Iraq snapshot

Wednesday, April 29, 2009. Chaos and violence continue, the Sadr City neighborhood of Baghdad is rocked with multiple bombings, Congress takes testimony on TRICARE,  the United Nations voices grave concerns for Iraqi women, an attack leaves a US soldier wounded in Iraq, Steven D. Green's trial for War Crimes continues, and more.   Baghdad was rocked by bombings today.  Two (Los Angeles Times, Reuters and Albawaba) or three (BBC, UPI, McClatchy, Xinhua, Washington Post) car bombings exploded in Baghdad's Sadr City. CNN reports the death toll from the Sadr City bombings (they say three) is "at least 45 people" with sixty-eight more injued.  Xinhua explains, "The incident occurred in the afternoon when three booby-trapped cars parked at different popular marketplaces in Sadr City neighborhood in eastern Baghdad, detonated simultaneously, the source said."  BBC notes, "The BBC's Jim Muir in Baghdad says the attacks are the kind of provocation, blame on militant Sunni Islamists, which triggered and fuelled a deadly spiral of sectarian violence in 2006 and 2007." Liz Sly and Saif Hameed (Los Angeles Times) report, "Survivors of the carnage turned their wrath on the security forces, hurling bottles and bricks at the police and army troops until the soldiers fired in the air to disperse the crowd."  Ernesto Londono (Washington Post) provides this context, "The attack was the deadliest in Sadr City since the Iraqi army wrested control of the impoverished Shiite district from militias last May." He also notes Iraqi police claim "the defused three other car bombs shortly after the blasts."   Corinne Reilly (McClatchy Newspapers) observes, "The attacks are the latest sign that security gains here are beginning to reverse.  Large-scale bombings targeting civilians have been on the rise since March."  Reilly points out that over 200 people have died in Baghdad this month thus far and the last time McClatchy shows that happening was March of last year.   In other violence,  Sahar Issa and Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) report a Baghdad car bombing left five people injured and two Baghdad car bombings which claimed 2 lives and left eight injured (this is in addition to the Sadr City bombings which they also note), a New Mosul roadside bombing which wounded two, a grenade attack in Kirkuk on US forces which resulted in two Iraqi civilians being shot and four more wounded.  CNN cites US Maj Derrick Cheng stating that the US military had been "working with local police to provide micro-grants" when the attack took place and Cheng states 2 "attackers" were dead with two more injured as well, according to Cheng, one US soldier wounded.  Reuters adds that Diyala Province roadside bombings claimed the lives of 3 Iraqi soldiers (two also left injured) and 2 Mosul roadside bombings (this is in addition to the New Mosul one) resulted in the death of 1 police officer and five Iraqi civilians being injured. Going with CNN's 45 dead in Sadr City, that would mean at least 53 reported deaths in Iraq today.   Caroline Alexander (Bloomberg News) notes 41 is the death toll in Sadr City according to the political party website of Iraqi President Jalal Talabani.  Alsumaria quotes US Brig Gen David Quantock stating that the increase in violence is not due to the release of Iraqi prisoners from US prisons in Iraq.   According to US Major Cheng, one US soldier was wounded today.  We'll use that to jump over to a US Congressional hearing this morning.  "Today, the Military Personnel Subcommittee will hold a hearing on the organization of the office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs," stated Subcommittee Chair Susan Davis calling the hearing to order. Of Health Affairs/TRICARE Management Activity, she noted "we are clearly dealing witha  different model than the rest of the Department.  We do not know if that is good-different, bad-different, or just different.  It is therefore important for us to examine this structure so that we may understand exactly how the organization operates and how that impacts care for our men and women in uniform and isn't really that the bottom line here that we're seeking?" (Click here for US House Rep Susan Davis' opening statement, non-PDF format -- but not that I'm quoting her remarks and they're not word for word the prepared statement.)  Joe Wilson is the Ranking Member on the Committee and his opening remarks included noting, "General George Washington and the Continental Congress understood the necessity of good medical care during the fight for our independence.  After suffering a sizeable number of casulities from disease, the Continental Congress established the medical department of the Army in July 1775. Washington then appointed the first Director General and Chief Physician of the Hospital of the Army."  That was Dr. Benjamin Church -- a poor choice who was replaced by Dr. John Morgan.  Church was a poor choice?  He was a spy for the British. Wilson didn't go into that or name Church, I'm just tossing it in as historical trivia and wouldn't have known it if the office of a Dem House Rep hadn't told me after the hearing (when I asked about the trivia).  Other triva included that it is "Surgeons General" and not "Surgeon Generals" when you are dealing with the plural.  US House Rep Vic Snyder asked and established that.   Appearing before the subcommittee were the following: Acting Under Secretary of Defense, Personnel and Readiness Gail H. McGinn (DoD, -- PDF formart warning -- here for her opening statement), Acting Assistant Secretary of Defense Health Affairs (DOD -- PDF format warning, here), Lt Gen Eric Schoomaker (Army Surgeon General, PDF format warning, here), Vice Admiral Adam Robinson (Navy Surgeon General, PDF format warning, here), Lt Gen James G. Roudebush (Air Force Surgeon General, PDF format warning, here) and Maj Gen Elder Granger (DoD's Deputy Director TRICARE Management Activity, PDF format warning, here). It was Granger's last appearance before the committee who is retiring.  From the opening statements, we'll note one section that is of interest and is not in the prepared remarks.   Lt Gen Eric Schoomaker:  In a nutshell, the MHS [Military Health System] exist to support war fighters on the battlefield, the Direct Care System exist to deliver military readiness, Private Sector Care supports and fills the gaps in the Direct Care System. If  form is to follow function then the MHS should be optimally organized to suport the Direct Care System.  I don't believe this is always the case.  For example in the budgeting process, Private Sector Care forecasts are considered must pay while Direct Care System estimates are considered "unfunded requirements." The Department's priority has been to fund the Private Sector Care at 100% of projected requirements while many of our Direct Care System needs are not addressed until year end when overforecasted PSC funding becomes available for distribution to the Direct Care System.  Since Private Sector Care is often over-programmed , they return money to the MHS and they're seen as "cost containing."  Our Direct Care System health care bills are always after the fact and are seen as "cost overruns."  This resourcing construct appears to prioritize Private Sector Care over the Direct Care System.    Most veered from their prepared remarks (Robinson brought up San Antonio, for example) but Schoomaker's veer went to the issues raised in the hearing.   To cut down on the "gobbledeegook," US House Rep Vic Snyder gave the witnesses examples so they could speak in specifics.   US House Rep Vic Snyder:  The first example is a special-needs kid which I think some of us have talked about before.  General Schoomaker, you talked about supporting our war fighters overseas and I think nothing creates more heart ache for our folks overseas than if they have a special-needs kid and the kid is not getting the kind of care that they think they need while they're at a military facility some place.  