The Common Ills


Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Iraq snapshot

Iraq snapshot

Tuesday, April 28, 2009.  Chaos and violence continue, the Senate discusses proposed changes to the War Powers Resolution of 1973,  James Baker thought it was a Costume Ball and showed up as Titus Semple, talk of overthrowing Nouri al-Maliki who is more focused on demanding an apology, Steven D. Green's 'nutty' defense, and more.
 
Starting with war resistance, Iraq War resister Cliff Cornell faced a court-martial this afternoon at Fort Stewart in Georgia where he entered a guilty plea to desertion.
 
Today the Senate Foreign Relations Committee held a hearing on declaring war and the biggest concern appeared to be whether or not the creation of a joint-committee might usurp their own committee.  While the turf war raged, Senator Russ Feingold appeared to be the only one who'd read the proposal in terms of how it might actually impact the issue of going to war.
 
 Appearing before the committee as witnesses were BFFs James Baker and Lee Hamilton, packing enough 'bi-partisan' scandals between themselves to rock a Jackie Collins look at DC.  The panel was rounded out by Warren Christopher whose service can be traced back to the LBJ years.  Senator John Kerry chairs the committee and he called it to order and skipped any messy realities about the three to instead note that "they are here to discuss one of the most vital questions that comes before our democracy: The question of how America goes to war?"
 
Kerry noted that the reason for the hearing was the "fundamental tension in how America goes to war.  The president is commander-in-chief of the Armed Forces while Congress has the power to declare war."  Hamilton, Baker and Christopher sat on the National War Powers Commission.  No, no election was held to elevate those three to a commission on such an important issue.  No, their tinkering around with the law -- and, yes, with the Constitution, is not how things are supposed to be changed per the Constitution.  But if DC didn't have cronyism, no one ever be seated for a meal at Marcel's. So three elderly men -- at 78, Lee Hamilton's the baby in the trio -- that few would trust with a bank deposit slip have been put in charge of recommending changes in war powers.  As Phil Ochs once sang, "It's always the old to lead us to the war, always the young to fall" ("I Ain't Marching Anymore") and the LiverSpots Trio demonstrated that and then some.
 
If there was anything more distressing than the absence of senators -- this was a full committee hearing even though the full committee elected to skip it -- it was most likely the huge absence of the press.  If changes are being made in how the United States goes to war shouldn't the press be present?  Where were they?  And while the Real Press was largely absent, where were the beggars of Panhandle Media?  Possibly encamped on the White House lawn hoping to get a shot of Bo doing his business.
 
Their own business apparently did not include fact checking the chair.  John Kerry declared in his opening remarks, "What is clear to all is that the 1973 War Powers Resolution has simply not functioned as intended?"  Really?  Is that what's going on?  No, Congress has refused to do what the War Powers Resolution gives them the power to.  Equally true is that some aspects have been skirted by presidents.  Kerry's starting from a false premise and begging the panel to snow job him. 
 
What Baker, Christopher and Hamilton are proposing is repealing the War Powers Act of 1973 and replacing it with something different.  This would be a major change and, again, where was the press?
 
Baker noted in his opening remarks [PDF format warning, click here], "Two years ago, Chris [Warren Christopher] and I were approached by the Miller Center at the University of Virginia to co-chair an independent bi-partisan commission to consider an issue that has bedeviled legal experts and government officials since the Constitution was framed -- the question of how our nation makes a decision to go to war."  If Baker is an example of those "experts" and "officials," no wonder they're "bedeviled."  The Constitution is very clear that Congress, and only Congress, can declare war. 
 
Warren Christopher followed and he gulped water throughout the hearing which appeared to be taxing him.  A sure sign that he shouldn't have co-chaired the panel, let alone served on it.  He tried to open with a joke but it flopped.  Of Baker he declared, "Without going on about it, let me just say that it is a lot more fun working with Secretary Baker than working against him."  Again, the joke flopped.  He then almost immediately made a case for Kerry to bring down the gavel and end the hearing.  Christopher was speaking of the tension between the executive and legislative branches [PDF format warning, click here] and the issue over declaring war when he stated, "Only a Constitutional amendment or decisive Supreme Court opinion will resolve the debate; neither is likely forthcoming anytime soon, and courts have turned down war powers cases filed by as many as 100 members of Congress."  The response to that should be: "Well if only a Constitutional amendment or a Supreme Court verdict can decide the issue then why the hell are we listening to you?"
 
And that is the thing.  What they're proposing resolves nothing.  It does, however, weaken Congress' powers.  On the plus side, as John Kerry pointed out, it's better to address this now than in the lead-up to a war, "While the nation's attention is not focused on this issue today and while the kleig lights and the hot breath of the media is not as intense here at this moment, everybody in this room and particularly at the table understand the implications and how important it is to be here now trying to figure out the best path through this rather than the middle of a crisis."  We're going to zoom in on the most pertinent discussion which took place shortly after Senator Russ Feingold joined the hearing and as he began speaking.
 
Senator Russ Feingold: I'd like to use some of my time to make a statement and then ask a couple of questions.  As we continue to grapple with the profound costs of rushing into a misguided war, it is essential that we review how Congress' War Powers have been weakened over the last few decades and how they can be restored.  The war in Iraq has led to the deaths of thousands of Americans and the wounding of tens of thousands and will likely end up costing us a trillion dollars.   What if we had had more open and honest  debate before going to war?  What if all the questions about the administration's assertions
had been fully and, to the extent appropriate, been publicly aired?  So clearly any reforms of the War Powers Resolution must incorporate these lessons and  foster more deliberations and more open and honest public dialogue before any decision to go to war. 
I appreciate that attention is being drawn to this critically important issue which, of course, goes to the core of our Constitutional structure, its' a conversation that we need to continue to have. But I am concerned that the proposals made by the Baker - Christopher commission cede too much authority to the executive branch in the decision to go to war.  Under the Constitution, Congress has the power "to declare war."  It is not ambiguous in any way.   The 1973 War Powers Resolution is an imperfect solution; however, it does retain Congress' critical role in this decision making process.  The commission's proposal on the other hand would require Congress to pass a resolution of disapproval by a veto proof margin if it were unhappy with the president's decision to send our troops into hostilities.  That means in effect that the president would need only one-third of the members plus one additional member of either house to continue a war that was started unilaterally by the president.  Now that cannot be what the framers intended when they gave the Congress the power to declare war. Since the War Powers Resolution was enacted, several presidents have introduced troops into battle without obtaining the prior approval of the Congress.  Campaigns in Grenada and Panama are a few examples. None of these cases involved eminent threats to the United States that justified the use of military force without the prior approval of Congress.  A simple solution to this problem would be for the president to honor the Constitution and seek the prior approval of Congress in such scenarios in the future.  And while the consultation required by the War Powers Resolution is far from perfect, I think it is preferable to the commission's proposal to establish a consultation committee.  If this bill had been in place before the war in Iraq, President Bush could have begun the war after consulting with a gang of 12 members of Congress thereby depriving most of the senators in this room of the ability to participate in
those consultations as we did in the run up to the Iraq War.   The decision to go to war is perhaps the most profound ever made by our government.  Our Constitutional system rightly places this decision in the branch of government that most closely reflects the will of the people.  History teaches that we must have the support of the American people if we are to successfully prosecute our military operations.  The requirement of prior Congressional authorization helps to ensure that such public debate occurs and tempers the potential for rash judgment. Congress failed to live up to its responsibility with respect to the decision to go to war in Iraq.  And we should be taking steps to ensure it does not make this mistake again.  We should be restoring this Constitutional system not further undermining it.  Mr Baker, part of the premise of the commission's finding, is that several presidents have refused to acknowledge the Constitutionality of the War Powers Resolution, I know that of course in practice, most do honor the Resolution.  In your view, does the president's commander-in-chief authority give him the authority to ignore duly enacted statutes?
 
James Baker: Duly enacted statues?  Not in -- not in my view.  On the other hand, there have been -- you said most presidents, Senator Feingold, all presidents have refused to  acknowledge the -- all presidents have questioned the Constitutionality of the War Powers Resolution.
 
Russ Feingold: Right.
 
James Baker: Both Democrat and Republican.
 
Russ Feingold: Right.  I simply said several presidents.
 
James Baker: Right.
 
Russ Feingold: But most have honored the resolution in practice.
 
James Baker: Well that's really not quite accurate, sir.  They send -- they file reports "in keeping with," the language is "in keeping with," but never has one president filed a report "pursuant to" the War Powers Resolution.
 
Russ Feingold: Well, nonetheless, I appreciate your answer to the basic question.  It seems to me that much of the ambiguity you attribute to the War Powers Resolution would be resolved if future presidents simply abided by the Resolution -- that would help solve the ambiguity.  Mr. Hamilton, before the Iraq War, every senator had the opportunity to at least review the intelligence assessments on Iraq -- particularly the October 2002 NIE.  I concluded that there was insufficient evidence to justify the decision to go to war  Under your bill, wouldn't the full Congress have even less access to the intelligence supporting the decision to go to war ?  Wouldn't that intelligence be limited to the gang of members on the consultation committee?
 
Lee Hamilton: With the consultative committee, I think you expand the number of members that would be brought into the discussions involving the highest level of intelligence.  In other words, you'd have more members involved under our proposal than you do now.  Because you --
 
Russ Feingold: I was a relatively middle - junior member of the Foreign Relations Committee.  I was not at that time a member of the Intelligence Committee.  At some point I was afforded the opportunity to go down to a secure room and to hear directly from the CIA people whether they felt the same thing we were hearing publicly.  And I got to tell you, their tone when they were trying to express these arguments the president was making was rather tepid and it gave me a feeling that something was wrong here.  And I would apparently, under this scenario, not have been a part of that process.  I'm not saying my role was critical but I did end up being one of the people who went to the floor immediately and said 'I'm not buying this al Qaeda connection, I'm not buying the notion that Saddam Hussein is likely or ready to attack the United States.'  It appears that somehow somebody in my situation would not necessarily be able to be a part of that pre-military operation process.  Mr. Hamilton?
 
