Isaiah's latest The World Today Just Nuts "Hard Work." Barack, with an avocado mask, explains, "It's been a very busy 100 days. There was Leno, 60 Minutes, two world tours. I'm like Madonna but with less drive, less talent and no penis. Meow, kiddies."

the world today just nuts
comic
hard work
barack obama
the common ills

In Iraq today, the treaty masquerading as a Status Of Forces Agreement turns out not to have any teeth and Iraqi Christians are targeted again.

But we'll get to those in a bit. Thursday and Friday saw Iraq rocked by bombings and approximately 150 people killed in the big bombings alone. Now this followed an earlier attack on a military base where Iraq stone-walled the press (as did the US military) and the reporters let the story go, there was no real effort (then or since) to find out how many people were injured and how many people died. This time al-Maliki needed a different distraction and someone appears to have seized on the 'bright' idea of Abu Omar al-Baghdadi. From Thursday's snapshot:


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.

Tim Cocks (Reuters) reports, "Iraq's prime minister said on Sunday he could confirm that authorities had arrested Abu Omar al-Baghdadi, an al-Qaeda ally who western officials and security analysts have long suspected does not really exist." The casual observer may say fine. Those paying attention, however, will scour Cocks' report for mention of DNA. DNA entered the picture when al-Maliki's claims were met with skeptiscm last week. At which point Nouri began insisting it was al-Baghdadi and they were testing the DNA. Today al-Maliki says it is al-Baghdadi but forgets to mention the DNA?

They're just there to try and make the people free,
But the way that they're doing it, it don't seem like that to me.
Just more blood-letting and misery and tears
That this poor country's known for the last twenty years,
And the war drags on.
-- words and lyrics by Mick Softly (available on Donovan's Fairytale)

Last Sunday, ICCC's number of US troops killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war was 4274 and tonight? 4278. In some of the violence reported over the weekend . . .

Laith Hammudi and Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) report a Mosul home invasion in which a police officer was shot dead and, dropping back to last night, 2 Iraqi soldiers shot dead in Mosul. Reuters notes a Baghdad roadside bombing claimed the life of 1 police officer, 1 person shot dead outside his Mosul home and 2 brothers shot dead in Mosul.

That was not the only violence. Laith Hammoudi and Hussein Kadhim explain the US raided a home in Kut (Wasit Province) "at dawn," during which two adults -- one male and one female -- were killed by the US military who also made 4 arrests (Iraqi police) or 6 arrests (US military) were made including the arrest of an Iraqi police officer. BBC reports Nouri al-Maliki is claiming Iraqis were not informed and didn't give permission; therefore the raid was illegal and a violation of Iraq's soveriegnty. al-Maliki is calling for those responsible for the two deaths to be turned over to Iraqi officials. Repeating, al-Maliki is calling for US service members to be turned over to Iraqi officials for a trial. We'll come back to that, here's BBC:


The BBC's Jim Muir in Baghdad says it is the most serious dispute between the US and Iraq since the agreement came into force at the start of the year.
One senior local official said the actions had rendered the pact "meaningless".

Imagine that, the treaty "meaningless"? Now who could have seen that coming? (Anyone paying attention.) Reuters reports Kut was the scene of a crow of "hundreds" protesting the deaths today:

As a funeral procession made its way through Kut, carrying the cloth-draped coffins of the two people killed in the raid, protesters shouted angry slogans and demanded the release of the seized men, calling Americans "criminal occupiers."
"We condemn this horrific incident. Innocent people were killed and the city is now very tense," said Latif al-Tarfa, governor of Wasit province.

Here is the US military statement in full on the raid:

Coalition forces arrested six suspected members of the JAM Special Groups and Promise Day Brigade and killed one suspected network criminal early Sunday in Al Kut.
In an operation fully coordinated and approved by the Iraqi government, Coalition forces targeted a network financier, who is also responsible for smuggling weapons into the country to support JAM Special Groups and Promise Day Brigade.
Coalition forces approached a residence believed to be the location of the suspect, as forces approached the residence an individual with a weapon came out of the home. Forces assessed him to be hostile, and they engaged the man, killing him. During the engagement, a woman in the area moved into the line of fire and was also struck by gunfire. A Coalition forces medic treated her on site, but she died of her wounds before she could be evacuated.
Forces apprehended six other JAM Special Groups and Promise Day Brigade associates without incident.
The Government of Iraq has requested the temporary assistance of US forces for the purpose of supporting Iraq in its effort to maintain security and stability, including cooperation in the conduct of operations against terrorist and criminal groups, and remnants of the former regime.

I hate it when pedestrians toss themselves in front of gunfire, don't you? Those people will do anything for attention! Seriously, that's got to be the lamest excuse offered. It is much more likely that two civilians were killed. Two innocents were slaughtered. And let's be real clear that will happen when someone's too chicken s**t to order daytime raids. I'm not talking about the ones on the ground in that raid, I'm talking about the ones who ordered it.

By its very nature, a nighttime raid, when people are sleeping and it is dark, is going to provide the potential for many more deaths. I don't buy the release, I think it's insulting to the Iraqi people and I think the night raids need to be ended immediately. It's as embarrassing as Hillary or Barack having to sneak into the country. The US military can't do a raid during the day? I've never bouth the waves of Operation Happy Talk but after six years on the ground in Iraq, the US military can't do daytime raids? That's really telling.

In terms of al-Maliki and his latest crackpot remarks. Those are crackpot remarks and the puppet's forgetting who pulls the strings. Don't expect him to walk through the December elections with an easy smile. By remaining in the country -- occupying it -- this is Barack's plan because he adopted it and continued it -- and by letting the US installed puppet al-Maliki think he can make certain calls, it was only a matter of time before he'd call for the heads of US soldiers. It's why Barack should have immediately started the withdrawal. After he kissed Nouri's ass last July (and that's what he did, he smacked his lips to Nouri's butt), everyone familiar with the meeting knew that if Barack was sworn in, there would be problems because al-Maliki sees Barack as weak. (And that was evident by the patronizing remarks Nouri was making about helping to 'educate' Barack on the Iraq situation.) So now the madman (George W. Bush) is gone and Nouri thinks he has a pushover to push around. So he's demanding that US soldiers be turned over to him.

