 |
Wednesday, July 08, 2009
Wednesday, July 8, 2009. Chaos and violence continue, Iraq sees at least 27 deaths reported and fifty wounded today, Adm Mike Mullen mentions Iraq and the press isn't interested, US House Rep Patrick Murphy leads the fight to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell, and more. Today the Chair of the Joint chiefs of Staff, Adm Mike Mullen, spoke at the National Press Club in DC. Adm Mike Mullen: Clearly we're at a point now, in Iraq, where the violence level is down -- dramatically so. In fact, it's the lowest level of violence since 2003, 2004. And-and we are at a point -- we're on our plan to support the draw down which will start significantly really early in 2010, next year. And-and our ability to do all of this is, in great part, contributed to the 2.2 million men and women who-who served -- and so many so nobly, including those that uh paid the ultimate sacrifice and there isn't a day that goes by uh or uh very many issues that I'm dealing with where our young people uh in the best military I've ever seen aren't very much on my mind and I'm privileged to be with them. So as we move forward in Iraq -- and clearly that doesn't mean it's -- we still don't have our challenges. I think most of the challenges there right now are political challenges, economic challenges and that heavy focus in those areas is absolutely critical. And elections which come up next year, early next year, are vital and then after that my expectation is that we will draw down rapidly to get to about 35,000 to 50,000 troops in the August of 2010 and at that point certainly turn over -- we transition our combat forces totally uh to uh advisory and assistance forces. as you know the significant date last week was the 30 June date where we pulled out of the cities. The last two big areas were Mosul and Baghdad. That actually has gone very well. That doesn't mean that it isn't a vulnerable time -- uh times of transition al-always are -- but I'm confident right now that we've got the strategy right and the support of the Iraqi security forces.
Mullen is incorrect about the violence being low. AFP observes today that June's official
death total (from Iraqi ministries) was 437 -- "the highest toll since July
2008." But it wasn't just AFP who fact checked him, it was also events
on the ground in Iraq today. He noted stresses on family members and service members and noted the suicide rate has been increasing for the military and otherwise focused on the wars in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Kimberly Hefling (AP) reports on the increase in service members' children seeking mental health treatment in 2008, noting that the number has doubled since the start of the illegal war. Mullen did not note that and no one asked about it. The press? They did ask questions. They didn't ask about Iraq. When do they ever? The Iraq War is over -- or that's what they pretend. An exception being the Raleigh News & Observer which editorializes on the four most recent deaths in Iraq (Roger Adams, Juan Baldeosingh, Robert Bittiker and Edward Kramer) in " Four of the brave:" A war that is said to be "winding down" isn't winding down at all for those who remain in the middle of it. The N.C. Guard knows that well. It has lost 15 troops there since the Iraq war began in 2003. A strong military presence in North Carolina, with multiple bases, brings pride to the state, and in times of war, a keen and painful shared sense of what it takes to fight. (In 2004, the 30th was the first major National Guard unit in the country to be sent to Iraq. It lost five soldiers on that tour. And just this past May, three died because of a suicide bomber.) For the families of those in action, and all who know them and all who admire them, a war is not gauged merely by victory. It is about wives and children left behind, about all the good times shared, and all those that will never be shared. As DC speeches go, Mullen's was a bust. Far better today, also at the National Press Club, was US House Rep Patrick Murphy who kicked off the Voices Of Honor campaign. US House Rep Patrick Murphy: My name is Patrick Murphy, I'm a Democrat from the eighth district of Pennsylvania which is Bucks County and far north east Philadelphia. I am now a United States Congressman in my second term but prior to that I was in the military since 1993. I rose up to through the ranks to become a professor at West Point. And then when 9-11 happened, I served on two deployments. My first one with General [David] Petraeus and my second one as a paratrooper with the 82nd Airborne Division in Baghdad from 2003 to 2004. That's why every day I wear the 82nd Airborne pin on my lapel, I don't wear the Congressional pin because 19 of my fellow paratroopers never made it home. I am proud to be the lead sponsor today of the Military Enhancement Readiness Act -- a bill that will finally repeal the discriminatory Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy. Our troops are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan and are stretched dangerously thin. These men and women in our military understand what it takes to serve our country and the values that our military and our nation hold dear. They take an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, yet the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy when it took effect in 1993 has discharged over 13,000 troops -- honorable men and women. That is the equivalent of three and a half combat brigades. They have been discharged not for any type of sexual misconduct but because of their sexual orientation. The policy is not working for armed services and it hurts national security. Attitudes on Don't Ask, Don't Tell have changed -- have changed in our military and have changed in the public at large. Up to 75% of Americans support repeal and the number is even higher in the age bracket of those we are recruiting from 18 years of age to 29. Former senior military leaders agree that it is time to re-evaluate and to repeal the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy. Opponents of lifting the ban arguing that allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly will be detremental to unit cohesion and morale. As a former Army officers and West Point professor, that is an insult to me and to all the troops serving in uniform. In Iraq, my men did not care what race, color, creed or sexual orientation their fellow paratroopers were. They cared, whether they could get the job done. We cared about serving with honor and coming home alive. Over 20 nations, include our two strongest allies, Great Britain and Israel, allow gays and lesbians to serve openly without any determental impact on unit cohesion or morale. Believe me, our heroes serving in the US military are the best fighting forces in the entire world. We are second to none. And we are just as good as those who serve in Great Britain and Israel. Our president, President Barack Obama, has stated that if Congress will get a bill to his desk repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell, he will sign it into law. It is now our job, and my job specifically, to quarterback this through the Congress of the United States to do just that. I cannot tell you today how long it is going to take. All I can tell you is that paratroopers don't quit and paratroopers get the job done. To remove honorable, talented and committed Americans from serving in our military is contrary to the values that our military life holds dear. My time in Iraq and at West Point teaching the next generation of military leaders taught me that our military deserves and expects the best and the brightest that are willing to serve. I stand here today with these honorable and noble veterans. Together we will continue the fight to make our nation and our military stronger. Meanwhile Iraq wasn't an issue at Mullen's appearance before the National Press Club -- wasn't an issue to the press (Mullen addressed it as the first topic when he spoke, it's the press that didn't give a damn). Somewhere after weaponry program questions (yes, they had time for that in both costs -- FY2010 and beyond -- and wide-eyed dreaming of future wars), in the final minutes of Mullen's appearance (the second to last question), it was noted he had "called for an evolution in the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy" and he was asked if he could write the new policy, what it would be. "Well I'm not a policy guy," Mullen began indicating he would punt on the issue and avoid addressing it. "Uh, uh, I'm charged with carrying out the law I'm charged with carrying out policy and right now the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy and law from 1993 is in effect." He then started mentioning Obama and US Secretary of Defense of Robert Gates. And, no, he never answered the question. So, yes, he could have stopped at "I'm not a policy guy." Yet still he continued, splitting sentences, serving up fragments, uh and uhm. He repeated that he just follows the law, for anyone who might have missed it, and "like the law that exists now, should the law change, certainly we would carry it out." In other words, how would he change it? He never said. But he went to great lengths to say he follows orders. For any who were confused by that point, Mullen follows orders. And the press refused to care about anything other than the meal on their plates. And dessert. They cared about dessert. Your working press corps in their natural habitat, up close and scary. At the Voices of Honor Campaign press conference, retired US Navy Captain Joan Darrah, of the Sevicemembers Legal Defense Network, expressed her confidence in Murphy's ability to lead in the House on this issue and get the needed 218 needed votes and shared her story. Joan Darrah: When I first joined the Navy, I didn't realize I was gay. By the time I figured it out, I had about 10-plus years of service. Based on my promotion record and fitness reports it was clear to me that the Navy felt that I was making a difference so I opted to stay. Now that I am retired and out from under Don't Ask, Don't Tell I realize how incredibly stressful and frankfully just plain wrong it is to have to serve in silence. Each day I went to work wondering if that would be the day of my last service. Whenever the admiral would call me to his office 99.9% of me would be certain it was to discuss an operational issue but there was always a small part of me that feared the admiral was calling me into his office to tell me that I had been outed, that I was fired and that my career was over. On September 11th, I was at the Pentagon attending the weekly intelligence briefing when American flight 77 slammed into the Pentagon, I was at the Pentagon bus stop. The office I had been in seven minutes earlier was completely destroyed and seven of my co-workers were killed. The reality is if I had been killed, my partner would have been the last to know because her name was nowhere in my records and I certainly hadn't dared to list her in my emergency contact information. It was the events of September 11th that made me realize that Don't Ask, Don't Tell was taking a much bigger toll than I had ever admitted. On 1 June, 2002, a year earlier than originally planned, I retired. I am incredibly proud of our military and our country. And I know that we will be stronger once Don't Ask, Don't Tell is repealed. More than 26 countries have already figured this out and now allow gay people to serve openly. What we need now is for Congress to act and they must act now. Every day the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell is delayed, more highly qualified, motivated, valuable service members are discharged simply for being gay. Our great country can do better than this. Among the others speaking, Iraq War veteran Eric Alva. Eric Alva: Six years ago on March 21, 2003 I was part of a logistical convoy with 3rd Batallion 7th Marines. My unit was part of the first wave of ground troops that entered the country of Iraq from Kuwait to start the ground invasion of Operation Iraqi Freedom. I had been in Iraq no more than three hours when I stepped on a landmine near the city of Basra wuffering life threatening injuries. I had a broken left leg, a broken right arm with severe nerve damage and a badly injured right leg that doctors had to ampute it in order to save my life. I had become the first American injured in Operation Iraqi Freedom. It was not until February 28, 2007 that I announced not only to the people of the United States but to the rest of the world that the first American injured in Operation Iraqi Freedom was a gay marine. I decided to be true to myself and my country by coming forward and announcing who I am. My coming forward was to tell the people of this country that as a patriotic American when I went to fight the war on terrorism it was for the rights and freedoms of every single person in this country not just selected individuals. That means every single individual regardless of who they are. I stand here today on two good legs again with my fellow service members and a courageous Congress member Patrick Murphy to show my support for the Military Readiness Enhancement Act. It is time to let people be judged for their merit, professionalism and their leadership. This is a time when we should not be firing anyone from their job in the United States Armed Forces for being gay. Rep Murphy's office has released a statement on the confrence today. Voices of Honor is a partnership between the Human Rights Campaign the Servicemembers United. Emily Sherman (CNN) reports, "A 'Voices of Honor' tour, sponsored by the Human Rights Campaign, will travel across the country sharing stories of gay, lesbian and straight servicemen and -women in hopes of garnering support for the Military Readiness Enhancement Act, which would repeal the law that established the policy. The act would allow gay and lesbian Americans to serve in the military without concealing their sexuality." Sherman notes Colin Powell was the architect (Powell refused to go along with then President Bill Clinton's effort to allow gays and lesbians to serve in 1993 and made many threats about what would happen if the policy went forward -- it was the first step in the disrespect for the president among the military that Powell fostered and had he been punished for it, he might not have been able to lie to the UN in 2003). Sherman has a few mealy mouthed words from Powell today and he's only saying those because he realizes the shame that his actions and that policy carry. More pointing out Colin's role in Don't Ask, Don't Tell could force him to actually speak out in favor of allowing gays and lesbians to serve in the military openly. He's desperate to (white)wash his image and he's trying so very hard to get himself back into the news cycle. Which is why, Sunday, Colin Powell made a fool of himself -- as is to be expected. On CNN's State of the Union today, Collie The Blot Powell, who lied to the United Nations in an attempt to make the case for illegal war, declared the mistake about the Iraq War was . . . not doing an escalation ("surge") sooner. He lied the nation into illegal war and he's never apologized for it. He did fret a bit over his blot for a little while. Now instead of hanging his head in shame, fueled by the Cult of St. Barack, he's attempting a comeback. Smart would be using his ambition against him to force him to take a stand. In Iraq today the Islamic State of Iraq did not hold a press conference; however, Aseel Kami, Missy Ryan and Elizabeth Fullerton (Reuters) report that the group did issue a statement in the form of an audiotape which declared, "Even if the Americans remain nowhere but a small spot in the Iraqi desert . . . so every Muslim should battle them until they are expelled." The statement might have garnered more attention were it not for the fact that car bombings rocked northern Iraq. Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) explains they were in Ba'wiza and Gubba which are nearby neighborhoods of Mosul. Andrew Dobie (Reuters) adds the second bombing followed the first by approximately ten minutes. AP puts the death toll at 16 with over twenty-four wounded. AFP is able to confirm 12 dead and thirty injured via Dr. Ahmed Abdul Karim of Mosul's Medical City Hospital. That was far from the only violence today and police officers continued to be targeted. Bombings? Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) notes a Mosul hand bomb aimed at a police patrol which left two police officers injured as well as five civilians, a Mosul car bombing which claimed the lives of 2 people ("inside the car"), a Mosul roadside bombing which injured one woman andd a Mosul roadside bombing which wounded one man. Reuters notes a Hilla roadside bombing which claimed the lives of 3 members of wedding party with eleven more left injured. AP notes that the wedding party bombing now has a death toll of 4 with sixteen injured and they note a bombing outside of Baghdad which claimed the lives of 2 people -- a father and his teenage son who had been working in their garden -- and left five people wounded. Shootings? Reuters notes "a member of the local infrastructure police" in Kirkuk was wounded in an attack, 1 person shot dead by Mosul police, one Mosul police officer wounded in a checkpoint shooting, one Iraqi soldier wounded in a Mosul shooting. AP reports the soldier died. Alsumaria reports 1 police officer shot dead in Mosul in front of his home. Three big developments today may impact the immediate future in Iraq. Alsumaria reports that despite claims that a vote on Kirkuk might be able to take place before the elections now scheduled for January, no suche elections will be happening. AP adds, "On Wednesday, Iraqi officials said the Kurdish-run north of the country could not vote this month on a draft constitution, a document perceived by Iraqi Arabs as an effort to expand Kurdish authority at the expense of the central government." That draft constitution was to be voted on this month because the KRG holds their elections this month. Now that's been stopped and it is part of the continued tug-of-war between the Arabs and the Kurds. Finally, Alsumaria notes that a prison abuse investigation has been completed and that MP Zaynab Karim al Kinani of the Sadr bloc is stating that the results of the investigation "are not feasible stressing the need to reopen investigations, bring people implicated in torturing prisoners to justice and add a parlimentary committe of polical parties' represenatives to special investigation committees." In further hearings today before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, American Civil Liberties Union attorney Denny LeBoeuf testified that the military commissions are inherently unconstitutional and cannot be fixed. I didn't attend that hearing. But the remarks Denny LeBoeuf made, accurate remarks, were made at the full committee hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee yesterday. And they were made by John D. Hutson. That's who should have been noted in their press release. Not the laughable Kris who only appears mildly competent because he was sitting next to Jeh Johnson. As someone who attended that hearing and heard Kris' many offensive remarks, I find it shocking that the ACLU wants to cite him at all. ATC: Why don't we start with the title of the book?