 
Lee Hamilton: Well I think under the law today the president doesn't even have to consult with members of Congress before he takes you into war because the provisions in the War Powers Resolution are very vague with regard to consultation.  We expand greatly the number of members who would be involved in that consultative process here. 
 
Russ Feingold: It appeared though in this circumstance of Iraq that this was part of the consultative process.  That our access to the people from the president's CIA was pursuant to a discussion that led to a vote of the full Senate --
 
Lee Hamilton: Well the ---
 
Russ Fiengold: how the process worked.  All members -- well perhaps not all.  But at least members of the Foreign Relations Committee  were given the opportunity to participate in that kind of a set up --
 
Lee Hamilton: And the proposal that we're putting before you, members of Congress are required to vote on it.
 
John Kerry: Senator -- 
 
Lee Hamilton:You don't have that requirement under present law.
 
John Kerry: There is no requirement. under present law.  What happened is we did it under the prerogatives of each of the committees because the committee chairs and ranking members understood that this was part of the responsibilities Nothing in here -- and we discussed this before you [Feingold] came here -- about this consultative component in fulfillment of the requirement that the president let us know what he's thinking about doing so that those Committees, that's why they're part of it.  The Intelligence Committee, the Armed Services Committee, the Foreign Relations Committee, would then go about their normal business involving all of their members.  I mean, but there's no statute that required that for you either.
 
Russ Feingold: I'd like to believe that, Mr Chairman, but it strikes me that this provides an opportunity, that the president doesn't currently have, to say, "Look.  I went through this consultative process that's provided by this new statute so I have even less a need to go through a formal vote which, as we just talked about, most presidents have decided -- President [George H.W.] Bush on the first Gulf War, even though he may not have taken the view that he had to do it, he went ahead and did it.  I think this creates a process that  could end run the feeling on the part of a president that he needs to go through a process that would actually involve participation but I'm not saying that this doesn't literally require it --
 
James Baker: Senator --
 
Russ Feingold: Yes, Mr. Baker?
 
James Baker: We require a vote within 30 days so the president is going to be facing a vote of the Congress.  If the vote is a resolution disapproval, that is going to very adverse impacts on the president's ability to
 
Russ Feingold:  But in the case of Iraq of course [shrugs, throws up hands]
 
James Baker: Well that of course -- I mean
 
Russ Feingold: 30 days after wouldn't have been not too helpful.
 
James Baker: That's -- that's true.  But the president -- both presidents went to the Congress to get approval and actually obtained approval.  Back to .  Back to the point you made about the c-- about the observance a statute duly enacted and whether a president can question it's Constitutionality.  There's all -- there's always been the ability of presidents to question Constitutionality and in this area it has consistently been questioned by both Democratic and Republican presidents.  Presidents have sent troops abroad, Mr. Feingold, 264 times -- during which period the Congress has declared war 5 times.  So  faced with the situation, we expressly -- I think before you arrived, we made it -- we had a dialogue here about the fact that we have expressly preserved the rights of Congress to make the argument that I think you are making and the right of the president to make the argument presidents have made since the War Powers Resolution was passed that the Constitution gives either (A) the Congress or (B) the president the authority. Expressly reserve those Constitutional arguments, put them to the side, they are not going to be solved in the absence of a Constitutional amendment or a Supreme Court opinion.  So we don't prejudice either branch.  What we're trying to do is find a workable solution here that will improve the relationship and the consultation that takes place between the president and Congress when the nation's going to war.
 
Russ Feingold:  I respect the effort and I respect the intent and it may well work that way.  My concern -- and I know my time's up, Mr. Chairman
 
John Kerry: No, take [more] time, no problem. 
 
Russ Feingold:  Is that I witnessed as a non-senator the excellent debate that was held on the floor of the United States Senate prior to the first Gulf War, I also was involved in the truncated and unfortunately weak debate prior to the Iraq War.  But any process that could make a president feel that he somehow did not need to go through that process prior to such a major action would trouble me.  So that's how I need to review this.  Could this lead to that practical effect as opposed to the literal effort you have made to avoid such a consequence.  These are my concerns.
 
James Baker: I don't think so. Let me just quickly answer.  I don't believe so because the president has the power today.  So we're not -- this effort -- I don't see this as giving the president something he doesn't have today.
 
Russ Feingold: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
 
John Kerry: Thank you Senator Feingold.  Those are important inquiries and I think worth examining the sort of Iraq experience in terms of the vote up front versus late.
 
 
Kerry entered the commission's entire report into the record at the start of the hearing and noted, at the end of the hearing, that the record would remain open for a week to include any additional responses from the panel.
 
Before Feingold joined the hearing, there were no strong objections from Democrats.  In fact, Kerry and others accepted premises that they probably shouuldn't do without speaking to their constituents if they want to at least pretend to represent anyone other than the beltway.  For example, there are many people (put my name on the list) who do not believe that pre-emptive war and pre-emtive attacks are illegal (and it is illegal by the doctrine of just wars) so it was really something to hear John Kerry, who damn well knows better, accept the committee's working premise that the president had the right to do those without Congressional authority.  For those confused, international bodies say those actions are wrong.  Who the hell were these three crooked thieves bouncing between commerce and politics to accept as legal things that are still open to debate?
 
That and eliminating Congressional authority for war -- currently written into the Constitution -- seemed the main purpose of the Baker-Christopher commission.  Some might say, "Well the Court would rule against it if it's wrong!"  The Supreme Court is going to decide that Congress shouldn't have surrendered a contested power?  No.  They've consistently refused to rule on this terrain and were Congress to adopt this craziness the Court would either ignore it or rule that Congress didn't have the power stripped from them, they voted to give it away.  This is a very serious issue and Russ Feingold was the only one who appeared to grasp that.
 
Baker kept talking about "bi-partisanship" and he looked so oily throughout that only two words captured him: Titus Semple.  You found yourself longing for Lane Bellamy to show up and explain what they did to out of control elephants in the circus.  At one point, he sprayed himself with snake oil and did his best Eddie Haskell grin while declaring the problem was with two political parties, it was between branches of government.
 
"The problem" James Baker sees is in reality the checks and balances set up in the Constitution and if he has a problem with those maybe he should take his autum years to another damn country.  This is not someone who doesn't know better, this is a mad elephant on a rampage, determined to trample everything in his path.  As Lane says in Flamingo Road, "You know sheriff, we had an elephant in our carnival with a memory like that.  He went after a keep that he'd held a grudge against for almost 15 years.  Had to be shot.  You just wouldn't believe how much trouble it is to dispose of a dead elephant."
 
Richard Lugar's the ranking member.  We'll quote in when he manages to finish a sentence as opposed to pretending to ask a question that's nothing but multiple half-sentences strung together for over six minutes.  Somewhere in his tape reel of Libyia, the evening news, Ronald Reagan and more he declared "what all you people in Congress need to understand . . ."  Who was he speaking to?  Presumably every senator on the panel understood their duties.  While Edward Kaufman is new (the only one persent who is), Kaufman's run Joe Biden's Senate office for decades.  Somewhere around the six minute mark, Lugar finally came up for air.
 
Or as Warren Christopher put it in one of the panel's most honest responses, "Senator Lugar talked quite a lot".  He then went into Section 4a of the statute (committee recomendation) and rushed to assure that "we certainly don't mean to pre-empt the jurisdiction of this committee or other committees."  Kerry wanted to know about 3c and how it speaks of the consultation committee make up.  Was it an ongoing committee?  Baker said Congress could determine that.  The back and forth was pointless.
 
Senator Edward Kaufman compared the War Powers Act to a game of ruby football, noting how it's "been kicked around" and he stated he would feel derelict in his duty if he didn't raise the issue of Declaration of War.  Warren Christopher dismissed it as no longer used so nothing to worry about ("The Congress has decided apparently to go the route of authorization . . .").  Kaufman should have pursued that further but, in fairness to him, there was no support for it among his fellow senators (Feingold was not yet present) and the panel played dumb.  Kaufman was right to raise the issue and just because Congress uses one tool today or even in the last few decades does not mean it surrenders another one for all time.
 
Slimy Jim Baker wanted to grin while telling Feingold he missed things discussed earlier.  No, he didn't.  It wasn't discussed.  But he did miss out on Warren Christopher saying the proposals were to help the president "speak to all the members of Congress" and Lee Hamilton adding that 535 members of Congress is just too much and "presidents today do not know with whom to consult."  Hamilton explained this would limit who the president spoke to in Congress to a small number which would then spread out the word and, as a result, no member of either house could "complain, 'I wasn't consulted'."  Actually, they could.  Their remarks were exactly what they would deny when Feingold pursued his line of questioning.  They had already established that the committee would be the one to address it and that the members not on that committee would need to get info from the committee (Hamilton: "This provides a president with a focal point for consultation.")
 
On the Republican side,  Bob Corker was the only Republican senator other than Richard Lugar.  Corker actually had a few points to make and pointed out that the proposal really doesn't resolve any of the limitations with the War Powers Resolution.  Baker agreed but said you'd need a Constitutional amendment or a Supreme Court decision for that. So can someone explain why the Congress should nullify the War Powers Resolution and put in its place something that resolves nothing (but limits Congress' power and scope)?  Corker labeled the proposal nothing but a "sort of . . . code of conduct. . . . It's really not going to have the effect of law."  Baker shot back, "Oh, it would have the effect of law."  Pause.  "I think."  Corker also disputed some of the exceptions the proposals recommend such as "the safety of the troops."  Corker said that out would be there in any action, allowing the president to overrule Congress, because once troops are deployed "the safety of our troops would always be an issue."  Baker agreed.  ("That's correct.  I think that's correct.")  This hearing should have had a ton of reporters present.  If anything is changed, if the War Powers Resolution is trashed, it will have longterm effects.  For the record, the War Powers Resolution?  Covered by NPR, Pacifica and all three broadcast networks back in the day.
 
