harassment.Feminist.com: Anti-violence Resources, offers support for women, resource contact information, and opportunities for activism in anti-violence campaigns.Office for Victims of Crime Resource Center, research, statistics, and information from U.S. Department of Justice.Peace Over Violence,
an organization dedicated to "building healthy relationships, families
and communities free from sexual, domestic and interpersonal violence."Propublica: As Rape Victims Wait, Money for DNA Testing Goes UnusedWitness Justice, provides support and advocacy for victims of trauma by helping victims find safety, counseling, and ways to gain legal rights.NOW on PBS begins airing on many PBS stations tonight (check local listings) as does PBS' Washington Week which finds Gwen sitting around the table with Dan Balz ( Washington Post), Joan Biskupic ( USA Today), Jeanne Cummings ( Rona Barrett's DC) and Mark Mazetti ( New York Times). Meanwhile, also airing tonight on many PBS stations, Bill Moyers Journal
tells you "You Should Know This Man." What man? Does it matter? It's
always men with Bill Moyers and tonight he serves up another show with
all male guests. Did they really almost call Bill's latest series For Those Who Dreamed Of Spying On Bill In The Locker Room?
By the way, FAIR -- as Extra!, CounterSpin or Fair -- the allged media
watchdog will never call out Bill Moyers Journal. Remember they lecture
about standards except when it comes to their pets like Bill, David
Schuster, Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann. The only real media
watchdog working today -- no, not Danny Schechter who has just become
sad -- is Bob Somerby at The Daily Howler. Bob Somerby noted yesterday: To all appearances, her network--the historically gruesome MSNBC—has stopped making her transcripts available.Shorter MS: Please stop talking?As
we type on Thursday morning, none of the transcripts from Maddow’s
shows have been posted on Nexis this week. Every Countdown transcript
has been posted—in timely, next-morning fashion. Ditto every Hardball
program, every Ed Show broadcast.Transcripts from all Fox programs are there. So too with CNN.On
MSNBC's own site, transcripts are being posted--very, very slowly. The
network loftily tells viewers this: "Transcripts will be available
within 24 hours of airing, except for Friday shows" (just click here).
But only Monday’s night's transcripts are currently posted, as we
approach Thursday noon. We're not sure when these transcripts were
posted, but they hadn’t been posted as of last night. (There is some
indication that they were posted a short time ago, late on Thursday
morning.)On Nexis,
everything is there--except Maddow. It’s hard to avoid a certain
thought: Maddow has received some criticism in the past two weeks, even
in the New York Times. Her network has responded by making it harder to
report the things she says.If so, it would echo a stunt
pulled repeatedly at Air America Radio even when they flipped over to
'subscriptions' and 'subscribers' were supposed to have access to the
archives but somehow, when Rachel flubbed on air big time, her shows
never showed up for the archives. Also on PBS (and starts airing tonight on many PBS stations, check local listings), Bonnie Erbe sits down with Kim Gandy, Amanda Carpenter and Avis Jones-DeWeever to discuss this week's news on To The Contrary. And turning to broadcast TV, Sunday CBS' 60 Minutes offers: Vice President Biden In this profile of Joe Biden, Lesley Stahl
spends three days with the vice president and also interviews his wife,
Dr. Jill Biden, and his boss, President Barack Obama. | Watch Video
Powered By Coal Coal is America's most abundant and cheap fossil fuel, but burning it happens to be the biggest contributor to global warming. Scott Pelley reports. | Watch Video
The Orphanage
Ivory is selling for nearly $1,000 a tusk, causing more elephants to be
slaughtered and more orphaned babies in need of special care provided
by an elephant orphanage in Kenya. Bob Simon reports. | Watch VideoOn today's Diane Rehm Show
(begins broadcasting at 10:00 am EST, streaming archived audio is up 15
minutes after the program ends), 4 men and 2 women join Diane to
discuss the week's news. For the first hour Slate and CBS News' John Dickerson, Naftali Bendavid ( Wall St. Journal) and Karen Tumulty ( Time magazine); for the second hour, Karen DeYoung ( Washington Post), Daniel Dombey ( Finanical Times of London) and Yochi Dreazen ( Wall St. Journal). The second hour is when Iraq is supposed to be addressed, FYI. Also on NPR today, Michael and Kevin Bacon, the Bacon Brothers, perform live: Live Friday: The Bacon Brothers In ConcertListen Online At Noon ET  courtesy of the artistThe Bacon Brothers. WXPN, April 23, 2009 -
Long before Kevin Bacon became a movie star and pop-culture phenomenon,
and before his older brother Michael became a sought-after film and TV
composer, the Philadelphia-based duo was collaborating under the name
The Bacon Brothers. Return to this space at noon ET Friday to hear the
pair perform live in concert from WXPN and World Cafe Live in Philadelphia. The
Bacons have been writing music as a team since childhood, but didn't
begin working together formally until 1995. After Michael Bacon
established his music career with Columbia Records in the '60s -- and
released several solo albums on CBS Records in the '70s -- he turned to
collaborating with Kevin. Their chemistry has long been evident in
their rootsy rock 'n' roll songs, with their strong elements of
alt-country, folk, blues and Americana. The duo just released its sixth
full-length album, New Year's Day, on which the Bacons incorporate jazzy blues and reggae into their sound. The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com. iraqthe washington posternesto londonoaziz alwanthe new york timestimothy williamssteven lee myersjomana karadshehcal perrycnnaws qusayzahra hosseinianmichel christielouise irelandkevin baconbacon brothersmichael bacon paul krugman
Posted at 07:11 am by thecommonills
Permalink
Yesterday's bombing and the press
Afterward,
a tattered black abaya stuck to a wall on the first-floor balcony of an
adjacent apartment building, singed by the explosion. The sidewalk was
littered with bags of macaroni and loose leaf tea that had been part of
the giveaway. Flies swarmed on bits of human flesh.