David Bacon: Well, I debated with the publisher a lot about it. I knew it was going to be kind of a controversial title, because I've been an immigrant rights activist for over 30 years and all that time we've been trying to get people to say "undocumented people" instead of "illegal aliens." And the reason for it is a very good one, which is that the word "illegal" is used to demonize people and to excuse denial of rights and second-class social status.
So putting the word illegal in the title, especially saying "illegal people," I anticipated that people would say "Well, okay, you're doing what you have tried to get people not to do." The reason I did so is because writing the book made me really think more concretely about where illegality comes from, and there is a part of the book that traces out the development of the social category.
It doesn't really have much to do with the law. It has to do with the creation of a social category for people who are denied equality with those who live in the community around them, and who don't have the same set of rights and don't have the same social and political and legal status.
So the book traces this history all the way back to the origins of this country and the colonization of North America, and specifically to slavery. Slavery established the idea that the society that was created here was going to be divided, that people were going to be divided between those that had rights and those who had no rights.
The purpose of this was economic really. The labor of slaves was what was desired by slave holders, and the whole system was built and developed in order to allow for the maximum extraction of that labor. And then that inequality got not only written into the Constitution and into law, but applied to other people too. There were simultaneous debates in the Americas about the status of indigenous people.
What I'm trying to say is that illegality is real. It's a real status of people. And that it has an economic function, and this system creates illegality for very specific reasons. Today, in a globalized world, we have the use of neoliberal economic reforms, including free trade treaties, that in countries like Mexico displace people and send them into motion, and then those people are forced to come to the United States looking for work and survival and, at the same time, are forced into a social category, illegality, which already existed before they get here.
Basically the book's argument in the end is that this is obviously a very brutal system, and if we don't like illegality we have to change the social reality. It's not enough to just say "Well, let's not demonize people by not calling them illegals and instead using the word undocumented." I believe very strongly that we should use the term "undocumented people," but we have to face the fact that undoing illegality requires a social movement and social struggle, and we have to be willing to do that.
Posted at 03:59 pm by thecommonills
Permalink
LANSING
- Governor Jennifer M. Granholm today ordered United States flags
throughout the state of Michigan and on Michigan waters lowered for one
day on Wednesday, July 8, 2009, in honor of Staff Sgt. Timothy A. David
of Gladwin, who died June 28 in Sadr City, Iraq, while on active duty
supporting Operation Iraqi Freedom. Flags should return to full-staff
on Thursday, July 9.Staff
Sgt. David, age 28, died from injuries sustained earlier in Baghdad,
when an improvised explosive device detonated near his vehicle. He was
assigned to the 2nd Battalion, 5th Cavalry Regiment, 1st Brigade Combat
Team, 1st Cavalry Division, Fort Hood, Texas.This
was Staff Sgt. David's 6th tour of duty, having previously served twice
in Afghanistan and was completing his 4th tour of duty in Iraq. Funeral
services will be held at Beaverton High School in Beaverton, Michigan,
on Wednesday with burial in St. Andrews Cemetery in Saginaw. He was the
son of Michael and Linda David of Beaverton.Under
Section 7 of Chapter 1 of Title 4 of the United States Code, 4 USC 7,
Governor Granholm, in December 2003, issued a proclamation requiring
United States flags lowered to half-staff throughout the state of
Michigan and on Michigan waters to honor Michigan servicemen and
servicewomen killed in the line of duty. Procedures for flag lowering
were detailed by Governor Granholm in Executive Order 2006-10 and
included in federal law under the Army Specialist Joseph P. Micks
Federal Flag Code Amendment Act of 2007 (Public Law 110-41).When
flown at half-staff or half-mast, the United States flag should be
hoisted first to the peak for an instant and then lowered to the
half-staff or half-mast position. The flag should again be raised to
the peak before it is lowered for the day.When
a member of the armed services from Michigan is killed in action, the
governor will issue a press release with information about the
individual(s) and the day that has been designated for flags to be
lowered in his or her honor. The information will also be posted on
Governor Granholm's Website at www.michigan.gov/gov in the section titled "Spotlight." The above is " Flags to be Flown Half-Staff Wednesday for Staff Sgt. Timothy A. David of Gladwin,"
issued by the Office of (Michigan) Governor Jennifer Granholm. Timothy
David was on his fourth tour of duty in Iraq (he'd also served two
tours in Afghanistan). The Defense Dept noted last month,
"Staff Sgt. Timothy A. David, 28, of Gladwin, Mich., died June 28 in
Sadr City, Iraq, of wounds suffered earlier in Baghdad, Iraq, when an
improvised explosive device detonated near his vehicle. He was assigned
to 2nd Battalion, 5th Cavalry Regiment, 1st Brigade Combat Team, 1st
Cavalry Division, Fort Hood, Texas." Edward Kramer, Roger Adams, Juan
Baldeosingh and Robert Bittiker were killed in Iraq last week. Kramer
is the subject of the Wilmington Star News' " Editorial: Sgt. 1st Class Kramer put service first:" Kramer,
39, of Wilmington, will be counted among 15 N.C. National Guard members
killed since 9/11. He and three other guardsmen were killed in Baghdad
on the day that U.S. combat forces were turning over security of Iraqi
cities to the Iraqi military.The
day marked a turning point in the U.S. occupation of Iraq, and was a
date anticipated by many Americans who either felt that the war was
unjustified or that it had accomplished as much as it could. Much of
the conflict in Iraq cannot be solved by outside forces, but only by
the Iraqi people.Yet the
deaths of Kramer, Spc. Robert L. Bittiker and Sgt. Roger L. Adams Jr.,
both of Jacksonville, and Juan C. Baldeosingh of Newport are a grim
reminder of the dangers that still face our remaining troops in Iraq,
and for forces in or headed for Afghanistan.Kramer
leaves behind a wife and two daughters who may be too young to
understand the political complexities that lead nations to go to war.
They are grieving the loss of their father, whose love no doubt meant
more to them than any professional role he played. But they will grow
up knowing that their dad gave his life doing a job he felt called to
do, in service of his country.The Raleigh News & Observer editorializes on the deaths in " Four of the brave:" A
war that is said to be "winding down" isn't winding down at all for
those who remain in the middle of it. The N.C. Guard knows that well.
It has lost 15 troops there since the Iraq war began in 2003. A strong
military presence in North Carolina, with multiple bases, brings pride
to the state, and in times of war, a keen and painful shared sense of
what it takes to fight. (In 2004, the 30th was the first major National
Guard unit in the country to be sent to Iraq. It lost five soldiers on
that tour. And just this past May, three died because of a suicide
bomber.)For the families of
those in action, and all who know them and all who admire them, a war
is not gauged merely by victory. It is about wives and children left
behind, about all the good times shared, and all those that will never
be shared.Laura Phelps (WNCT) notes that Edward Kramer's funeral is tomorrow, ten in the morning "at St. Mark Catholic Church in Wilmington." Meanwhile Michael Winter (USA Today) notes that Sgt Joseph Bozicevich "stands accused of shooting Staff Sgt. Darris Dawson and Sgt. Wesley Durbin". AP explains he's to be court-martialed. WTOC explains,
"After hearing testimony from witnesses, Maj. Gen. Tony Cuculo made the
decision to send Sgt. Joseph Bozicevich to general court martial." AP reveals no date has yet been announced for the court-martial. In September of 2008, Cal Perry (CNN) reported: Darryl
Mathis waits in his Pensacola, Florida, home for the body of his
24-year-old son to return home from Iraq. Mathis, a military veteran
himself, was seething with anger Thursday as he spoke about the death
of Army Staff Sgt. Darris J. Dawson.Dawson
and Sgt. Wesley Durbin, 26, are said to have been shot and killed by
another U.S. soldier on Sunday at a base south of Baghdad.Darryl
and his wife, Maxine (Dawson's stepmother), say the military has told
them nothing about the incident: no details on his death, no
information at all.His voice shakes as he says he believes that the military has let him down."I'm
very disappointed -- very," he said. "If I would get a straight answer,
if they would actually tell me what's going on, I would have something
to work on; but right now, I have nothing to work on. Everything I'm
getting, I'm getting from the media."Also in September 2008, Gina Cavallaro (Army Times) reported: The
incident took place at a joint security station in Jurf as Sakhr, a
town about 15 miles southwest of Baghdad on the Euphrates River, where
soldiers with A Company, 3rd Battalion, 7th Infantry, 4th Brigade
Combat Team, 3rd Infantry Division, were on duty.The
two soldiers killed were identified as Staff Sgt. Darris J. Dawson, 24,
of Pensacola, Fla., a squad leader, and Sgt. Wesley R. Durbin, 26, of
Hurst, Texas, a fellow team leader.The soldier who allegedly shot them was in Dawson's squad. The Army refused to identify him pending the filing of charges."As
best we can determine at this time, the staff sergeant and sergeant
went in to talk to the individual, whose performance was lacking. As
the counseling session developed, that's when the shooting happened,"
division Chief of Staff Col. Terry Ferrell told Army Times on Sept. 19.Tessa Savoy (NBC15 -- link has text and video) reported
on Darris Dawson's funeral service and noted that he was known as
"Smoke" by those he played basketball with ("because he was
unbeatable") and those he served with. Joe Simnacher (Dallas Morning News) reported last year on Wesley Durbin: He
joined the Marines in June 2001, when he was 18 years old, shortly
after graduating from Lutheran High School in Dallas. The honor student
turned down a $5,000 academic scholarship that could have been repeated
for up to five years at Concordia University in Nebraska. Instead, he
chose to serve his country. [. . .]"He
decided he was a soldier all around, so he went back into the Army,"
said his wife, Brandi Durbin of Springfield, Ga. "He had wanted to go
into the Army and see if it was the same experience for him as the
Marines."He wanted to take his expertise and give it where it needed to be given," Mrs. Durbin said. Yesterday's snapshot covered the Senate Armed Services Committee hearing and Kat covered it at her site last night.