It's amazing that anyone wants to listen to James Baker regarding war.  But others are rehabilitated all the time.  Betty noted Bob Somerby calling out non-journalist Rachel Maddow's latest on-air clowning:
 
But on last Friday's program, Maddow's interview with Lawrence Wilkerson was, in our view, much worse.
Who the heck is Larry Wilkerson? As Maddow explained in her introduction, he was "chief of staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell from 2002 to 2005." As such, he played a key role in the way the United States went to war in Iraq. In particular, Wilkerson was in charge of the preparation of Powell's UN presentation in February 2003--the presentation which sealed elite opinion in favor of war.   
[. . .]          
According to Wilkerson, he and Powell were babes in the woods, thumb-sucking innocents who managed to get themselves "snowed" and "used" by others. Powell had even complained to David Frost about the fact that those in the know never came to him with the truth: "What really upset me more than anything else was that there were people in the intelligence community that had doubts about some of this sourcing, but those doubts never surfaced up to us." 
No one came to Powell with the facts! Quite correctly, Tim Russert was ridiculed when he made a similar, keister-covering statement to Bill Moyers. And yet, when Wilkerson grandly presented himself on our "progressive" news program last Friday, he received no questions of any kind about this crucial episode. You see, he was willing to call Dick Cheney names! For that reason, he was allowed to gild his own lily and, by extension, Powell's.
Increasingly, this seems to be the peculiar function of Maddow's "progressive" program.
 
Rachel Maddow was a War Hawk throughout 2004 and 2005.  Only when public opinion hugely shifted did she ever stop saying the US had to stay in Iraq.  Listeners of Unfiltered damn well remember her constant praise of Colin Powell and her repeatedly getting it wrong about the Pottery Barn analogy -- the Pottery Barn does not have a policy of you-broke-it-you-bought-it.  Rachel would drool on air over Colin back in those days. People have this idea that because she's a lesbian she's somehow hugely progressive.  She's not.  She's a centrist and, most importantly, she will and has sold out everyone to get where she is today -- on basic cable with, as Rebecca pointed out, very few viewers.  She's a media created 'star.'  Like a plethora of Vanity Fair cover boys and girls in the 90s who were movie 'stars' because Van Fair told you they were.  The box office loudly disagreed.  (When's the last time you spotted 'star' Julia Ormond?)  Rachel Maddow gets soft and easy press for a number of reasons -- one she uses her friends who are in the closet (hey, she protected her closet case friend who wrote the Ann Coulter Time magazine cover story -- Liar Rachel refused to discuss that story -- a big left story -- or call out Time or the writer and she refused to tell listeners of her show that she was friends with the author); MSNBC needs a female face and 'jock' like Rachel isn't too 'girly' so she doesn't threaten anyone; and, most importantly, she doesn't threaten the power structure.  She is a little suck-up who sucks up like crazy.  But if those MSNBC ratings keep dropping, this isn't Air America.  Her father leading a 'save-Rachel's job!' campaign won't work and will get her laughed off the chat & chew circuit.  Rachel worships Colin Powell and will never ask him a tough question and she'll never ask his little buddy one either. 
 
In Iraq, a Sunday attack in Kut continues to make the news. The pre-dawn raid resulted in two deaths and condemnation from Nouri al-Maliki.  Caroline Alexander (Bloomberg News) reports that the Iraqi Council of Ministers is stating that the assault was "an unnaceptable breach of the withdrawal of forces agreement between the parties" which would be the thing more popularly known as the Status of Forces Agreement and that it was breached by a military operation being carried out without a warrant or without Iraqi consent (allegedly without Iraqi consent).  No alleged on the warrant because if there was a warrant, the US would have waived it around by now.  Instead you have US Col Richard Francey running to the BBC to express US forces are "deeply saddened" by the "terrible tragedy."  That did not appease the Iraqi government.  Waleed Ibrahim (Reuters) reports they are demanding "an official apology".  The SOFA was never carved in stone despite all the bad reports insisting it was.  Amy Goodman (Democratcy Now!) noted that the US is now planning to stay in some Iraqi cities beyond June 30th.  Of the treaty masquerading as a SOFA, Jeremey Scahill (at CounterPunch) notes:
 
Of course, the celebrations were and remain unwarranted. Obama's Iraq plan is virtually identical to the one on Bush's table on January 19, 2009. Obama has just rebranded the occupation, sold it to liberals and dropped the term "Global War on Terror" while, for all practical purposes, continuing the Bush era policy (that's why leading Republicans praised Obama's plan). In the real world, US military commanders have said they are preparing for an Iraq presence for another 15-20 years, the US embassy is the size of Vatican City, there is no official plan for the withdrawal of contractors and new corporate mercenary contracts are being awarded. The SoFA Agreement between the US and Iraq gives the US the right to extend the occupation indefinitely and to continue intervening militarily in Iraq ad infinitum. All it takes is for the puppets in Baghdad to ask nicely…
 
 
Make no mistake about it - there is a war on. The floodgates of hell have once again been opened, largely as the result of US unwillingness to pressure the Maliki government to back off its ongoing attacks against the US-created Sahwa, which have led to the Sahwa walking off their security posts in many areas, which has been a green light for al-Qaeda to resume its operations in Iraq. In addition, many of the Sahwa forces, weary of not being paid promised wages from the government, as well as broken promises by the occupiers of their country, have resumed attacks against US forces. Again, there doesn't appear to be anything in the short term to indicate these trends will stop.
 
Sahwa, "Awakenings" and "Sons Of Iraq" are all the same group.  Ned Parker (Los Angeles Times) notes the targeting of Sahwa and asks the following of the government's intentions: 
 
Is it reaching out to former Sunni insurgents such as Abu Azzam in the true spirit of "national reconciliation," or in hopes of splintering the movement? 
And will the government's campaign against men such as Abu Maarouf succeed in snuffing out potential rivals? Or is it planting seeds for a long-term Sunni revolt?  
The crackdown also points to a significant change in the U.S. forces' onetime policy of nurturing and protecting the Sons of Iraq. As the Iraqi government has arrested some of the movement's leaders, forced others into exile and failed to deliver jobs for rank-and-file fighters, the Americans have regularly deferred to Baghdad's wishes as they hand over responsibility for the country's security.
 
Don't expect answer to any questions from al-Maliki's government, however they are insisting upon one thing: They captured Abu Omar al Baghdadi.  Corinne Reilly (McClatchy Newspapers) notes, "Iraqi officials have touted the arrest of Baghdadi several time before, and each time the claims have turned out to be false. But they said this time was different." When originally trumpeting this arrest last Thursday, the officials were saying they'd have DNA proof.  They still fail to mention DNA.  Reilly observes, "Officials may be using the arrest to try to bolster confidence in Iraq's security forces ahead of an upcoming drawdown in U.S. troops here. There's widespread fear among Iraqis that violence will increase when Americans leave Iraqi cities at the end of June, a timeline mandated by an agreement signed last year between Washington and Baghdad."  While Baghdad insists it's the 'terrorist,' the US has refused to say so since Thursday.  AFP reports the US Defense Dept sticks to asseting they can't confirm it.  Sam Dagher and Atheer Kakan (New York Times) note, "The government has not provided proof of his capture since announcing the arrest on Thursday, beyond showing a photograph of a man with a trimmed beard wearing a black T-shirt."  al-Maliki might try paying attention to other things.  Liz Sly (LAT's Bablyon & Beyond) reports Sheik Ali Hatem Sulaiman "has been trying to rally the support of tribes across Iraq for a tribal conference whose goal, he says, will be to replace the government of Prime Minister Nouri Maliki unless certain, as yet unspecified demands are met."
 
Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports "the father of two policemen" was brutally murdered in Mosul today.
 
Turning to legal news, Abeer Qassim Hamza al-Janabi is the 14-year-old Iraqi girl who was gang-raped and murdered March 12, 2006. James Barker is among those who confessed.  The Guardian of London summarized Barker's written testimony, ". . . Green dragged the father, mother and younger sister into a bedroom, while Abeer was left in the living room. . . . Barker said [Paul] Cortez appeared to rape the girl [Abeer], and he followed. He said he heard gunshots and Mr. Green came out of the bedroom, saying he had killed the family, before raping the girl and shooting her with an AK-47."

That's what Barker confessed to, Cortez' confession matched it. No need to say "alleged" with regards to them. No need to say it with regards to Steven D. Green. His attorneys are not disputing the statements that he was the ringleader, that he murdered four people, that he took part in the gang-rape or any of it.  They're arguing 'yes, but not guilty'.   He's being tried in a Kentucky federal court and his trial began yesterday. The ambulance chasing public defenders representing Green are the Keystone Cops of the legal field as they make one offensive argument after another. The case they presented yesterday was, "Yes, he did it, but think about what he went through and think about the fact that some US service members died in Iraq and think about . . ."

Think about this, that's as offensive as the argument the judge disallowed. The judge's refused to allow Green's attorneys to argue to the federal court jury, the civilian jury, that they can't judge Green because they weren't in Iraq. The defense offered yesterday is as offensive because it continues one of the threads which is: "This is normal behavior." It is not normal behavior. Were it normal behavior, every US soldier in Iraq would be doing what Green did. The defense is arguing that this is normal behavior and a normal response and it's not and that insults everyone who's served in Iraq or any other war zone.

The defense argues it was a normal response (murder and gang-rape) and that Steven D. Green is the victim here because he had problems. No question he had problems. He joined the military because he'd been arrested AGAIN. He joined the military to get out of being tossed into prison. He joined the military from jail. He couldn't get it together, no question.

But when you don't dispute the charges and when the charges are multiple murders and gang-rape, when your client could get the death penalty, you don't argue "normal" reaction. You argue that your client is mentally ill and was exhibiting those signs early on.

Green was unfit for entry in the military. There's no question of that. To get him, he required a 'moral' waiver. That's your case.

When the defense starts asking the jury to feel sorry for Green because it's "normal," they're running off the jury. The argument for this line of defense should be, "Yes, he did this. He did it because he's got huge problems and that's why you need to sentence him to a medical institution."

But when the defense wants to claim this is 'normal,' it's offensive. It's offensive to the society we live in. It's offensive to the military. And it also says, "Put him to death." That's what the defense is accidently arguing. If they're arguing this is 'normal' -- and it's not -- the jury's looking at Green and thinking, "Normal for him." Meaning it's incumbent upon them to ensure that he never has the option of doing anything like that again.