That is offensive and it's also stupid. US soldiers involved in that incident did not order themselves to go on a house raid. If Nouri wants to demand justice, he needs to demand the officers who ordered that raid are turned over. It's doubtful he'll do that but he'd love to have two American citizens in his court and use them in some sort of throwback to feeding Christians to the Lions in Rome. That's why the troops needed to leave for their sake. It was important for Iraqis that US troops leave for a number of reasons -- including to take back their country (and take it back from a US installed puppet). But for US troops, the reason they needed to get the hell out was al-Maliki stopped listening near the end of 2006. He has delusions and that's long been noted. The man is paranoid and any doctor would diagnose him as such. That's been obvious for three years. And he sits on billions, which has concerned US officials, that he won't spend. He's not enhancing his own lifestyle to the degree you'd expect for someone sitting on all that money. So why has he been sitting on it? And what's been obvious for over a year now to US diplomatic staff in Iraq is that Nouri's power mad.

That sort-of finally leaks out to a small degree on the front page of the New York Times today where Sam Dagher's "Iraq Resists Please by U.S. To Placate Hussein's Party" runs. You learn that the US and England visited Jordan earlier this month in an attempt to convince "Saddam Hussein's top generals" to return to Iraq (and this followed the officials attending a year's worth of meetings between these exiles and reps from Nouri's government). Not for prosecution. To help stabalize the country. They refused. They don't trust Nouri and they don't trust him because of his actions and his many public statements. Dagher notes:


On March 28, Mr. Maliki's Shiite-led government arrested a prominent Sunni leader on charges of heading a secret armed wing of Mr. Hussein’s Baath Party. A week later, the prime minister accused Baathists of orchestrating car bombings that killed more than 40 people. On Monday, he lashed out again, saying the Baath Party was "filled with hate from head to toe."

That's why it's a sort-of. al-Maliki's been making statements (and taking actions) for months and months. Dropping back to March only is a sort-of. It's no one's fault but the US government. They installed the corrupt al-Maliki knowing he was corrupt but they thought they could control him. The de-de-Baathification? That became a 'benchmark'. And so what?

What was the point of those 'benchmarks'? They were supposed to allow progress claims to be evaluated. And they were supposed to prevent blood and money being tossed at a puppet government which did nothing. But Nouri didn't do a damn thing. None of the benchmarks took place in 2007. The year they were supposed to. (The provincial elections 14 of Iraq's 18 provinces held in January were supposed to take place in 2007, for example.) There was no effort by the US Congress -- don't just blame Bush here -- to say, "These benchmarks aren't being met. The deal was, Iraqi did A, B, C, D, E . . . and we continued the funding. We are cutting off the funding." That never happened and Nouri signed off on these benchmarks.

He signed off on them and then he blew them off.

Now Nouri, who loves his show trials, is calling for the heads of US soldiers? That's why the minute Barack was sworn in, he should have done what he promised on the campaign trail, moved to immediately begin withdrawal. He didn't. And now the US troops will not only have to deal with the chaos and violence they had to in 2008, they're also now going to have to know that any mission their commanders send them on could get them tossed in an Iraqi prison.

That was one of the areas of concern with violence reported today. Another is the continued assualt on Iraqi Christians. Jomana Karadsheh (CNN) reports Kirkuk was the location where 2 women were "murdered in their home" tonight (their throats were slit) and the location where a father and three sons were shot in their home. All attacked were Christians. AFP says the father, Yussef Shaba, was shot dead and two sons (Bassel and Samer) were left injured and they identify the mother in the first attack as Mouna Latif Daoud and the other woman as her (unnamed) daughter.

New content at Third:

Truest statement of the week
Truest statement of the week II
A note to our readers
Editorial: They enlisted, they embedded
TV: The Death of Television
Matthis soars
Cliff Cornell faces court-martial on Tuesday
TV roundtable
Chris Hill breaks his first promise
Mailbag
2009's Jason Leopold
Why does Barbara Ehrenreich hate women?
The Dumbness Hurts
Highlights


Isaiah's latest goes up after this. Pru notes "Obama and the CIA 'mistakes'" (Great Britain's Socialist Worker):

On a visit to CIA headquarters, President Barack Obama stated it was time to admit “mistakes” and “move forward” – by promising CIA agents would not face legal action over their involvement in torture and adding “you should be proud to be members of the CIA”.
This followed his decision to release memos detailing CIA torture that were requested under freedom of information legislation.
The memos revealed, among other things, that two people were subjected to a form of near-drowning, known as waterboarding, a total of 266 times.
The CIA defended waterboarding, claiming it was only used for two two-hour sessions a day. In each session detainees suffered effective drowning six times for between 10 and 40 seconds.
The CIA interrogation programme, which former president George Bush ruled lawful, also included slamming prisoners into walls, shackling them in uncomfortable positions and sleep deprivation.
Despite Obama’s pledge, pressure is growing for legal action against those who both authorised and carried out torture.
© Socialist Worker (unless otherwise stated). You may republish if you include an active link to the original.
Share this story on:
Delicious Digg reddit Facebook StumbleUpon
If you found this article useful please help us maintain SW by » making a donation.
» comment on article » email article » printable version

The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.

iraq
and the war drags on
donovan
the new york times
sam dagher
laith hammoudi
mcclatchy newspapers
hussein kadhim
jim muir
the world today just nuts
the third estate sunday review

Today the US military announced: "TIKRIT, Iraq -- A Multi-National Division – North Soldier died from injuries sustained following an attack on a patrol in the Kirkuk Province of northern Iraq, April 25. The name of the deceased is being withheld pending notification of next of kin and release by the Department of Defense." The announcement brings to 4278 the number of US service members killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war. This is the fourth death of a US service member announced this week and the 15th for the month thus far -- already putting April's death toll ahead of March's.

In other violence, Sahar Issa and Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) report the following bombings: 2 roadside bombings outside of Kirkuk which left five police officers injured and, dropping back to Friday, a Diyala Province roadside bombing which claimed 2 lives, a Nineveh roadside bombing which claimed the life of 1 Iraqi solider and left and woman wounded, 2 Kirkuk roadside bombings which left five police officers injured, and a Nineveh Province roadside bombing targeting Sheikh Medlool al Mutlag's son who was killed in the bombing. Shootings? Reuters notes 7 pilgrims were wounded in a Balad shooting, 2 Iraqi soldiers were shot dead in Mosul, 1 police officer (off duty) was shot dead in Mosul and a second one was shot dead in a Mosul home invasion.