One woman sat on
the ground, wailing as she beat the sidewalk with the palms of her
hands. She said she had lost her husband, her son, her sister and six
grandchildren.The above is from Timothy Williams' " 80 Are Killed in 3 Suicide Bombings in Iraq" in this morning's New York Times
(inside the paper but the front page's top and main photo (by Christoph
Bangert) is of a women in Baghdad (a child standing far behind her)
after the bombing (which the photo caption says "killed 75" -- probably
due to the front page being set sooner than inside the paper). Ernesto
Londono and Aziz Alwan cover it in " Two Blasts Kill More Than 80 In Iraq" ( Washington Post) and they quote a victim of the Diyala Province bombing: "While
the waiter was serving us food, a powerful explosion took place and the
restaurant turned black," said Iranian pilgrim Kadhumi Sadiq, 64. "I
suffered burns on my head, chest and hands." In terms of the bombings, the Post
has the better story and one of the main reasons is due to the fact
that you have two bombers, one allegedly female, one allegedly male.
Why is Timothy Williams and the New York Times
so obsessed with getting underneath women's clothing? "Once she reached
the center of the crowd, she set off the blast, with explosives that
the police believe she hid under her flowing clothes." They continue to
do that with women. Obviously the male in Diyala Province (or alleged
male) wasn't strutting around holding a bomb in his hands. But it's
only with women that the paper gets all caught up in fear (it's fear of
the vagina -- fear of what's not 'outside' the body, what's hidden and
cloaked! -- and it's very childish and needs to stop). If you want to
see how people without sexual hangups cover the bombers, look no
further than Liz Sly and Usama Redha's " Iraq suicide bombings kill 79" ( Los Angeles Times): Both
attacks were carried out by bombers wearing suicide vests, and both
seemed aimed at Shiite Muslim civilians. The Baghdad blast, which
killed 31 and wounded 51, targeted displaced people lining up for food
parcels being distributed by Iraqi police in the mostly Shiite
neighborhood of Karada.This is not a new problem for the Times of New York and we've noted it before -- see " Little boys need their jollies, papers indulge them" so the only real question is when will the editors step in as they already should have? A visitor e-mails to insist that we should note Tom A. Peter ( Christian Science Monitor)
more and that yesterday's snapshot "suffers from Mr. Peter's omission."
That would be the day, Buddy Holly. The 'tragic' omission was " New bombings in Iraq steal thunder from top insurgent's arrest"
and the headline reflects the text which reflects the gullible nature
of Peter -- a hallmark of his writing and why we don't rush to him as
our must-read. The arrest or 'arrest' is being met with skepticism
because no real details are being provided and it appears to be a p.r.
