 |

Saturday, July 11, 2009
11 dead, seventy-one reported wounded in Iraq
AP reports former KBR contractor in Iraq David Charles Breda Jr. is under federal indictment over an alleged sexual assault at Camp Al Asad. Braden Reddall and Anthony Boadle (Reuters) adds, "Breda, 34, appeared before a judge on Friday after his arrest by Naval Criminal Investigative Service agents on Thursday at a Houston-area barber college, the U.S. Attorney's office said. He faces a up to 10 years in prison if convicted of the charge of abusive sexual contact, it added. Richard Connelly (Houston Press) reminds, "This is not the first time the company has faced allegations of employees raping women. The claims by Jamie Leigh Jones became a national story." In other legal news, a US soldier has been sentenced for the shooting death of US soldier Sean McCune. M-NF released the following today: A Multi-National Division - North Soldier was sentenced July 11, in the shooting death of a fellow Soldier. Sgt. Miguel A. Vegaquinones was sentenced to three years confinement, reduction in rank to private/E-1 and a dishonorable discharge. Vegaquinones pled guilty to involuntary manslaughter in the accidental shooting death of Pfc. Sean McCune, when Vegaquinones negligently discharged one round from his weapon on Jan. 11, in Samarra, Iraq, after completing guard duty. Pursuant to the terms of a pre-trial agreement, Vegaquinones’ sentence was limited to 30 months confinement. The charge of making a false official statement was dismissed as part of the pre-trial agreement. Vegaquinones is assigned to the 2nd Battalion, 35th Infantry Regiment, 3rd Brigade Combat Team, 25th Infantry Division, but was temporarily attached to the brigade's Headquarters and Headquarters Company pending the outcome of the proceedings. U.S. Army Soldiers sentenced to confinement of more than one year automatically have their cases forwarded to the Army Court of Criminal Appeals for review.Meanwhile violence continues in Iraq with a Mosul car bombing claiming the lives of at least 4 people and leaving another forty wounded according to BBC which adds, "Correspondents say the Mosul bomb went off in an area with a predominantly Shia population, thought to be from Iraq's Shabak community." Xinhua notes 5 dead. Mohammed al Dulaimy (McClatchy) puts the death toll at 8 and the wounded at fifty. Other violence? Bombings? Mohammed al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 2 Baghdad roadside bombing -- the first apparently used to lure people to the site -- which claimed 1 life and left "11 civilians and nine policemen" wounded, a Baghdad bombing which claimed the life of Zaid Abdul Kareem ("an employee of the Iraqi ministers' cabinet") and left his wife wounded, two Baghdad bombings which damaged a church. Shootings? Reuters notes 1 police officer was shot dead at a Baaj checkpoint. Tuesday's snapshot included this, " 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." Yesterday, Mike Tharp offered " Silencers on Handguns -- a Silver Lining?" ( McClatchy's Baghdad Observer): But there may be one in a little-known but increasingly common part of the insurgent arsenal: the use of silencers on handguns. Since July 4, the Daily Violence Report compiled by the McClatchy Baghdad bureau from police and hospitals all over the county has contained no fewer than four cases of insurgents and others killing and wounding Iraqi army and national police officers with pistols fitted with silencers. In June there were several others, including shootings at officers' homes, in northern Iraq. This week two incidents occurred in Mosul and one in Kirkuk--both in northern Iraq--and one in Baghdad. One of the incidents in Mosul was especially gruesome. A father was killed and his son wounded at a police checkpoint by a gunman using a silencer. With all the homemade bombs, adhesive bombs, hand-thrown bombs and other lethal weapons that've been used in recent weeks, why would the use of handguns with silencers be anything but one more downer? Alsumaria reports, "Iraqi Parliament is due to sign three agreements with US and British Parliaments as well as the European Union aimed to enhance cooperation and exchange expertise mainly in legislating laws. Iraqi Parliament plans to sign two agreements with the European Union and the United States and seeks to conclude as well another protocol with the British House of Commons, an informed source from Iraqi Speaker’s office said." And they note that the release of the five Iranian diplomats by the US military "is not sufficient to change Iran's policy towards the United States," citing Alaeddin Boroujerdi, chair of Iran's Parliament. Alice Fordham (Times of London) blogged Thursday about leaving Iraq: And were they ever glorious. I didn't so much want to buy some of those carpets as marry them. It was as if some magician had spirited the colours out of a peacock's feathers and woven them into the whorls and curlicues of prayer rugs and wall hangings. There was a green one the colour of a slice of agate, and a dove grey one with a silvery geometric pattern. There were silken carpets from Isfahan which would fill a room and napkin-sized ruglets with verses of the Koran worked in wool. They were carpets to conjure with, carpets which deserved to be the subjects of stories about enchantments and genies. I vowed one day to save up and come back for a whopping, silk number in 1,001 shades of purple, blue and gold, but for this humbler shopping trip, I was very taken by a rug which I was told came from Kurdistan. My next adventure, God willing, will take me to the separatist region in northern Iraq, and it was pleasing to have a carpet which was, I was told, a traditional Kurdish pattern. Its geometric design looked a little like Cubist versions of Paisley swirls and it was in unusually flat, bright shades of yellow, red and blue. It didn't fly me out of Baghdad, but it did come with me on the plane and, until my next trip, will remind me of my adventures in this ancient, modern, troubled and intriguing country. And we'll close with this from Sherwood Ross' " U.S. NEEDS TO LISTEN TO ARIAS ON LATIN AMERICAN ISSUES" ( Veterans' Today): Oscar Arias, the president of Costa Rica and the man who will serve as mediator of the crisis in Honduras, writes in an OpEd piece this morning (July 10th) in the Miami Herald, “This coup demonstrates, once more, that the combination of powerful militaries and fragile democracies creates a terrible risk.”