Friday US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton flew to Kuwait. The same day US Ambassador Chris Hill arrived in Baghdad (though no one wants to talk about that). Today the Secretary went to Baghdad for a brief visit.




The US State Dept issued a statement when Clinton arrived in Baghdad noting she would leave through Kuwait but would "meet with Prime Minister al-Maliki, President Talibani, Deputy President al-Hashimi, Foreign Minister Zebari, and other senior leaders in the Government of Iraq. They will discuss issues of common concern including security, stability operations and assistance. Secretary Clinton will also meet with Ambassador Christopher Hill and Multinational Force-Iraq Commander Odierno to discuss the Administration's new direction and change of mission for U.S. forces in Iraq and hold a roundtable with Iraqi women." In addition she was scheduled to "participate in a townhalll with Iraqi citizens who work day in and day out with Provincial Reconstruction Teams, to hear from and discuss with them what they are achieving as well as issues facing the Iraqi people."

The townhall has taken place, we'll note this question and response:

QUESTION: (Via interpreter.) First of all, I would like to welcome you, Madame Secretary, here. I work as an editor-in-chief of an Iraqi newspaper. The United States made a decision to topple down the previous regime in Iraq and now, there is a new way of democracy in Iraq. We strongly believe that true freedom and true democracy will not exist unless Iraqi women will enjoy true freedom and true democracy.
My question to you, Madame Secretary, is this: What is it that you are going to provide Iraqi women in order to empower them, in order to advance them? Especially that you represent the Democratic Party in the United States that seized power. Thank you.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you very much. I believe strongly that supporting and empowering women is good for families, it’s good for communities, and it’s good for countries. I know here in Iraq that women have voted in very large numbers in the elections, and that women have committed to supporting this new democracy through their votes and their actions. And so I believe that Iraq will be much stronger if women are educated and empowered to participate on behalf of themselves and their families, particularly their children, as Iraq makes a new future.
Before coming to this town hall, I met with a group of war widows who are struggling to support themselves and their children. And they asked me to talk with the Iraqi Government about helping women, particularly widows, have more opportunities, more jobs, and more support so that they can take better care of themselves.
So I will strongly urge not only the Iraqi Government, but the Iraqi people to be sure that women are given the rights and support they need not only to make better lives for themselves, but to help their country. When I met with the women and looked around the room, I could not tell what group they came from or what their background was. They were all united in the loss of a husband and the difficulties they faced for their children. And I think it’s important for the United States to be a strong partner with Iraqi women, and I intend to do that.

There was not time for all the questions to be asked and Hillary promised that she would do another townhall on her next visit to Iraq (she also invited those participating in the townhall to a later press conference she'd be doing). On the supposed draw down, she declared, "Now, we will be working closely with the Iraqi Government and the Iraqi security forces as we withdraw our combat troops. But we need to be sure that all of you are supporting a strong nonsectarian security force. And we will work to try to help make that happen, but I think that the ultimate answer is what the people of Iraq demand. And what I have seen over the last several years is a very strong desire on the part of most Iraqis to have a united, secure, stable, peaceful Iraq. That is our goal. We’re not going to tell you how to resolve internal political issues. You have to decide that. But we will continue to work very, very hard to give you the tools to make sure that you have a secure country." Photo below (and above) by Eric W. Brooks of the US State Dept. In the photo below, Hillary is meeting with the top US commander in Iraq, General Ray Odierno.



The press conference she invited them to was with Hoshyar Zebari, the country's Foreign Minister. Liz Sly and Caesar Ahmed (Los Angeles Times) quote her stating at that conference of the bombings on Thursday and Friday which have resulted in approximately 150 deaths, "These are tragic, terrible events, but they don't reflect any diversion from the security progress that has been made." Mary Beth Sheridan (Washington Post) notes of the flight into Baghdad, "Once on board, staff and reporters grabbed sweaty body armor from a mound in the back of the aircraft, and practiced strapping on helmets. " Corinne Reilly's "Clinton pays surprise visit to Baghdad" (McClatchy Newspapers) reports:

Clinton flew to Iraq from Kuwait on Saturday morning aboard a C-17 military cargo jet. She was scheduled to return to Kuwait the same day.
Her visit included meetings with Gen. Ray Odierno, the top U.S. commander here, and several Iraqi leaders, including Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki, President Jalal Talabani and Vice President Tariq al Hashimi, the State Department said.
Accompanying Clinton for much of the day was Christopher Hill, the new U.S. ambassador to Iraq who arrived here Friday.
Clinton said that she and Odierno discussed the recent spate of attacks and that he agrees they should not change U.S. strategy in Iraq.


The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.


iraq
the los angeles times
liz sly
tina susman
caesar ahmed
the washington post
mary beth sheridan
corinne reilly
mcclatchy newspapers
sahar issa
hussein kadhim

A deadly outburst of violence appears to be overwhelming Iraq's police and military forces as American troops hand over greater control of cities across the country to them. On Friday, twin suicide bombings killed at least 60 people outside Baghdad's most revered Shiite Shrine, push the death toll in one 24-hour period to nearly 150.

So opens Steven Lee Myers and Sam Dagher's "Storm of Violence In Iraq Strains Its Security Forces" which the New York Times actually determines to be worthy of the front page. The article summarizes views/narratives such as the recent bombings are an attempt to stroke sectarian violence. Due to the Iranian pilgrims being killed, that country has closed its border with Iraq. Nouri al-Maliki, puppet of the occupation wants a do-nothing commission to make it appear he's on-the-job and he's also ordered the wo responsible for the security of the regions to be "detained" (arrested in plain English). Among those blamed for the bombings are the US. An unidentified "senior national police officer" states the US "gave the terrorists motives to reactive their sleeper cells" by announcing a draw down. That doesn't make any sense (nor does it make sense for the reporters to use SITE as a resource -- when the organization leader goes on 60 Minutes and gives a phony name and identity, that organization should never be taken seriously again and, with a working press, SITE would be kicked to the curb but there are no standards anymore). If the "sleeper cells" were inspired by the draw down thinking, "This is our chance to grab the country!"? They'd wait until the draw down was over. They'd wait until the end of 2011 (the draw down's not going to take place as advertised but if we're pretending it is let's get out hypothesis correct).