distraction on the part of Nouri al-Maliki to minimize the shock over
the bombings. It may be a genuine arrest and may have really taken
place yesterday (a lot of their for-show arrests turn out to be weeks
old before announced when they need to 'combat' negative news in the
daily cycle) but the reality is that al-Maliki's government has
repeatedly played this card claiming to have arrested this same man
over and over. The Little Boy Who Cried Wolf is not a forgotten text or
part of the Gnostic Gospels. We're all generally aware of that story
and we know what happens when you cry wolf (a lesson Scott Horton may
be learning currently). Peter swallows it. The e-mailer sold Peter's
article on that and on his "outstanding report on the the Awakening
Council." We may work some of the "Awakening" Councils into today's
snapshot but it's truly surprising that this is included: The
US had made significant inroads against AQI by building and funding a
Sunni paramilitary group known as the Sons of Iraq (also referred to as
the Awakening). But members of the group -- which at one point included
more than 100,000 members -- have become disgruntled in recent months
over the arrests of key leaders and a delay in payment from the
Shiite-led Iraqi government, which has been in charge of their
activities since late last year."If
you continue arresting, harassing, and shunning Awakening types -- many
of whom were originally derived from the insurgency -- you're really
playing with fire," says Wayne White, an adjunct scholar at the Middle
East Institute in Washington and the former deputy director of the
State Department's office of Near East intelligence.Earlier
this week, a senior AQI leader called on Awakening members to return to
the terrorist organization. Other reports indicate that, amid growing
neglect from the Iraqi government, AQI is having increasing success
unravelling the community-policing organization.. . . and a chief bit of news isn't. From yesterday's snapshot: 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.Sahwa,
"Sons Of Iraq," "Awakenings" -- all the same thing. Point, if a Sahwa
was assassinated on Thursday and I was writing about "Awakenings" for a
newspaper, I'd be rather embarrassed that I somehow missed that. We do
note Jane and if I know she's got a potential error (it happens to
everyone -- but we've noted it for her once), I do point that out in a
snapshot. That said, Jane's work is solid and we're happy to highlight
her. When Sam Dagher was at the Christian Science Monitor, we noted him frequently. (He's now at the New York Times.) It's not an aversion to that paper, it's an aversion to Tom A. Peter. I've called him out, Ruth's
called him out. There are just too many mistakes repeatedly and so he's
not our go-to on Iraq. [C.I. note: Jane Arraf is "Jane." Sorry. She was
formerly with CNN and now reports on Iraq for the Christian Science Monitor.] Speaking of CSM, if you watch or listen to Democracy Now!
today and feel, "What a waste of time," it is. But that's because
people either don't know the story or they're interested in covering
for a CBS News-er who was fired and took refuge at CSM
and at NPR. He's a 'hero'! Some insisted that in real time. How can you
talk about the Church Committee and not mention the Pike Report? Which
requires you tell the truth about a 'journalistic hero.' Amy and Juan
manage to avoid it and him. He's the one that got the Pike
Congressional Committee's report published -- in the Village Voice.
Remember? Jogging memories here? And he was fired not for that. CBS
News did say it was their property (the report) but he was fired not
just for that but for also lying and accusing another CBS reporter of
sneaking the report to the Village Voice. The other reporter was Lesley Stahl and she was dating the Voice's
Aaron Latham at the time (they are married today). When 'brave' Danny
Schorr felt CBS was closing in on who leaked the report, he began a
whisper campaign (he admits to telling one superior -- it was much more
than that) against Lesley and how she was dating Aaron and Aaron works
for the Voice and, golly, you don't think Lesley . . . . Daniel Schorr passed the report to the Village Voice.
He threw away any claim he had to bravery (and that report needed to be
published) when he tried to implicate someone else to save his own ass. Amy Goodman wastes everyone's time quoting a Sy Hersh write up for the New York Times on the Church Committee when she should have been quoting the other report which the Village Voice
ran in full. But more and more, it appears she is completely ignorant
of the Pike Report. Why should she have been quoting Pike? It's less
explored, more damning and she had on Frank Church's widow to discuss
the Church report. She needed to round out the discussion, not hit the
same note over and over. And Frank Church's widow embarrasses
herself which is all the reason to bring up the Pike report and
establish that Frank Church's widow is not the last word on what
America did or needs to do. We've mentioned the Pike Report
before -- many times -- and if I'm looking for an e-mail. Found it, JS
e-mailed March 19th to insist we were wrong about the Pike Report
because Nightprowlkitty, at The Daily Toilet Scrubber, wrote "I Got Hit by a Swinging Pendulum" (March 9, 2009) wrote: The
Church Committee, for all its important investigation, stopped short of
a full exposure of CIA activities. The Pike Committee in the House of
Representatives went further, called the CIA a rogue, exposed its
contacts with the press, and a result there report was suppressed, and
remained so to this very day.Uh, no. They attempted to
suppress it and all the known copies were destroyed except for the copy
CBS News had. CBS was deciding what to do and looking like it was going
to sit on it when Daniel Schorr began exploring publishing it in book
form and finally decided on passing it over to the Village Voice. The Voice
published it in full so there's really no reason to claim it is
"suppressed" "to this very day" and Nightprowlkitty might feel "I'd
like to see our civil liberties watchdog types call for the final
declassification of the Pike Committee report" but I believe you can
still buy reprints from the Village Voice. (You can certainly go to the rolled film at libraries.) The following community sites updated last night: The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com. iraqthe new york timestimothy williamsthe washington posternesto londonoaziz alwanmcclatchy newspaperssahar issa
the los angeles timesliz slyusama redhalesley stahltom a. peterdaniel schorrthe christian science monitorkats korner sex and politics and screeds and attitude thomas friedman is a great man the daily jot cedrics big mix mikey likes it ruths report sickofitradlz oh boy it never ends
Posted at 07:09 am by thecommonills
Permalink
Thursday, April 23, 2009
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 loveThere's a war going onSo I'm holding my gun with a strap and a gloveAnd I'm writing a song about warAnd it goesNa na na na na na naI hate the warNa na na na na na naI hate the warNa na na na na na naI hate the warOh 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." The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com. iraqi hate the warthe balletcnnjohn kingthe cbs evening news with katie courickatie couriccbs newsdeborah haynes
Posted at 08:52 pm by thecommonills
Permalink
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 stan dards 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.