Arias never once mentions the role of the United States in destabilizing democracy across Latin America but he doesn’t have to. Uncle Sam is the world’s Numero Uno arms dealer. What Arias does say is: “This year alone, the governments of Latin America will spend nearly $50 billion on their armies. That’s nearly double the amount spent five years ago, a ridiculous sum in a region where 200 million people live on fewer than $2 a day and where only Colombia is engaged in an armed conflict.”
The Pentagon’s Latin influence, always powerful, has been gaining steadily for years and few Americans appear either to know, or to care, what’s been going down the tubes South of the Border. In the five years ended in 2003---under both Presidents Clinton and Bush---U.S. military aid to the region more than tripled, Jim Lobe wrote on “Common Dreams.” “While the militarization of U.S. aid in Latin America actually began under former President Bill Clinton….trends established then have become more pronounced under Bush,” Lobe wrote, citing a report by the Latin America Working Group Education Fund. “Despite pervasive problems of poverty in Latin America, the United States’ focus on military rather than economic aid to the region is increasing,” he quoted Lisa Haugaard of LAWGEF as stating.
You can get the Pentagon’s slant on why Latins must be armed to the teeth from Stephen Johnson, installed two years ago by the Bush regime as Assistant Defense Secretary for the Western Hemisphere. Reuters quotes him as saying (May 21, 2007): “Right now funds for security assistance are slim and what programs we can offer are limited by complicated sanctions. That leaves a vacuum for powers like China and Russia to fill.” This statement is fairly hilarious considering that Russia can scarcely defend its borders and the sinister Chinese are keeping the U.S. economy afloat by lending us billions. (And what’s “slim?”)
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com. iraqrichard connellybraden reddallanthony boadlebbc newssahar issamohammed al dulaimyalsumariamcclatchy newspapersmike tharpthe times of londonalice fordhamsherwood rossiraq
Posted at 08:21 pm by thecommonills
Permalink
US military kills truck driver, Grannies get bitchy
Meeting reporters outside the Veterans Museum and Memorial Center in San Diego, Long said he wished every morning that he could see his son running toward him and hear his voice."Instead I woke up to reveille and I saw high fences and razor wire," said Long, from Boise, Idaho. "This punishment was for having a moral opposition to the Iraq war."Long enlisted in 2003 and was trained as a tank crewman but fled to Canada in 2005 when his unit was on the verge of deploying to Iraq. He said his views about the war had changed since his enlistment. Long said that, like much of the American public, he began to doubt the wisdom of the war when the U.S. was unable to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Long said he was influenced by a quotation attributed to Voltaire: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."That's from Tony Perry's " Army deserter tells of his time behind bars" ( Los Angeles Times) and the article has a nice photo of Robin taken by Perry. US war resister Robin Long was released from the brig on Thursday and held a press conference Friday morning. John Wilken's " 'I had to do what I felt was right,' Army deserter tells news conference" ( San Diego Union-Tribune): He worked in the supply room at Miramar and wrote several open letters calling the war “illegal and immoral.” Anti-war activists rallied around him on the Internet and at the base, where they held monthly vigils. Hundreds of people sent him letters from as far away as South Africa. With time off for good behavior, he was released Thursday after 371 days in custody. At first, he said, he found freedom an overwhelming swirl of noise, crowds and color. Now he's busy with plans to start school next month at a holistic institute in San Francisco. He hopes Renée, his common-law wife, and Océan, his son, can visit him there while he studies massage therapy. His goal is to return to Canada.
In today's New York Times, Sam Dagher's " G.I. Kills Iraqi Driver Who Failed To Stop, U.S. Military Says" appears on A5 of the national edition and recounts the death of 1 truckdriver who was shot dead north of Baghdad at two in the morning not a checkpoint, but where the US military had stopped due to a US vehicle breaking down. Dagher notes, "Major [Derrick] Cheng [US military spokesperson] did not immediately respond to questions about what kind of signal the soldiers used." On the item below, one Granny had a real problem with being bitchy. We've deleted one word from this press release. If she wants to focus on Iraq, try focusing on it. The next time it happens, we won't delete a word, we just won't note them. There's enough sexism in the world already and if I were the Raging Grannies -- apparently now named the Peace Grannies -- if I were a bunch of Reds from Brooklyn who felt it was my obligation to tell the truth, I damn well wouldn't have provided cover for Barry O throughout 2008 which, for the record, Red Grannies did. Now they're red with blood on their hands. Good to know they now remember Iraq. NOW. In real time, in 2008, they were too busy showing how bitchy grannies could be as they worked over time to rip apart Hillary Clinton. Now since they aren't Democrats they never should have butted it in. But they have blood on their hands now -- whether they acknowledge it or not. And being bitchy about Sarah Palin, doesn't wipe away the blood Grannies. You made yourselves a joke in 2008 -- who ever heard of a bunch of Communists drooling over a Democrat to begin with? (Though they were far from alone.) If they want to get their act and ass together in 2009, we'll note 'em. But one more piece of bitchy from the Grannies and we're done with them. By the way, note that the Red Cowards can get bitchy with Palin but their press release on the Iraq War? They never mention Barry, now do they? Apparently the Iraq War continues all on its own. Without any presidential directives. Or maybe Red Grannies are still just a bunch of fools and cowards? Here's their press release and does do a lot to indicate that elderly Communists in the United States have much bravery or much worth saying: PRESS ADVISORY FOR RELEASE ANY TIME CONTACT: Joan Wile - 917-441-0651
GRANNIES HAVE NOT FORGOTTEN; WAR STILL NO. 1 ISSUE FOR PEACE GRANNIES Two Vigil Protests Held Weekly As most of America focuses on the death of Michael Jackson, Sarah Palin's [. . .] resignation interview and Gov. Sanford's marital straying, New York's peace grandmothers still concentrate on the all-important issue of war and peace. As they have since we invaded Iraq, the women and their supporters feel it is urgent that the troops come home from both Iraq and Afghanistan. "There has never been nor can ever be anything to be accomplished by these immoral wars other than death and destruction," said Barbara Walker, one of the peace grandmothers. They have recently stepped up the momentum of their anti-war actions so that, in addition to maintaining their five-and-a-half plus years Wednesday Grandmothers Against the War vigil at Rockefeller Center, the sister group Granny Peace Brigade now holds a Friday "Costs of War" tableau protest at the Times Square recruitment center (re-named, laughably, the U.S. Military Career Center). In this event, the grannies have a choreographed Q & A routine displaying on posters the answers to such chanted questions as: How much does it cost to keep one soldier deployed in Iraq? How many Iraqi civilians killed? How many soldier suicides? How many starving Iraqi children? The location at Times Square is very significant for the grannies, inasmuch as 18 of them were arrested and jailed there when they tried to enlist in October 2005 in order to replace America's grandchildren so they could live long lives like the grannies have been privileged to enjoy. They were on trial for 6 days in Manhattan's criminal court and were acquitted after their defense by civil liberties lawyer Norman Siegel and his associate, Earl Ward. The story traveled around the world overnight and was instrumental in jump-starting the anti-war movement, which had been largely quiescent before then. The media is invited to either or both of these events any time. The Rockefeller Center vigil is held religiously every week no matter what the weather. The recruitment center action may be affected by the weather, so it is advisable to call me if it is raining.