The same official tells the paper that the only resource the workers at security check-points have to check for bombs is really just "hand-held wands" which "the official described as false."

Saturday is the least read paper. (It's also one of the least purchased for the New York Times.) So exactly why are they attempting not one but three stories in today's paper from Iraq? How is that using the resources correctly?

What Sam Dagher and Steven Lee Myers are reporting above is timely and really shouldn't be held until Sunday or later in the week. James Glanz is covering an indictment in "Americans Are Accused of Posing as Contractors to Steal $40 Million in Fuel in Iraq." Due to the court filings, that's time-sensitive. Those involved (largely US citizens but also some "Nepalese drivers") are alleged to have stolen "at least $40 million" in "jet and diesel fuel" which they allegedly sold on the blackmarket in Iraq.

That leaves us with Sam Dagher's "Wounded, And Stories of Loss, Fill A Hospital." It's a shame the paper only sees fit to visits the hospitals after bombings since they're falling apart and this splash on a new paint job doesn't change the fact that elevators still don't work, that equpiment is still faltering and that entire hospital network is crumbling. Dagher wuotes various people on what the bombings mean or did such as Sayman ABedwali who states, "We were very happy this morning, but now this." Dagher notes that the woman's "blouse was soaked with blood. She did not know if her husband and daughter were still alive." Due to its covering Friday's wounded, his article wouldn't have carried the same punch if it were held until later in the week.


The following community sites have updated since yesterday morning:




Cedric's Big Mix
Streches the truth, like Nixon, and this is praise?
1 hour ago

The Daily Jot
THIS JUST IN! THE REVIEWS AREN'T GLOWING!
1 hour ago

The World Today Just Nuts
The 'Fashionable' Condoleeza de Vil
1 hour ago

Thomas Friedman is a Great Man
Quick post
21 hours ago

Mikey Likes It!
Iraq
21 hours ago

Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude
hillary is 44, iraq, etc.
21 hours ago

SICKOFITRADLZ
Ban Ki-moon's homophobia
21 hours ago

Trina's Kitchen
Fudge Brownies in the Kitchen
21 hours ago

Ruth's Report
The bombings
21 hours ago

Oh Boy It Never Ends
A New Leaf
21 hours ago

Like Maria Said Paz
We need prosecution
21 hours ago

Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills)
Iraq
21 hours ago


The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.

iraq
the new york times
steven lee myers
sam dagher
james glanz
the world today just nuts
like maria said paz
kats korner
sex and politics and screeds and attitude
thomas friedman is a great man
trinas kitchen
the daily jot
cedrics big mix
mikey likes it
ruths report
sickofitradlz
oh boy it never ends

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.


I haven't distorted a thing. It's what he said and he said similar things to John King (CNN) and to Deborah Haynes (Times of London) and to many others. But the visitor insists, "Odierno is not saying any such thing! He KNOWS that the U.S. must be out and they will be out and that is what he has consistently said!!!!" In what alternate universe?

Note the following:

However, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, Gen. Raymond Odierno, told CNN on Wednesday that it's possible the Iraqi government may decide to allow boots on the ground in some urban areas past June.
Asked about the two volatile regions of Baquba and Mosul, north of Baghdad, Odierno said he believes troops will withdraw from Baquba, but noted that Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki will have to make a decision about Mosul, where al Qaeda in Iraq militants have been active.
"We'll see, you know, it's still two months away, so we'll have to see what progress we're able to make, but that will be a joint assessment between us and the Iraqis," Odierno said.


That's from Jomana Karadsheh and Cal Perry's "Bombings kill nearly 90 in Iraq" (CNN) and the 90 dead refers to the two big bombings in Iraq today (one in Baghdad, the other in Diyala Province). If you can't grasp what he's saying now, nothing anyone else is going to tell you will help you because your are intentionally refusing to hear what Odierno is repeatedly saying.

It's over, I'm done writing songs about love
There's a war going on
So I'm holding my gun with a strap and a glove
And I'm writing a song about war
And it goes
Na na na na na na na
I hate the war
Na na na na na na na
I hate the war
Na na na na na na na
I hate the war
Oh oh oh oh
-- "I Hate The War" (written by Greg Goldberg, on The Ballet's Mattachine!)

Last Thursday, ICCC's number of US troops killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war was 4273. Tonight? 4276. That is one more than this afternoon's snapshot. Did M-NF make another announcement?

No.

They skipped it.

As repeatedly noted, M-NF is supposed to announce the death. The Department of Defense is supposed to provide the name of the dead. DoD should never be providing a name to a death that wasn't announced. M-NF even explained that (again) in their most recent announcement: "The names of the service members are announced through the U.S. Department of Defense Official Website at http://www.defenselink.mil/ . The announcements are made on the Web site no earlier than 24 hours after notification of the service member's primary next of kin. MND-B will not release any additional details prior to notification of next of kin and official release by the DoD."

And yet, somehow, they missed another one. DoD announced today: "The Department of Defense announced today the death of a Marine who was supporting Operation Iraqi Freedom.
Cpl. William C. Comstock, 21, of Van Buren, Ark., died April 22 as a result of a non-hostile incident in Anbar province, Iraq. He was assigned to 2nd Supply Battalion, Combat Logistics Regiment 25, 2nd Marine Logistics Group, II Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Lejeune, N.C.
The incident is under investigation."