Does Green qualify for an insanity plea? I don't personally know. But that's all the defense has to argue because everyone else involved confessed to his actions and their own, because he was observed leering at Abeer and stroking her face and doing other things that made her uncomfortable (he was at a checkpoint in her neighborhood and harassed her repeatedly when she would have to pass through). If you're going for the insanity plea, you're asking the jury to consider your client out of control.

If you're client's 'out of control' is also, you argue, 'normal' then don't be surprised if a jury decides they're dealing with a rabid dog that needs to be put down.

It is very doubtful Green looks sympathetic or will come off as such. The strongest defense is that Green is f**ked up and that this was ignored by every institution and outlet he came before, repeatedly ignored so the jury is the last chance for him to receive help. That might get him institutionalized as opposed to put to death. But the arguments the defense is making currently or more likely to piss of the jury because, again, they're not disputing the charges.

Andrew Wolfson (Louisville Courier-Journal) reports Abeer's cousin Abu Farras testified that seeing the corpses, "I thought it had to be terrorists.  This was a massacre, not a crime.  I thought no American would do such a thing."  Abeer's brother Mohammed al-Janabi also testified stating he was coming home when he saw the smoke and had no idea it was his home.  (From when Abeer's body was set on fire.)  Alsumaria reports, "A relative of the victim's family in Baghdad, Rashid Hamza, said that two family members attended the trial in the United States. He wished the US solider accused of this atrocity be executed."   AFP provides this context: 3 soldiers are serving life sentences for their actions and a fourth "was sentenced to 27 months in jail."  Steven Robrahn (Reuters) quotes one of Green's attorneys, Patrick Bouldin, telling the jury, "You have to understand the background that leads up to this perfect storm of insanity."  AP's Brett Barrouquere has covered this story for almost three years now.  He reports on yesterday's proceedings and notes Brian Skaret, one of the prosecutors, explaining that Green and the others had a card game and whiskey, talked about sex and Abeer's name came up, they invaded her home, Green shot her sister and and parents, took part in the gang-rape and then "Steven Green went over to the wall and picked up a gun and he shot her in the face again and again."
 
Lastly on Iraq, Deborah Haynes (Times of London) did some outstanding reporting the last years in Baghdad.  We called her out here once (a blog post about riding in a jeep) and we're not here to award gold stars.  Translation, criticized once (or twenty times in one year) is nothing.  Haynes did an outstanding job and uncovered many stories (hospitals, pregnancies, exclusive interview with Gen Ray Odierno) that no one else managed to.  She's posted her last blog post at her paper's Inside Iraq and notes what she'll miss about Baghdad and what she won't.  She also files a brief report on Camp Cropper (US prison in Iraq) and notes that over 12,350 prisoners remain there currently.
 
 
 
 

Posted at 03:37 pm by thecommonills
 

Cliff Cornell's court-martial is today

Cliff Cornell's court-martial is today

GI Rights Lawyer issues "Media Advisory: Cliff Cornell to face Court-Martial Plea & Sentencing Hearing at Fort Stewart, Tuesday, April 28, 2009:"

WHO: PFC Cliff Cornell, a native of Mountain Home, Arkansas, who was recently deported from Canada after having fled there to avoid the illegal war in Iraq

WHAT: The U.S. Army has prosecuted PFC Cornell under a General Court-Martial. A hearing will be held to accept PCF Cornell’s guilty plea and to argue over what the sentence should be.

WHEN: April 28, 2009, 2:15 p.m.

WHERE: Fort Stewart Courthouse, near Hinesville, GA

FOR MORE INFORMATION: Civilian attorney James M. Branum will be available for interviews following the trial by telephone at 405-476-5620 or 1-866-933-ARMY. (we anticipate this will be in the evening)

News about the ongoing campaign to free PFC Cornell from being unjustly imprisoned for his beliefs can be found soon at www.couragetoresist.org.

The court-martial takes place today.

Cliff Cornell

Illustration by Kat, Betty's three kids and Wally, and used in Third's "Cliff Cornell faces court-martial on Tuesday" yesterday.


Saturday 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. The Department of Defense identified the fallen yesterday, "The Department of Defense announced today the death of a soldier who was supporting Operation Iraqi Freedom. Staff Sgt. Leroy O. Webster, 28, of Sioux Falls, S.D., died April 25 near Kirkuk, Iraq, after being shot while on a dismounted patrol. He was assigned to the 3rd Battalion, 82nd Field Artillery Regiment, 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 1st Cavalry Division, Fort Hood, Texas." Tim Gallagher (Sioux City Journal) reports:

Webster, the son of Don and Crystal Webster of Hartley, leaves behind wife Jessica, the former Jessica Rieck of Hartley, and their three young children. Jessica moved back to Hartley two months ago. The family had been living in Texas, where Leroy was stationed.
Hartley-Melvin-Sanborn High School instructor Jim Thomas said the news about Webster's death was shared Sunday morning during services at Hartley United Methodist Church.
"There was a lot of gasping, people were stunned," said Thomas, a high school teacher there for the past 16 years. "It hits a small community like ours hard."

William Petroski (Des Moines Register) adds, "Webster was a 1999 graduate of Hartley-Melvin-Sanborn High School, where he wrestled and played on the golf and baseball teams. He leaves behind a wife, Jessica, who was his high school sweetheart, and three young daughters, Natasha, Kaydence and Jadyn." Petroski also quotes the family's statement: "Leroy was a wonderful husband and a terric dad to his three beautiful daughters. He was proud to serve in the United States Army. He will forever be deeply missed by his family and friends." The Daily Globe also notes the family's statement. Ben Dunsmoor (KEOLAND.com -- link has text and video) speaks with Leroy Webster's high school teacher Ron Hengeveld who remembers Leroy and states of the death, "It happens in all small towns it seems like, you hear about it too often."

Friday 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." Friday the Dept of Defense announced: "The Department of Defense announced today the death of a soldier who was supporting Operation Iraqi Freedom. CSM Benjamin Moore, Jr., 43, of Waycross, Ga., died Apr 24 at Contingency Operating Base Speicher, Iraq, of injuries sustained in a non-combat related incident. He was assigned to the 2d Battalion, 27th Infantry Regiment, 3d Brigade Combat Team, 25th Infantry Division, Schofield Barracks, Hawaii. The circumstances surrounding the incident are under investigation." Teresa Stepzinski (Florida Times-Union) reports, "A 1983 Waycross High School graduate, Moore was assigned to the 2nd Battalion, 27th Infantry Regiment, 3rd Brigade Combat Team, 25th Infantry Division, Schofield Barracks, Hawaii." William Cole (Honolulu Advertiser) notes that Benjamin Moore had ten "sisters and five brothers" and quotes Teresa Brakes saying of her brother, "He's the glue that held the family together when we used to go through crises and sutff. He was the one that we went to and he would sit down and put it to us in a way we could understand, and just give us good advice. And the advice that he gave us, it was usually the right thing to do."

The New York Times has no story filed from Iraq. They ignore the Steven D. Green case. They have a poll which we may or may not cover in the snapshot. Ned Parker's "Iraq's Awakening: Two tales illustrate force's birth and slow death" (Los Angeles Times) apparently carries the heavy weight for all outlets:

The story of Abu Maarouf and Abu Azzam offers a rare window into the birth and slow death of the Sons of Iraq, the U.S.-backed corps of Sunni fighters who helped end the country's civil war.
Today, Abu Maarouf is on the run, hunted by the Iraqi army and the group Al Qaeda in Iraq. Afraid of midnight raids and ambushes, he sleeps some nights in irrigation ditches. Many say it's a miracle he's still alive.
His old cohort Abu Azzam spends his days inside the blast walls of the hermetic Green Zone in meetings with officials from Prime Minister Nouri Maliki's office.
The divergent fates of these two former Sunni insurgents highlight the major unknown about the intentions of Iraq's Shiite-led government: Is it reaching out to former Sunni insurgents such as Abu Azzam in the true spirit of "national reconciliation," or in hopes of splintering the movement?
And will the government's campaign against men such as Abu Maarouf succeed in snuffing out potential rivals? Or is it planting seeds for a long-term Sunni revolt?
The crackdown also points to a significant change in the U.S. forces' onetime policy of nurturing and protecting the Sons of Iraq. As the Iraqi government has arrested some of the movement's leaders, forced others into exile and failed to deliver jobs for rank-and-file fighters, the Americans have regularly deferred to Baghdad's wishes as they hand over responsibility for the country's security.

Mia notes Chris Hedges' "Obama Has Missed His Moment" (Information Clearing House):

Barack Obama has squandered his presidency. He had a fleeting moment to challenge the casino capitalism and financial recklessness of our economic and political elite. He could have orchestrated a state socialism that would have provided a safety net for tens of millions of Americans faced with dislocation and misery. The sums he has doled out to Wall Street could have been used to force companies to keep workers on the job or create new banks to open up credit. But he lacked the foresight and the courage to challenge entrenched power. And now we are headed down one of two frightening roads-massive deflation or hyperinflation. Neither will be pleasant.
Hyman Minsky-an economist largely ignored during his lifetime and now held up as something of a prophet-argued that speculative bubbles, and the financial collapses that follow them, are an inevitable consequence of unregulated capitalism. Minsky, an economics professor at Washington University in St. Louis who died in 1996, warned: "The normal functioning of our economy leads to financial trauma and crises, inflation, currency depreciations, unemployment and poverty in the middle of what could be virtually universal affluence-in short ... financially complex capitalism is inherently flawed." He called for socialized banking and stimulus packages to protect workers.
Our Minsky moment, however, has passed. Obama did not introduce radical measures to change our financial structures. And the outlook, even from Obama's chief financial advisers, is very gloomy. The U.S. economy will continue to contract "for some time to come," said Lawrence Summers, director of the White House National Economic Council. "I expect the economy will continue to decline," with "sharp declines in employment for quite some time this year," Summers said Sunday on "Fox News Sunday."