So let's take a kid with either insulin-dependant diabetes or autism or something that requires a fairly intensive amount of help.  The second example might be that I think a lot of us have run into over the last several years would be a somebody in the reserve component who is mobolized for active duty for a period of 18 months or so, so there family then goes into the military health care system but may be geographically living in a place, not near a base, not near providers  who are used to dealing with TRICARE. So what I would like each of you to do -- and just tell me if I'm off base.  It may be the tensions that we were talking about, which you all were discussing, have nothing to do with those examples but how does what you're talking about relate specifically to our men and women and the care that they give and if these are a couple of examples where it may -- it may give you an opportunity to describe how the tension may relate to the actual care that men and women and their families get?   Lt Gen Eric Schoomaker: Well candidly, sir, from my perspective, both of the cases -- and I'll be interested in hearing what my colleagues have to say -- both of those cases I think are not necessarily confounded by the tensions that we're creating here.  In fact, I think that both of them in many cases are a tribute to the far-sightedness and the vision of setting up a TRICARE system as we did 15 years or so ago.  In the case of special-needs kids, we have an extraordinary generous benefit which is fairly uniformly applied and, in fact, I think it's resulted in -- in the military health care system being one of the elements of a family's decision with a special-needs child to stay in uniform.  So I would have to say that doesn't necessarily -- I don't see my role in executing these programs as being interfered with in any way, shape or form in taking care of special-needs kids. I would have to say the same about the mobilized reserve component -- National Guard and Reserves -- many of whom come from places in this country where we don't have a robust Direct Care System: central Idaho, parts of Montanna, Wyoming.  We don't have large, robust medical centers and health services systems.  And so having an effective Purchase Care System and a Managed Care Support Contractor that is reaching out and providing care to those families is, I think, that again reflects the far sightedness of a well executed TRICARE program. I'm not taking away from any of that part of it.    Vice Admiral Adam Robinson: I would come at this a little differently.  I don't completely disagree with General Schoomaker but I think that the autism and the insulin-dependent diabetic do come into play in this regard.  Often -- first of all, the private sector care, the network care and the direct care can both play here.  Let's take 29 Palms, I'll just take a Marine Corps base in southern California, very remote location.  I'm not going to be able to get network care there.  It's going to have to be direct care.  It's going to have to be uniform care.  Now when I say "I can't get it," there are people that will go there but that's very difficult so I have places in this country that are very difficult to, in fact, get network care.  That means I need it in uniform [care].  However, very often there's also been -- and I don't want to get caught in the mire of the gobbledeegook -- but there's also thoughts that very often we on the direct care side and uniform should be be there for very specialized war fighting activities that make us incredibly essential for the battle and for the things that the military system in fact, was built to do.  But, in fact, in 2009 we have taken on added responsibilities which include garrison and family care. So my question then is I need pediatric endocrinologists as much as I need trauma surgeons but it may be difficult sometimes to, in fact, get there because of how we have, in fact,  looked at what we think we should get from the war fighting versus the non-war fighting situations.  Now I'm not suggestiong to you that anyone's denying the Navy or the other services pediatric endocrinologists.  I'm just simply saying that there is a tension that does exist because of some thoughts and some assumptions made as to how we really should in fact divy up our uniform versus our network.   I'd like to add just one other thing.  I'm not going to comment on the reserve component.  I think that General Schoomaker's answer is -- would be mine also.   I'd only like to say, overseas with our EDIS -- exception developmental instructional programs and also our exceptional family member programs this is also the case because overseas we're not able to, in fact, engage in that war care so if I don't have it -- if I can't either contract it to bring it or if I don't have it in uniform, it's much more difficult to get.  And those are just challenges that I must look at.  I'm not suggesting that anyone's keeping me from getting there but these are the challenges from an SG's perspective that I must look at.   Lt Gen James G. Roudebush: Congressman, I think you raise a point that really brings out the essence of what we're talking about this morning.  There is a role and relationship and it's not "either/or" it's "and." For us in uniform there are in fact places where we are going to need to have in uniform speciality capabilities for family members because family care is mission impact.  When our men and women are in harm's way, if they're not confident their families are fully  cared for, they will not be focused on what's in front of them and that has mission impact. So family care plays directly into the mission. For us, TRICARE gives us that wrap-around in those circumstances where we may not have the capability readily available for our reserves in areas where we don't have a facility availabe for example. Or for special-needs youngsters, we may not have that readily available within the uniform service. TRICARE gives us that wrap-around capability.  And, quite frankly, when you get to speciality care for our youngsters that is rather expensive to make and sustain in uniform.  And the more cost-effective solution and clinically effective solution in many circumstances is in fact a contract for that capability and that care through the private sector TRICARE. So it's not "either/or," it's "and" and finding the right balance, each of us within our roles, to get that mission accomplished. So I think you do raise an intersection that's critically important for us to get right.   Subcommittee Chair Susan Davis: Thank you, I'm going to move on.  Ms. Tsongas?   US House Rep Niki Tsongas: Thank you.  I'm enjoying this testimony and I have to say much of this as a new member as a relatively new member, much of it is new to me.  I have to say, many years ago as a child of the Air Force, I needed a very delicate eye surgery and I was in an Air Force hospital in Langley Air Base and then subsequently at Tachikawa Air Base.  I received remarkable care and, again, I was with Congressman Wilson in Balad where we did see the remarkable work that you're doing.  But obviously we're in a time and an era when health care is far more complicated and far more expensive and it's clear that you're wrestling with both on multiple layers.  My question, slightly different though, is we have representatives of the different services and you obviously have different cultures, some times very different needs as a result of the roles you play, and I'm just curious as how this plays itself out given the different tensions that you all have described? Is it another layer to it  or is it really not particularly significant?   Lt Gen Eric Schoomaker: Well I'll speak for the Army.  