The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.

iraq
i hate the war
the ballet
cnn
john king
the cbs evening news with katie couric
katie couric
cbs news
deborah haynes

Thursday, April 23, 2009.  Chaos and violence continue, the US military announces another death, a Democrat and a Republican and a witness all embarrass themselves in Congress today while allegedly discussing PTSD, the Iraq-torture connections, and more..   In Iraq today, multiple bombings, multiple deaths. Al Jazeera noted this morning a Baghdad bombing today which "targeted a police patrol in the Karrada district" with a death toll of 28 and fifty injured. Michael Christie and Jon Boyle (Reuters) added that, along with the 28 killed in Baghdad, a Muqdadiya bombing claimed 32 lives. Reuters state that both bombings were suicide bombings.  Jomana Karadsheh and Cal Perry (CNN) explain that the death toll in Muqdadiya rose from 32 to 45 and that twenty-eight is the wounded toll thus far and that the bombing targeted Iranian pilgrims.  Timothy Williams (New York Times) notes the toll rose again, to 47, combines the two bombings for a total death toll of 75.  Unlike CNN which describes the Baghdad bomber as wearing a "suicide vest," Williams says it was a "suicide belt" and that the bomber was a woman.  Corinne Reilly, Sahar Issa and Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) also report a female bomber in Baghdad.  They and Timothy Williams mention an arrest.  CBS News has that as well: "Iraqi officials told CBS News Terrorism consultant Ali al-Ahmed Thursday that [Abu Omar] al-Baghdadi had been arrested. . .  . If true, the arrest could deliver a significant blow to an intensified campaign of attacks - the latest which included two separate suicide bombings that killed at least 54 people Thursday."  Ernesto Londono and K.I. Ibrahim (Washington Post) provide context, "The assertion, made by Maj. Gen. Qassim Atta, the spokesman for Iraq's security forces, was startling because many intelligence officials believe Baghdadi is a mythical figure created to give the Sunni insurgent organization an Iraqi face. Iraqi authorities in the past have made similar claims that turned out to be incorrect."  The 'capture' may be true and it may, indeed, have taken place today.  Then again, it may be an attempt to distract from the large death toll from the two bombings.  Back to the bombings, Aseel Kami (Reuters) quotes Diyala Province Governor Abdulnasir al-Muntasirbillah stating, "I just left the hospital of Baquba.  The scenes there are catastrophic.  Words can't express it.  It is a dirty, cowardly terrorist act." [Muqdadiya is in Diyala Province]. Usama Redha and Raheem Salman (Los Angeles Times) observe, "The two attacks bore echoes of the worst violence from Iraq's civil war and was certain to fuel fears that the security strides of the last year and a half were fading away."   This morning US House Rep John Hall chaired a hearing by the House Armed Services Committee's Subcommittee on Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs.  It was some hearing.  Full of embarrassments from both sides listening in Congress as well as from the witness table.  One Congressional member took the hearing for a Mary Kay Convention, another thought it was the time to go crazy and vent all your hatred for US government and, from the witness side, one thought a hearing was a license to lie.  Repeating, it was some hearing.   It started off slowly and normally enough with Hall, after noting that New York soldiers stationed in Afghanistan had told him on a recent trip that they want more bandwidth and better showers, making opening remarks.  "Today," Hall explained, "we are here to consider legislation, the Compensation Owed for Mental Health Based on Activities in Theater Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder Act or the COMBAT PTSD Act, H.R. 952.  During the 110th Congress and most recently during an oversight hearing held on March 24, 2009, the Subcommittee on Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs revisited Congress' intent in establishing presumptive provisions to provide compensation to combat veterans under Section 1154(b) of title 38." Hall noted that the Veterans Affairs Dept appeared to be interpreting qualifications narrowly and that his bill is about "clarifying and expanding the definition of 'combat with the enemy' found in section 1154(b) to include a theater of combat operations during a period of war or in combat against a hostile force during a period of hostilities."   The first panel was John Wilson (Disabled American Veterans), Barton F. Dutchman (National Veterans Legal Services Program), Norman Bessel (American Ex-Prisoners of War) and Richard Paul Cohen (National Organization of Veterans' Advocates, Inc.).    "The definition of what constitutes combat with the enemy is critical to all veterans in a combat theatre of operations," stated John Wilson reading his prepared remarks aloud ( click here), "whether the issue is service connection of post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) or other conditions resulting from combat.  The current high standards requried by the Department of Veterans Affairs' internal operating procedures for verifying veterans who 'engaged in combat with the enemy' are impossible for many veterans to satisfy, whether from current or past wars."  He noted the various reasons that can prevent someone from being seen (by the VA) as "engaged in combat with the enemy" and offered women serving in Iraq:   The female soldiers who accompany male troops on patrols to conduct house-to-house searches are known as Team Lioness, and have proved to be invaluable.  Their presence not only helps calm women and children, but Team Lioness troops are also able to conduct searches of the women, without violating cultural strictures.  Against official policy, and at that time without the training given to their male counterparts, and with a firm commitment to serve as needed, these dedicated young women have been drawn onto the frontlines in some of the most violent counterinsurgency battles in Iraq.      Independent Lens, an Emmy award-winning independent film series on PBS, documented their work in a film titled Lioness which profiled five women who saw action in Iraq's Sunni Triangle during 2003 and 2004.  As members of the US Army's 1st Engineer Battalion, Shannon Morgan, Rebecca Nava, Kate Pendry Guttormsen, Anastasia Breslow and Ranie Ruthig were sent to Iraq to provide supplies and logistical support to their male colleagues.  Not trained for combat duty, the women unexpectedly became involved with fighting in the streets of Ramadi.  These women were part of a unit, made up of approsimately 20 women, who went out on combat missions in Iraq.  Female soldiers in the Army and Marines continue to perform Lioness work in Iraq and Afghanistan.      I would like to highlight the issues faced by Rebecca Nava as she seeks recognition of her combat experience and subsequent benefits for resulting disabilities.  Then US Army Specialist Nava was the Supply Clerk for the 1st Engineering Battalion in Iraq.  In conversations with her and as seen in the film Lioness, she recounts several incidents.  Two of those incidents are noted in my testimony today.            The first is the roll-over accident of a 5-ton truck that was part of a convoy to Baghdad.  In this accident, the driver was attempting to catcuh up with the rest of the convoy but in doing so lost control of the vehicle.  The five ton truck swerved off the road and rolled over, killing a Sergeant who was sitting next to her, and severely injuring several others.  Specialist Nava was caught in the wreckage.  She had to pulled through the fractured windshield of the vehicle.  While not severly injured in the accident, she did suffer a permanent spinal injury.   