ROCKEFELLER CENTER VIGIL PLACE: West side of 5th Ave. between 49th and 50th Sts. DAY AND TIME: Wednesday afternoons, 4:30 - 5:30 p.m.
TIMES SQUARE RECRUITING CENTER PROTEST PLACE: Broadway and 43rd St.DAY AND TIME: Fridays, noon to 1:30 p.m.
For the record, we're not interested in any of Red Grannies sex fantasies about female politicians. We weren't in 2008 and we're not interested now. But for those who only know the Grannies from their easy p.r. and don't grasp "bitchy," bitchy is attempting to destroy Hillary via little 'skits' about her bedroom habits. Which honestly say more about Joan Wile's bedroom sadness than they could ever about Hillary Clinton. And one correction. If they're not calling out Barack, we're not interested. It's not just their continued bitchy, we're not interested period. Elderly Communists better grow the hell up and find the courage to call out a sitting president continuing an illegal war or they better retire to Florida or where ever the elderly Brooklyn contingent of CPUSA goes. The following community sites have updated since yesterday morning: Cedric's Big MixHe'll get to work one day1 hour ago The Daily JotTHIS JUST IN! THE NEVER READY PRESIDENT!1 hour ago Mikey Likes It!Legal abuses by Bush and Barack21 hours ago Thomas Friedman is a Great ManWe need answers22 hours ago Trina's KitchenBaked tuna casserole22 hours ago Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitudegrab bag23 hours ago SICKOFITRADLZThe shameful David Kris23 hours ago Ruth's ReportPolitco goes down on Huffington Post23 hours ago Oh Boy It Never EndsRoland Burris announces he won't run in 201023 hours ago Like Maria Said PazSnapshot (C.I.)23 hours ago Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills)House Armed Services Committee's Subcommittee23 hours ago The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com. iraqthe los angeles timestony perrythe new york timessam dagherrobin longjohn wilkenthe san diego union-tribuneiraqlike 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 08:17 pm by thecommonills
Permalink
Friday, July 10, 2009
Friday, July 10, 2009. Chaos and violence continues, war resister Robin Long is out of the brig, the New York Times
backs Nouri so much they not only attack the Kurds but they also play
dumb about a DC meet-up between Iraq and neighbors that the White House
is attempting to set up for later this year, a House Armed Services
subcommittee questions the budget numbers, and more. Starting with war resistance. Robin Long has no regrets. John Wilkens (San Diego Union-Tribune) quotes him declaring today, "I wouldn't do anything differently." Tony Perry (Los Angeles Times) reports
Robin Long was released from Miramar Marine Corps Air Station's brig
yesterday "after serving 12 months of a 15-month sentence." Long is a
war resister who self-checked out and went to Canada where he attempted
to be granted asylum. Not only did that not happen, he was imprisoned
and whisked across the border back to the US in violation of his rights
and those of his child -- his child is a Canadian citizen. The
environment in the United States today is not one that can support and
sustain a GI resistance movement of significant proportions, giving it
enough power to directly affect the foreign policy of the country, as
it did so effectively in the Vietnam era. There is much in the military
to prohibit a GI resistance movement from growing anywhere near the
proportion that helped end the U.S. war in Vietnam. Military discipline
is much more repressive than in the past, which makes organizing more
difficult. There is less radicalization of the GI movement, as compared
to that in the late 1960s and early 1970s; therefore, passive
resistance against the command is more common than direct resistance.
There is a much lower level of political awareness and analysis among
soldiers as compared to that during Vietnam, when there were hundreds
of underground newspapers that served to inform troops while
criticizing the military apparatus. The all-volunteer military, rather
than a draft, is also responsible for stifling broader dissent. Despite
these factors, dissent in the ranks is happening on a daily basis.
While overall violence in Iraq has dropped, it is escalating
dramatically in Afghanistan, as President Obama begins to "surge"
30,000 troops into that occupation. The overstretched military is in a
state of disrepair, full of demoralized, bitter soldiers whose reasons
for staying in are based on economics and loyalty to their friends
rather than nationalism or patriotism. These
elements, accompanied by the continuing neglect that soldiers
experience upon their return home, are driving larger numbers toward
dissent. This is a book
about average soldiers and their brave acts of dissent against a system
that is betraying them. I decided to focus on the rank-and-file members
who actually served in Iraq, rather than those giving the orders from
within safe compounds. I believe it is those who have followed the
orders who have had to pay the highest price. My main objective in
presenting this book is to highlight the reality that oppressed and
oppressors alike suffer the dehumanizing effects of military action.