In the public e-mail account, a visitor asks if we can note libertarian columnist Steven McDuffie's "Barck Obama: The Mendacity of Hope, Pt. II" (Nolan Chart):

In 2008, then-Senator Obama was pushed to the forefront of the passel of potential Democratic nominees due in no small part to his apparent status as the peace candidate. During the presidential campaign, Obama constantly reminded supporters of his 16 month plan for withdrawal from Iraq--except when he claimed to have an eleven and a half month plan. I clearly recall warning my liberal friends and family members that they were very likely going to be sorely disappointed with Obama.

My pessimism about Obama wasn't based on some prophetic ability on my part, or even a pretty good guess. My first clue that Candidate Obama might be a wolf in sheep's clothing is when he received praise from arch-neocon Robert Kagan. Two years later, President Obama is still receiving praise from Kagan.

Many of my friends on the left--fellow anti-war activists--voted for Obama because they thought he would "bring the troops home". I assured them that, in all likelihood, there would still be tens of thousands of US troops in Iraq come 2012, and indeed, Obama has since all but promised exactly that. Of course, this cannot be surprising when one considers that, though Obama argued against the Iraq War as a senatorial candidate, once elected he rejected all timetables for withdrawal and backed every bill to fund the war, never once casting a single vote that could legitimately be regarded as being in opposition to the war.

That's the opening. Use the link to read in full. And lastly, ETAN notes:

Groups Urge Meaningful Pressure on Jakarta for Papuan Rights
Contact: Ed McWilliams, WPAT, +1-575-648-2078
John M. Miller, ETAN, +1-718-596-7668

April 27 - Two U.S. organizations concerned about human rights in West Papua today urged the U.S. government "to apply meaningful pressure on the Indonesian government and its security forces... to address long-standing Papuan concerns and grievances."
The West Papua Advocacy Team (WPAT) and the East Timor and Indonesia Action Network (ETAN) called the new Obama administration's approach to West Papua "hardly fresh."
In testimony before Congress last week, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton called for supporting West Papua "in its efforts to have a degree of autonomy within Indonesia."
"Failure of the U.S. government to think seriously and act responsibly about West Papua, before Indonesia's July presidential elections, risks further deterioration of human rights and communal violence," said Ed McWilliams, a retired U.S. diplomat and spokesperson for WPAT.
"Papuans have repeatedly rejected 'Special Autonomy' and... have demanded instead an internationally-facilitated dialogue with the central government to address key issues, including demilitarization of West Papua, an end to intimidation, the release of political prisoners, and the right to self-determination," the groups said. The full statement is below.
The U.S. government and Congress should "apply meaningful pressure" for such a dialogue and for "an end to restrictions that prevent the international community from monitoring human rights developments and the welfare of Papuans in the region." Pressure should include conditioning "assistance to the Indonesian military, Brimob, Indonesia's intelligence agencies on real reform [of the security forces], human rights accountability and demonstrated respect for people of West Papua."
In recent weeks, their has been an escalation of both peaceful protest and violent conflict in West Papua, which Indonesia annexed in 1969. Since then Papuans have suffered massacres and other systematic human rights violations, environmental destruction, and marginalization in their own land.

-30-

Joint Statement by West Papua Advocacy Team (WPAT) and East Timor and Indonesia Action Network (ETAN) on U.S. Policy and West Papua

Appearing last week before the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, for the first time as Secretary spoke directly about the human rights crisis in West Papua. While candidly acknowledging the "many human rights abuses" in West Papua, Secretary Clinton framed both its problems and their solutions essentially in the same way that the Bush Administration had: She emphasized that West Papua was part of a "sovereign Indonesia," and said West Papua needed support "in its efforts to have a degree of autonomy within Indonesia."

For nearly eight years the Indonesian government has pursued its "Special Autonomy" policy for West Papua. This was to have afforded long-denied fundamental rights to Papuans and ended decades of systematic human rights violations, environmental destruction and marginalization. Clearly, the Indonesian government has failed to implement this policy, instead continuing to rely on a security approach. Indonesia's military, militarized police (Brimob) and intelligence agencies continue to terrorize Papuans. These security forces violate fundamental human rights with impunity and collude with domestic and international corporations to deprive Papuans of their land. At the same time, the Indonesian government has drawn a curtain around West Papua preventing or limiting international monitoring of conditions there by journalists, international human rights officials, and others. Recently, it demanded the departure of International Committee of the Red Cross because its officials had met with Papuan political prisoners.

The Indonesian government continued denial of essential services health, education and employment, leaving the Papuans to suffer among the worst levels of poverty, mortality and education in Asia.

Papuans have repeatedly rejected "Special Autonomy" and -- in massive, peaceful popular demonstrations -- have demanded instead an internationally-facilitated dialogue with the central government to address key issues, including demilitarization of West Papua, an end to intimidation, the release of political prisoners, and the right to self-determination.

Unfortunately, the Obama Administration appears to ignore the reality of Papuans' suffering and the urgent need for fundamental change in West Papua. Secretary Clinton's call for a "degree of autonomy" for West Papua is hardly fresh or progressive thinking. Rather than resort to the failed Bush Administration approach of calling upon Jakarta to afford "a degree of autonomy," the crisis in West Papua calls for fresh approach and a genuine commitment to Papuans fundamental rights, including a right to self-determination.

A decade ago, the U.S. Government similarly failed to understand the dynamics of the deteriorating human rights environment in East Timor. During that crisis, the U.S. sought only to press the Indonesian military to take more seriously its responsibility to protect human rights in East Timor. Then (and now) the U.S. government failed to understand that the Indonesian military, (as well as Brimob and Indonesian intelligence agencies) bore ultimate responsibility for the death and destruction in surrounding the UN-organized referendum in 1999.

Instead of offering stale policy prescriptions, we urge the U.S. to apply meaningful pressure on the Indonesian government and its security forces to press for an internationally-facilitated, senior level dialogue between the Indonesian Government and Papuans, including Papuan civil society, to address long-standing Papuan concerns and grievances. The U.S. government should urge an end to restrictions that prevent the international community from monitoring human rights developments and the welfare of Papuans in the region. The U.S. government should also press for fundamental reform of the Indonesian security forces which continue to violate human rights, are unaccountable before Indonesia's flawed judicial system, and are not fully subordinate to civilian government control. The current administration and Congress should clearly condition assistance to the Indonesian military, Brimob, Indonesia's intelligence agencies on real reform, human rights accountability and demonstrated respect for people of West Papua.
etanetanetanetanetanetanetanetanetanetanetanetan
John M. Miller Internet: etan@igc.org
National Coordinator
East Timor & Indonesia Action Network
PO Box 21873, Brooklyn, NY 11202-1873 USA
Phone: (718)596-7668 Mobile: (917)690-4391
Skype: john.m.miller Web: http://www.etan.org




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













Posted at 06:46 am by thecommonills
 

Abeer Qassim Hamza al-Janabi

Abeer Qassim Hamza al-Janabi





Abeer Qassim Hamza al-Janabi is the 14-year-old Iraqi girl who was gang-raped and murdered March 12, 2006. The illustration to the right is from The Third Estate Sunday Review's "Justice for Abeer and her family?" and the illustration is of James Barker and Paul Cortez beginning the gang-rape of Abeer while Steven D. Green was in the other room murdering Abeer's five-year-old sister and her parents. For that article, we based the illustrations on Barker's confession in court. At the time, the Guardian of London summarized Barker's written testimony, ". . . Green dragged the father, mother and younger sister into a bedroom, while Abeer was left in the living room. . . . Barker said Cortez appeared to rape the girl [Abeer], and he followed. He said he heard gunshots and Mr. Green came out of the bedroom, saying he had killed the family, before raping the girl and shooting her with an AK-47."

That's what Barker confessed to, Cortez' confession matched it. No need to say "alleged" with regards to them. No need to say it with regards to Steven D. Green. His attorneys are not disputing the statements that he was the ringleader, that he murdered four people, that he took part in the gang-rape or any of it.

He's being tried in a Kentucky federal court and his trial began yesterday. The ambulance chasing public defenders representing Green are the Keystone Cops of the legal field as they make one offensive argument after another. The case they presented yesterday was, "Yes, he did it, but think about what he went through and think about the fact that some US service members died in Iraq and think about . . ."

Think about this, that's as offensive as the argument the judge disallowed. The judge's refused to allow Green's attorneys to argue to the federal court jury, the civilian jury, that they can't judge Green because they weren't in Iraq. The defense offered yesterday is as offensive because it continues one of the threads which is: "This is normal behavior." It is not normal behavior. Were it normal behavior, every US soldier in Iraq would be doing what Green did. The defense is arguing that this is normal behavior and a normal response and it's not and that insults everyone who's served in Iraq or any other war zone.

The defense argues it was a normal response (murder and gang-rape) and that Steven D. Green is the victim here because he had problems. No question he had problems. He joined the military because he'd been arrested AGAIN. He joined the military to get out of being tossed into prison. He joined the military from jail. He couldn't get it together, no question.

But when you don't dispute the charges and when the charges are multiple murders and gang-rape, when your client could get the death penalty, you don't argue "normal" reaction. You argue that your client is mentally ill and was exhibiting those signs early on.

Green was unfit for entry in the military. There's no question of that. To get him, he required a 'moral' waiver. That's your case.

When the defense starts asking the jury to feel sorry for Green because it's "normal," they're running off the jury. The argument for this line of defense should be, "Yes, he did this. He did it because he's got huge problems and that's why you need to sentence him to a medical institution."

But when the defense wants to claim this is 'normal,' it's offensive. It's offensive to the society we live in. It's offensive to the military. And it also says, "Put him to death." That's what the defense is accidently arguing. If they're arguing this is 'normal' -- and it's not -- the jury's looking at Green and thinking, "Normal for him." Meaning it's incumbent upon them to ensure that he never has the option of doing anything like that again.

Steven D. Green's defense is a joke.

Does Green qualify for an insanity plea? I don't personally know. But that's all the defense has to argue because everyone else involved confessed to his actions and their own, because he was observed leering at Abeer and stroking her face and doing other things that made her uncomfortable (he was at a checkpoint in her neighborhood and harassed her repeatedly when she would have to pass through). If you're going for the insanity plea, you're asking the jury to consider your client out of control.