I think, ma'am, it's very significant and I think it's why we -- not for parochialism or not because we're looking to build duplication or triplication within -- within the defense health system -- why we insist on executing our programs in each one of our services.  Each one of the services -- for very good reasons -- has important differences in how it fights war, in how its military health care uniform members support the deployed force.  And that's not to say that there aren't commonalities in some large metropolitan areas, like in the national capitol region or San Antonio, we can't find shared platforms where we can retain common skills, where we can share the opportunities in the greater Washington area where we have 36 or 37 different health care facilities across the three services from Pennsylvania down to Quantico and as far west as Fort Belvoir.  We have plenty of opportunities to share those platforms for caring for about a half-million beneficiaries. But when it comes down to ships at sea and brigades in battle, some of the remote sites that General Roudebush and I in the Army have to service, the service cultures are very much a part of this and it's why we, Surgeons General and commanders of our medical forces, want to have a very firm grasp on the execution of these programs.   Vice Admiral Adam Robinson: Each service has a concept of care.  I think that as the long war has continued in both Iraq and Afghanistan our concepts of care have actually become much closer together.  They've merged.  From the Navy's perspective, I'm not speaking now for the Army or Air Force but I don't think they're much different, patient and family-centric care is our concept.  It's what we think is important in order to make sure that we can meet the mission.  Both the operational -- that is the war mission -- as well as the family and the garrison care mission because we can't separate them out any longer.  Since people on the battlefield, men and women can now e-mail and text message family members during an intense encounter, it is no longer the case that I can, in fact not take care of families as I'm also taking care of men and women on the battlefield.  We've moved into another era of communication, of technology and of the insistence by the people that -- our beneficiaries that we in fact care for them in a very organized and meaningful way and that's what I think all three services do but we all do it differently -- leverging those things that our service chiefs and the equities of Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps must have in order to meet their missions and at the same time making sure that we leave no patient, no family and no member behind.     US House Rep Niki Tsongas: And not to interrupt but do health affairs and TRICARE management acknowledge this in your relationship or is yet one more -- one of those things that is a source of tension?   Vice Admiral Adam Robinson: I think that Health Affairs does acknowledge that.  I think that they do in fact understand the differences in the services and how to meet them.  I also think that very often the concept of what is important from a patient perspective can sometimes get clouded or get shaded in relationship to the business perspective of efficiencies and effectiveness.  Now that's the world that we live in so I'm not complaining to you about that because everyone has to look at costs and has to look at the bottom line that we're trying to get done.  The key here in medicine is that patients usally when they're coming to you and they need something to save their lives, they need something that they think is going to be absolutely essential to their well being are not interested in hearing the business rules involved in doing that.  My job is to, in fact, take that into account and to balance that out with the needs of the patient.   Subcommittee Chair Susan Davis: General, do you want to comment?   Lt Gen: James G. Roudebush: Just very quickly.  At times folks will talk about culture and say, 'Well culture is interesting."  I would suggest to you that culture is a signficant part of what we do.  We have an all volunteer force.  Every soldier joins the Army because he or she is attracted to the mission  and the culture.  Likewise every sailor and Marine and Air man joins that service because they are attracted to the culture and the mission.  Their families are wrapped in that culture.  We care for our servicemen within that culture and within that mission ethos. So culture is a big part and, particularly when these men and women are injured or ill, that culture wraps around them and supports them, helps them through that recovery, rehabilitation.  And so while some of the -- many of the clinical activities are certainly the same in the Army, Navy and Air Force that wrap around, that family, that team that's caring for them is an important part of the construct and I think that can't be lost in the discussion.   FYI, April is Autism Awareness Month.  Ruth has covered that here, here and here this month.  For more information, the Autism Society of America is one resource.   Back to Iraq, a Sunday attack in Kut continues to make the news. The pre-dawn US raid resulted in two deaths and condemnation from Nouri al-Maliki.  US Col Richard Francey spoke to the BBC earlier this week and today tells Alsumaria that the incident "could have been avoided" and that a joint US-Iraqi investigation has been launched.  Alsumaria also reports, on the legislative front, "Iraq's Parliament voted to proceed with the secret intelligencer law rejecting the proposal of the legal committee which called earlier to suspend this law."  Meanwhile the United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq announces their latest report which finds "the overall human rights istuation in Iraq remains a matter of concern."  More to the point:   The report shows that gender-based violence remains one of the key unaddressed problems throughout Iraq.  Numerous murders of women under the guise of so-called "honour killings" are still being recorded as suicides, the report shows, while in the Northern Region of Kurdistan the practice of Female Gential Mutilation (FGM) remains a tolerated practice.    UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay, whose staff helped compile the report, said "the situation of Iraqi women is extremely difficult.  Violent actions are taken against them on a daily basis and I urge the authorities to make it a priority to both improve legislation, and law enforcement in order to protect them properly."   Iraq is also the largest refugee crisis and women and girls who are internal or external refugees are at risk and are often victimized via Iraq's underground sex trade or the sex trade in other countries such as Syria.  The US has done a lousy job providing Iraqi refugees with asylum.  Nina Berman (Mother Jones) explores the conditions for some Iraqi refugees who make it to 'safety':   The United States took in a mere 735 Iraqi refugees between 2003 and 2006. Criticized for not doing enough, 17,000 are slated to arrive between September 2008 and September 2009. But the high-minded policy change seems more like another American broken promise.   Recently arrived refugees interviewed in Dallas wonder how they're supposed to become self-sufficient on minimal assistance in the worst economy since the Great Depression. Rather than making new lives, they are facing unemployment, eviction and isolation.        "The life here is closed," said Lara Yakob, whose husband, an architect in Mosul, has been out of work since he arrived five months ago. His best prospect to date: a tryout in a laundry room.         "I think the American government feels that they made bad things for Iraq, so they bring us here. I don't know why they do that if they don't find us a job. This life they start for us, is a very bad life, " said Omar Ibrahim, who arrived in Dallas in 2008 and still is jobless.       