For soldiers and war journalists like myself who have lived with this,
struggled with PTSD, and reintegrated ourselves into society, a light
at the seemingly endless dark tunnel of the U.S. occupations of Iraq
and Afghanistan is the possibility of the shifting of these individual
acts of resistance into a broader, organized movement toward
justice--both in the military and in U.S. foreign policy. Let's
be clear - Maliki has been supported by the US as the leader of Iraq
since his installation. In January 2005, I was in Baghdad for the
elections that formed an Iraqi Parliament, which then elected Iraq's
first prime minister under US occupation - that man was Ibrahim
al-Jaafari. Jaafari wasn't exactly toeing the US/UK line in Iraq, so it
wasn't long until then-US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and her
UK counterpart Jack Straw rushed to Baghdad to set things straight. Just after their visit, Jaafari was out and Maliki was in. No democracy was involved in this process. In a recent article titled "Iraq's New Death Squad"
for The Nation by independent journalist Shane Bauer, we are provided
with an inside view of Maliki's iron fist, which has come in the form
of the Iraq Special Operations Forces. Bauer writes: "The
Iraq Special Operations Forces (ISOF) is probably the largest special
forces outfit ever built by the United States, and it is free of many
of the controls that most governments employ to rein in such lethal
forces. The project started in the deserts of Jordan just after the
Americans took Baghdad in April 2003. There, the US Army's Special
Forces, or Green Berets, trained mostly 18-year-old Iraqis with no
prior military experience. The resulting brigade was a Green Beret's
dream come true: a deadly, elite, covert unit, fully fitted with
American equipment, that would operate for years under US command and
be unaccountable to Iraqi ministries and the normal political process.
The ISOF is at least 4,564 operatives strong, making it approximately
the size of the US Army's own Special Forces in Iraq. Congressional
records indicate that there are plans to double the ISOF over the next
'several years'." According
to Bauer, control of the ISOF was slowly transferred by US Special
Forces to the Iraqis in 2007, but it wasn't put under the command of
the Defense or Interior Ministry. Rather, "the Americans pressured the
Iraqi government to create a new minister-level office called the
Counter-Terrorism Bureau," Bauer writes, "Established by a directive
from Iraq's prime minister, Nuri al-Maliki, the CTB answers directly to
him and commands the ISOF independently of the police and army.
According to Maliki's directive, the Iraqi Parliament has no influence
over the ISOF and knows little about its mission." Untold
numbers of politically motivated murders have followed as a result.
Regular assassinations and detentions of al-Sahwa (US-created Sunni
militia that Maliki had opposed from the beginning) members have been
ongoing for years. Last August, the ISOF raided the provincial
government compound in Diyala, while backed by US Apache helicopters,
and arrested a member of Iraq's main Sunni Arab political party. In
December, the ISOF arrested more than 30 Interior Ministry officials
who were believed to be opponents of Maliki's Dawa Party. In March, the
ISOF arrested a leader of the Sahwa. As he attempts to become the new Saddam, he does so with the apparent approval and endorsement of the New York Times, hence Sam Dagher's article today
allegedly about the Kurish region and their events but told from a
Nouri point of view. Well into the article, primarily an article
carping about the KRG's proposed constitution, Dagher notes, "Iraq's
federal Constitution allows the Kurds the right to their own
constitution, referring any conflicts to Iraq's highest court." Though
it bothers Nouri, and apparently the paper, the Kurds can do a new
constitution, revamp their old one, do whatever they want and it is
their right. The unresolved issue of the oil-rich city of Kirkuk is
not presented as having anything to do with Nouri. This despite
realities including Damien Cave's June 2007 reporting for the paper when he noted,
"The future of oil-rich Kirkuk was left in limbo, with Kurds holding
out for a referendum scheduled for the end of this year that they hope
will grant them control." The issue of Kirkuk was Constitutionally
mandated to be resolved by November 2007 (in the 2005 constitution).
Not only that but Nouri agreed to the White House's 2007 benchmarks and
those benchmarks included resolving the Kirkuk issue. Dahger ignores
all of that but does find time to say the Kruds "defended" attempting
"to add all of hotly contested and oil-rich Kirkuk Province, as well as
other disputed areas in Nineveh and Diyala Provinces." Are they
'adding' Kirkuk if they've long claimed it? Or are they continuing to
stake their claim on Kirkuk? Furthermore, the paper is accepting the
boundaries set by the central government and those boundaries have
always been in dispute, even in Saddam's time. The areas are disputed
on both sides. It's not just the Kurds disputing the boundaries. If
you're still not getting how one-sided Dagher's article is, please note
that in the print edition of the paper, the article is entitled " Kurds Lay Claim To Land and Oil, Defying Baghdad"; however, Australia's The Age re-runs the article and gives it the more appropriate headline " Kurds' new constitution angers US, Iraq." And
certainly Dagher's written reflecting something other than Kurdish
goals or interests. Apparently those aren't topics to cover . . . even
in an article apparently about the Kurdish region. Al Hurriyet notes
that some are trying to state that the northern region of Iraq would be
better off with Turkey -- please note that 'some' includes those
Americans who lied/spun/cheerleaded the US into Vietnam, some of the
same losers (including Katty-van-van's deadbeat father) who were part
of the "American Friends of Vietnam" -- a front group which, starting
in 1955, began openly advocating for US 'intervention' in Vietnam via
lies, trickery and deceit. The New York Times is so busy shining on al-Maliki, they forgot to tell you about his flare up with US Vice President Joe Biden. Salah Hemeid (Al-Ahram Weekly) explains
the paper only "alluded" and didn't explain but Biden issued a call for
bringing the Ba'athist back into the political process. Nouri's
response was to issue public statements such as this one through his
spokesperson "the government will never talk to those whose hands were
stained with blood". Publicly stated. Somehow the paper missed that.
Somehow the paper forgot to tell readers that. The US ran, under Paul
Bremer, the Ba'athists out of the political process in what is termed
"de-Ba'ahtification." Part of the benchmarks established by the US
White House in 2007 and signed off on by Nouri al-Maliki was to bring
the Ba'athists back in -- a de-de-Ba'athification. That has never
happened and when Biden pointed out the need for it to, al-Maliki made
it clear it wasn't happening. That's a key moment and it's interesting
that the paper of record elected not to cover it or that Biden proposed
a DC meeting with segments of Iraq including the Ba'athists and Iraqi
neighbors to sort out some issues. An Iraqi official states that the
vice president "suggested that Arab countries that will participate in
the proposed reconciliation meeting in Washington are ready to
guarantee that the Baathists will abandon any kind of armed resistance
if they are allowed to function as a legitimate political party."