If you're client's 'out of control' is also, you argue, 'normal' then don't be surprised if a jury decides they're dealing with a rabid dog that needs to be put down.

It is very doubtful Green looks sympathetic or will come off as such. The strongest defense is that Green is f**ked up and that this was ignored by every institution and outlet he came before, repeatedly ignored so the jury is the last chance for him to receive help. That might get him institutionalized as opposed to put to death. But the arguments the defense is making currently or more likely to piss of the jury because, again, they're not disputing the charges.

Andrew Wolfson's "Trial opens for ex-soldier in Iraqi family's deaths" (Louisville Courier-Journal) is probably the strongest article this morning:

A cousin who found the burning bodies of rape victim Abeer Al-Janabi and her slain family south of Bagdad in March 2006 testified yesterday that he never suspected American soldiers were responsible.
"I thought it had to be terrorists," Abu Farras testified in U.S. District Court on the first day of the capital murder trial of former Army soldier Steven Dale Green. "This was a massacre, not a crime. I thought no American would do such a thing."
Abeer's brother, 15-year-old Mohammed Al-Janabi, who was left an orphan by the murders, testified that when he came home from school on March 12, 2006, he didn't know the smoke coming from his family's home was from his sister's body, which had been set ablaze.

That's the opening of his article. Where's the New York Times? They were happy to join the cover up -- Robert Worth and Carolyn Marshall -- and advance it. So why the hell, after it blew up in their faces, does the New York Times believe they can avoid covering this trial? These are War Crimes and, again, no need for "alleged" with Green. His attorneys are not disputing the charges. Alsumaria reports, "A relative of the victim’s family in Baghdad, Rashid Hamza, said that two family members attended the trial in the United States. He wished the US solider accused of this atrocity be executed."

AFP provides this context:

Three other soldiers were given life sentences in the March 2006 atrocity which was allegedly devised over whiskey and a game of cards at a traffic check point in Mahmudiyah, south of Baghdad.
A fourth soldier who acted as a lookout was sentenced to 27 months in jail.

Steven Robrahn (Reuters) quotes one of Green's attorneys, Patrick Bouldin, telling the jury, "You have to understand the background that leads up to this perfect storm of insanity." Billie notes the Dallas Morning News carries an AP brief on the story. Where are the beggars of Panhandle Media? Why isn't Free Speech Radio News present? As everyone gas bags over non-topics and non-stories today on various Pacifica outlets (Amy Goodman actually has a good show on Democracy Now! today so she's left out of the critique for a change), remind yourself that in the 60s and 70s and 80s, on far less money, Pacifica Radio was there for the stories that mattered.

The following community sites updated last night:



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








thomas friedman is a great man






oh boy it never ends

Posted at 06:39 am by thecommonills
 

Monday, April 27, 2009
Iraq snapshot

Iraq snapshot

Monday, April 27, 2009.  Chaos and violence continue, Iraqi Christians are under assault again, a US raid reveals how hollow the SOFA is, the bases reveal how hollow the SOFA is, the talk of the US staying in Iraq cities reveal how hollow the SOFA is, Nouri goes on air with the BBC, Cliff Cornell faces a court-martial tomorrow, the Steven D. Green trial began today, and more.
 
In Julywar resister Robin Long was extradited from Canada.  He was court-martialed August 22nd.  Last month, his civilian attorney posted an essay by Robin to the Free Robin Long website:
 
ON JULY 14th, 2008, in my final attempt to stay in Canada, where my son and community is, Federal Judge Ann Mactavish stated that I didn't prove I would be treated harshly by the US military for being a politically outspoken opponent to the War in Iraq and Bush Administration policy. She predicted my punishment would be minimal, 30 days in the brig, perhaps. She then cleared the way for my deportation/extradition. She noted only10% of these cases go to Court Martial.        
A MONTH later, I was tried in a Court Martial presided over by a judge, a Colonel in the US Army, who has President Bush in her chain-of-command. (She was later appointed by Bush to oversee trials at Guantanamo Bay, no doubt because of her political credentials.
THE ONLY aggravating evidence the Prosecution presented was a 6 minute video of me stating, among other things, that I believed my President lied to me. A political statement. The fact that this was found admissible in court for the charge of Desertion is beyond me. There were no character witnesses brought against me. The ONLY factors the Prosecution wanted shown in determining my sentence was the fact I was political and exercising my freedom of speech in criticizing my Commander-in-Chief.           
IT SEEMS like a conflict of interest to have a judge determine my fate when she has to ultimately answer to the President, while I was claiming that same President was a domestic enemy, who used any reason, and manufactured reasons, to invade and wreak havoc in Iraq.           
THE JUDGE came back with 30 months- that's two and a half years for not showing up for work that I believed to be morally objectionable, criminal, and its by far the harshest sentence given to a resister/deserter of the Iraq War.          
I was saved from that by a plea bargain that got me 15 months. I STILL get a Dishonorable Discharge (DD). A DD will keep me from many fields of employment, from any Government position to the civilian world. It will make getting home loans all the harder. This is a FELONY CONVICTION- which will make it very hard, perhaps impossible to return to Canada to be with my young family. It is the worst grade of discharge there is.     
PEOPLE THAT committed far worse crimes have been getting off with lighter sentences than me. 1st Infantry Division soldier Spec. Belmor Ramos was sentenced to only 7 months after being convicted of conspiracy to commit murder- 4 Iraqi men. I refused to participate in killings, he stood guard while others executed four unidentified Iraqi men, afterwards dumping their bodies in a Baghdad canal on '07. During his court martial Ramos admitted his guilt, stating: "I wanted them dead. I had no legal justification to do this." Where is the justice? The system is neither fair nor impartial. Can it really be transparent when you don't know who is influencing the judge from up the chain of command? Do you see how the military justice system works? – Condone killings with light sentences, but God forbid someone should call President Bush a liar and a war monger. A persons words and political opinion must be far more damaging to the good order of the military if they are anti war and critical of the President, than a soldiers criminal actions in an occupied foreign nation . . . .        
 
His attorney is James Branum and Branum will be representing Iraq War resister Cliff Cornell tomorrow at Fort Stewart in Georgia.  Cliff spent four years in Canada attempting to receive refugee status.  As noted yesterday at Third: "Cliff went to Canada in January 2005. He had hopes of asylum and and hopes of a life. In Mission Rejected, Peter Laufer's 2006 book on resistance, Cliff makes a brief appearance on pages 68 and 69. He and 'Ivan' (neither were comfortable, at that point, with giving their full names, Ivan is Ivan Brobeck) were joking around, Ivan was on skateboard and Cliff was laughing about tossing him out the window."  Four years and he became the third known war resister forced out of Canada.    February 10th he turned himself into the US military.  Dee Knight (Workers World) reported in March that Cliff gave up his right to an Article 32 hearing on the hope that the desertion charge would be tossed out and that "a reduced charge" would replace it.  That did not happen.  Tomorrow at Fort Stewart, Cliff is scheduled to face a court-martial.  Courage to Resist has information here and they are still accepting donations to Cliff's legal defense. 
 
In June 2006, Lt Ehren Watada went public and became the first known officer to resist the illegal war.  In August 2006, an Article 32 hearing was held and, weeks and weeks later, the finding was released: the military would proceed with a court-martial. On Monday, February 5th, Watada's court-martial began. It continued on Tuesday when the prosecution argued their case. Wednesday, Watada was to take the stand in his semi-defense.  Judge Toilet (John Head) presided and when the prosecution was losing, Toilet decided to flush the lost by declaring a mistrial over defense objection in his attempt to give the prosecution a do-over.  That's not how the justice system works in the US, double-jeopardy is banned.  In November of 2007, US District Judge Benjamin Settle ruled, "The same Fifth Amendment protections are in place for military service members as are afforded to civilians.  There is a strong public interest in maintaing these rights inviolate."  The military stated then that they would appeal.  Where does it stand for Ehren currently?  (His service contract ended in December 2006.  He has continued to report to his base every day as scheduled.)  Gregg K. Kakesako (Honolulu Star-Bulletin) addresed the issue earlier this month: "The Army says it is still awaiting a decision from newly appointed U.S. Solictor Elena Kagan, who was sworn in three weeks ago, as to whether it will appeal a federal judge decision".  Yesterday the  Ad Hoc Campaign to Free Ehren Watada announced a campaing to contact Solictor General Elena Kagan (202-514-2201) and Deputy Solicitor General Neal Katyal (202-514-2206) and ask them to drop the charges against Ehren, issue him an honorable discharge and release him from the military.  Letters can be mailed to US Dept of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20530.  E-mails sent to DOJ@usdoj.gov will be passed on to Kagan and Katyal.
 
I have no idea why anyone is saying the decision of Judge Settle came down in October (Kakesako's  saying just October which implies the most recent October, AHCtFEW says October 2007).  It was November 8th.  Coverage that back that up includes Hal Bernton's "Watada court-martial now less likely?" (Seattle Times), Christian Hill's "Court-martial of Watada might not come" (The Olympian),  Hal Bernton's "Court bars second court-martial for Watada, for now" (Seattle Times), Aaron Glantz' "Case Crumbles Against Officer Who Refused Iraq" (IPS -- dated "Nov 9" of 2007, Glantz opens, "First Lt. Ehren Watada, the first commissioned officer to refuse deployment to Iraq, won what his backers are calling a 'huge victory' in court Thursday.") and Amy Goodman included it in the November 9, 2007 headlines.
 