He lives in a housing complex on the edge of the city, on a tree-lined street off the freeway, near Garland. Around 100 refugee families from Iraq, Myanmar and central Africa share this neighborhood of two-story apartments around the corner from a gas station -- the site of a recent police killing -- a Cash America outlet, aging strip malls and shuttered superstores.         His rent assistance stopped after four months, and to pay the bills he had to do the unthinkable. "I called my family in Iraq to send me money," he said. And they asked him, "You are in America, and you are asking us for money?"              A large number of Iraqi refugees are Christians and we'll note them tomorrow.  Turning to legal news, Abeer Qassim Hamza al-Janabi is the 14-year-old Iraqi girl who was gang-raped by US soldiers in March of 2006 while her parents and five-year-old sister were murdered and then Abeer herself was murdered. Steven D. Green is on trial in a federal court in Kentucky (he was discharged before the War Crimes came to light) for assorted charges including gang-rape and murder.  The ones who have confessed thus far have all fingered Green as the ringleader.  Time magazine has not ignored the War Crimes.  It has covered them here and here.  Noting the other trials for these War Crimes so far, Jim Frederick provides a walk-through on what's known going in:   Nursing a hatred of Iraqis stemming from heavy losses their unit had suffered, and fueled by several bottles of Iraqi whisky, they embarked upon a premeditated crime of gruesome barbarity. Donning black long underwear outfits as disguises, even though it was the middle of the day, they traveled a few hundred meters to an isolated farmhouse where they gang raped Abeer Qassim Hamza al-Janabi, a 14-year old Iraqi girl and murdered her, her parents, and her six-year old sister. The men returned to their checkpoint unnoticed and for months afterwards, the massacre was considered by the Army and locals alike to be just another outburst of the frequent Iraqi-on-Iraqi violence that plagued the area.   Time notes: "Jim Frederick, a former editor at TIME, is writing a book about Green's unit, entitled Black Hearts: One Platoon's Disintegration in the Triangle of Death and the American Ordeal in Iraq, which will be published in Spring, 2010 by Harmony Books."  Meanwhile the Washington Observer-Reporter makes the trial the topic of their editorial and they conclude, "But there are no hardships, military or otherwise, that could excuse an atrocity like this and you can't blame it on a 'lack of leadership'."  AP's Brett Barrouquere has long cover this story (three years in a few more months) and he reports Col Todd Ebel's testimony yesterday was that the accused, Steven D. Green wanted to shoot civilians because "the enemy could be dressed as civilians" and that Lt Col Thomas Kunk began testifying today (continues this morning) "about the investigation into the deaths."  The hearing continued today and Barrouquere reports that Lt Col Thomas Kunk was on the witness stand and stated he had heard rumors that Green wanted to murder "all Iraqis" so he spoke with him and Green denied that stating that there were 'some' good Iraqis and he didn't wish to harm them.   Meanwhile, as noted in yesterday's snapshot, Iraq War resister Cliff Cornell entered a guilty plea to desertion in his court-martial at Fort Stewart yesterday.  UPI notes that Cliff has been sentenced to one year imprisonment and quotes Cliff's civilian attorney, James Branum, stating, "Cliff is being punished for what he believes, for his comments to the press. Because he spoke out against the Iraq war, Cliff's sentence is harsher than the punishment given to 94 percent of deserters who are not penalized but administratively discharged." Nanaimo Daily News reports Cliff "tearfully read a prepared statement to the judge apologizing for leaving his unit."  Across Georgia quotes him stating, "It was wrong for me to leave my unit and go to Canada.  I was very anxious about whether I might be asked to do things that might violate my conscience.  I felt trapped.  I didn't know what to do."  Cliff went to Canada in 2005.  He sought asylum there repeatedly and was rejected.  He was to be deported when he left Canada in February and turned himself in.  (Some say he was deported.  Due to the order, we won't split hairs on either interpretation.)  Travis Lupick (The Straight) gives the background story here.  Frenchi Jones (Coastal Courier) explains, "Cornell was stationed at Fort Stewart at the time of his desertion. He was a soldier with the 1st Battalion, 39th Artillery Regiment, 1st Brigade Combat Team, and 3rd Infantry Division."  Courage to Resist notes that in addition to the year in prison, "The military judge, Col. Tara Olson, also ordered Cliff's rank be reduced to private and for him to receive a bad conduct discharge."   Meanwhile independent journalist John Pilger evaluates US president Barack Obama's first 100 days:   It is more than 100 days since Barack Obama was elected president of the United States. The "Obama brand" has been named "Advertising Age's marketer of the year for 2008", easily beating Apple computers. David Fenton of MoveOn.org describes Obama's election campaign as "an institutionalised mass-level automated technological community organising that has never existed before and is a very, very powerful force".  Deploying the internet and a slogan plagiarised from the Latino union organiser Cesar Chavez -- "Sí, se puede!" or "Yes, we can" -- the mass-level automated technological community marketed its brand to victory in a country desperate to be rid of George W Bush.       No one knew what the new brand actually stood for. So accomplished was the advertising (a record $75m was spent on television commercials alone) that many Americans actually believed Obama shared their opposition to Bush's wars. In fact, he had repeatedly backed Bush's warmongering and its congressional funding. Many Americans also believed he was the heir to Martin Luther King's legacy of anti-colonialism. Yet if Obama had a theme at all, apart from the vacuous "Change you can believe in", it was the renewal of America as a dominant, avaricious bully. "We will be the most powerful," he often declared.       Perhaps the Obama brand's most effective advertising was supplied free of charge by those journalists who, as courtiers of a rapacious system, promote shining knights. They depoliticised him, spinning his platitudinous speeches as "adroit literary creations, rich, like those Doric columns, with allusion..." (Charlotte Higgins in the Guardian). The San Francisco Chronicle columnist Mark Morford wrote: "Many spiritually advanced people I know... identify Obama as a Lightworker, that rare kind of attuned being who... can actually help usher in a new way of being on the planet."           In his first 100 days, Obama has excused torture, opposed habeas corpus and demanded more secret government. He has kept Bush's gulag intact and at least 17,000 prisoners beyond the reach of justice. On 24 April, his lawyers won an appeal that ruled Guantanamo Bay prisoners were not "persons", and therefore had no right not to be tortured. His national intelligence director, Admiral Dennis Blair, says he believes torture works. One of his senior US intelligence officials in Latin America is accused of covering up the torture of an American nun in Guatemala in 1989; another is a Pinochet apologist. As Daniel Ellsberg has pointed out, the US experienced a military coup under Bush, whose secretary of "defence", Robert Gates, along with the same warmaking officials, has been retained by Obama.     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   iraq brett barrouquere caroline alexander bloomberg news bbc news the los angeles times liz sly  mcclatchy newspapers corinne reilly  jim frederick brett barrouquere nina berman. cliff cornell james branum nanamio daily news upi  john pilger  etan