The best witness was Retired Admiral John D. Hutson and we noted some
of his remarks yesterday. His opening statement [PDF format warning] is
now posted online by the committee and we'll note it in full: I am the Dean and President of the Franklin Pierce Law Center. I served as a JudgeAdvocate in the United States Navy from 1973‐2000 and as the Judge AdvocateGeneral of the Navy from 1997‐2000. I am very aware of the honor and privilege oftestifying before this Committee on the matter of military commissions. I thank the Committee for this opportunity.Even greater than democracy itself, the greatest export of all from the United States is
Justice. Daniel Webster once said, "Justice, Sir, is the greatest
interest of man on earth. It's the ligament which holds civilized
beings and civilized nations together."But Justice is fragile and easily disparaged. It must be nurtured and handled withgreat care.I was an early and ardent supporter of military commissions. Initially, I was drawn to their historical precedents and, more importantly, I was confident that the United States Armed Forces could and would conduct fair trials even of reprehensible defendants. My own experience gained during 28 years in the Navy and our long history of providing due process while trying our own military personnel in courtsmartial gave me this confidence.Unfortunately, as it turned out, the commissions that were created did not live up to the traditions of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Predictably, they became a significant
distraction for the military. I hasten to add that this was in spite of
the stalwart, honorable effort of many, many military personnel
themselves. Indeed, that is one of the great tragedies of this saga, and largely makes one of the points that I wish to underline.The
primary role of the military is to fight and win our Nation's wars or,
stated more precisely, to provide the time and space necessary for real
solutions -- economic, cultural, social, religious -- to take place. Prosecution of miscreants is an occasionally necessary sidebar to that mission but shouldn’t distract from it. We have the UCMJ and the military court‐martial system to expedite the legitimate role of the military, not interfere with it.If a sailor on a ship is alleged to have committed a crime, we must expeditiously and fairly
resolve that problem. Otherwise, it can fester and interfere with unit
cohesion and impede an effective fighting force. The UCMJ and the
Manual for Courts Martial serve that purpose alone. They solve problems
for the armed forces; not create them. Our recent history with military
commissions has been the opposite. I've come to realize that even a perfect commission regime would be a distraction for the military. It's simply not part of its mission. I am very concerned when the military is called upon to perform functions outside of its core mission even when I'm confident that it can do it well. Preserving and ensuring justice in the United States is the primary mission of the Department of Justice, not the Department of Defense.If there will be criticism of our prosecution of alleged terrorists—and there willbe -- the Department of Justice and the U. S. Federal Court system are equipped todeal with that criticism. Indeed, it is part of their responsibility to face it, address it, and resolve it.Notably,
the criticism will come not only critics outside the judicial process
such as the media, foreign allies and enemies, and domestic
commentators but also from the legitimate
appeal process. Some of the criticism may actually be justified or, at
least, defensible. There is no reason in law or logic for the military
to be the target of that.Convictions from military commissions will be appealed until Dooms Day justbecause of the forum of the conviction. Federal courts are impervious to that.It is decidedly not the responsibility of the Department of Defense or the U.S.military
to deal with criticism of such prosecutions. It would, in fact, be
detrimental to the military mission. There are valid and important
reasons why our military is the most highly respected institution in
America. One of them certainly is that the military limits itself to
its mission and performs that mission very well. Taking on duties
outside of that core mission on an ongoing basis will surely undermine
the public's confidence in the military…and divert important resources,
human and otherwise, from that mission in order to take on the new one.We already have proof of this. Besides being a distraction to the vital mission ofDoD, military commissions have, to a large extent, become a discredit in spite of the valiant and highly credible efforts of many, many people in uniform. Rather than showcasing the military justice system of which we all are justifiably proud,commissions represent something else entirely. They have not worked often orwell. "Fixing" them would help, but won't eliminate undeserved but inevitablecriticism.On the other hand, during the same period, U.S. District Courts have successfullyprosecuted literally hundreds of terrorists who now reside in Federal prisonsaround the country, keeping all Americans safer. Federal courts, including judges,prosecutors, marshals, and other court personnel have decades of experience inthese cases. They have developed a justifiable and universally held reputation forfairness, and consequently, they are largely immune to criticism.There is also now a large body of law that has been developed over the years in theFederal court system. It would take an equal number of cases and decades of trialsfor DoD to match the Federal precedent contained in the Federal Reporters.Military judges, prosecutors, and defense counsel rotate out of one assignment into another every three years or so. Without significant changes to longstanding DoD personnel
policy, none of them will ever, ever gain the experience in these cases
that is enjoyed by scores of their civilian federal counterparts. We
could do that, we could change longstanding DoD personnel policy but
again, if we did we would have the tail of terrorist prosecutions wagging the warfighting dog.It
is not only unnecessary, it is inappropriate for DoD to operate a
system of justice in parallel to DoJ. The UCMJ and the courts‐martial
it creates are absolutely necessary to ensure our effective fighting
force. But for some of the same reasons that the Posse Comitatus Act
prevents the military from enforcing laws against U.S. civilians, we
should resist the temptation of using the military to prosecute foreign
criminals when DoJ can perform that critical function quite well.Let us not forget, these are not legitimate warfighters. They are common criminals.They are thugs, cowards who target innocent civilians. We should treat them assuch and not elevate their status to that of legitimate enemies. They don’t belong in the same category as Major Andre or the German saboteurs.We don't ask DoJ to fight wars. We shouldn't ask DoD to prosecute terrorists.If the point of this exercise is to create a court system that will ensure convictions of alleged terrorists against whom we don't have sufficient admissible evidence, then we have missed the point. You can’t have a legitimate court unless you are willing to risk an acquittal. If you aren't willing to accept the possibility that a jury will acquit the accused based on the evidence fairly presented, then it isn’t really a court. It's a charade.The
corollary to that is that you can't have a real court if the rules of
evidence and procedure are so stacked against the defendant that he has
no real chance topresent his case or defend against the government's case. The admissible evidenceagainst him based on the facts may be so overwhelming that conviction is assuredbut that must be the consequence of facts, not rules of evidence tilted in favor of the prosecution.Over the years, federal courts have displayed remarkable ingenuity, flexibility, and resourcefulness in prosecuting terrorists. The Federal Rules of Evidence andProcedure are sufficiently adaptable to accommodate the vagaries of trying thoseindividuals who are captured overseas by military personnel in the midst ofperforming military operations. I believe the image of the "strategic corporal"having to give Miranda warnings after risking his life to break into the bunker is ared herring.If you as members of this Committee believe or suspect that the Federal Rule ofEvidence or the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure should be amended toaccommodate certain cases and situations, it is preferable to superimpose modestnew rules on an extant, tried and true judicial system than to create a whole newsystem -- particularly in light of recent efforts.It might be wise to set up a task force of experienced judges, prosecutors, anddefense counsel to make recommendations to Congress in this regard.However, if we create yet another military commission system that "contains all the judicial guarantees considered to be indispensible by all civilized peoples" asrequired by Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, then we have essentiallyduplicated our own Federal courts. There is no logical reason to create a systemthat mirrors one already in existence and is functioning so well. We should strivefor the minimum change necessary to accomplish the purpose, not a wholesalechange to an already effectively functioning system.Clearly and undeniably, the Administration and this Committee are dedicated tountying this Gordian knot in a way that serves the very best interest of the country.We are now operating under the Military Commission Act of 2006 which many findto be badly flawed. I very much respect and admire your effort to improve it. Myrecommendation, however, is to repeal it rather than improve it. In the process, Iurge you to express this body's preference to prosecute alleged terrorists in federal court and thereby demonstrate to the world, friend and foe alike, what kind of Justice the United States wishes to export.The
New York Times has nothing from Iraq this morning (again) and nothing
but smut and sexism (again). The front page is the best example but you
can find it throughout (including in the food section -- Frank Bruni,
"polarizing" would be your own paper, not a woman). But especially note
the front page of the so-called news section and ask who they're
catering to? Matt Richtel probes the very pressing issue of . .
. porno films. The economy means 'less dialogue.' That doesn't even cut
it as a humor item, let alone as news. But don't we all feel a little
filthier for the garbage? We're not done. David Leonhardt appears on
the front page to tell you that proposed health care reform can be
measured by . . . how it addresses prostate cancer. For those
not in the know, not a cancer which afflicts women. So women learn from
today's front page that the smutty New York Times loves their porn and
that the only way to measure health care success is by how it addresses
the needs of men. Kind of the way the paper does? It's smut, it's garbage, it's the New York Times.
And wallowing in the cess pool as always (has she mistaken it for a hot
tub) is Maureen Dowd with yet another gossip column passed off as
commentary on the world we live in. The e-mail address for this site is
common_ills@yahoo.com. iraqmichael winterusa todaycal perrycnntessa savoyjoe simacherthe dallas morning newsthe wilmington star newsthe raleigh news and observerlaura phelps
Posted at 06:38 am by thecommonills
Permalink
Service members' children increase use of mental health care
I
can't remember the last time I saw so much media fluff, hype and
hoopla. News organizations that have pulled out of Iraq arrived by the
convoy to pay homage to the King of Pop.The above is from Steve Lopez' " Michael Jackson's memorial was not our proudest moment" ( Los Angeles Times)
and a functioning alternative media, a functioning group of watchdogs,
would have been calling this crap out or are we only offended when
celebrity trash is passed off as news if it's a woman. I called out the
garbage that was the Anna Nicole Smith marathon. I didn't do because
she was a woman or a blond. (And more and more, those little media
critiques from the first half of this decade about "another missing
blonde" reveal some deep seated sexism.) But for two weeks and
counting, trash TV has reigned
supreme and instead of being called out, it's been amplified online
because, hey, we're all consumers of mindless Trash TV, right? That is
our culture today, debased and disgusting. There are funerals going on in the US, of service members killed in Iraq, as Betty pointed out last night.
No stadiums are filled for them. The bumper stickers have faded, the
flags attached to cars have frayed and been tossed in the trash (even
though that's not how you're supposed to dispose of a flag). And who
really cares because there's a chance to be a part of trash TV and
mindlessly cheer it on. Kimberly Hefling (AP) reports
on the increase in service members' children seeking mental health
treatment in 2008, noting that the number has doubled since the start
of the illegal war. Hefling notes:
Overall,
the number of children and spouses of active duty personnel and Guard
and Reserve troops seeking mental health care has been steadily
increasing. Last year's increase in child hospitalizations coincided
with the "surge" of tens of thousands of additional U.S. troops into
Iraq to stabilize the country.
However, reasons for the treatment
increases are not clear from the documents. Besides the impact of
service members' repeated tours in overseas war zones - and the severe
economic recession that has affected all American families - the
military has been encouraging troops' family members to seek mental
health help when needed. Woo! Hoo! Brooke Shields!
Professional virgin and beard! Oh, sorry. That's not the cheer for the
coverage above, right? There is real news out there and it's the
responsibility of adults to draw a line between reality and gossip. Not
to blur the line, to draw the line. Staying with mental illness, DeeDee Correll's " The story of the Marine who wasn't" ( Los Angeles Times) reports on Rick Duncan who was not, in fact, Rick Duncan: Retired
Marine Capt. Rick Duncan carried a list of phone numbers of those in
the business of helping veterans. One was for the VA clinic in Colorado
Springs, and in 2008 he pressed it upon Mike Flaherty, a young Army
veteran struggling with depression.He
understood, Duncan told Flaherty. He'd been to Iraq three times.
Attacked in Fallouja, he'd returned home with a metal plate in his head
and a diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder.Flaherty made the call and saw a counselor; in time his depression lessened. He had his friend Rick Duncan to thank.He
would not learn the truth about Duncan for a year, and when he and
other veterans did, it rolled over them with the weight of a tank: Rick
Duncan had never served in Iraq, had never been wounded, had never been
a Marine at all. He wasn't even Rick Duncan. As noted before, Ava
and I met Rick once. We found him to be a liar immediately. Not based
on his war experience which we wouldn't assume we have the skills to
evaluate but based on the fact that his self-narrative did not add up
on basic details (having nothing to do with Iraq or the military) and,
when questioned by us about that, he immediately became flustered and
attempted to obviously lie. Alexandra Zavis (Los Angeles Times) files a report
on Fort Irwin's National Training Center where US State Dept staff go
through simulation training (including 'bombings') to prepare for
serving in Iraq: The diplomats
slept on cots and worked out of a tent on a base surrounded by
re-created Iraqi villages. Each day, they strapped on flak vests over
their business jackets and clambered into armored carriers to meet with
local leaders, played by Iraqi immigrants. They confronted insurgent
attacks, corrupt officials and sectarian rivalries."You
can forget at times that you are in California," said Wesley Robertson,
a public diplomacy officer who is trading a post in Chennai, India, for
Iraq's violent Diyala province.All
four diplomats are joining Provincial Reconstruction Teams, or PRTs.
These civilian-led teams, which include some military officers and
representatives of other government agencies, were conceived in 2005 to
help Iraq's local and provincial governments provide services, promote
stability and stimulate development.The following community sites updated last night: The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com. iraqdeedee correllsteve lopezthe los angeles timesalexandra zaviskimberly heflinglike maria said pazkats kornersex and politics and screeds and attitudethomas friedman is a great mantrinas kitchenthe daily jotcedrics big mixmikey likes itruths reportsickofitradlzoh boy it never ends
Posted at 06:35 am by thecommonills
Permalink
Tuesday, July 07, 2009
Tuesday,
July 7, 2009. Chaos and violence continue, Iraqi police become the
target of choice, the US Senate Armed Service Committee appears to have
no grasp of the US legal system and no respect for it, a War Hawk dies,
and more. Gay Life After Saddam is a documentary the BBC commissioned which was set to air Sunday, July 5th on BBC Radio 5 Live; however, the Wimbledon Men's Final ran late Sunday and the program has been rescheduled
to air Sunday July 12th from nine to ten p.m. (1:00 to 2:00 p.m. PST).
Ashley Byrne did the investigative reporting for the documentary and,
at the BBC, Byrne explains,
"What is clear, and confirmed by separate evidence from various human
rights groups, is that some gay men have been subjected to appalling
violent abuse. . . . Gay men inside Iraq have been able to seek
santuary in safe houses, thanks to the UK-based Iraqi Lesbian Gay
Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) group, which manages them from London.
The documentary team were granted exclusive access to one of the homes
on the outskirts of Baghdad". The people Byrne speaks to maintain it
was easier to be a gay Iraqi when Saddam Hussein was in charge of
Iraq. So much for 'liberation' and 'democracy.' Again, the specail
has been rescheduled for this coming Sunday, July 12th. Moving over to an Iraq War veteran in Canada, David Solnit, co-author with Aimee Allison of Army Of None, notes the following action (taking place tomorrow): Kimberly
Rivera, mother of three, wife, and soldier of conscience is now living
in Canada, but that could all change on July 8th. Join Courage to
Resist at a support rally outside of the Canadian Consulate in San
Francisco,
July 8, 12 noon - 1pm
580 California Street at Kearny, San Francisco
(4 blocks up Montgomery from Montgomery BART, left on Calif. St, right side of street just before Kearny)
http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&q=580%20California%20Street%2C%2014th%20floor&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wl%20) We
will bring signed petitions to the Consulate General, urging the
Canadian politicians to respect the will of the Canadian people, the
Canadian parliament, whom have twice voted recommendations to allow war
resisters to stay and the basic moral imperative that does not separate
children from their loving mother.
Kimberly has this to say:
"I
want to stay in Canada, with my family, because the Iraq War is
immoral, illegal and I couldn't in good conscience go back. The amount
of support I'm getting from Canadians is amazing. The parents of my
kids' friends, MPs and even strangers on the street keep telling me
that they can't believe the votes in Parliament aren't being
respected."
Kimberly Rivera is the first outspoken female
Iraq War resister to publically and legally seek refuge in Canada.
Kimberly, along with her partner Mario, son Christian (7 years old) and
daughter Rebecca (4 years old), fled to Canada in January 2007 when
Kimberly refused redeployment. In late November 2008 Kimberly gave
birth to her Canadian daughter Katie (8 months old). She served in Iraq
in 2006 and experienced, firsthand, the reality of this ongoing illegal
war and occupation.
On July 8th, Kimberly is going
to Canadian federal court, to appeal the decision in her Pre-Removal
Risk Assessment. If her appeal fails, she will be asked to leave
Canada, or forcibly removed -- and delivered into the custody and
jurisdiction of the United States Army where Kimberly will face charges
that will carry, at the very least, a 4 year sentence in a military
stockade.
Four years or more away from her young
children, away from her baby daughter, away from her husband -- she
will be kept in an Army prison. She has served in Iraq, she has been to
combat; now, because she has decided to exercise her conscience, she
faces imprisonment, additional forced separation from her family and
eviction from her new home.
Act to help Kimberly on
July 8th! Join Courage to Resist in protesting the Canadian governments
attempts to violate a loving mother's human rights!