Again, huge news and the paper of record 'missed' it.. Today on NPR's The Diane Rehm Show, Steve Roberts filled in for Diane Rehm. The second hour (international) featured Andrei Sitov (Itar-Tass), Farah Stockman ( Boston Globe)
and Tom Gjelten (NPR). And we'll note this section on Iraq which
covers some of the themes and topics emerging during the week. Steve
Roberts: [. . .] but, Farah, I want to deal with one more development,
actually several developments in Iraq, including the more aggressiver
assertion of territorial integrity and separateness on the part of the
Kurds in northern Iraq. This is not a new story in some ways, it's
been a semi-autonomous region for a long time, but some new
developments. Farah
Stockman: Yeah. I think the Kurds are-are starting to get frustrated
with Baghdad. A lot of the disagreements that have been simmering for
years over oil, over the share of oil they should get, over whether the
state controlled oil companies should make decisions or whether we
should have production sharing agreements and the Kurds are -- and
disputed territories. And these questions have been left unresolved
for a long time and the Kurds are impatient and saying, 'We need to
move forward and resolve some of these.' Whereas I think Maliki's
government doesn't appreciate those moves by the Kurds and he's also
starting to become an Arab -- kind of an Arab nationalist which is, I
think, worrisome for the Kurds. Maliki is starting to position himself
politically as an Arab nationalist against the Kurds. And, I think,
this is worrisome because the Sunnis were always odd-man-out. It was
always the Kurds-were-the-voice-of-reason and they were the ones
arguing for the greater good of Iraq and even though they wanted their
own -- their own semi-autonomous area, they were still speaking of
things in terms of unity with the government and now we're seeing a
shift. We're seeing the Shias and the Kurds draw farther apart. I
think that's worrisome. Steve
Roberts: And of course the vice president of the United States, Joe
Biden, was the author, co-author of a plan at one time that would
provide for what was sometimes called a soft partition of Iraq. Farah
Stockman: Well -- right. Some people would say that Biden's plan was
simply what was already enshrined in the Iraqi Constitution. It
depends upon your interpretation of that document, I guess. I think --
I think the Obama administration had hoped to turn its attention to
Afghanistan, get away from Iraq and last week they asked Biden to look
more closely at Iraq. I think that's a sign that they see Iraq as
continuing to be worrisome and that they can't -- they can't just shut
it out. Steve Roberts: In addition, Tom, to the problem of the Kurds, there's the problem of ongoing violence. Tom
Gjelten: That's what I was going to say. It's not just the Kurds.
What we're seeing is real sectarian strife returning in Iraq. A lot of
violence this week, most of it directed against Shites, and it's coming
just as the United States has pulled its troops out of major cities.
The big question in Iraq is whether the Iraqi security forces are going
to be capable of handling security responsibilities in Iraq. Right now
with these rising ethnic tensions, whether it's the Kurds in the north
or the Sunni and the Shi'ite populations, I think there's some real
concerns. Farah Stockman: I -- also just to add -- Steve Roberts: Please. Farah
Stockman: I think there's a real danger here for Obama in that we could
get stuck with one foot in Iraq and one foot in Afghanistan and not
really have the freedom of movement to do any of those two very
complicated countries justice. Steve
Roberts: Is there any sense that given the pull-back of American troops
and the rise in violence that there's any rethinking about this
strategy, Tom, or is the Americans completely devoted to this pull-back
whatever instability results? Tom
Gjelten: Well, I think, Steve, one point to keep in mind is that
there's less to this pullback than you might think. I mean, the Bush
administration -- sorry, the Obama administration makes a big point of
there not being after a certain point combat troops in Iraq but what
we've seen with the nature of warfare in Iraq is basically everybody
who is in Iraq is in the category of combat troops. And the numbers
that we're seeing now, we're down to 130,000 but that's, remember,
that's only the number that was there before the surge. We're going to
see 130,000 or 120,000 throughout the rest of this year. So there's
not a major pull-back here. Unfortunately,
not just for the Iraqis, but for the American public, it's what's
happening in "the dark" - beyond the glare of lights and TV cameras -
that counts. While many critics of the Iraq War have been willing to
cut the Obama administration some slack as its foreign policy team and
the US military gear up for that definitive withdrawal, something else
- something more unsettling - appears to be going on. And
it wasn't just the president's hedging over withdrawing American
"combat" troops from Iraq which, in any case, make up as few as
one-third of the 130,000 US forces still in the country - now extended
from 16 to 19 months. Nor was it the re-labeling of some of them as
"advisors" so they could, in fact, stay in the vacated cities, or the
redrawing of the boundary lines of the Iraqi capital, Baghdad, to
exclude a couple of key bases the Americans weren't about to give up. After
all, there can be no question that the Obama administration's policy is
indeed to reduce what the Pentagon might call the US military
"footprint" in Iraq. To put it another way, Obama's key officials seem
to be opting not for blunt-edged, former president George W Bush-style
militarism, but for what might be thought of as an administrative push
in Iraq, what Vice President Joe Biden has called "a much more
aggressive program vis-a-vis the Iraqi government to push it to
political reconciliation". An
anonymous senior State Department official described this new "dark of
night" policy to Christian Science Monitor reporter Jane Arraf in this
way: "One of the challenges of that new relationship is how the US can
continue to wield influence on key decisions without being seen to do
so." Without
being seen to do so. On this General Odierno and the unnamed official
are in agreement. And so, it seems, is Washington. As a result, the
crucial thing you can say about the Obama administration's military and
civilian planning so far is this: ignore the headlines, the fireworks,
and the briefly cheering crowds of Iraqis on your TV screen. Put all
that talk of withdrawal aside for a moment and - if you take a closer
look, letting your eyes adjust to the darkness - what is vaguely
visible is the silhouette of a new American posture in Iraq. Think of