Cliff Cornell sentenced to one year imprisonment

As noted in yesterday's snapshot, Cliff Cornell was entered a guilty plea to desertion in his court-martial at Fort Stewart yesterday.




Illustration by Kat, Betty's three kids and Wally, and used in Third's "Cliff Cornell faces court-martial on Tuesday." UPI notes that Cliff has been sentenced to one year imprisonment and quotes Cliff's civilian attorney, James Branum, stating, "Cliff is being punished for what he believes, for his comments to the press. Because he spoke out against the Iraq war, Cliff's sentence is harsher than the punishment given to 94 percent of deserters who are not penalized but administratively discharged." Nanaimo Daily News reports:


Cornell applied to stay in Canada but was deported. In February, he walked across the border, where he was briefly arrested, then released before he turned himself in to the military three days later.
On Tuesday, Cornell tearfully read a prepared statement to the judge, apologizing for leaving his unit. He told the judge that when his regiment was ordered to Iraq he became anxious about being asked to do things that go against his conscience.

Turning to the topic of Iraqi refugees. Sahar S. Gabriel is an Iraqi media worker for the New York Times who was granted asylum in the US and at the paper's blog, she contributed "America: The Less Violent Side" yesterday:

On March 18, just after my arrival in the United States, four high schoolers were killed in the state of Michigan. DUI, an expression I had heard so much in TV shows and movies.
Four lives ended in a reckless accident caused by a moment of irrationality. A bad decision. This was not a terrorist act or a sectarian killing. This was what is referred to as "stuff happens," and it happens everywhere around the world.

Nina Berman's "Double Jeopardy: The Harsh Reality for Iraqi Immigrants Trying to Live in America" (Mother Jones) is a must read about the plight of Iraqi refugees who make it to the US:

The United States took in a mere 735 Iraqi refugees between 2003 and 2006. Criticized for not doing enough, 17,000 are slated to arrive between September 2008 and September 2009. But the high-minded policy change seems more like another American broken promise.
Recently arrived refugees interviewed in Dallas wonder how they're supposed to become self-sufficient on minimal assistance in the worst economy since the Great Depression. Rather than making new lives, they are facing unemployment, eviction and isolation.
"The life here is closed," said Lara Yakob, whose husband, an architect in Mosul, has been out of work since he arrived five months ago. His best prospect to date: a tryout in a laundry room.
"I think the American government feels that they made bad things for Iraq, so they bring us here. I don't know why they do that if they don't find us a job. This life they start for us, is a very bad life, " said Omar Ibrahim, who arrived in Dallas in 2008 and still is jobless.
He lives in a housing complex on the edge of the city, on a tree-lined street off the freeway, near Garland. Around 100 refugee families from Iraq, Myanmar and central Africa share this neighborhood of two-story apartments around the corner from a gas station--the site of a recent police killing--a Cash America outlet, aging strip malls and shuttered superstores.
His rent assistance stopped after four months, and to pay the bills he had to do the unthinkable. "I called my family in Iraq to send me money," he said. And they asked him, "You are in America, and you are asking us for money?"


NPR's Susan Wilson (KCUR -- link has text and audio) reports on Iraq refugees. Yesterday Human Rights First issued the following press release:

Washington, DC -- Only 4,200 Iraqis with U.S. ties have made it to the United States since 2003, though at least 20,000 have applied, and the number of U.S.-affiliated Iraqis may be as high as 146,000, according to a new report issued today by a leading human rights group.

The report, Promises to the Persecuted: The Refugee Crisis in Iraq Act of 2008, issued by Human Rights First, examines implementation of this critical legislation. It finds that, despite a Congressional mandate intended to expedite Iraqi refugee processing times, only a small portion of eligible Iraqis have been granted a safe haven in the United States. Based on its findings, Human Rights First urged the Obama administration to examine this issue and clear remaining bureaucratic obstacles to fulfilling America’s promise to persecuted Iraqis who worked with the United States in Iraq, as well as to their families.