Sign the letter online & for more info:
http://www.couragetoresist.org/x/content/view/726/1/
Over the weekend, US Vice President Joe Biden continued his trip to Iraq. Liz Sly (Los Angeles Times) reported that
his "mission to promote national reconciliation in Iraq was rebuffed
Friday by Prime Minister Nouri Maliki, who told him that the issue was
a domestic Iraqi affair and that U.S involvement wouldn't be welcome."
US involvement wouldn't be welcome . . . but Nouri's happy to have the
involvement of US forces on the ground in Iraq because otherwise he
would be overthrown. That involvement he's all for. An Iraqi
correspondent for McClatchy offers her take here. Sheryl Gay Stolberg (New York Times) added,
"One official said the vice president made it clear that if Iraq
returned to ethnic violence, the United States would be unlikely to
remain engaged, 'because one, the American people would have no
interest in doing that, and as he put it, neither would he or the
president." Yesterday, Alissa J. Rubin (New York Times) explained that "the
Americans helped most leading Iraqi politicians, including Prime
Minister Nuri al-Maliki, come to power -- and stay there -- they can no
longer expect the Iraqis to acknowledge the help, because being close
to the Americans risks alienating average Iraqis." Which has never
prevented the puppet from biting the hand that continues to feed him
and why Alsumaria reports today,
"Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Al Maliki refused any foreign interference
in Iraqi affairs; two days after the United States cautioned that it
might disengage in Iraq if the country fails to reach national
reconciliation. In a meeting with tribal sheikhs, security chiefs and
local officials in Anbar, Al Maliki reiterated that he won't allow
anyone to meddle in Iraqi affairs and oversee the political process and
national reconciliation." Independent journalist Dahr Jamail (MidEast Dispatches) uses Biden's visit to provide the context on the non-departure and non-withdrawal: On
July 4 in Baghdad, Vice President Joe Biden, who campaigned with Barack
Obama on a platform of ending the occupation of Iraq, found himself in
one of former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein's lavish buildings, the
Al-Faw Palace. While one of Saddam Hussein's thrones sat on the side of
the room, Biden presided over a swearing-in ceremony for 237 soldiers,
who were becoming US citizens. Speaking of the ceremony, Biden said,
"We did it in Saddam's palace, and I can think of nothing better. That
S.O.B. is rolling over in his grave right now." Perhaps the irony of
both the scene and his statement were lost to Biden. For if Saddam
Hussein was rolling in his grave, the reason would have less to do with
one of his palaces being used as a naturalization center for US
soldiers, and more to do with the fact that the US government has no
intention of withdrawing from Iraq anytime soon. We
have passed the June 30 deadline that, according to a Status of Forces
Agreement (SOFA) signed between US Ambassador Ryan Crocker and Iraqi
Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari on November 17, 2008, was the date all
US forces were to have been withdrawn from all of Iraq's cities. Today,
however, there are at least 134,000 US soldiers in Iraq - a number
barely lower than the number that were there in 2003. In addition, US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates testified on June 9 that the United States would maintain an average of at least 100,000 troops in Iraq through fiscal year 2010. The
SOFA is a sieve, and the number of US military personnel in Iraq is
remaining largely intact for now. Add to the 134,000 US soldiers almost
the exact number of military contractors (132,610 and increasing),
36,061 of which, according to a recent Department of Defense report,
are US citizens. The
weekend trend in Iraq was attacks on police officers resulting in the
deaths of at least 6 police officers with eight more wounded. Though
primarily in Mosul, the attacks also took place in Baghdad and Kirkuk. On Saturday, 1 was killed and one wounded and a Mosul bombing targeting a police squad car resulted in one civilian being injured, Sunday's numbers were 3 killed with two wounded while a Mosul car bombing targeted the police but wounded three civilians, and Monday saw 2 killed and five wounded. (And use links in linked day's entries for wounded totals.) Meanwhile 'safe' Iraq still requires police training takes place . . . outside the country. Iraq's Foreign Ministry announced Sunday
that their ambassador to Canberra, Ghanim Taha al-Shebly, attended
graduation ceremonies for Iraqi police officers in . . . Australia:
"Ambassador AL-Shebly delivered a speech on the occasion in which he
expressed his thanks to the Federal Police and the Australian
Government for their initiative in providing development programs to
the elite members of the Iraqi National Police, which included training
in management and leadership development, administrative and criminal
evidence in order to strengthen the Iraqi Police Service." The Ministry also announced Sunday
that Mustafa Musa Tawfik, Charge d'affairs in the Iraqi Embassy in
Seoul, gave a speech at the "training course for the dvelopment of
policies and programs human rights in filed in Iraq" in . . . (South)
Korea. The need to continue training outside of Iraq is not
surprising considering the ongoing violence; however, it needs to be
noted that US government ended the training program which had been
taking place in Jordan even though it was cost effective and, according
to outsiders, effective period. The claim at the time was that training
should take place in Iraq where it would be more cost efficient. And
lucky for that cover story, reporters haven't been eager to point out
that Iraqis continue to train in foreign countries. The only real
difference now is that they are not training in Arab countries. The targeting of police officers continued in Iraq today. Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports two
Iraqi "servicemen and one civilian" were injured in a shooting at a
Baghdad checkpoint and 1 police officer was shot dead in Mosul while
his father (also a police officer) was left wounded. In both
incidents, silencers were used on the guns and McClatchy was noting (in
their daily violence round-ups) over the weekend how common the use of
silencers was becoming. Reuters notes
1 Iraqi soldier was shot dead at a Mosul checkpoint with two other
people left injured and they note 1 police officer shot dead in Mosul
in a drive-by. From violence to the thing everyone wants to get their hands on: Oil. Jane Arraf (Christian Science Monitor) quotes
Iraq's Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari saying, "We showed the world two
things -- that the Iraqi oil industry is open for investment for the
first time, and second, that the process was transparent." The
statement comes on the heels of the first auction and as Iraq prepares
for the second auction. Angel K. Yan (Red Net) notes,
"China's three major oil companies are thinking of participating in
Iraq's second auction of oil and gas fields later this year, in a move
to get a better foothold in the country's oil industry." The first
auction was at the end of last month and the big winners were British Petroleum and China National Petroleum Corporation who partnered up and won what Robin Pagnamenta (Times of London) described as "access to Iraq's biggest oilfield." At The Ecologist, Dan Box offers a historical view of England and Iraq. Vivian Wai-yin Kwok (Forbes) notes
China Daily is reporting China National Petroleum Corporation and China
Petrochemical Corporation plan to bid in the second auction. Jane Arraf observes
that "factors including lingering security fears and concerns that
Iraq's climate for foreign oil investment is still shifting" are
weighing on some foreign companies. "Good
morning, everybody," declared US Senator Carl Levin bringing to order
the Senate Armed Services Committee Hearing on Military Commission and
the trial of Detainees for Violations of the Law of War. "In its 2006
decision in the Hamdan case, the Supreme Court held that Common Article
3 of the Geneva Convetions prohibts the trial of detainees for
violations of the law of war unless the trial is conducted 'by a
regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which
are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.' The Court
concluded that 'the regular military courts in our system are the
courts-martial established by congressional statutes' but that a
military commission can be regularly constituted by the standards of
our military justice system 'if some practical need explains deviations
from court-martial practice'.'' His opening remarks set up the
hearing so we'll also note this section. Senator
Carl Levin: Of great importance, the provision in our bill would
reverse the existing presumption in the Military Commissions Act of
2006 that rules and procedures applicable to trials by courts martial
would not apply. Our new language says, by contrast, that: "Except as
otherwise provided, the procedures and rules of evidence applicable in
trials by general courts-martial of the United States shall apply in
trials by military commission under this chapter." The exceptions to
this rule are, as suggested by the Supreme Court, carefully tailored to
the unique circumstances of the conduct of military and intelligence
operations during hostilities. Three years ago, when this Committee
considered similar legislation on military commissions, I urged that we
apply two tests. First, will we be able to live with the procedures
that we establish if the tables are turned and our own troops are
subject to similar procedures? Second, is the bill consistent with our
American system of justice and will it stand up to scrutiny on judicial
review? I believe that those remain the right questions to consider
and that language we have included in the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 meets both tests. Over the last
three years, we have seen the legal advisor to the Convening Authority
for military commissions forced to step aside after a military judge
found that he had compromised his objectivity by aligning himself with
the prosecution. We have had prosecutors resign after making
allegations of improper command influence and serious deficiencies in
the military commission process. We have had the Chief Defense Counsel
raise serious concerns about the adequacy of resources made available
to defendants in military commissions cases, writing that: "Regardless
of its other procedures, no trial system will be fair unless the
serious deficiencies in the current system's approach to defense
resources are rectified." So even if we are able to
enact new legislation that successfully addresses the shortcomings in
existing law, we will have a long way to go to restore public
confidence in military commissions and the justice that they produce.
However, we will not be able to restore confidence in military
commissions at all unless we first substitute new procedures and
language to address the problems with the existing statute. The
hearing was composed of two panels. The first panel was composed of
the Dept of Defense's Jeh C. Johnson, Dept of Justice's David S. Kris
and JAG's Vice Adm Bruce E. MacDonald. The second panel was composed
of Retired Rear Admiral John Hutson, Retired Maj Gen John Altenburg Jr.
and the American University's Daniel Marcus. Senator
Carl Levin: Let me ask you first, Mr. Johnson, I quoted from the Hamdan
case in my opening remarks, saying that the Court in Hamdan said: "The
regular military courts in our system are the courts-martial
established by congressional statutes." But they also said that a
military commission can be regularly constituted if there's a practical
need that explains the ndeviations from court-martial practice. We
have attempted in our language to do exactly that. And my question
first of you is, in your view, does our bill conform to the Hamdan
standards? Jeh
C. Johnson: Senator, as you, as you noted, Hamdan uh-uh requires --
and of course Hamdan was at a time that the Military Commissions Act of
2006 did not exist, as I recall. The holding of Hamdan was that
military commissions -- and I'm not going to get this exactly right --
but that military commission should depart from UCMJ courts only in
situations of evident practical need. The proposed legislation, uh, in
our view definitely brings us closer to the UCMJ model and the
circumstances under which the military commissions, uhm, contemplated
by this bill and UCMJ courts differ are, in our judgment, circumstances
that are necessary, uhm, given -- given the needs here. Uh, for
example, uh, there is no Miranda requirement imposed by-by this-by this
legislation. Article 31 UCMJ is specifically excluded from application
here. Article 31 is what uh calls for Miranda warnings in uh UCMJ
circumstances. The legislation also takes what I believe is a very
appropriate and practical approach to-to hearsay. As you noted in your
opening remarks, Mr. Chariman, the-the-the burden is no longer on the
opponent to demonstrate uh-uh that hearsay should be excluded. There
is a notice requirement in the proposed legislation and if the
proponent of the hearsay can demonstrate reliability and
materiality and that the declarant is not available as a practical
matter given the unqiue circumstances of military operations and
intelligence operations, the hearsy could be admitted. And
people make fun of the way Sarah Palin speaks? The Dept of Defense
sends that stammering uh-uh dofus into a hearing? He's the Dept's
General Counsel? First off, Article 31 is
not the military's Miranda. UCMJ's Article 31 predates Miranda by 16
years. Don't confuse the two. Article 32 is not a copy of Miranda.
Miranda can be seen as a civilian copy of Article 32. What an idiot.
And, no, he has no knowledge of the law. Admitting hearsay goes
against everything the US justice system stands for and that includes
the US military justice system. The Senate should be ashamed of
himself for authoring legislation that shreds the US justice system.
Let's not let them off (and I don't) but let's be clear that Johnson's
a stammering fool who came off like a drunk barely able to keep his
head up at the bar (you really needed to see the way Johnson's head
dipped and swung to this side and to that side). David Kris was just
as much of an ass as Levin's being but he could speak. What he had to
say was frightening. Terrorism, Kris said speaking for the Dept of
Justice, should be prosecuted in military courts, not civilian ones and
proscuted, pay attention to this, by the Defense Department. Slippery
slope is apparently a concept foreign to the idiots Barack's
appointed. Senator John McCain, the Ranking Member of the Committee,
wanted to know if there was a difference in the proceedings based on
whether the trials were held in the US or at Guantanamo? Johnson
fretted that "due process" would apply if held in the US and "that the
courts have not determined applies -- applies now" at Guantanamo.
Johnson had a real problem being concise. Not because he was adding
detail but because he was restating the same thing over and over. He
did that with Levin in Levin's first round of questioning (leading the
Chair to note that there was only six minutes in the round) and he
tried that with McCain who cut him off. Senator
John McCain: So what you're saying is that you believe that there could
be some differneces in procedure if the trials were held in Guantanamo
or the United States of America? Jeh Johnson: I'm not sure I would be prepared to say significant difference, Senator. Senator
John McCain: It would be important for this committee to know what your
view is? It might have something to do with the way that we shape
legislation. If they're going to have all kinds of additional rights
if they're tried in the United States of America as opposed to
Guantanamo, I think that the committee and the American people should
know that. Jeh
Johnson: One of the things that I mentioned in my prepared statement,
Senator, is that when it comes to the admissability of statements, the
administration believes that a volunatriness standard should apply on
account of the reality of military operations and we think that that is
something that uh due process may require particularly if military
commissions come to the United States, that the courts may impose a
voluntariness standard. Senator
John McCain: Well I hope that you and Mr. Kris will provide for the
record what you think the difference is and the process would be as to
the location of uh those trials. I think it's very important.
Certainly is to me. Vice Adm Bruce E.