it as the Obama Doctrine. And what it doesn't look like is the posture
of an occupying power preparing to close up shop and head for home. In some of today's reported violence (it's Friday, little gets reported) . . . Bombings? Reuters notes a Baghdad bombing late Thursday which claimed injured a police officer "and three of his family members". Shootings? Moahmmed al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 1 Sahwa member ("Awakening" "Sons of Iraq" are other names) shot dead in Baghdad with another injured. Reuters notes another Sahwa member was shot dead in Babil with another left injured. CNN notes
two Sawha were killed in the Baghdad attack and they state 75 people
have lost their lives in Iraq since Wednesday with two-hundred-and-two
left injured. Yesterday the House Armed
Services Committee's Subcommittee on Joint Readiness, Air and Land
Forces and Seapower and Expeditionary Forces met to take testimony from
General James Amos with the Marines and General Peter Chiarelli with
the Army. Amos' big news is that all the marines equipment will be out
of Iraq at the end of 2010 but not all of the marines. The press has
maintained otherwise. We will be out of Iraq, the marines will be,"
declared Amos, "with the exception of just a few, by this time next
year, the equipment will be out of Iraq, being repaired and going to
the home stations." Repaired? With regards to
Chiarelli and the army, the big news appeared to be that money was
being wasted because military equipment being reset is not also being
repaired. This was referred Roscoe
Bartlett: I want to follow up with a question asked by Mr. Forbes, the
army's 2010 request for reset is about $11 billion which nearly 8
billion -- 7.9 billion is for operations and maintenance and 3.1
billion for procurement. Now from 2007 to 2010, the O and M portion
has been pretty constant at about 8 billion but the procurement portion
has dropped to less than fifty percent of what it was in '07. I know
'07 was a bit higher than it might have been because we were short in
'06. But at just the time when we need more money because of all this
reset, now we have less money. And if we're going to justify this on
the basis of this new rule that you can't upgrade when you're repairing
the equipment than I have a problem with that because what an
opportunity we have when it's in there for maintenance repair why can't
we upgrade? It seems to me to be very short sighted and I'm wondering
why the money wasn't there? Did the army ask for more than 11 billion
and 11 billion was all you could get? Peter
Chiarelli: My understanding is no, sir, we did not. We understood with
the new overseas contingency operations rules were going to be,
that amount, that three-billion-plus in procurement can only be used
for washouts or vehicles or aircraft that are destroyed. And for the
most part -- although like all these rules, they change -- for the most
part, the recap -- or adding on -- is not allowed in FY10 and that
drove down the amount of money we needed for procurement. Roscoe
Bartlett: But sir, why not? Isn't it our goal to have a better and
better military? To support our people? Why shouldn't we upgrade? And
isn't this a very short sighted program? Peter Chiarelli:
Sir, you'd have to ask the folks who wrote the new rules. Uhm. I-I
think that it makes a lot of sense to upgrade when we can. It's kind
of like paving a road. Uh, you know, it's better to put the sewer
system in before you pave the road. It's-it's not a good idea to, in
fact, pave the road and then decide to dig it up to put the sewer
system in. So when we have equipment in and are able to do that --
that was a plus and allowed us to recap equipment. But the new rules
are that we cannot do that. Roscoe
Bartlett: Well I think Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution says
that the Congress makes the rules. And, Mr. Chairman [Ortez], I think
we need to take a look at that. Thank you very much and I yield back. Solomon Ortez: Chairman Abercrombie. Neil
Abercrombie: I want to follow up, General, on what Mr. Bartlett just
was dealing with when he says the Congress makes the rules. I'm not
clear from your answer to Mr. Bartlett. What-what part of what the
Congress wants you to do is being thwarted by whomever is making these
rules? Who made this rule? Peter Chiarelli: Sir, my understanding is they come out of OMB Neil Abercrombie: I'm sorry? Peter Chiarelli: Sir, my understanding is they come out of OMB. They write -- Neil Abercrombie: So you -- this is very important to me -- you take orders from OMB and not from the Defense Bill? Peter
Chiarelli: I, um, I can only tell you what I know now right now, sir,
is the rules -- and I don't question who makes rules -- Neil
Abercrombie: Well maybe rules is the wrong way. I'm not trying to be
argumentative here at all. But this is serious business because the
questions I have have to do with inventory and our capacity to do an
accurate inventory so that I can make from -- Mr. Bartlett and I, I
should say, because we do this together -- make recommendations to our
subcommittee members and the committee as a whole. We try to this in a
way that reflects your needs and if you're telling me that -- or
telling Mr. Bartlett -- that someone in the Office of Management and
Budget is able to countermand, I guess, what we're doing, how on earth
are we supposed to make an accurate assessment, let alone
recommendation, to follow up on, uh, requests that you're making today,
let alone what has been made in the past. I'm not quite sure about
your answer. Are you saying that your present -- your present course
of action, when you make decisions with regard to the context
established by Mr. Bartlett, that you're not paying any attention to
the Defense Bill? Peter Chiarelli: I'm not saying that. I'm saying -- Neil Abercrombie: Then why -- I really need to know what it is that we're dealing with here. Peter
Chiarelli: I can only tell you what the people I trust to put together
our request to Congress have indicated to us: In FY10, as a general
rule, we are not allowed to recap equipment. And that has brought down
the amount of money that we requested for procurement as part of reset. Neil Abercrombie: So you don't need additional funds? Is that right? Peter Chiarelli: I am telling you -- Neil
Abercrombie: Because we could reallocate funds. Believe me, I've got
requests, Mr. Bartlett has requests right now, if your answer is is
that you don't need this money and that which was represented to us --
whether I was in the minority or the majority because we've been on
this subcommittee for some period of time now -- so those estimates