"Progress has been made since the enactment of the Refugee Crisis in Iraq Act in January 2008, but it's not enough. Processing times are unacceptably long, and Iraqis seeking safety in the United States can wait a year or more for their applications to move through the system," says Human Rights First's Ruthie Epstein, who authored the report. "We pin the delays on two problems – inadequate staffing and inefficient security clearance procedures. The result is that thousands of U.S.-affiliated Iraqis are stuck in Iraq and other countries in the region, facing danger and destitution. The absence of direct access to the U.S. refugee program in Syria and Turkey, where the need is significant, exacerbates the problem."

According to the report, U.S. officials successfully established processing for U.S.-affiliated Iraqis under an administration that was reluctant to acknowledge the refugee crisis and in the face of significant logistic and security challenges. But the multi-agency programs are still plagued with procedural barriers.

"In February at Camp Lejeune, President Obama made a commitment to Iraqi refugees. He declared, rightly so, that the United States has a strategic interest and a moral responsibility to act," noted Amelia Templeton, a refugee policy analyst at Human Rights First. "His commitment should begin with a comprehensive evaluation and improvement of the programs designed to provide escape to the very Iraqis who helped the United States."

Human Rights First's recommendations to the U.S. government include:

• Reduce Processing Times: The State Department should increase staffing at the Embassy in Baghdad and the International Organization of Migration, and the Department of Homeland Security should increase the frequency and staffing of circuit rides to the region, so that the refugee applications of thousands of U.S.-affiliated Iraqis and their families facing danger can be processed expeditiously; the Embassy should allocate the space in the building that is necessary for these increases;
• Improve the Security Clearance Process: The White House should review and improve the multi-agency security clearance process required for Iraqi refugee applicants and other immigrants and refugees so that Iraqis who meet all of the requirements for admission to the United States do not wait indefinitely for final answers on their applications;
• Expand Access to Iraqis in Need: The State Department and the White House should press the governments of Syria and Turkey at senior levels to permit direct access to the U.S. refugee program to vulnerable Iraqis in need; and
• Ensure Post-Arrival Services: Congress should appropriate the necessary funding to the Department of Health and Human Services to adequately support post-arrival services for Iraqi refugees and other new refugee populations to whom the United States has offered safety from persecution, as well as to the State Department to increase staffing on programs mandated by the legislation.

Today's report provides the most reliable public estimate to date of the number of U.S.-affiliated Iraqis who might be eligible for the programs mandated by the Refugee Crisis in Iraq Act. Human Rights First has estimated that there are approximately 146,000 U.S.-affiliated Iraqis - Embassy direct hires, contractors, and employees of U.S.-based media and NGOs. This figure does not include spouses and children. The report says that no more than 4,200 U.S-affiliated Iraqis, including some family members, have actually made it to the United States.

The Refugee Crisis in Iraq Act was first proposed by Senator Edward Kennedy (D-MA) and former Senator Gordon Smith (R-OR) in June 2007 to address the plight of Iraq's refugees. Its mandate included special immigration visas for Iraqis who worked with the U.S. government, military, or contractors for at least a year; direct access to the U.S. refugee resettlement programs for Iraqis who worked with the U.S. government, military, contractors, or U.S.-based media or nongovernmental organizations, and certain minority groups; and refugee processing inside Iraq.

To read Human Rights First’s report and its complete recommendations to the U.S. government, visit http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/pdf/090428-RP-iraqi-progress.pdf.

A large number of the external refugees are Christians due to the targeting of them in Iraq. Yesterday Vatican Radio reported on the Iraqi Christians murdered in Kirkuk Sunday. Also yesterday, Azzaman offered an editorial on the murders which noted, "The killing of five Christians in the oil-rich city of Kirkuk has sent shivers of fear in the Christian minority in the volatile northern city of Mosul. A few months ago more than a dozen Christians were killed in Mosul, forcing a big Christian exodus to surrounding villages and towns. Mosul, Iraq’s second most populous city is under the control of insurgents fighting U.S. and Iraqi troops. Observers believe the city has emerged as a bastion for al-Qaeda in Iraq. Many of Mosul Christians have returned but some say they now fear for their lives." Eric Young (Christian Post Reporter) reminds, "Since 2003, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi Christians have fled to neighboring countries and some 750 Christians have been killed in Iraq, according to Archbishop Louis Sako, the Chaldean Catholic Archbishop of Kirkuk." World Magazine reports on the three funerals held in Kirkuk yesterday which were attended by the province's governor Mustafa Abdulraham and presided over by Archbishop Sako whose church the three had attended: "Besides crowds of mourners, Christian clergy from across the city as well as government officials attended the service in the ethnically mixed city, which has repeatedly been forced to delay a referendum on whether it will join the Kurdish government to the north or remain part of the Baghdad administration to the south. A U.N. commission has just completed a report on the region, which sits atop most of Iraq’s oil reserves. It calls for a negotiated settlement that leaves the province intact. The outcome of the dispute will go a long way toward determining whether Iraq will continue with a strong centralized government in Baghdad once U.S. forces begin their departure. Many believe the attacks are aimed at undoing current negotiations." Meanwhile niqash's "kirkuk petition stokes tensions" reports on other tensions in the oil-rich Kirkuk:

A petition campaign collecting signatures supporting a Kurdish Kirkuk has provoked Arab and Turkmen anger.
In April 2009 a number of non-governmental organizations (NGOs), close to Kurdish groups, launched for a campaign to demonstrate that the majority of Kirkuk's residents want the city to be annexed to the autonomous Kurdish Region. The petition’s first sentence read: “We, the people of Kirkuk, the undersigned, demand the annexation of Kirkuk to the Kurdish Region."
Those running the campaign say that they want to review the names and signatures and submit the petition to the UN, the Iraqi Parliament and the Independent High Electoral Commission (IHEC).
Rizkar Haji Hama, one of the campaign’s organizers, and an official spokesman for the Kirkuk Centre of Democratic Organizations of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, told Niqash that “the campaign was organized by a number of Kurdish, Arab, Turkmen and Assyrian organizations and around 80,000 signatures have been collected. The aim is to reflect the opinion of Kirkuk’s residents on this issue.”
The campaign provoked anger among Arab and Turkmen members of the provincial council (representing 15 out of the council’s 41 seats). They condemned it as a “terror and intimidation” campaign planned and organized by Kurdish security forces, known as Asayish, maintained by both the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP) and the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK). They called on Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to ban these organizations from conducting any activity in Kirkuk city.