Another incident occurred wherein she was temporarily attached to a Marine unit and her job for this mission was to provide Lioness support for any Iraqi women and children the unit contacted.  It was a routine mission patrolling the streets of Ramadi.  Before she knew it, the situation erupted into chaos as they came under enemy fire.  She had no choice but to fight alongside her male counterparts to suppress the enemy.  No one cared that she was a female -- nor did they care that she had a Supply MOS -- their lives were all on the line -- she opened fire.  The enemy was taken out.  During this fire fight she also made use of her combat lifesaver skills and provided medical aid to several injured personnel.    This and other missions resonate with her to this day.  When she filed a claim with the VA, she was confronted with disbelief about her combat role in Iraq as part of Team Lioness.  Specialist Nava filed a claim for service connection for hearing loss and tinnitus but was told that she did not qualify because of her logistics career field.  Since she does not have a Combat Action Badge, she cannot easily prove that the combat missions occurred which impacted her hearing.            Wilson observed that Nava's "lack of recognition for her combat role can be multiplied countless times for other veterans also caught in the fog of war."  Later in the hearing, he would return to Nava to point out her struggle and how she had a team following her in Iraq, recording her (for the documentary) and still was denied and that most service members do not have a document of their service (example: "So we have a troop who has  a camera following her around in Iraq [. . .] How much more of a problem is this for other veterans who do not have the visibility she has.")  She does not Norman Bussel stated, "To refuse PTSD compensation to veterans because their job titles are not synonymous with combat is unconscionable.  There's more than the money involved.  Even more important is the colossal insult of telling a combat veteran that he didn't fight for his country.  That is an unnecessary stressor to stuff into his or her already overlowing load of emotional baggage."  (Bussel read his prepared remarks, click here.)  Cohen observed in his opening remarks:     You've heard justice delayed is justice denied well justice denied increases frustration among our combat veterans, increases their anxiety, increases their depression, increases their anger, increases their betrayal -- a sense of betrayal from the VA and, by extension, from the whole country.         Cohen's opening remarks are not the same as he prepared statement in the record (click here for his prepared statement).  Stichman noted:   Under current law, VA has to expend more time and resources to decide PTSD claims than almost every other type of claim.  A major reason that these claims are so labor intensive is that in most cases, VA believes that the law requires it to conduct an extensive search for evidence that may corroborate that the veteran's testimony that he experienced a stressful event during military service.  According to the VA, an extensive search for corroborating evidence is necessary even when the medical evidence shows that the veteran currently suffers from PTSD, and mental health professionals attribute the PTSD to stressful events that occurred during military service.   Click here for Stichman's prepared remarks (which he read into the record).  We'll focus on two strong exchanges before we get to the goofballs.  US House Reps Ann Kirkpatrick and Ciro Rodriguez were on focus and raised real issues.  First Kirkpatrick.   Ann Kirkpatrick: I just spent two weeks in my district meeting with veterans and there's so much anger about how they're being treated by the administration and specifically with regard to PTSD.  I've met with veterans who said that -- how difficult it was to show the service connection.  One veteran in particular was a Vietnam veteran and he told me how painful it was to try to track down his patrol finding out that so many of them had died since their days in the service.  I finally was able to locate someone across the country who was able to validate the service connection.  The other problem is also the lack of trained mental health care professionals specific to PTSD in some of these communities.  And again they said, 'Please take back to your community our request that we have trained mental health counselors in PTSD in the Veterans Administration' and how specific that is to their treatment in those who qualify.  My concern, and my question is for you Mr. Wilson,  for a veteran who has PTSD or thinks they have it and can't show the service connection, where do they go for treatment?  What services are there for them?   John Wilson: It's a good question.  While I was in the field, I also had veterans come through with the same issues -- Vietnam in particular, some WWII -- their entire team wiped out.  So who did they go to for support for their particular claim?  No letters -- as we were talking about here -- and the distinguished gentleman was providing letters still postmarked from someone overseas at the time, excellent evidence typically.  Why that claim was denied, I am not sure.  It would, I think normally, I hope, it would be granted.  It's difficult circumstances as I say and I have encouraged those people to go back and meet with their reunion websites for people who may be part of that unit, who may be able to provide, perhaps, some other story of 'Yes, I saw Johnny there on that -- on that truck going to that combat zone all geared up.' Those kind of things may all be of benefit.  But it is nonetheless very difficult and the fog of war?  How is it that you're going to appoint a stenographer or a court reporter, a videographer to accompany each person on that combat?  You cannot.  It's very difficult circumstance.  I would contend that the VA does have the means before it in order to grant those benefits by looking at the lay evidence that a veteran submits and looking at the times, places and circumstances of that particular event, they should in fact be able to grant the service connection.  But it  nonetheless is a problematic condition.   Ann Kirkpatrick:  And for those people who can't -- can't show the connection, are there other places they can go for help?     John Wilson: Ma'am, I wish I could find those. None that I'm aware of.   Ann Kirkpatrick: Mr. Chairman, let me just make one other comment.  I asked the veterans I was meeting with if they were concerned about people applying for PTSD treatment who may not really qualify and they said "No."  No. The risk really is that those who need treatment are not going to seek it out because of the current system and they emphasized over and over again that they were promised medical treatment for life when they enlisted and that that promise has been broken.   Now for Ciro Rodriguez.  He'll refer to some past experiences prior to Congress (and prior to being in the Texas legislature).  He's speaking of when he was with Bexar County Department of Mental Health and with Intercultural Development Research Association.  Also he had a statement put in the record (click here).    Ciro Rodriguez:  Let me also just add that the same people that might suffer from Post Traumatic Stress Disorders initially are the same ones that might not even be aware of  the fact that they're suffering it.  And a lot of times that's not acknowledged until much later after a lot of difficulties.  And it's kind of like, you know, example of getting burned out at work and you're not sure why but it was, you know,  an example I can give you in terms of my experience working with the mentally ill, staying there until seven, eight o'clock at night, taking the work back home with me and then all of the sudden telling them, 'No, I can't see you, it's after five.'  