Turning to Iraq, yesterday US General Ray Odierno, the top US commander in Iraq, spoke with Rahul Sharma and Anand Sagar (Khaleej Times) and stated that the US forces may remain in some Iraqi cities after June 30th.  The Status Of Forces Agreement was rammed through in the final day of the Bush adminstration (which did the ramming) and a copy was only released by the White House to the public after the Iraqi Parliament voted for it (with a huge number of MPs refusing to show for the vote) on Thanksgiving.  Prior to Barack Obama being sworn in as president, he had made many objections to the SOFA and a campaign promise at his website noted his and Vice President Joe Biden's objections to the SOFA (Biden made public objections before he was on the ticket with Obama) and how it needed to be rejected.  Instead, Barack suddenly decided it was a good thing.  Or maybe, the election over, he no longer felt the need to imply there was a huge difference between himself and George W. Bush.  Barack's 'big' Iraq War plan is the SOFA.  And people continue to operate under the mistaken belief that it is binding when, day after day, it is demonstrated that there is nothing binding about that agreement.  The Corpus Christi Caller-Times outlines the basics in an editorial this morning noting of the SOFA, "Under the agreement between Washington and Baghdad, U.S. combat troops would be out of Iraq by August 2010.  After that, up to 50,000 -- one third of the present U.S. forces -- would remain with a non-combat role.  All 140,000 U.S. troops are supposed to be gone by the end of 2011.  The decision on whether to keep U.S. troops in Iraqi cities would be made by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki; it would be a tough call, given that a majority of Iraqis want U.S. troops out of the country."
 
Jim Muir (BBC News -- link has text and video) interviewed puppet Nouri today and apparently forgot to ask Nouri if he condemns the attacks on Iraq's LGBT community.  He does let Nouri go on and on.  Including a long winded answer where he insists that there will be no change in the June 30th deadline.  Until Muir brings up Odierno, anyway.
 
Jim Muir:  General Odierno, the commander of the American forces, has suggested that it might be necessary to keep American troops, for example, in Mosul or Baquba after the end of June if your government asks for that.  Is your government prepared to ask for that?

Nouri al-Kalminin:  The possibility is there.  The American side is willing if the Iraqi government asks for it.  But so far there is no thought on the part of the Iraqi government to ask for an extension of those forces.  On the basis of the field assessment we don't need them and there is no request.  
 
Nouri's lying.  Big surprise there.  Baghdad's an Iraqi city. US troops will not be out of Baghdad.  Rod Nordland (New York Times) broke that story in today's paper and noted that Iraq and the US are going to focus on Mosul in talks about US troops remaining in some Iraqi cities.  Nordland reveals they will remain in Baghdad (he says "parts of Baghdad" -- that means they will be in Baghdad and Baghdad is a city) and that Camp Victory ["Camps Victory, Liberty, Striker and Slayer, plus the prison known as Camp Cropper"] and "Camp Prosperity" will not be closed or turned over to Iraq according to Iraqi Maj Gen Muhammad al-Askari. The SOFA 'requires' that they be closed or turned over but  al-Askari says they're making exceptions even though the SOFA 'requires' otherwise. For the mammoth Camp Victory, it is in Baghdad and out of Baghdad, for example, so al-Askari says they consider it out of Baghdad.  US Maj Gen David Perkins thinks Mosul will also continue to have US troops stationed there.  Nouri should have stuck to his tall tales about how all the female bombers are escapees from mental institutions. 
 
Violence continued over the weekend and one incident raised the issue of the allegedly 'binding' SOFA again. Sunday Laith Hammoudi and Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reported a 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 added Nouri al-Maliki was 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, "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'."  Reuters reported Kut was the scene Sunday of a crowd of "hundreds" protesting the deaths with signs and slogans referring to the "criminal occupiers,"

Here is the US military's Sunday 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.

Charles Levinson and Nada Raad (Wall St. Jounal) note, "Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki issued a statement calling the raid a 'crime' and said it violated the terms of the security agreement, which requires the U.S. military to coordinate manuevers with Iraqi counterparts."   The Chicago Tribune, consistent with other reports, terms it a "predawn raid."  Steven Lee Myers (New York Times) repeatedly omits the term "dawn" and he repeatedly refers to the "security agreement" without identifying it as the Status Of Forces Agreement.  Myers does tell readers the target of the raid was Ahmed Abdul Sada and that the woman who died, Azhar, was his wife and the man who died, Khalid, was his brother. Myers states the US military released the ones arrested but leaves out the fact that the Iraqi government demanded the ones arrested be released. Corinne Reilly and Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) quote Iraqi Col Shawqat al Alusi declaring, "There was no approval given."  Ernesto Londono and Zaid Sabah (Washington Post) observe: "The incident marked the first time Iraq's government has called for the prosecution of U.S. soldiers and sets the stage for a showdown between the two countries at a time when sectarian violence appears to be spiking."
 
Yesterday Sam Dagher (New York Times) reported  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."

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.
 
 
In other violence over the weekend, Sunday saw 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 two 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.  Alsumaria notes, "Chaldeans Archbishop in Kirkuk Louis Sako rebuked these coward and terrorist crimes affirming that Christians are part of Iraq's people and perpetrators should be brought to justice." Turning to some of today's reported violence . . .
 
 
Bombings?
 
Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad grenade attack which left two police officers injured.  Reuters notes a Mosul roadside bombing which injured three people (two are Iraqi soldiers).
 
Corpses?
Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 1 corpse discovered in Mosul Sunday night.
 
Saturday 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 diplomatic news, 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). Saturday the Secretary went to Baghdad for a brief and unnannounced visit.  Mary Beth Sheridan (Washington Post) noted 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."  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."  For a transcript of the townhall, see "Secretary's Remarks: Remarks at the Town Hall Meeting with PRT Leaders and Iraqi Partners"; for a transcript of the press conference with Hoshyar Zebari, see "Near East: Remarks With Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari." NPR's Michele Kelemen (Weekend Edition) offers an audio report of the trip to Iraq.
 
Today, Steven D. Green goes on trial: "The jury trial will commence on April 27, 2009, 9 a.m. (CDT) and will be held in the Paducah Division of the Western District of Kentucky, located at 501 Broadway, Paducah, Kentucky." Green is on trial for the gang-rape and murder of 14-year-old Abeer Qasim Hamza al-Janabi and the murders of her five-year-old sister and her parents. Green denies involvment. Soldiers already convicted of the War Crimes finger him as the ringleader, as the murderer of all four and as one of the gang-rapists. The others faced military courts because they were in the military. Green was discharged before the War Crimes were known.  Andrew Wolfson (Courier-Journal) reports, "In an opening statement in a trial that is expected to last three to five weeks, Justice Department lawyer Brian Skaret said the government will present at least five witnesses who say Green bragged about the crimes, including one who says Green told his fellow soldiers that it was 'awesome'." Green's attorney Patrick Bouldin wanted people to grasp that Iraq's "a perfect storm of craziness" and since he didn't bother to deny the charges, the defense appears to be attempting a plea of "not guilty by reason of insanity by reason of location."
 
 

Posted at 03:21 pm by thecommonills
 

The pre-dawn raid and the non-binding 'binding' treaty

The pre-dawn raid and the non-binding 'binding' treaty

Iraq's prime minister demanded that American commanders turn soldiers responsible for a predawn raid on Sunday that left two dead over to Iraqi courts for possible trial, in a first test of the U.S.-Iraqi security pact concluded last year.
Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki issued a statement calling the raid a "crime" and said it violated the terms of the security agreement, which requires the U.S. military to coordinate maneuvers with Iraqi counterparts.

The above is the opening to Charles Levinson and Nada Raad's "U.S. Raid Tests Iraq Security Pact" (Wall St. Journal). This is the raid noted last night in which two Iraqis killed. The Chicago Tribune notes it was a "predawn raid." In this morning's New York Times, Steven Lee Myers' "After a U.S. Raid: 2 Iraqis Dead, Protests and Regrets" repeatedly omits the term "dawn" and he repeatedly refers to the "security agreement" without identifying it as the Status Of Forces Agreement. [There are two security agreements between the US and Iraq, the SOFA -- the one Rod Nordland's covering in the paper's other Iraq story this morning -- is the one which applies here. As CNN notes, "Al-Maliki's accusation that the United States violated the security pact is the first time the Iraqi government has claimed a breach in the deal that governs the presence of U.S. troops in Iraq. It was reached last November and implemented in January." Click here to read the Status Of Forces Agreement which the White House made public Thanksgiving evening 2008.]. Myers does tell readers the target of the raid was Ahmed Abdul Sada and that the woman who died, Azhar, was his wife and the man who died, Khalid, was his brother. Myers states the US military released the ones arrested but leaves out the fact that the Iraqi government demanded the ones arrested be released. Ernesto Londono and Zaid Sabah's "Deaths in U.S. Raid Elicit Anger in Iraq" (Washington Post):

The incident marked the first time Iraq's government has called for the prosecution of U.S. soldiers and sets the stage for a showdown between the two countries at a time when sectarian violence appears to be spiking.
Since the implementation this year of a bilateral security agreement, U.S. forces have been barred from conducting unilateral operations and can no longer detain Iraqis for long periods. The agreement says American forces can be prosecuted in Iraqi courtrooms for grave, premeditated crimes committed off base and off duty -- criteria that U.S. officials have said effectively means American soldiers will never face Iraqi justice.

Corinne Reilly and Hussein Kadhim's "Iraqi government claims U.S. raid violated agreement" (McClatchy Newspapers) add of the raid:

"There was no approval given," said Col. Shawqat al Alusi, an Iraqi army spokesman. He said that a U.S. military commander had apologized to Iraqi authorities for failing to obtain their permission.
The U.S. commander told Iraqi officials he thought the unit that conducted the raid had received approval and that a misunderstanding was to blame, Alusi said.
Speaking by phone from Kut, Alusi added that the six who were arrested already have been released. Maliki has ordered an investigation into the matter, he said.
Alusi couldn't provide the name of the American commander who he said apologized. A U.S. military spokesman said in an e-mail that he couldn't comment on Alusi's statements or confirm that the men who were arrested have been released.

Bonnie notes Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Hard Work" went up yesterday.

Remember that Cliff Cornell is court-martialed tomorrow at Fort Stewart in Georgia.

Cliff Cornell

Illustration by Kat, Betty's three kids and Wally, and used in Third's "Cliff Cornell faces court-martial on Tuesday" yesterday.