The Kurdistan Regional Government notes:




And Iraq's Foreign Ministry announces "German Ambassador in Baghdad Gives lecture to Students of Diplomatic Course 26:"

Mr. Christopher File Ambassador of Republic of Germany to Iraq gave a lecture to the students of the diplomatic course 26.
The lecture dealt with bilateral relations between the two countries and the contribution of Germany to rebuild infrastructure and train Iraqi army and police and cultural assistance to Iraq in addition to Iraq's willingness to assist the staff of the Foreign Ministry.
At the end of the lecture a discussion between the Ambassador and the attendees took place on the possibility of developing bilateral relations. The meeting was attended by the Ambassador Ziad Khaled, Dean of the Foreign Service Institute in addition to several ministry officials.

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

iraq
cliff cornell
james branum
nanamio daily news
upi
sahar s. gabriel
the new york times
nina berman
susan wilson
kcur
eric young

The silence on Abeer

Three previous trials have established this much: on March 12, 2006, a small group of junior soldiers slipped away unnoticed from a lightly defended traffic checkpoint just outside the insurgent-infested town of Yusufiyah 20 miles south of Baghdad. Nursing a hatred of Iraqis stemming from heavy losses their unit had suffered, and fueled by several bottles of Iraqi whisky, they embarked upon a premeditated crime of gruesome barbarity. Donning black long underwear outfits as disguises, even though it was the middle of the day, they traveled a few hundred meters to an isolated farmhouse where they gang raped Abeer Qassim Hamza al-Janabi, a 14-year old Iraqi girl and murdered her, her parents, and her six-year old sister. The men returned to their checkpoint unnoticed and for months afterwards, the massacre was considered by the Army and locals alike to be just another outburst of the frequent Iraqi-on-Iraqi violence that plagued the area.
Three soldiers from that murderous expedition have already been tried by court martial for their roles in the crime. All were found guilty and all were sentenced to jail terms of 90 years or longer. But because Green, whom the three other soldiers have described as both the plot's mastermind and trigger man, was discharged before the full extent of the crime was discovered, he is being tried in a civilian court, where federal prosecutors are seeking the death penalty. He faces 17 counts of conspiracy, rape, murder, unlawful use of a weapon and obstruction of justice. (See TIME's story on the killings in Haditha.)

The above is from Jim Frederick's "Civilian Trial Begins for Ex-Soldier Accused of Iraq Atrocities" (Time magazine) and note this at the end of the article: "Jim Frederick, a former editor at TIME, is writing a book about Green's unit, entitled Black Hearts: One Platoon's Disintegration in the Triangle of Death and the American Ordeal in Iraq, which will be published in Spring, 2010 by Harmony Books." Yeah, this story's not going away and it's going to be really interesting ten, fifteen, twenty years from now as various researchers (student and professional) start combing the archives of various news outlets attempting to get information on the trial. "Let's try the New York Times! Surely the paper of record has something on it, someone covering it." Nope. No one. They could cover it in August 2006 and did try to (with Robert Worth and Carolyn Marshall's embarrassing story fed to them by the defense attorneys -- a detail the 'reporters' left out of the article) but they can't cover the trial. They've never, pay attention to this, mentioned Abeer's name in print. Never. They have rendered her invisible and nameless. The worst known War Crime of the Iraq War and why do you think it is the New York Times refuses to cover it? I sure am glad I didn't make a name co-writing a book about sexual harassment and go on to work in management at the New York Times because apparently that requires that you turn in to a trashy sell-out who can't defend women. Now you're still happy to take your bows for what you did over two decades ago, but you refuse to use your own power at the paper to demand that the gang-rape and murder of a 14-year-old girl by US soldiers get covered in the 'paper of record.' Time magazine covers it.

Years from now, researchers may stumble across the Washington Observer-Reporter's
"No excuses for this" which concludes, "But there are no hardships, military or otherwise, that could excuse an atrocity like this and you can't blame it on a 'lack of leadership'." They'll note that the AP kept Brett Barrouquere on this story for nearly three years and they should note the strong record he's done on it. His most recent article is entitled "Ex-soldier said he wanted to shoot civilians, jury told" which addresses Col Todd Ebel's testimony yesterday that, in December 2005, Green told Ebel that he wanted to shoot civilians because "the enemy could be dressed as civilians" and that Lt Col Thomas Kunk began testifying today (continues this morning) "about the investigation into the deaths."

Though the US based staff of the Times ignore the trial and anything to do with Iraq, Sam Dagher and Atheer Kakan file "Iraqi Premier Says Leader in Insurgency Is in Custody" from Iraq and we'll note this from it:

Mr. Maliki, who spoke out Tuesday on the arrest for the first time, has increased his anti-Baathist language in recent weeks and has resisted American pressure to reconcile with more approachable members of the party. Many analysts say they believe that he is under pressure from his Shiite partners in the government, some of them allied with Iran.
"This terrorist had deep ties with the former regime and created with its followers a devil's pact reflected in bloody scenes of carnage involving innocent children and women and the elderly," Mr. Maliki said.
His statement coincided with the birthday of Mr. Hussein, who would have turned 72 and was executed in 2006.