And it's something wrong.  And it doesn't dawn on you until very much later in terms of what's happening to you.  The same thing applies with Post Traumatic Stress Disorders and the system is not equipped to handle or to even reach out to those individuals that are not even aware that they're suffering from that. And be able to be aggressive and be able to reach out and work with some of the invidviduals.  Your testimony.  One of you mentioned the fact that a lot of them deal with it indirectly by going to prescription drugs and going to alcohol and other illegal drugs -- in terms of coping with it.  And somehow we've got to get the system to be more responsive.  I know the legislation on HR 952 directly addresses the strereotypes by helping to relax the evidentary standards to deployment on a combat area and we know that when you go -- the first two soldiers that were caught, [. . .] remember that one lady that was a cook and the other was a mechanic. [Rodriguez is referring to Shoshana Johnson and Patrick Miller who were part of US Army 507th Maintenance Company which was ambushed March 23, 2003.  They were POWs -- along with James Riley, Edgar Hernandez and Joseph Hudson -- until April 13, 2003.  Jessica Lynch was part of this unit; however, she was taken to an Iraqi hospital.  Anna Mulrine (US News & World Report) spoke with all three -- Lynch, Johnson and Miller -- for a March 18, 2008 article.] Those were the ones that were captured.  And it's hard when you get into those situations, especially what we have in Afghanistan and Iraq, that at any given time, you'll be asked to do other things besides your so-called duites as you're there and some of those might not be translated in terms of -- so that you'll be able to justify in the future.  So we need to give them the benefit of the doubt under those circumstances and be able to.    [. . .]   Barton Stichman: The point you made about people not recognizing that they have Post Traumatic Stress Disorder or being in denial about it I think relates to this legislation. A lot of people don't realize that they have it for a long time and then they get treatment and then they apply for benefits.  So it may be years, many years, after they finish their military service.  And so in order to win benefits for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder  in a situation where the VA doesn't believe that they served in combat with the enemy at that point and time, they're going to have to go out and get corroborative evidcne which is very difficult.  The length of time effects their ability to do that.   Ciro Rodriguez: Mr. Chairman, I know I've gone over my time.    John Hall: Do you have another question?   Ciro Rodriguez: Just a little statement.  [To Stichman] What you've indicated is so true and that that's one of the things the system has to be responsive to in terms of meeting those needs.  And as a person goes through denial, you go through a process where you even not acknowledge certain  things that might have occured that other people there will tell you, 'No, this and this transpired.'  Because you might be going through guilt and other things as you go through that, that you might not have responded as appropriately as you should have and those kind of things and sometimes that's not cleared up until you have time to go through those and be able to think about what actually occurred.   Throughout the hearing, the witnesses did not buy into the notion that veterans were faking PTSD to get some of that 'easy' and apparently 'glorious' treatment.  Norman Bussel would respond to the John Hall's question (Hall does not believe that claim either) that "the America veteran does not come in for treatment because he feels there is a stigma and he's ashamed of how he feels" so it doesn't make sense that some veteran would insist he or she was suffering from PTSD when they weren't.  Bussel stated they were "in a horrendous state" when they came for help.  Bussel also spoke of the harm being done currently with the denial of PTSD claims, noting that the veterans "feel like they are being called liars [when] they're combat experience is denied."  He explained his WWII records took forever to catch up with him.  And that "in Iraq and Afghanistan," "those records are just kept" which would say you were in combat.  He spoke of the collatoral damage on families and veterans relationships as a result of a veteran being denied.   Let's turn to the goofballs.  And it's bi-partisan.  We have one from each side of the aisle.   Suggestion: US House Rep Deborah Halvorson might want to leave out her personal tales ("I found out I wasn't so tough") and attempt to learn the issue she's talking about.  For example, there's no excuse in a hearing on PTSD for a member of Congress to believe it is "PTSB."  And Mary Kay Cosmetics is not well served by their chirpy alumni Halvorson failing to learn House procedure,  "I yield back -- or I reserve the balance of my time for later!"  It's April 23, 2009, long past time for the  War Hawk Halvorson to get her act together.  Harsh?  If you think that's harsh, you don't know Little Debbie.   Democratic Debbie was saved from winning Fool for a Day by US House Rep Brian Bilray who came across like someone who'd gone off their meds.  Whether it was floating a theory that those working at the VA hated veterans -- apparently from the top of the VA down to the custodians -- or working in multiple attacks on "welfare" and the "welfare system," Bilray was a rage of beauty to behold.  Was anyone spared his toxic accusations?  You might think so but around the time he was griping about fire fighters with respitory problems and how they 'claimed' it was from their work but they might be smokers, you realize Bilray had a lot more issue to work out than even the full staff of the VA could assist him with if they worked around the clock just on him.    How bad was it?  We already noted Subcommittee Chair John Hall does not believe there is this mad craze of veterans faking PTSD for the 'glory' and 'glamor' but Hall had to pursue that on the record because Bilray had insisted this was a reasonable and reasoned hypothesis and one that should be considered at length (and he certainly spoke of it at length). Another example?  As the first panel wound down, Hall felt the need to declare, "I do not intend by this legislation nor do those that support it to minimize or cast aspersions on the value or the bravery of those who have fought in direct combat, in intense firefights, who signed up and served as Special Forces, those who have seen combat of the most intense type."  Why did he have to clarify what should be obvious?  Because he was responding to Bilray.  Yes, Bilray even argued that eliminating a few of the hoops veterans are forced to jump through was somehow doing harm to other veterans.  Bilray was a piece of work.     So that's a Democrat and a Republican who made fools of themselves but remember we said a witness did as well.  Which one?  Not any on the first panel.  The second panel is where Bradley G. Mayes would show up, the VA's Compensation and Pension Service cruncher.  He was so offensive that had Bilray stood up and screamed, "See! That's what I mean about the VA hating vets!" it probably would have been the first time in his life that the world would have found it hard to disagree with Bilray.   Mayes sniffed:     The short title of the legislation we are discussing today indicates that the intent behind it is principally to ease the burden on veterans in proving their service-connection claims based on PTSD, which is a goal that the Department shares.  However, we are concerned about the scope of the bill and also believe it would unduly complicate the adjudication process.            