MacDonald made clear to Senator Lindsey Graham that the US has more
restrictive use on hearsay than, for example, an international tribunal
in Rawanda. Boo-hoo. What Constitution did MacDonald swear to uphold
and is not coherent enough to grasp what oath he took? And someone
tell the idiot to comb his hair. That fallen lock wouldn't play on a
guy half his age and for a man showing up before Congress in military
dress it was flat out embarrassing. (His hair was comparable to Paul
Wolfowitz for any needing a visual. Only worse.) Senator Mark Udall
praised Lindsey Graham and had nothing to add. Disappointing. If any
Senator did a half-way decent job and seemed to have an understanding
of the law it was Senator Jack Reed who did speak up for at least some
civilian courts, at least some of the trials needing to take place in
civilian courts and he also noted that a number of criminals are being
glorified by having their actions, their crimes, inflated into
something more than that. It was a very sad hearing and the first
panel lasted about one hour and seventeen minutes. The second panel
moved more quickly. Former Judge Advocate General of the Navy and
Retired Rear Admiral John Hutson made it very clear that he was opposed
to the notion of allowing the Defense Dept to begin conducting trials.
He spoke of the US system of justice and it would be wonderful if the
senators present had either stood up and applauded or slapped their
heads in I-didn't-not-know-that gestures. Instead, his words appeared
to sail over their clueless heads. We're going to note his remarks at
length: Even greater than democracy
itself, the greatest export of all from the United States is justice.
Daniel Webster once said, "Justice, Sir, is the greatest interest of
man on earth. It's the ligament which holds civilized beings and
civilized nations together." But justice is fragile and easily
disparaged. It must be nurtured and handled with great care. I was an
early and ardent supporter of military commissions. Initially, I was
drawn to their historical precedents and, more importantly, I was
confident that the United States Armed Forces could and would conduct
fair trails even of reprehensible defendants. My own experience gained
during 28 years in the Navy and our long history of providing due
process while trying our own military personnel in courts-marital gave
me this confidence. Unfortunately, as it turned out, the commissions
that were created did not live up to the traditions of the Uniform Code
of Military Justice. Predictably, they became a significant
distraction for the military. I hasten to add that this was in spite
of the stalwart, honorable effort of many, many military personnel
themselves. Indeed, that is one of the great tragedies of this saga,
and largely makes one of the points that I wish to underline. The
primary role of the military is to fight and win our nation's wars or,
stated more precisely, to provide the time and space necessary for real
solutions -- economic, cultural, social, religious -- to take place.
Prosecution of miscreants is an occasionally necessary sidebar to that
mission but shouldn't distract from it. We have the UCMJ and the
military court-martial system to expedite the legitimate role of the
military, not interfere with it. If a sailor on a ship is alleged to
have committeed a crime, we must expeditiously and fairly resolve that
problem. Otherwise it can fester and interfere with unit cohesion and
impede an effective fighting force. The UCMJ and the Manual for Courts
Martial serve that purpose alone. They solves problems for the armed
forces; not create them. Our recent history with military commissions
has been the opposite. I've come to realize that even a perfect
commission regime would be a distraction for the military. It's simply
not part of its mission. I am very concerned when the military is
called upon to perform functions outside of its core mission even when
I'm confident that it can do it well. Preserving and ensuring justice
in the United States is the primary mission of the Department of
Justice, not the Department of Defense. If there will be criticism of
our prosecution of alleged terrorists -- and there will be -- the
Department of Justice and the US Federal Court system are equipped to
deal with that criticism. Indeed, it is part of their responsibility
to face it, address it and resolve it. Monday Kat reviewed Regina Spektor's latest album. I should have noted that this morning but was in rush to get to the hearing (see, it's connected) and (still connected), Kat will share her thoughts on the hearing tonight so be sure to visit her site. Washington, D.C.: Hi Bob -- I wrote a biography of McNamara, "Promise and Power,"
published in 1993. For the record, he told me he did not quit over the
grim outlook in Vietnam because he wasn't that sure he was right, and
because holding on could force Hanoi's hand politically, in his view.
Therefore, the deaths of additional Americans at that time (1965 ff)
were not in vain. My personal
opinion is that his 1995 book "In Retrospect" gave the impression he
thought the war was 'totally wrong' at the time -- which is not what
his record shows -- at all! He went on telling the president they could
bring off something-or-other, albeit in more pessimistic terms. Some
people want to seem on the right side of history even when they were on
what 'in retrospect' was the wrong side of history. Too bad for the
servicemen that he misrepresented (or seemed to misrepresent) his own
record. In this decade,
the War Criminal recast himself as a bra-less starlet followed around
by professional gadfly Errol Morris for the mockumentary Fog Of War (aka The Bore Never Shuts Up). As with any Morris revisionary opus, the point of the mocumentary was that no one was really guilty. Alexander Cockburn (CounterPunch) observes: He
faded comfortably away. The last time we saw him vividly was in 2004
as the star of Morris's wildly over-praised, documentary The Fog of
War, talking comfortably about the millions of people he's helped to
kill. Time
and again, McNamara got away with it in that film, cowering in the
shadow of baroque monsters like LeMay or LBJ, choking up about his
choice of Kennedy's gravesite in Arlington, sniffling at the memory of
Johnson giving him the Medal of Freedom, spouting nonsense about how
Kennedy would have pulled out of Vietnam, muffling himself in the ever-
useful camouflage of the "fog of war." Danny Schechter (News Dissector) explains,
"McNamara returned to his Waterloo (Hanoi) some years back for a
conference on the "lessons of the war" with General Giap, the winner,
and several American Generals, the losers. He was challenged by the
feisty Vietnamese American documentary director, Tiana [Thi Thanh Nga],
who made ' From Hollywood to Hanoi'
and other films for all the deaths he caused. There is precious footage
of him freaking out and arrogantly lecturing her. The Vietnamese
government was too diplomatic to express its rage." On Democracy Now! today,
Marilyn Young, Howard Zinn and Johnny Apologist Schell appeared to
discuss War Hawk McNamara. Historian Marilyn Young (author of many
books and recently co-editor of Iraq and the Lessons of Vietnam) is worth noting. She explained of McNamara: One
of the legacies is that there is none, in a sense. The first clip that
you ran, you could have run it now. About Iraq, several years ago,
about Afghanistan today. It's as if it doesn't go anywhere. There is
knowledge, and then it's erased in between McNamara should be kind of a
morality tale. During his tenure as Secretary of Defense, he initially
-- he was responsible really -- for the initial escalation. In 1964,
he and Bundy gave -- '65, I'm sorry -- gave Johnson what's called "The
Fork in the Road Memorandum," in which they said, "Now, we have really
thought this over and we have two choices. We could increase military
pressure or we could negotiate." And they strongly urged the increase
of military pressure and Johnson went along with that. Not that he
was, you know, I think he was a little unwilling, but that is another
subject. Gradually, by later in 1965, by 1966, and certainly by 1967,
he was completely disenchanted with the war. And he said it in public
at the Senate hearings on bombing targets. And he said, "This bombing
is just not going to work." The next thing he knew, he was out. And
he said later he never knew whether he had quit or Johnson had fired
him. And then, as Howard [Zinn] said, he was absolutely silent. You
can imagine that the silence was expressed in onse sense by his
opposition to nuclear weapons, which was very sincere and I'm sure
Jonathan can talk about that. He and Bundy both focused on the dangers
of nuclear war as if that attempt to prevent a future war was going to
erase the war they had both just conducted. And then in 1995 he comes
out with In Retrospect and everybody quotes, "We were wrong, terribly
wrong." But if you read the full paragraph, what it says is: "We
weren't wrong in our values and our intentions, we were wrong about our
judgments and capabilities." And the book as a whole is an excuse.
It's a struggle -- he almost comes to terms and then he runs away from
coming to terms. And he does the same thing, I think, in Fog of War.
And he did the same thing for the rest of his life -- and approach to
what he had really been responsible for, and then a bouncing off it,
too awful to face. And it happens over and over again. He says, for
example, he lists all the terrible mistakes that he made -- that "they"
made. He never says "I." He says "they." And he says, "We just
didn't understand that Vietnam was about nationalism." He doesn't ask
why they didn't understand that. There were internal critics. George
Ball, Paul Capenburg, but also, he was surrounded, if you read the
newspapers, by Lidman, by Morgenthau, by I.F. Stone, who was vigorously
writing about the Vietnam war. By George Cain, a great historian of
South East Asia. So, if he wanted to know what the upsurge, the
insurgency in South Vietnam was about, he had lots of sources. He
never comes close to explaining why he didn't pay attention to any of
that. Instead he says, "Oh my God! We just didn't know they were
nationalists." How come? |
Posted at 03:26 pm by thecommonills
Permalink
What
is clear, and confirmed by separate evidence from various human rights
groups, is that some gay men have been subjected to appalling violent
abuse.
One young Iraqi, Amil (not his real name) recalled the death
of a friend: "They found out he was gay and they killed him and they
chopped him like a lamb, it was awful."
Another man (who wished to
remain anonymous) revealed to Scott Long from the New York-based Human
Rights Watch, how his partner was kidnapped and killed.
"It was late one night when four armed men came to take my boyfriend from his parents' house.
"They were masked and dressed in black.
"We found his body the next day dumped in the garbage, his throat cut out, his genitals cut off." The above is from Ashley Byrne's " Saddam's rule 'better' for gay Iraqis" (BBC News) and we'll address the topic more in today's snapshot. Meanwhile Alsumaria reports,
"Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Al Maliki refused any foreign interference
in Iraqi affairs; two days after the United States cautioned that it
might disengage in Iraq if the country fails to reach national
reconciliation. In a meeting with tribal sheikhs, security chiefs and
local officials in Anbar, Al Maliki reiterated that he won’t allow
anyone to meddle in Iraqi affairs and oversee the political process and
national reconciliation." Yes, it's intended as a slap in the face to
US Vice President Joe Biden, even Alsumaria reads it that way. In England, the Iraq inquiry continues to be in the news. Andrew Sparrow (Guardian) reports
that Sir John Chilcot, who will head the inquiry, has declared that
Margaret Aldred would be "the secretary to the inquiry -- ie the
official who actually runs it." The Cabinet Office released the following press statement yesterday: The head of the Secretariat for Sir John Chilcot’s committee of inquiry into Iraq has been named today.Margaret
Aldred CB CBE, who’s currently Director General and Deputy Head of the
Foreign and Defence Policy Secretariat in the Cabinet Office, is to
become the Secretary to the Inquiry. She will begin her duties shortly.Ms
Aldred joined the Civil Service as a graduate trainee in 1975. She
spent 25 years in the Ministry of Defence, where she worked in a wide
range of areas, including three years as the Principal Private
Secretary to the Defence Secretary. Her last post in the MoD was
Director General Management and Organisation. She has also worked in HM
Treasury and the Home Office, and took up her current post in the
Cabinet Office in November 2004.Ms Aldred was appointed CBE in the 1991 Gulf Honours list, and CB in the 2009 New Years Honours list.Note for news editorsOn
15th of June 2009 the Prime Minister announced to the House of Commons
the establishment of an independent Committee of Inquiry into Iraq. It
will consider the period from summer 2001 (before military operations
began in March 2003) and the UK’s subsequent involvement in Iraq until
the end of July 2009.Sir
John Chilcot is the chair of the Committee. The other members will be
Baroness Usha Prashar, Sir Lawrence Freedman, Sir Martin Gilbert and
Sir Roderick Lyne.Sir John
Chilcot has asked the Cabinet Office’s chief press officer Rae Stewart
to head up the communications team for the Iraq Inquiry. He will be
attached to the Secretariat for the duration of the inquiry.Arrangements
for a news conference to introduce the inquiry team and explain its
remit will be revealed in due course. Sir John and the other members of
the inquiry team will not be available for interview, comment or
briefing until then.For more information contact;ContactsNDS Enquiriesndsenquiries@coi.gsi.gov.ukDropping back to Friday's snapshot: Yesterday the US Defense Dept identified
the four soldiers killed in Baghdad June 29th: "They were assigned to
the 120th Combined Arms Battalion, Wilmington, N.C. Killed were: Sgt.
1st Class Edward C. Kramer, 39, of Wilmington, N.C. [;] Sgt. Roger L.
Adams Jr., 36, of Jacksonville, N.C. [;] Sgt. Juan C. Baldeosingh, 30,
of Newport, N.C. [and] Spc. Robert L. Bittiker, 39, of Jacksonville,
N.C." Jennifer McLogan (WCBS) speaks
with Baldeosingh's sisters Jennyfer and Diana Baldeosingh. Jennyfer
states, "At first it's anger. Why did he go? Why him?" Diana states,
"Some of them have done two or three tours, they have families and
kids, they need to be with them -- not over there. We did our time
there. It's time to come home, please." John Valenti and Sophia Chang (Newsday -- link has text and video) also speak
with the two sisters and they note: "He also leaves behind his wife,
Rebecca, and three young daughters -- Emily, 2, and 5-year-old twins,
Isabella and Kylie." ENCToday speaks
with Brian Wheat, the stepfather of Robert Bittiker and explains,
"Bittiker leaves behind his wife Tami, and two sons Cameron, 14, and
Ronnie, 18, who just graduated from Southwest High School". The Salisbury Post notes Edward
Kramer's wife Vicki issued a statement explaining, "He loved us very
much and he did this for his children [Erica, age nine, and Megan, age
seven] so they wouldn't have to". Catherine M. Welch (WHQR) reports
a Sunday event to remember Kramer, "A memorial walk is planned for
Sunday at 6:00 p.m. It will start at the Wilmington Fire Department
Headquarters on Marketstreet in downtown Wilmington and end at the
National Guard Armory." Ashley White (News 14, text and video) reports
on Ed Kramer's friends and family gathering to mourn him and quotes his
friend Mike Bannon stating, "I am just going to miss a lot of times you
could hang out with your buddy." Jannette Pippin (Jacksonville Daily News) reports
on Carlos Baldeosingh being remembered at a memorial service held at
Carteret General Hospital where he had worked prior to going to Iraq.
John Lee ("director of the hospital's Department of Risk Management,
Safety and Security") states, "There was just something about him. He
was such a positive energetic person and a huge asset to the hospital.