The reports note his interview Monday with the BBC where crazed al-Maliki continued his anti-Baathist rants. (Pair this article with Dagher's Sunday report "Iraq Resists Please by U.S. To Placate Hussein's Party.") The reporters omit al-Maliki's absurd claim in the interview that the female bombers are all mental patients. The article notes al-Maliki's claims that Abu Omar al Baghdadi was captured last Thursday. Corinne Reilly also covers this in "Iraqi government says it captured al Qaida leader" (McClatchy Newspapers):


Iraqi officials claim that Baghdadi is responsible for countless attacks that helped fuel the country's sectarian war. They said he uses a fake name and that he's an Iraqi.
Even if he's who the Iraqis say he is, he may be easily replaced, however, as a long line of alleged al Qaida in Iraq leaders appear to have been.
In an interview with al Arabiya television, Iraq's top government spokesman, Ali al Dabbagh, said he expects al Qaida to step up attacks in retaliation for Baghdadi's arrest. At the same time, Dabbagh said, his capture has severely diminished the group's strength.

As if the paper's 'feminist' in management doesn't disgrace the label enough, guess what whack job shows up writing this garbage:

And may we please look in the mirror, for the sake of our own moral health? How many Americans spoke up when it was chic to thrill to the sadistic soundbite of "take the gloves off"? How many watched 24 without a murmur when the mass consensus was that it was OK - no, patriotic - to waterboard a bit? How many of us (as in civilised societies every­where when a wind of barbarism is set free) actually thrilled to the sadistic (and sometimes sexually sadistic) soundbites that came out of the Bush communications office: the "special sauce", the "belly slap", the phrase "we have our methods"?

Did you guess porn-feminist Naomi Wolf? You were correct. Naomi, if you could stop admiring yourself in the mirror, you might want to take accountability. Not just for who you pimped and lied for in the presidential race but for what he's done since becoming president. It's real cute to watch Naomi blame various people (including the entire US Congress) but never remembers to blame Barack. She works in Bush, Cheney and Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton by name but 'feminist' Naomi can't call out her Dream Lover Barry Obama. 'Feminist' Naomi also can't cover Abeer. Silence is all she can manage unless someone wants to talk porn and then she's all excited. Go back to the Crazy Farm, Naomi Wolf, Naomi Wolf.


The following community websites updated last night:

• 
  Cedric's Big Mix

  Arlen reveals himself!

  8 hours ago
• 
  The Daily Jot

  THIS JUST IN! LET THE DOOR SWING WIDE, MARY!

  8 hours ago
• 
  Thomas Friedman is a Great Man

  It's a Different World than where you come from

  9 hours ago
• 
  Mikey Likes It!

  Debra Sweet, Chuck

  9 hours ago
• 
  Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude

  heroes jumps the shark!

  9 hours ago
• 
  SICKOFITRADLZ

  227

  9 hours ago
• 
  Trina's Kitchen

  The Feather and Father Game

  9 hours ago
• 
  Ruth's Report

  Paper Dolls

  9 hours ago
• 
  Oh Boy It Never Ends

  Medium

  9 hours ago
• 
  Like Maria Said Paz

  Is it a library in a police state?

  9 hours ago
• 
  Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills)

  The Mod Squad

  9 hours ago

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

iraq
jim frederick
brett barrouquere
mcclatchy newspapers
corinne reilly
iraq
atheer kakan
like maria said paz
kats korner
sex and politics and screeds and attitude
thomas friedman is a great man
trinas kitchen
the daily jot
cedrics big mix
mikey likes it
ruths report
sickofitradlz
oh boy it never ends

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…   Independent journalist Dahr Jamail (at Pacific Free Press) observes:   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.         iraq brett barrouquere caroline alexander bloomberg news bbc news waleed ibrahim dahr jamail the los angeles times ned parker liz sly andrew wolfson steve robrahn democracy now the new york times sam dagher deborah haynes jeremy scahill

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.



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.

iraq
tim gallagher
william petroski
ben dunsmoor
the los angeles times
ned parker
chris hedges
teresa stepzinski
william cole
etan
steven mcduffie
cliff cornell
james branum

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:

• 
  Cedric's Big Mix

  Barack finds someone to play with

  9 hours ago
• 
  The Daily Jot

  THIS JUST IN! HE RELATES!

  9 hours ago
• 
  Thomas Friedman is a Great Man

  Bob

  9 hours ago
• 
  Mikey Likes It!

  Isaiah, Third, Jill McLaughlin

  9 hours ago
• 
  Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude

  the media love

  9 hours ago
• 
  SICKOFITRADLZ

  It's not a game

  9 hours ago
• 
  Trina's Kitchen

  Monday

  9 hours ago
• 
  Oh Boy It Never Ends

  Iraq and the dreaded Ellison

  9 hours ago
• 
  Like Maria Said Paz

  ACLU, Isaiah, Smothers Brothers

  9 hours ago
• 
  Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills)

  Abeer

  9 hours ago

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

iraq
andrew wolfson
steve robrahn
democracy now
like maria said paz
kats korner
sex and politics and screeds and attitude
thomas friedman is a great man
trinas kitchen
the daily jot
cedrics big mix
mikey likes it
ruths report
sickofitradlz
oh boy it never ends
the third estate sunday review

Iraq snapshot

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.



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.

iraq
the wall street journal
charles levinson
nada raad
the chicago tribune
the washington post
ernesto londono
zaid sabah
the new york times
steven lee myers
mcclatchy newspapers
corinne reilly
hussein kadhim
mark kukis
the world today just nuts
kats korner
thomas friedman is a great man
the daily jot

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.

iraq
rahul sharma
anand sagar
khaleej times
corpus christi caller-times
the new york times
rod norland
the world today just nuts

 

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