In furtherance of our mutual objective of simplifying the adjudication of wartime veterans' PTSD claims, the Department currently has under development an amendment to our regulations to liberalize in certain cases the evidentiary standards for establishing an in-service stressor for purposes of service connecting PTSD.  This amendment would relax in some situations the requirement for corroborating evidence that a claimed in-service stressor occurred.  We also recently completed a rulemaking that eliminated the requirement for evidence corroborating the occurrence of a claimed in-service stressor if PTSD is diagnosed in service.   His prepared opening statement can be read [PDF format warning] here but note that he did not deliver it exactly as written (the quote above is word-for-word what he said and word-for-word what was prepared ahead of time).  Words were not Mayes' friend such as when he spoke of POWs from past war and declared "an individual was incarcera -- er, interned by the enemy."    Subcommittee Chair Hall registered Mayes strong opposition to the proposed legislation and explained that if this were left to the VA alone and they handled it, it would be under rule making.  Rules can be changed, Hall noted, with administrations. So "should that be a consideration" as to whether or not the issue should be resolved by law or by rule?   Mayes inisted he'd never seen or even been aware of efforts -- ever -- to roll back rights for veterans. And no one challenged that assertion.   March 19, 2005, CNN was reporting on Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell's response to Bully Boy Bush's weekly address: "He maintained that budget cuts include 'a $350 million reduction in veterans home funding, which wipes out at least 5,000 veterans' nursing home beds."  April 10, 2005, Karen Blakeman and Dennis Camire (Honolulu Advertiser) reported, "President Bush's proposed 2006 budget would * Drastically cut financial support for up to 80 percent of the veterans in the nation's 129 state-run homes. *  Let the VA reduce the number of nursing-home beds from the 13,391 required by law.  * Put a hold on $104 million in grants slated to rehabilitate and build new state veterans homes." Among the many, many other reports on this 2005 move by the then-administration, you can refer to Joel Wendfand (People's Weekly World) and you can drop back to 2004 for Edward Walsh (Washington Post).  There are plenty of other examples we could offer.  It would do no good; however.  Mayes had insisted "I just can't envision that" when Hall had offered that administrations change and they can change rules (but not laws) to weaken veterans' benefits.   Mayes was pompous and an idiot.  (When he's especially proud of one of his responses, he tilts his head to the left, to the right and then tosses his head back.  No, it's not attractive.)  The hearing was on what topic?  PTSD.  And the hearing was about whether or not people suffering from it are getting the help they need.  So when Hall asks you for the number of those diagnosed with PTSD and the number of the backlog for those who have been diagnosed, you really should never respond, "I would have to get that for you."  Exactly what topic did Mayes think he was attending the hearing to discuss?  And as Hall pointed out, Mayes refers to the backlog himself on page three of his prepared statement.  Apparently the statement was prepared but Mayes was not.  He also had prepared remarks about "combat operations" in his written statement and Hall wanted to ask Mayes about that topic.  Mayes declined to answer and announced he was "going to defer" that issue to his handler Richard Hipolit.  Hipolit speaks like William Hickey (with a wheeze) and has all the charm of an ambulance chasing divorce attorney -- and why do you think that is? Maybe the next hearing could be about the qualifications of those appearing before the panel and how they managed to snare government jobs?   Might the legislation proposed save the VA time and money?  A basic question.  But Hall had to go through the process of pulling teeth and bringing in Vietnam and Agent Orange before he could get even a weak and qualifed "yes" from Mayes.  He blathered on about, "I think, for me, the difficulty [. . .] is because the disaease [ . . .] we know Agent Orange was sprayed in the Republic of Vietnam [. . .] but with PTSD, the difficulty in trying to define what parts of the world at different times in our history . . ."    What an idiot.  Agent Orange has been used around the world.  It is a problem (a huge one) for Vietnam veterans because they served in Vietnam.  PTSD is a problem for veterans because of the experiences while they served.  This is not complicated.  Mayes wants to make it complicated.  But if Agent Orange were used in Iraq, it would be an issue for today's veterans.  It has nothing to do with Vietnam, it has to do with the battlefield.  Repeating, Agent Orange was used all over the world.  It is a hazard during Vietnam because US troops were in Vietnam.  That's where they were exposed to it.  PTSD is related to where you were exposed to the theatre of war and/or combat.  It is not as difficult as Mayes (intentionally) tries to make it out to be.   Hall attempted to nail Mayes down repeatedly but he was like Liquid Metal, always sliding away -- largely by refusing to be consistent in his remarks.   From veterans to the fallen.  Last night the US military announced: "A Multi-National Division–Baghdad Soldier died April 22 from combat related injuries while conducting a patrol in eastern Baghdad. The Soldier's name is being withheld pending notification of next of kin. The names of the service members are announced through the U.S. Department of Defense Official Website at http://www.defenselink.mil/ . The announcements are made on the Web site no earlier than 24 hours after notification of the service member's primary next of kin. MND-B will not release any additional details prior to notification of next of kin and official release by the DoD. The incident is currently under investigation." The announcement brings to 4275 the number of US service members killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war.   Today's violence included more than just the two attacks noted earlier.    Bombings?   Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad roadside bombing left two people injured and, in Baquba, two homes "belonging to displaced families from Timim tribe were blown up," a Mosul roadside bombing which wounded two people, a Mosul grenade attack which wounded four,  and a roadside bombing outside of Baquba which claimed the life of Sahwa leader Mubarak Hammad al Obadi and 3 of his aids while leaving two more aids wounded.   Shootings?   Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports Shiekh Salih Mustafa Mohammed was shot dead in Bauqba   Tina Susman and Caesar Ahmed's "In Iraq, a story of rape, shame and 'honor killing'" (Los Angeles Times) is a must-read article which we'll note tomorrow.  We'll wind down with Iraq and topic of torture.  US Senator Carl Levin's   "Senate Floor Statement on Report of the Inquiry into the Treatment of Detainees in U.S. Custody" notes the following:   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."   Abu Ghraib isn't the only link between torture and Iraq.  Another one is outlined by Jonathan S. Landay (McClatchy Newspapers):   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.   Michael Ratner is the president of the Center for the Constitutional Rights and he explains (at CounterPunch) why a 'truth' commission is the last thing needed:     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     iraq mcclatchy newspapers jonathan s. landay sahar issa corinne reilly cindy sheehan ann wright cbs news the early show law and disorder michael ratner michael smith dalia hashad heidi boghosian the los angeles times tina susman cnn samira simone jomana karadsheh caesar ahmed aseel kami like maria said paz ruths report