He was very passionate about the job and committed to doing the best
job that he could." Smitha Rao (News 14, link has text and video) also notes
the memorial yesterday at the hospital and also quotes John Lee, this
time saying, "He went out of his way to make sure everybody who came
into the hospital, if they had any needs, they were met. Anything he
could do for them, he would do." And we'll note the opening of Mark
Berman's " Fulfilling a Dream of Service: Army Private Killed in Iraq Had Long Wanted to Be in the Military" ( Washington Post, ran Sunday): Thursday was supposed to be Kelly Youngblood's 22nd birthday. Instead, he was buried at Arlington National Cemetery.Army
Private First Class Youngblood, of Mesa, Ariz., was killed by sniper
fire Feb. 18, 2007, near Ramadi, a central Iraqi city about 60 miles
west of Baghdad. He was shot after stepping out of his vehicle. He died
a little more than two weeks into his deployment and during one of the
deadliest periods in the Iraq War, which began in 2003.Dozens
of mourners accompanied a small box containing Youngblood's remains to
Arlington. The service was brief but emotional, punctuated with a
folded flag given to his mother, Kristen Chacon, as loved ones snapped
digital photos and filmed the moment. Meanwhile Shannon Delcambre (NBC13) reports
that Alabama Air National Guard's 187th Fighter Wing from Montgomery
heads to Iraq and that they have a sent off ceremony scheduled for this
morning. And idiots like George Berkin want to pretend the Iraq War has ended.
It's not over and you can bet the service members and their families
are aware of that fact even if a few deluded reporters can't grasp
reality. Today on Democracy Now!,
Marilyn Young, Jonathen Schell and Howard Zinn will discuss War
Criminal McNamara. Schell lost his credibility years ago and 2008 and
early 2009 have been one long embarrassment for Zinn (maybe he'll turn
that around today) so that really only leaves Young as anyone you can
count on for reality based on their most recent histories. And that's
airing right now. Jonathan Schell is an embarrassment and an apologist.
Zinn is stronger than expected but Schell is a huge embarrassment.
Again, he lost his credibility a long, long time ago. (And it's cute
how showing up in Central Park for a nuclear freeze rally makes Barack
deeply committed to the idea of a nuclear freeze. I was at that same
rally -- millions of people were. It was the event to be at. A college
student who went to college in NYC attending that event means nothing,
especially when they have nothing else to show for it. Jonathan Schell
plays mind reader and he's been pulling that crap forever which is why
he's a joke to the mainstream he hails from. He speaks like a raving
lunatic and "Mister Peace" has done nothing, NOTHING, on the Iraq War
for over six years now. He's a joke. He made himself one.) The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com. iraqashley byrnebbc newsalsumariaandrew sparrowashley whitejanette pippinsmith raomark bermanthe washington postshannon delcambredemocracy nowmarilyn youngjonathan schellhoward zinn
Posted at 06:34 am by thecommonills
Permalink
The targeting of the Iraqi police
The
weekend trend in Iraq was attacks on police officers resulting in the
deaths of at least 6 police officers with eight more wounded. Though
primarily in Mosul, the attacks also took place in Baghdad and Kirkuk. On Saturday, 1 was killed and one wounded and a Mosul bombing targeting a police squad car resulted in one civilian being injured, Sunday's numbers were 3 killed with two wounded while a Mosul car bombing targeted the police but wounded three civilians, and Monday saw 2 killed and five wounded. (And use links in linked day's entries for wounded totals.) Meanwhile 'safe' Iraq still requires police training takes place . . . outside the country. Iraq's Foreign Ministry announced Sunday
that their ambassador to Canberra, Ghanim Taha al-Shebly, attended
graduation ceremonies for Iraqi police officers in . . . Australia:
"Ambassador AL-Shebly delivered a speech on the occasion in which he
expressed his thanks to the Federal Police and the Australian
Government for their initiative in providing development programs to
the elite members of the Iraqi National Police, which included training
in management and leadership development, administrative and criminal
evidence in order to strengthen the Iraqi Police Service." The Ministry also announced Sunday
that Mustafa Musa Tawfik, Charge d'affairs in the Iraqi Embassy in
Seoul, gave a speech at the "training course for the dvelopment of
policies and programs human rights in filed in Iraq" in . . . (South)
Korea. The need to continue training outside of Iraq is not
surprising considering the ongoing violence; however, it needs to be
noted that US government ended the training program which had been
taking place in Jordan even though it was cost effective and, according
to outsiders, effective period. The claim at the time was that training
should take place in Iraq where it would be more cost efficient. And
lucky for that cover story, reporters haven't been eager to point out
that Iraqis continue to train in foreign countries. The only real
difference now is that they are not training in Arab countries. As Iran's Press TV observes, " Violence continues to surge in Iraq." The New York Times plays the quiet game -- filing no report from Iraq today. Meanwhile,
how stupid do you have to be to be a reporter in New Jersey? Ask George
Berkin who feels the need to offer a false comparison in " Iraq and Vietnam" ( New Jersey Star-Ledger) which only demonstrates how out of touch he is: On
the day of the U.S. withdrawal, four American soldiers were killed in
combat in Baghdad. The following day, a bomb exploded in an outdoor
market in Kirkuk, in the northern part of Iraq, killing more than two
dozen people.But last
week's withdrawal was in sharp contrast to another American military
withdrawal a generation ago. As the last Americans left Saigon in April
1975, the enduring image is of desperate South Vietnamese clinging to
U.S. helicopters rising from our embassy compound.That
withdrawal from Saigon came two years after the signing of the Paris
Peace Accords in January 1973. Designed to end a war ongoing since
1959, the treaty was signed by the four combatants: North and South
Vietnam, the Viet Cong, as well as the U.S.But US forces
didn't withdraw last week. The fall of Saigon is a false comparison,
it's so false it's laughable. US helicopters were evacuating embassy
staff. Having confused the fall of Saigon (in such a manner that peace
activists like myself and pro-war hawks could find common ground in
agreeing that Berkin's analogy is not only outrageous but also stupid),
Berkin goes on to declare, in an aside, "some American troops will
remain temporarily in Iraq". Temporarily? Temporarily is a few weeks.
What an idiot. What a fool. New Jersey should be embarrassed to have
Berkin as their 'ambassador of good will.' On the topic of fools, Robert McNamara -- still (and thankfully) dead. Yesterday at the Washington Post, Robert G. Kaiser hosted an online discussion and Deborah Shapley attempted to interject some reality about 'reformed' and 'learned' McNamara: Washington, D.C.: Hi Bob -- I wrote a biography of McNamara, "Promise and Power,"
published in 1993. For the record, he told me he did not quit over the
grim outlook in Vietnam because he wasn't that sure he was right, and
because holding on could force Hanoi's hand politically, in his view.
Therefore, the deaths of additional Americans at that time (1965 ff)
were not in vain.My
personal opinion is that his 1995 book "In Retrospect" gave the
impression he thought the war was 'totally wrong' at the time -- which
is not what his record shows -- at all! He went on telling the
president they could bring off something-or-other, albeit in more
pessimistic terms.Some
people want to seem on the right side of history even when they were on
what 'in retrospect' was the wrong side of history. Too bad for the
servicemen that he misrepresented (or seemed to misrepresent) his own
record.Robert G.
Kaiser: Greetings. Glad to have this opportunity to field comments and
questions about one of the most interesting Americans of my time.This
first question is from Deborah Shapley, a fine writer, and it provides
a wonderful way to introduce today's chat. Anyone who saw Errol
Morris's brilliant The Fog of War documentary about McNamara knows how
complicated a fellow he was. Deborah rightly points out that he never
had one consistent line on Vietnam, which of course will be the thing,
the tragedy, the disaster, for which he will be best remembered. He
certainly did want to do penance for the war--I think that is why he
went from the Pentagon to running the World Bank, to try to help the
world's poor. He also wanted to find a way to say he was sorry, without
every saying "I'm sorry." Not an easy thing to do. There
was nothing "brilliant" about Errol Morris' ode to war. At some point,
it will be noted that all of Morris' documentaries appear to exist to
mitigate the actions of the guilty (as true with Fog of War as with his hideous Abu Ghraib film). Today on Democracy Now!,
Marilyn Young, Jonathen Schell and Howard Zinn will discuss War
Criminal McNamara. Schell lost his credibility years ago and 2008 and
early 2009 have been one long embarrassment for Zinn (maybe he'll turn
that around today) so that really only leaves Young as anyone you can
count on for reality based on their most recent histories. The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com. iraqiraqthe washington postrobert g. kaiserdeborah shapleydemocracy nowmarilyn youngjonathan schellhoward zinn
Posted at 06:16 am by thecommonills
Permalink
Monday, July 06, 2009
But for most people, the primary source of their information is the mainstream. It is mainly television. Even the internet for all its subversiveness has still a very large component of the mainstream. And that means we’re getting still either its this singular message about wars, about the economy, about all those things that touch our lives. All we are getting is what I would call is a contrived silence, a censorship by a mission. I think this is almost the principal issue of today because without information, we cannot possibly begin to influence government. We cannot possibly begin to end the wars.
All of this, it seams to me, has come together in the presidency of Barack Obama who is almost a creation of this media world. He promised some things, although most of them were more for us, and has delivered virtually the opposite. He started his own war in Pakistan. We see the events in Iran and Honduras in quiet subtlety, but very directly influenced in the time-honored way by the Obama administration. And yet the Obama administration is still given this extraordinary benefit of the doubt by people, who in my view are influenced by the mainstream media. It is a time when I think, where either we are going to begin to understand how the media really works, or we’re going to let that opportunity pass. Its almost a historic opportunity the we understand that the perception of our world is utterly distorted, most of the time through what are seen as credible sources of information.That's John Pilger on today's Democracy Now!, " John Pilger on Honduras, Iran, Gaza, the Corporate Media, Obama’s Wars and Resisting the American Empire." We're noting Pilger in both entries to signify the importance. Also of importance is Bryan Bender's " More female veterans are winding up homeless" ( Boston Globe) notes that the figures have "nearly doubled" this decade while, "unlike their male counterparts, many have the added burden of being single parents." Can someone explain why, in an article on female veterans, only one female veteran is spoken to? Can someone explain why a man is yammering on and on about what it's like for a female veteran? Would it not have been smarter for the man to have said, "Let me put you in touch with ____. She's a member of our organization and can speak to this." Did Bender know of no women who were experts on this issue? Strange because a number of them have appeared before Congress in the last two years. If you're not grasping the problem, a male reporter is allegedly covering homeless female veterans and he does that by speaking to one and then by getting non-stop background from a male VA official and a male with a veterans organization. Neither, for the record, are experts on homeless female veterans. And this is done while the whole reason for the problem is that the VA has not anticipated or grasped the needs of female veterans. Do you not get how this article contributes to that problem by who is sought out to offer 'expertise'? From the June 3rd snapshot, when US House Rep Bob Finer chaired the House Committee on Veterans Affairs committee for the hearing entitled "A National Commitment to End Veterans' Homelessness:" The number of women veterans who are homeless is rising. [Vietnam Veterans of America's Marsha] Four observed, "There certainly is a question of course on the actual number of homeless veterans -- it's been flucuating dramatically in the last few years. When it was reported at 250,000 level, two percent were considered females. This was rougly about 5,000. Today, even if we use the very low number VA is supplying us with -- 131,000 -- the number, the percentage, of women in that population has risen up to four to five percent, and in some areas, it's larger. So that even a conservative method of determinng this has left the number as high as [6,550]. And the VA actually is reporting that they are seeing that this is as high as eleven percent for the new homeless women veterans. This is a very vulnerable population, high incidents of past sexual trauma, rape and domestic violence. They have been used, abused and raped. They trust no one. Some of these women have sold themselves for money, been sold for sex as children, they have given away their own children. And they are encased in this total humiliation and guilt the rest of their lives." About half of her testimony was reading and about half just speaking to the committee directly. Click here for her prepared remarks. We'll come back to the issue of homeless women veterans in a moment.
[. . .]
Marsha Four: I believe, sir, that there are very few programs in the country that are set up and designed specifically for homeless women veterans that are seperate. One of the problems that we're run into in a mixed gender setting is sort of two-fold. One the women veterans do not have the opportunity to actually be in a seperate group therapy environment because there are many issues that they simply will not divulge in mixed gender populations so those issues are never attended to. The other is that we believe, in a program, you need to focus on yourself and this is the time and place to do your issue, your deal. In a mixed gender setting, let's say, interfering factors. Relationships are one of them. Many of the veterans too come from the streets so there's a lot of street behavior going on. Some of the women -- and men -- but some of the women have participated in prostitution and so there's a difficult setting for any of them to actually focus on themselves without having all these other stressors come into play. So we feel that's an important issue.
US Senator Patty Murray's office issued the following today, " FT. LEWIS: Murray Includes $2 Million to Build First-of-its-Kind Women and Children's Facility at Madigan Army Medical Center in Critical Spending Bill:" Today, U.S. Senator Patty Murray (D-WA), a member of the Senate Military Construction Appropriations Committee, announced that she has included $2 million to begin planning and design of a Women and Children’s Center at Madigan Army Medical Center. The Women and Children’s Center is necessary to provide health care and services to Fort Lewis’ large and growing population of women and newborns. The facility would be the Army’s first Women and Children’s Center. The funding was included in the Senate Military Construction Appropriations Bill which passed the Military Construction Appropriations Subcommittee today.
“We owe it to our soldiers and their families to ensure that Madigan keeps up with the changing needs of the Fort Lewis community,” said Senator Murray. “And with the number of women and newborns on base growing, it’s time for an expanded facility that meets their unique needs. This funding will begin the process of building a facility that not only provides top-notch maternity and health care to those on base, but also serves as a valuable resource to the surrounding community. This project recognizes that the health and well being of our soldiers is directly connected to the health of their families.”
“Pierce County greatly values its relationship with the military, and I am very pleased to support the creation of a Women and Children’s Center at Madigan Army Hospital,” said Pat McCarthy, Pierce County Executive. “Once completed, this facility will offer greater access to quality healthcare for our soldiers and their families.”