Shootings?
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 5th Soapbox 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
|
Posted at 03:55 pm by thecommonills
Permalink
US military announces a death, Iraq bombings claim 60 lives today
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 and Elaine 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."_______________________washingtonpost.com: Harsh Tactics Readied Before Their Approval (Post, April 22)The above is from " Harsh Interrogations: Could There Be Prosecutions? Techniques Could Backfire and Might Violate U.S. and International Law," an online chat at the Washington Post
yesterday hosted by Stephen Vladeck, Constitutional Law professor at
American University. Those interested in the topic can see Ben
Pershing's " On Interrogation Policies, Obama Stuck Looking 'Backwards'" ( Washington Post)
which provides a strong snapshot of the various arguments and
statements being made by various officials and former officials. We'll
also note this from a report by Samira Simone (CNN): 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.Iraq's Foreign Ministry notes: Foreign
Minister Hoshyar Zebari received in his office on 21st. Apr .2009 the
British Ambassador in Baghdad Mr. Christopher Prentice upon his requestDuring
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. And the Kurdistan Regional Government notes: 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. Read the press release issued by the All-Party Parliamentary Group for the Kurdistan RegionSee also Kurdistan - The other side of Iraq, by Tobias Ellwood MPAnd Media Channel notes:  |
| | Happy 10th Birthday MediaChannel.org! 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? Click here to donate $10 per month, or click here to make a one-time Happy 10th Birthday donation of your choosing. IT IS "GOOD NEWS, BAD NEWS" TIME AGAIN! 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. Will you reciprocate and show us that you care? Thank you, Danny Schechter
Rory O'Connor
David DeGraw
Cherie Welch | |
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com. iraqthe washington poststephen vladeckben pershingsamira simonemichael christiejon boyleal jazeeramedia channellike maria said paz kats korner mikey likes itruths report
Posted at 06:24 am by thecommonills
Permalink
LAT covers the ongoing femicide in Iraq
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.The following community sites updated yesterday: The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com. iraqthe los angeles timestina susman caesar ahmedthe new york timestimothy williamsthe boston globelike maria said paz kats korner sex and politics and screeds and attitude thomas friedman is a great man the daily jot cedrics big mix mikey likes it ruths report sickofitradlz oh boy it never ends
Posted at 06:22 am by thecommonills
Permalink
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
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 regiment from 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. Shootings? Corpses? 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: 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.
Sign a proxy card demanding that Ken Lewis be fired, and that Bank of America support a fair finance system for us all. 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.
Sign the petition to fire Bank of America's CEO and set a new direction for Wall Street.
Posted at 03:55 pm by thecommonills
Permalink
'When I went to the door, I knew . . .'
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." We'll close with the opening independent journalist Dahr Jamail's latest, " Attacks Commence" ( ZNet): 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 e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com. iraqgregg k. kakesakobetsy lambertsteven mayerjulianne pepitoneben rooneycnnthe new york timestimothy williamstareq maherleona liuerin guerradahr jamail
Posted at 07:06 am by thecommonills
Permalink
Torture, Iraq, Abu Ghraib
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 5th Soapbox
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. Brian Knowlton's " Report Gives New Detail on Approval of Brutal Techniques" covers the story in today's New York Times: 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 report 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 Karpinski was punished
(administratively) for things she had not done, Miller walked away
scott free.
Jonathan S. Landay (McClatchy Newspapers) directs attention to a key point in the report: 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.And we're closing with US Senator Carl Levin's " Senate Floor Statement on Report of the Inquiry into the Treatment of Detainees in U.S. Custody" (in full): 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. The following community sites updated last night: The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com. iraqthe new york timesbrian knowltonmcclatchy newspapersjonathan s. landaycindy sheehanann wrightcbs newsthe early showlike maria said paz kats korner sex and politics and screeds and attitude thomas friedman is a great man the daily jot cedrics big mix mikey likes it ruths report sickofitradlz oh boy it never ends
Posted at 07:00 am by thecommonills
Permalink
|
|
|
|
|
|