Today, Steven D. Green goes on trial: "The jury trial will commence on April 27, 2009, 9 a.m. (CDT) and will be held in the Paducah Division of the Western District of Kentucky, located at 501 Broadway, Paducah, Kentucky." Green is on trial for the gang-rape and and murder of 14-year-old Abeer Qasim Hamza al-Janabi and the murders of her five-year-old sister and her parents. Green denies involvment. Soldiers already convicted of the War Crimes finger him as the ringleader, as the murderer of all four and as one of the gang-rapists. The others faced military courts because they were in the military. Green was discharged before the War Crimes were known.

And we'll close with this excerpt from Mark Kukis' "Will Shi'ite Militias Seek Revenge in Iraq?" (Time magazine):

Abu Zaid, a Shi'ite in the Mahdi Army militia led by Moqtada al-Sadr, says he is simply waiting for word on whether to fight again.
With a series of bombing attacks against Shi'ites leaving at least 150 people dead in recent days, many Iraqis have wondered whether the Mahdi Army will continue to stand down or renew death squad killings as they did when sectarian violence raged out of control for more than a year beginning in 2006. Zaid and others associated with Sadr say that for now the militia is effectively dormant. "The Mahdi Army is off the streets by order of the Sadr himself," says Zaid, who spoke to TIME in Najaf and pointed to a standing unilateral cease-fire declared by Sadr roughly a year ago. "If he orders us to go back, we are ready. If he does not, any one of us who goes into the streets carrying weapons, we consider them an enemy." (TIME goes behind the scenes with President Barack Obama in Iraq)

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











mcclatchy newspapers





thomas friedman is a great man

Posted at 06:43 am by thecommonills
 

Weaseling out of the 'requirement' to leave Iraq cities

Weaseling out of the 'requirement' to leave Iraq cities

Lastly, in every war, everyone and all sides make at least one mistake…what might that have been for MNF-I?

Well, (taken aback but laughs) there might have been more than one…but the two I remember as I go back to the beginning of the war (and I was here then as well) was the disillusionment of the Iraqi army in the beginning and then the 'debaathification.' I mean they were just bad decisions.
And I think, in my opinion, that was the first step (towards) spiraling violence. Those are probably the two biggest mistakes. And the last one (and I am not going to answer another question) was Abu Ghraib (the US detention facility). The fact is that we don’t expect that of ourselves. That's not who we are. That's not what we stand for. And yet…we allowed that to happen. And we have been correcting that ever since.

That's the top US commander in Iraq, General Ray Odierno, speaking Rahul Sharma and Foreign Editor Anand Sagar for "'We Have Made Mistakes in Iraq': General Odierno" (Khaleej Times). The article is excerpts and Odierno notes, as he has repeatedly, that US forces may remain in Iraq after June 30th. The treaty masquerading as a Status Of Forces Agreement 'requires' that US forces leave Iraqi cities by June 30th -- all Iraqi cities. His remarks are similar to (a) what he's stated all along (even when people haven't wanted to hear it) and (b) the are not at all similar to remarks made Saturday by US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zerbari in their joint-press conference. Asked if it would "still be possible to withdraw US troops as planned from cities by the end of June," the response were:

Hillary Clinton: General Odierno briefed me and members of my delegation this morning. And his view is my view, that these are tragic and terrible events, but they do not reflect any diversion from the security progress that has been made. They are certainly regrettable and horrible in terms of loss of life. But the reaction from the Iraqi people and the Iraqi leaders was firm and united in rejecting that violence, and refusing to allow it to set Iraqi against Iraqi, which is obviously one of its intended goals. And with respect to any matters that are going on in the United States, I think we'll wait and see what happens. I don't want to be prejudging or commenting on anything until it does happen. But I think the strong relationship that the United States and Iraq have in our partnership on all levels is in a very positive framework and will become more so as we work together on specific issues and find solutions to the problems t hat confront Iraq as they make this very courageous transition into security and stability and sovereignty and self-reliance, and that's what we're going to be focused on. Thank you very much.

Hoshyar Zerbari: Just add to what Secretary Clinton has said actually on this issue, on this question. I personally don't believe that these deadly attacks was (inaudible) government determination to pursue its plans to (inaudible) the country. Yes, we have, indeed, certain timeline for withdrawal from the population center and the city centers. But we are doing our utmost, and we are coordinating very closely with the multinational forces to ensure that there is no vacuum when that happens, and that security is viable to certain extent. But this ultimately would be an Iraqi responsibility. As for the aim of this attacks, actually, if you look back most of them were Iranian (inaudible) innocent, soft targets that have been targeted by these terrorists in Diyala and (inaudible). And our condolences also to go to their families and to the government. And we are doing our utmost really to protect them and to ensure that they carry out their religious duty as it should be.

The press conference in full is up at the US State Dept's website, "Near East: Remarks With Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari." Did you find an answer in that? No, you did not. Yet Amy Goodman claims today during her headlines that Hillary stated they would stay in Mosul and parts of Baghdad in this press conference. Read it in full, no such statement was made. Is the transcript incomplete? I've seen video of the press conference, there was no mention of what Goodman's claiming this morning. What was made, a statement that whatever outlet Goody reads missed, was the following early on by Hillary:

The end of the United States' combat presence in Iraq by 2011 will mark the beginning of a new phase in our country's relationship. As we draw down militarily, we will deepen our civilian cooperation in accordance with the strategic framework agreement. We will work on development and diplomatic initiatives and a regional agenda that includes border security and refugees.

That was not in reply to a question. That was in her opening (prepared) remarks. We saw Hillary dance away from the specific question she was asked about withdrawing from US cities by the end of June (as did Zebari). Hillary knows how to avoid a question she doesn't want to answer. She also knows how to say what she means. The US combat presence in Iraq will end in 2011? Really? August 2010 was the supposed date. Are more dates being kicked down the road? Is Barack playing kick the can yet again?

For those thinking Goodman's confused the press conference with the town hall, you can go to the State Dept website and read "Secretary's Remarks: Remarks at the Town Hall Meeting with PRT Leaders and Iraqi Partners" but you won't find the issue of withdrawal from Iraqi cities at the end of June raised. I have no idea where Goodman's getting her information and she didn't source it. But Hillary did not declare that the US would remain in Mosul and Baghdad after June 30th. I happen to believe they will remain but that doesn't change the fact that Hillary didn't say that in the press conference with Zebari.

The Corpus Christi Caller Times editorializes on the topic of the departure from Iraqi cities and the SOFA today in "We may miss the deadline to pull U.S. troops out of Iraq's cities:"

Under the agreement between Washington and Baghdad, U.S. combat troops would be out of Iraq by August 2010. After that, up to 50,000 - one third of the present U.S. forces - would remain with a non-combat role. All 140,000 U.S. troops are supposed to be gone by the end of 2011. The decision on whether to keep U.S. troops in Iraqi cities would be made by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki; it would be a tough call, given that a majority of Iraqis want U.S. troops out of the country.
[. . .]
We have every confidence in our military leadership in Iraq. Gen. Odierno arrived in Iraq in April 2003, soon after the invasion, and he led the division that ultimately captured Saddam Hussein. He was number two to Gen. David Petraeus when the surge turned looming defeat into something closer to victory. His worst day in Iraq, he said in an interview, was when he got a call that his son, Tony Odierno, a lieutenant, lost an arm in a rocket attack in 2004.
That we may miss the June 30 deadline is disappointing, but we need to be flexible and recognize that the general calling the shots knows what he's doing. The currents in this unnecessary war may ebb and flow, but the most important thing is that we stick to the broad parameters of our own withdrawal plan - combat troops out by August 2010 and all troops out by the last day of the year of 2011. Then we can put the entire Iraq War episode under the chapter heading of "Never Again."

In this morning's New York Times, Rod Nordland's "Exceptions to Iraq Deadline Are Proposed" explores this topic:

The United States and Iraq will begin negotiating possible exceptions to the June 30 deadline for withdrawing American combat troops from Iraqi cities, focusing on the troubled northern city of Mosul, according to military officials. Some parts of Baghdad also will still have combat troops.

On the record, Maj. Gen. David Perkins confirms to Nordland that this may be the case for Mosul. There is nothing in the article about Hillary Clinton stating anything about staying in Mosul or Baghdad, for any wondering if that's where Goody got her information.

The article does note that Camp Victory ["Camps Victory, Liberty, Striker and Slayer, plus the prison known as Camp Cropper"] and "Camp Prosperity" will not be closed or turned over to Iraq according to Maj Gen Muhammad al-Askari. Yes, the SOFA calls for something different but al-Askari says they're making exceptions even though the SOFA 'requires' otherwise. For the mammoth Camp Victory, it is in Baghdad and out of Baghdad, for example, so al-Askari says they consider it out of Baghdad.

At some point, Americans convinced the SOFA means the end of the illegal war (years from now) might want to pay attention to how malleable the treaty has been thus far with 'requirements' regularly being disgarded.

And you're only surprised if you haven't been paying attention.

Bonnie notes Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Hard Work" went up yesterday.

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








Posted at 06:39 am by thecommonills
 

Sunday, April 26, 2009
Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Hard Workd"

 

Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Hard Work""

Hard Work

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."





Posted at 10:33 pm by thecommonills
 

And the war drags on . . .

And the war drags on . . .

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.





sam dagher
laith hammoudi
mcclatchy newspapers



Posted at 10:28 pm by thecommonills
 

Saturday, April 25, 2009
US military announces another death, Hillary visits Baghdad

US military announces another death, Hillary visits Baghdad

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.


Clinton_600_1

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.

clinton_iraq_600_1

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.



the los angeles times

tina susman
caesar ahmed
the washington post

corinne reilly
mcclatchy newspapers
sahar issa

Posted at 06:38 pm by thecommonills
 

al-Maliki doesn't like your work, he imprisons you

al-Maliki doesn't like your work, he imprisons you

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.


the new york times
steven lee myers






thomas friedman is a great man






oh boy it never ends

Posted at 06:36 pm by thecommonills
 


Next Page




<< April 2009 >>
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
 01 02 03 04
05 06 07 08 09 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30

Contact Me

If you want to be updated on this weblog Enter your email here:




rss feed