The project will expand access to quality healthcare to the female soldiers and Army families who are stationed at these bases as well as members of the Army National Guard and Reserve and their families in the greater Washington State area. It will serve soldiers through pre- and post- deployment and their families during deployments. Establishing a women and children’s care facility at Madigan Army Medical Center will fulfill the Army’s commitment to families and address the healthcare needs outlined in the Army Family Covenant. The project will also bring 35 to 40 new, full-time, long-term, healthcare related jobs to Piece County.
Facts About Madigan and Fort Lewis Regarding a Women and Children’s Facility
By 2013 the Madigan Army Medical Center will serve the third largest troop population in the country as Fort Lewis and McChord Air Force Base complete the base merger required by the 2005 Defense Base Closure and Realignment.
Fort Lewis enrolls over 126, 000 soldiers and family members and projects over 2,700 births annually.
Fort Lewis has the largest troop population at a base with a teaching medical center.
Fort Lewis is ranked third in the nation among Army Medical Centers in births.
Maternal-fetal medicine, urogynecology, GYN oncology, pediatric surgery, medical genetics, and pediatric subspecialties have an existing and long-term presence at Madigan.
Madigan is home to the only Department of Defense fellowships in developmental pediatrics and maternal-fetal medicine.
The Military Construction Appropriations Bill will be considered by the full Appropriations Committee tomorrow and will then be sent to the full Senate for consideration.Turning to some of today's reported violence . . . Bombings? Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Mosul car bombing which injured fourteen and a Baquba roadside bombing which left two police officers injured. Shootings? Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a traffic police officer was injured in a Mosul shooting, 1 person was shot dead "inside a medical center" (also in Mosul) and assailants attacked two police officers at a Mosul checkpoint (stabbing them to death) and then shot up another Mosul checkpoint. Beau notes Robert Taylor's " Out of Iraq? Don't Bet On It" ( Examiner): This is part of Obama’s new “grand strategy” to “pull out” from Iraq by December 31, 2011, and until then U.S. forces will remain as night watchmen and have permission to enter cities only when the Iraqi government asks them to. U.S. puppet Prime Minister Malaki is hailing this as a “victory” for the Iraqi people, though there are still going to be 130,000 troops waiting for his call to crush anyone him and his Army can’t handle on their own.
This partial pull-out is nothing more than a metaphorical passing of the emperor-torch to Malaki, who now has the “sole” authority to request American troops. Obama’s new “grand strategy” (the perfect name for a plan coming from the Egomaniac-in-Chief) in Iraq is a way of making it seem like U.S. troops are being taken out of harm’s way so that he can justify keeping them there as long as possible.
The point of the invasion of Iraq was never to declare “victory” and go home. Empires don’t go home, and the U.S. invaded Iraq to continue its expansion of bases and Vatican-size embassies, expand its hegemonic influence in the region, and take out one of Israel’s biggest threats. Sen. George Casey, who used to be in charge of all forces in Iraq, has suggested U.S. forces will have to stay in the region for at least ten years. Well, ten more years isn’t really that long of a time compared to the sixty-four years (and counting) that the U.S. has occupied Germany and South Korea.Beau points out Taylor is a Liberatarian. We do highlight them from time to time on Iraq but we are a site for the left. The above was worth noting regadless of party i.d. The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com. iraqjohn pilgerdemocracy nowbryan benderboston globelaith hammoudimcclatchy newspapersrobert taylor
Posted at 05:25 pm by thecommonills
Permalink
So what we will see as Obama has said, we will see American ground troops gradually withdrawn. But as they do so, the use of electronic weaponry and bombing will increase. Unless there is an understanding of this in this country, unless people stopped taking the pronouncements of governments at their word. When Obama went to Annapolis and said we’re getting out of Iraq and appeared to be giving a timetable, within a matter of weeks, I believe, General Casey contradicted him and said -- we will probably be there for another 10 years. And other Pentagon generals put it even higher, 15 years.John Pilger on today's Democracy Now!, " John Pilger on Honduras, Iran, Gaza, the Corporate Media, Obama’s Wars and Resisting the American Empire." In today's New York Times, Alissa J. Rubin contributes " America's New Role in Iraq Prompts a Search for Means of Influence" which is billed as "NEWS ANALYSIS." Rubin offers her take (with help from Sheryl Gay Stolberg) on where things stand now on the ground in Iraq. She offers: Many Iraqis say that since the Obama administration took office, America's policy towards Iraq has seemed unfocused and distant. In interviews, more than a dozen Iraqi policy makers felt that Iraq had been displaced by concerns about Afghanistan and Pakistan and that the administration had not given much thought to Iraq beyond its resolve to get the troops out.Rubin states US officials require "a new tone" due to their "reputation for being heavy-handed". She also notes that "the Americans helped most leading Iraqi politicians, including Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, come to power -- and stay there -- they can no longer expect the Iraqis to acknowledge the help, because being close to the Americans risks alienating average Iraqis." The first half of the sentence is remarkable for the New York Times. The second half really should have led to an exploration of US troops but it doesn't. This is where the point needs to be made that when Iraqi leaders are attacking US troops in their public remarks (as Nouri has), they are creating a climate that is very dangerous. I'm not talking about the degredation for the US military on the international stage (that is taking place but someone else can explore that), I'm talking about a country where the US is (rightly) seen as occupiers and foreigners and the people do not trust them or want them present and then you add in a national figure who regularly degrades them with his remarks? Here's what could happen, underscore "could." As Nouri tries to achieve popularity in Iraq (ahead of the January elections), he moves from degrading US troops to degrading Barack Obama. At that point you damn well better believe the White House will object. Now they didn't object earlier this year when Nouri trashed Joe Biden. They had no problem with it and Barack even joked about it publicly. The White House has sent a message to Nouri and the world by 'okaying' the mockery of Biden and their continued refusal to call out Nouri's verbal attacks on the US military send a message at well. And it sends a message within the US as well but that wouldn't fall under Rubin's scope. On the New York Times. Last night, I typed, "The New York Times. Which is honestly why I'm doing this so late. I was not in the mood to take the paper out of it's blue plastic baggie." A number of e-mails to the public account indicate I need to clear that up. I have no problem making fun of the paper, I have no problem calling it out, I have no problem raging against it. (It's also praised here when it has earned it.) But that statement wasn't intended as an attack on the paper. If I were attacking, I would have offered more than aside. The dread of pulling the paper out of the bag it's delivered in wasn't about the paper, it was about having to go online. That's what yesterday's comment meant; however, a number of drive-by e-mails offer praise for my 'calling out' the paper. We've called it out frequently (we've called Rubin out frequently, we've praised her as well). Last night's comment was about five years in November and no day off. For those late to the party, the plan (announced in the summer 2005) was for this site to go dark after the 2008 election. That didn't happen for a variety of reasons (including Stan wanting to start a site but not wanting to do it when everyone else was shutting down). Some people are having the times of their lives and great for them. But Elaine, Ava and I are ready to shut down shop. For Stan and other reasons, I agreed to six months more and that's all I'm agreeing to this point, six month installments. I've agreed to a second six months which will take us through November 2009. It'll be five years, there's never been a day off and, for drive-bys who don't know, the weekend's are not 'off' time or 'down' time (I guess it's the latter since we still post entries here on the weekends). The weekends are working on Third Estate Sunday Review. I'm thrilled with the community -- members with their own websites and those without, members who do community newsletters, and everyone -- but on holidays especially, and especially now, my attitude is more and more, "I'm just not in the mood." And to use that to leap to the e-mails. Before we get to not in the mood e-mails, a number of community members are noting that " Editorial: Taking sexism seriously" from Third is reposted at The New Agenda. I asked Ava and Jess if they knew and they didn't but we're more than fine with it. TNA gave credit so it's not a problem and good for them because, honestly, every time something like that editorial is posted, my phone won't stop ringing with feminist friends calling (Ava's phone doesn't stop ringing either) but while they applaud it, they can't 'touch it' because it would 'backfire' on them -- but they're really, really glad we're covering it. Really. Really really. So good for TNA. What they've done by reposting it is underscoring that their mission is improving the status of women, not in improving their own personal status and, more and more, it's very hard to look at the established organizations and not feel that they've become more about the leaders' personal status and less and less about actually improving women's lives. Okay, now to the not-in-the-mood e-mails. Ava ripped apart a woman early in 2008 when she sent us her bad and sexist 'parody' of Hillary in bed. You'd think when Ava sends you a blistering e-mail (and it was blistering), you'd know that we're not interested in your writing. But Palin's announcement Friday (Sarah Palin) means the same woman has shown up with a new 'parody' of . . . you guessed it, Sarah Palin in bed. (To clarify that, both the Hillary 'parody' and the Palin 'parody' are not of the two women sleeping, they are of the women attempting to have sex.) We're not interested, we're never going to be interested, I don't know why you continue to send us your crap. Considering that you hopped on board the USS Barack and that you supposedly care about ending the Iraq War, it would appear that it's long passed the point where you should be turning your bad writing to a parody of Barack in bed. Here's a suggestion for you: He promises he'll pull out and then doesn't. You know, just like with Iraq. I'm not interested in your "What Jesus would do" columns. I'm a grown woman with kids. Would Jesus have done natural child birth? I don't know and I don't care. I certainly don't ask myself, when climbing into bed with a man, "What would Jesus do? Would Jesus go down?" Do you think Jesus would do that? I don't. Guess what, I don't have Christ complex or any desire to sit around sifting through simplistic columns wondering what ANY ONE would do. Like most people today, I'm living my life and making a thousand mistakes as I go along. You worry where Jesus would stand on the various political issues of today, I'm not a religious figure come back to life. I'm not Jesus, I'm not the Budda, I'm not Mohammed, I'm not Hera. I am a highly flawed human being and I'm really not basing my political decisions on what some religious figure might or might not do according to some half-baked crackpot who thought they stumbled upon a writing device but really just demonstrated the thin-to-non-existent connection between actual thought and writing. To be clear, a philosophical dialogue on an issue (using any historical figure) would be of potential interest. (Philosophy was one of my fields of study in grad school.) That sort of exploration won't be breezily written in less than eight minutes. Nor will it be so devoid of any indication that an issue was actually grappled with. Still on the e-mails. If you're sending something you've written that's been published somewhere else, please include a link so we can provide that link. Generally speaking, unless it's an action, we excerpt here. If it's Iraq, it has a good chance of being up here. If it's not Iraq? Don't e-mail, "You need to . . ." I don't need to do anything online. I don't need to do a thing. And we're not interested in Barack's garbage health care non-plan. What's the faux left argument there, "We'll get it passed (whatever it is) and then hold his feet to the fire to fix it!"? I'm still remembering them (Tom Hayden, Laura Flanders and all the other liars) swearing during the primaries that he had to get the nomination and then they'd hold his feet to the fire. He got the nomination. Well they'd hold his feet to the fire when he won the election. It was so important, apparently, that 'feminist' Katha Pollitt even announced she had decided to stop calling out sexism to do her part to elect Barack. What a proud moment for Katha. He won the election. And still we wait for those people to hold his feet to the fire. Still we wait. Not only do I not "need to" cover Barack's health care but you really don't want to piss me off on this issue because I did study and advocate for the Clinton plan back in the 90s and you really don't want me critiquing Barack's nonsense, you really don't want me to expose all the holes in it, all the problems and how ridiculous it is. So consider yourself fortunate that I'm ignoring it. And stop e-mailing or you may end up with a detailed critique of the non-plan. Also stop calling the president's fan base (his e-mail data base) a grassroots organization. When a group takes their marching orders from the president of the United States (regardless of whom the president is), they are not, in fact, a grassroots organization. They are servants to the powerful. But to end the negativity, there was some good news, Robert McNamara is dead. Now we just have to wait for Hank Kissinger and all the big Vietnam War Criminals will be dead and gone. The big ones. The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com. iraqjohn pilgerdemocracy nowthe new york timesalissa j. rubinthe new agendathe third estate sunday review
Posted at 05:22 pm by thecommonills
Permalink
Kat's Korner: Regina Spektor takes you Far
Kat: I was born at night but it wasn't last night, how stupid does Amazon think I am? That was my question as I checked out the pricing for Regina Spektor's Far. The standard album was $9.99 to download. The "deluxe" was $13.99. $13.99? Uh, why didn't I just breeze through Best Buy and pick up a CD? I do two screens so I can go back and forth and see what the big difference is? You know, what justifies them charging $13.99 for a download? The standard version is $9.99 and has 13 tracks. If you go "deluxe," you download two extra tracks for $13.99. So you're paying $4.99 for two bonus tracks that weren't judged good enough to make the standard album? So you're paying approximately $2.44 for each of the two songs?  Forget that. The songs are $.99 a piece. Here's what you do: Download the standard album at $9.99 and then pick up the two bonus tracks fo $.99 a piece and you've paid $11.97 and not $13.99. And then what have you got? God can be funnyWhen told he'll give you money if you just pray the right wayAnd when presented like a genieWho does magic like HoudiniOr grants wishes like Jiminy Cricket and Santa ClauseThat's from "Laughing With" and the beat's jaunty and Regina's in her upper range on it and it might be the first part of the song (it's the chorus) that really stands out for you. But then you may notice the slower musical walk of the verses and the starker vocal during that. You may notice what she's captured in the verses: No one laughs at God in a hospitalNo one laughs at God in a warNo one's laughing at God when they're starving or freezing or so very poor
No one laughs at God when the doctor calls after some routine testsNo one's laughing at God when it's gotten real late and their kid's not back from that party yet
No one laughs at God when their airplane starts to uncontrollably shakeNo one's laughing at God when they see the one they love hand in hand with someone else and they hope that they're mistakenNo one laughs at God when the cops knock on their door and they say "We've got some bad new, sir"No one's laughing at God when there's a famine, fire or floodIt's an ambitious song and it's not like rock or pop is often known for any ambition other than, "How many units did we move?" But Regina Spektor's going for art. She's following in the footsteps of Joni Mitchell, John Lennon and others. And, bit by bit, she's steadily proven she's got the chops to do so. Which is not to suggest that Regina's as confessional as either of the two or as confessional as Carly Simon for that matter. I have no idea if she's confessing a damn thing. She's writing songs filled with characters and incidents which may have something to do with her own life and inner demons. Then again maybe not. Her skill as a lyrical writer appears to be in the observational as evidenced by her work in "Dance Anthem of the 80s" and especially "Genius Next Door." It's true also of the bonus track "Time Is All Around" which, if you caught her live in 2007, you probably already know ("Leaves become most beautiful when they're about to die . . .") "The Sword & The Pen" is okay but nothing to make me rush over to iTunes to download a third 'bonus' track ("Riot Gear"). That's in part because I always thought "bonus" meant free. "You bought the album? Oh, great and here's a free poster as a bonus." It's also because I've heard too many horror stories since April of people being repeatedly charged for the same download at iTunes -- in one instance, someone was charged 24 times in the same day -- and I've heard how iTunes ignores you, sends you an e-mail and tells you the problem must be your bank, then refuses to reply to repeated e-mails where you outline that your bank has told you, "No, the problem is iTunes chaged for this over and over." Besides, it's not like you need the bonus tracks. I would've agued that "Time Is All Around" should be on the album if I'd been asked. I would've pointed out what a crowd pleaser it was in concert and how it fit with the rest of the album. But you can understand why the thirteen tracks made the album. It's a photo album with each song being a page crammed with photos. And maybe "dreaming that the antidote was orgasm" ("Genius Next Door") will be you take away or maybe "it's been a long time since before I've been touched, now I'm getting touched all the time" ("Dance Anthem of the 80s") or maybe it will be the melody of "The Calculation"? Or it may be something that hasn't even stood out to me yet because this is a vey rich and textured album. And it should be the soundtrack of the summer. Download a copy or pick it up in stores. regina spektorfarjoni mitchelljohn lennoncarly simonkats kornerthe common ills
Posted at 01:48 am by thecommonills
Permalink
And the war drags on . . .