from before were inaccurate? Peter Chiarelli: Let me be perfectly clear -- Neil Abercrombie: I hope so. Peter Chiarelli: -- this -- Neil Abercrombie: Because believe me I'll make some recommendations for re-allocations. Absolutely, I will. Peter
Chiarelli: We are in fact able -- with the budget we have and what
we've requested to you to do what you asked me to come here and talk
about today and that is reset our equipment. That is bring our
equipment up to 1020 standards and 1020 standards meaning that it is
fully capable to do its mission with minor deficiencies at best. We do
not bring it to a recap situation. We are able to reset our equipment
exactly as defined with the money we've been given by Congress. Neil
Abercrombie: Okay, if that's the case then, what do -- what system is
in place then, whether it's from the OMB or yourself, to accurately
asses inventory. The reason that I ask this question, in following up
on Mr. Bartlett's observations and inquiry, is that just in shipping
containers alone, you read the GAO reports, shipping containers alone,
we can't get, our subcommittee staff, is unable to get an accurate
answer as to what we need even from containers for equipment because we
can't get a handle on your inventory. What inventory process is in
place right now? And do you have confidence in it? Peter
Chiarelli: I have confidence in our inventory. I have confidence not
only that commanders down range like I was twice maintaining
inventory of both their TO and E equipment that they bring over with
them plus the troop provided equipment. Uh, we have had many looks at
our equipment down range to make sure that accountability standards are
high. Uh, and they are. Uh and we feel very, very good that we know
what we've got down range and what we will in fact be bringing back and
what is in troop provided -- theater provided equipment which they
issue to units when they arrive in theater Neil Abercrombie: So the GAO reports on the capacity for you to accurately assess inventory is incorrect. Peter Chiarelli: I believe -- Neil Abercrombie: I'll send it to you. Peter Chiarelli: Thank you, sir. Neil
Abercrombie: And I would appreciate your response. This is a serious
question because, again, this involves numbers, including billions of
dollars. Believe me, we are looking right now for billions of dollars
possibly for reallocation because of other demands. So-so if you don't
need this money and you're sure your inventory assessment is absolutely
correct seems to me I'm going to have a hell of a lot more
flexibility than I thought I had. Peter
Chiarelli: Uh, we too understand the tru-tremendous fiscal re - crisis
that our country has gone though. The economic situation. And one of
the reasons why there's no question as long as we can reset our
equipment we understand because of fiscal requirements it may be in the
best interest of our country as a whole to cut back on the amount of
recap we're doing so it did not seem odd to me -- Neil
Abercrombie: Okay, excuse me. In the fiscal interests, is that the
basis? Are you in conversations with these folks at OMB? Peter Chiarelli: I have not, sir. Neil Abercrombie: Who would have had these conversations? Peter Chiarelli: It would have taken place at the Office of Secretary of Defense, OSD. Neil
Abercrombie: So the Secretary of Defense is saying that you need -- at
least from my calculations here -- approximately 2 billion dollars less
than you said you needed previously with regard to reset on the basis
of -- what was the phrase you used? Fiscal discipline or fiscal
necessity? Peter
Chiarelli: We understand that we all have to be very, very careful with
the dollars that we spend. And, uhm, people have made a decision that
we will not recap equipment in FY10. That seems to me to be
understandable. Neil Abercrombie: Okay, it's understandable, yes. Do you think it's good policy? Peter
Chiarelli: If-if-if I had the ability to recap equipment, if we had the
money to recap equipment I think it would make sense -- Neil
Abercrombie: That's not the question I asked. Do you think you need
the money to recap? In you professional judgment, that's what we're
asking for today, not from a politician appointed in the OMB. I'm
asking for your professional judgment today with regard: Do you need
money to recap? Peter Chiarelli: If I had the ability to recap, I would recap for all the reasons I have stated. Neil
Abercrombie: You think the policy then of not being able to do that
which is reflected in your -- in the numbers that are given to us -- is
not good policy? Peter
Chiarelli: I-I-I can't say that and I won't say that. And I won't say
that because I understand that the people who make those rules, make
those decisions, have to take many other things into consideration.
And that is why -- Neil
Abercrombie: Yes, they have to take into consideration what we say is
in the Defense Bill because we're reflecting -- we are trying to
reflect -- I'm trying to help you here. Because, believe me, if you
give me this answer, I want to know, and right now what you're telling
me is is that -- is that in your professional judgment the-the rules or
the-the policy or the-the-the admonitions that you've been given or the
directions that you're operating under reflects your professional
judgment of what the necessities for the army are right now. Peter Chiarelli: If I had the authority and the ability to recap, I would. I -- Neil
Abercrombie: Okay, thank you. If Congress gives you the authority
under the Defense Bill then that would reflect your professional
opinion that you could use at least 13 billion dollars a year rather
than 11 billion -- Peter Chiarelli: I can't -- I can't give you those numbers. Neil Abercrombie: Well okay. You don't have to -- well, those are the numbers we have been given previously. Peter Chiarelli: Previous years? Neil Abercrombie: Yes. Peter Chiarelli: I'd have to go back and ask the -- we just don't go -- Neil
Abercrombie: I won't go further. Mr. Chairman, this is serious
business. We're under the gun here in the Defense Bill to make accurate
numbers and put them forward for everybody to consider and now we have
to make a decision whether OMB does this because, what the hell, we
don't need a committee here if-if-if somebody down in OMB, this is a
political appointment. It's all political appointments and if we're
going to do it on the basis of-of what somebody else decides in the
executive is-is a budget number as opposed to what our obligation is
which is to provide for you and the people who serve under you and
under your command then we have a real dilemma here. I have a real
dilemma because I can't accurately, I cannot in good conscience say to
Chairman Ortiz or to the other members that we're giving a number that
adequately responds to what you believe to be in your professional