That same storm still hovers over the capital. It coats parked cars in a tan frosting. It seeps under windowsills and doorways. It grits the teeth and stings the eyes. It clogs rifles and etches scrimshaw across sniper scopes.
And it kills people.
Three in Diyala Province this week, where 800 others were hospitalized with breathing and related ailments. Dr. Jeleel al Shammeri, head of the health department in Karkh in west Baghdad, said 13 major hospitals and 84 clinics had received several thousand patients over the last two days, many of them children. Dr. Ali Bustan, head of the health department in Rusafa in eastern Baghdad, said ERs had taken in 800 to 900 patients since Saturday night. "Thank God, we have not run out of medication," he said.
Sandstorms pose diplomatic as well as medical and weather problems. Baghdad negotiators are locked in a battle with Istanbul over how much water from the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers -- which start in Turkey -- its neighbor is willing to release to the southwest for Iraqi farms and factories. A lack of irrigation water has caused thousands of acres of agricultural land to dry up. Just this week, the government signed an agreement with an Iranian delegation to limit such "desertification."The above is from Mike Tharp's " Sandstorms plague Iraq and are getting worse" (McClatchy Newspapers) and Muhanad Mohammed, Hadi Abbas, Michael Christie and Tim Pearce (Reuters) cover the topic noting that the sandstoms are sending Iraqis to hospitals with 300 admitted to Ibn al-Nafees in Baghdad for "breathing difficulties on Sunday." Kadhm al-Attabi (DPA) describes, "Great walls of sand, driven by scorching hot winds". You know what might have made a difference? If at any time during this six-year-plus illegal war, the water problems had been addressed. But they never were. They're just there to try and make the people free,But the way that they're doing it, it don't seem like that to me.Just more blood-letting and misery and tearsThat this poor country's known for the last twenty years,And the war drags on.-- words and lyrics by Mick Softly (available on Donovan's Fairytale) Last Sunday, ICCC's number of US troops killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war was 4316 and tonight? 4321. Bombings? Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports Baghdad car bombing which left thee people wounded, a Baghdad hand bombing (bomb thrown by hand) which claimed the life of 1 police officer, a second Baghdad hand bombing which injured two police officers, a third Baghdad hand bombing which claimed the life of 1 police officer and left six people wounded, a Diyala Povince sticky bombing which claimed 1 life and left two people injured, a Baquba store bombing ("sells entertainment CDs) which wounded six people "and completely destroyed the shop" and a Diyala Province roadside bombing which injured three members of the Iraqi army. Reuters notes 5 grenade attacks in Mosul which resulted in the death of 1 police officer and at least sixteen people being injured. Shootings? Reuters notes 1 police officer shot dead in Mosul. Dropping back to Saturday, AFP reports 4 people were shot dead in Kirkuk yesterday. Corpses? Reuters notes 1 corpse discovered in Kirkuk on Saturday. In the face of the continued deaths, Colin Powell made a fool of himself -- as is to be expected. On CNN's State of the Union today, Collie The Blot Powell, who lied to the United Nations in an attempt to make the case for illegal war, declared the mistake about the Iraq War was . . . not doing an escalation ("surge") sooner. Colin Powell is so full of crap. I know that Barry O fanatics rejoiced and embraced him when he endorsed their fellow but he's full of s**t and he always has been. His military career is a joke and disgusting going as far back to Vietnam when he was covering up realities there. He lied the nation into illegal war and he's never apologized for it. He did fret a bit over his blot for a little while. Now instead of hanging his head in shame, fueled by the Cult of St. Barack, he's attempting a comeback. Someone needs to explain to the liar that no one gives a damn what he says out of the beltway and that the American people no longer trust his lying ass. If he had any sense of honor, he'd lock himself in a hotel room and swallow a huge number of pills hoping that his own death could somehow atone for the deaths of Iraqis and US service members -- all brought by his damn lies. The New York Times. Which is honestly why I'm doing this so late. I was not in the mood to take the paper out of it's blue plastic baggie. Sheryl Gay Stolberg has an article in it that we noted yesterday ["Online at the New York Times, Sheryl Gay Stolberg covers some of today's events . . . "] so we'll note instead that, online at the paper's Caucus, she writes today about Biden's trip to Iraq: Mr. Biden, who has taken on the new role of unofficial envoy to Iraq, arrived in Baghdad Thursday night and spent Friday and Saturday there meeting with American and Iraqi officials, including the country's two vice presidents, the speaker of the Iraqi parliament and Prime Minister Kamal al-Maliki. He has said this will be the first of several trips intended to strengthen ties between Washington and Baghdad.
The vice president said the Iraqis' worries surprised him; going in to the trip, he said, "I didn't believe there was a concern that they thought that maybe they would not be on the front burner." He said they were "pleased that the president took this inside the White House" and asked him to "sort of honcho this."
Marc Santora offers " An Iraqi Reaps Profits From the War" in the paper today about Araz M. Mohsin who cleaned up pretty in the illegal war and just threw a $50,000 party at Baghdad's "exclusive Hunting Club". Santora notes "no suggestion that he did anything illegal" but even if he won those overpriced contracts legitimately (one example: the US paid him, a translator, $80,000 to haul gravel to a US base), let's not pretend he didn't have to 'grease wheels' to do business in Iraq and I'm not referring to foreigners, I'm talking about paying off militias, etc. He was also a collaborator who snitched out other Iraqis to get in good with the US. At the BBC, Kim Ghattas examines the state of Iraq and Greg Jaffe (Washington Post) does the same. An e-mail to the public account maintains Jaffee is attempting to sell the Iraq War. As Tom Petty once sang, "You believe what you want to believe." I think both are describing realities and while those realities can be used to argue for a stronger US presence, those realities can also be used to argue for an immediate and full withdrawal and it's the collapse of the peace movement that's prevented that from being addressed. US troops are at greater risk now than they ever were and that will be true in a slow trickle out of Iraq. If Iraq's in charge, let it be in charge and pull US troops out because they really are sitting ducks and as al-Maliki shows them continued public disdain, he only encourages that same attitude. (That's not my arguing that US troops were beloved by Iraqis. They weren't. But there's a difference in disliking or hating them and having the puppet heading you government show visible disdain and contempt for them.) And "collapse of the peace movment" is, of course, the fact that fakes and frauds rode in as 'leaders' when they never wanted to end a war, they just wanted to elect a Democrat. Zach notes Cindy Sheehan's " Happy Co-Dependence Day" ( Information Clearing House): I just returned home from a 28 day, 18-city (multiple event) trip from California to New Hampshire and back where I talked about the need for us to recognize the fact that we cannot, must not, place false hopes in any politician. Yet, even people who know that the Dalai Bama is not what the gurus on Madison Avenue sold to us don’t think that they have any power."We need a leader, we need a leader," a Russian woman cried to me during a talk I gave in Philly last week. We "consumers" (remember when we used to be “citizens?”) here in America have been sold another bill of goods: that one person cannot make a difference so why should we even try? We want "leaders" to do all the work and take all of the heat so we don’t have to. That is an absolute myth. If you can fog a mirror, you can make a relevant and profound difference. If you sit around waiting for a politician to lead you to a better life, you will sit around forever.I just had a heartbreaking conversation with a veteran who struggles on a daily basis with suicide issues. He wants to hang on so he can tell his story of betrayal and to try to stop what happened to him from happening to others. He has been so thoroughly traumatized by this Empire that he must make a daily choice to either work to make things better or to physically or mentally check out. Unfortunately, this story is not rare, so I ask myself, why are people so mesmerized by a system that is so harmful to 98% of the people of this country, and by extension, the world?We are Co-Dependent with a Robber Class that expects us to keep it in the style to which it has been accustomed and unfortunately we are accustomed to doing so. When AIG needs billions of dollars in bailouts, it gets all the money that is asks for with no strings attached. Does that money ever trickle down to us in the steroidal capitalism of Obamanomics? Heck no…my state needs a bailout of 24 billion to save tens of thousands of jobs and public services. When the Governator asks DC for the money, he is told: “No, if we bailed out your state, we would have to bail out all the states!” So what? Bailout all the states; save jobs and services and fix the economy from the ground up, instead of supporting a cancerous capitalism that sucks the life out of the Robbed Class.Zach writes that he enjoyed Cindy's column but found what she was "describing across America to be really depressing and sad." It is and it's why those of us who don't confine our 'mingling' to a Nation cruise have been outraged for some time at the lies and hype from the likes of Naomi Klein and others. And let's repeat one damn more time, Naomi just didn't lie for Barry O, she lied to The Progressive after, inventing this scene she supposedly observed. All that invented scene was about was Naomi's own guilt. So in other words, Afghans and Iraqis suffer because Naomi's plauged by White guilt? Well, Naomi, do our country a favor and get to work on Canada, your home country. Stay the hell out of America's domestic politics because you have revealed yourself to be a liar of epic proportions and we don't need you, in fact, we don't have the luxury of listening to your garbage because we're too busy repairing the damage you and your ilk caused. (And that includes Naomi's ridiculous performance in Chicago.) It doesn't depress me, it makes me very angry. And look how little Naomi's done for the war resisters in Canada. If people had done so little for her own father, the spoiled brat wouldn't have the life she has today. She never would have had the luxury of being a mall rat. When your own father self-checked out of the military and went to Canada (during Vietnam) and was granted citizenship, you owe it to the current generation to be out in front leading on the issue. But Naomi has her 'performance art' pieces to do. She has so much to do. None of it's had a damn thing to do with the Iraq War (or that Afghanistan one and Canada has troops in Afghanistan) for some time. The general thinking is that Naomi's embarrassed of her father. Is she? I don't know. I don't care. I just know she's ineffectual and she's someone who benefitted from the work of a lot of people yet today can't do a damn thing but self-promote and lie. Pay it forward is obviously a foreign concept to Naomi Klein but what else would you expect from a mall rat except "gimmie, gimmie"? New content at Third: Truest statement of the weekA note to our readersEditorial: Taking sexism seriouslyTV: Trash TVWomen actively challenging the spinThe Nation: Can't get it up, you won't get in prin...Bill Moyers Journal: Find the girl!Washington Week: Gwen must be belle of the ballCounterSpin: Let the men talkMatt Rothschild: twice as likely to speak to a man...Harper's magazine: Only pencil neck males allowedQueen Bees v. Quota QueensLiz Smith: Women who hurt women and themselvesJuly 8th rally for Kimberly RiveraIndonesia President SBY Covered Up MurderAccountability in the Run-up to Indonesian Electio...HighlightsPru notes " Iraq occupation is not over" (Great Britain's Socialist Worker): Iraqis greeted the withdrawal of US troops from their cities this week by dancing in the streets.They hope that the “drawdown” of combat troops will mean an end to the violence that follows US patrols, and an end to the shootings at checkpoints.But the withdrawal does not mark the end of the occupation.Under the Status of Forces Agreement signed by the Iraqi government last year, occupation forces will simply redeploy to large bases on the outskirts of urban areas.US soldiers will still conduct raids, seize suspects and “support” Iraqi security forces – only now they will require Iraqi government permission first.Under the agreement all US troops should leave the country by 2011. Yet US secretary of state Robert Gates admitted that he expects tens of thousands of troops to remain.A provision in the agreement allows troops to re-enter the country if it is “threatened by insurrection”.The US wants to stabilise Iraq in order to shift troops to Afghanistan. The military hope that by lowering the profile of the occupation it can claim that the country has regained its sovereignty.But the move simply embeds the occupation.© Socialist Worker (unless otherwise stated). You may republish if you include an active link to the original.Share this story on:Delicious Digg reddit Facebook StumbleUponIf you found this article useful please help us maintain SW by » making a donation.» comment on article » email article » printable versiontop of pageThe e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com. iraqand the war drags ondonovanmcclatchy newspapersmike tharpsahar issacindy sheehancnnstate of the unionthe new york timesmarc santorasheryl gay stolbergbbc newskim ghattasthe washington postgreg jaffethe socialist workerthe third estate sunday review
Posted at 01:34 am by thecommonills
Permalink
|
|
|
|
|
|