judgment a necessity. Understand my motivation here? Peter
Chiarelli: I hope you understand mine. I-I understand also that you
have to take many other things into consideration when putting together
our budget. That's all I'm saying to you. That was pulled from yesterday's snapshot because there wasn't room. Monday a bad article about women veterns and the large increase in the number who become homeless appeared, Bryan Bender's " More female veterans are winding up homeless" ( Boston Globe)
-- an article on how women veterans are falling through the cracks
because their specific issues and problems are not known and/or
addressed -- an article where all the 'experts' were men. No one
apparently noticed that incongruity. Bender was not tackling a
just-breaking story. 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.\ Marsha
Ford is only one of the experts on the issue Bender could have spoken
to but didn't. Congress has found many women capable of speaking on
the issue in the last two years. Since the press seems unable to (and since the Feminist Wire Daily can't even notice that women aren't 'experts' in Bender's article)
perhaps the press could pay attention on July 14th when the Senate
Veterans Affairs Committee holds their hearing Women Veterans: Bridging
the Gaps in Care? Or possibly July 16th when the House Armed Services
Committee holds their hearing Eliminating the Gaps: Examing Women
Veterans' Issues? Were they to do so, they might discover that, no
surprise, there are many, many women who can speak to issues effecting
women veterans and they might realize how insulting -- in a story about
how women's own issues are ignored by the VA (including being a single,
primary caregiver for a child) -- it is to pen an article on women
veterans while bringing in 'expert' males to talk about their problems
as if to say: No one can follow the issue when a woman speaks. It's
the equivalent, in conversations, of a man interrupting a woman to tell
her story 'for her' because he can do it so much better because,
apparently, an addition groin weight somehow helps in 'translation.' Turning to film, The Hurt Locker
opens today in San Francisco, Dallas, Chicago, Atlanta, Austin, Oahu,
Portland, Phoenix, Salt Lake City, San Diego, Minneapolis, Denver,
Toronto and DC. The amazing film directed by Kathryn Bigelow is winning
raves all over. Ann Hornaday's " 'Locker' Serves as Iraq Tour De Force" ( Washington Post): "War
is a drug," writes Christopher Hedges in the epigraph that precedes
"The Hurt Locker." Someone else described war as "interminable boredom
punctuated by moments of stark terror." Director Kathryn Bigelow
comprehends both those observations and conveys them in this
captivating, completely immersive action thriller. "The Hurt Locker"
just happens to be set in Iraq in 2004, but, like the best films,
transcends time and place, and in the process attains something
universal and enduring. "The Hurt Locker" is about Iraq in the same way
that "Paths of Glory" was about World War I or "Full Metal Jacket" was
about Vietnam -- which is to say, utterly and not at all. "The Hurt
Locker" is a great movie, period. From Mick LaSalle's "' The Hurt Locker' shows Bigelow's skill" (San Francisco Chronicle): She
uses handheld cameras in "The Hurt Locker" not to make viewers dizzy or
to instill excitement that isn't there but to create a subtle sense of
being alongside the characters. Her camera doesn't shake. It breathes.
It pulses. The camera becomes the viewer's eyes, not those of a spastic
cameraman. Through such intuitive means, Bigelow takes an audience from
the opening credits into a state of fierce attention and total empathy
within about 60 seconds. Notice
how quickly Bigelow conveys the charm and humanity of Guy Pearce, a
soldier called upon to neutralize a bomb in the movie's first scene.
Notice also how the direction and Mark Boal's screenplay inject a
workaday quality into this tense moment. Throughout "The Hurt Locker,"
the human element is central, so that whenever something happens, it
feels personal. This
week, NOW talks directly with former British Prime Minister Tony Blair,
the international community's envoy to the region and an architect of
the plan. We also speak with a former commander of the infamous Al-Aqsa
Martyrs Brigade in Jenin about his decision to stop using violent
tactics, and to residents of Jenin about their daily struggles and
their hopes for the future.To
Blair, the Jenin experiment can be pivotal in finally bringing peace to
the Middle East. He tells NOW, "This is the single most important issue
for creating a more stable and secure world."This
show is part of Enterprising Ideas, NOW's continuing spotlight on
social entrepreneurs working to improve the world through
self-sustaining innovation.Next week NOW on PBS reports from inside the Israeli Defense Force to get the Israeli perspective on peace in the Middle East.Next week NOW on PBS reports from inside the Israeli Defense Force to get the Israeli perspective on peace in the Middle East.That begins airing tonight on most PBS stations as does Washington Week
which finds Gwen sitting around the table with James Barnes (National
Journal), Ceci Connolly (Washington Post), Doyle McManus (Los Angeles
Times) and Deborah Solomon (Wall St. Journal). Bonnie Erbe sits down with Melinda Henneberger, Eleanor Holmes Norton, Kay James and Genevieve Wood on PBS' To The Contrary.
Check local listings, all three PBS shows begin airing tonight on many
PBS stations. And turning to broadcast TV, Sunday CBS' 60 Minutes offers: Kill Bin Laden The
officer who led the army's Delta Force mission to kill Osama bin Laden
after 9/11 reveals what really happened in Tora Bora, Afghanistan, when
the al-Qaeda leader narrowly escaped. Scott Pelley reports. | Watch Video Eyewitness Lesley
Stahl reports on flaws in eyewitness testimony that are at the heart of
the DNA exonerations of falsely convicted people like Ronald Cotton,
who has forgiven his accuser, Jennifer Thompson. (This is a
double-length segment.) | Watch Video 60 Minutes, Sunday, July 12, at 7 p.m. ET/PT.
Posted at 04:16 pm by thecommonills
Permalink
The violence and the disputed region in the north
"Negligence
by these forces caused this catastrophe," said Jaafer Teafari, 34, an
unemployed laborer. "The Qala area is well protected, so how were the
terrorists able to enter and strike?" That's from Nada Bakri's " Explosions Kill 50 in Iraq, Raise Fears of Sectarian Strife" ( Washington Post) on yesterday's violence which includes the twin bombings in Tal Afar. Mike Tharp (McClatchy Newspapers) offers
this context, "Mass bombings continued for a second day Thursday
throughout Iraq, killing dozens of people and wounding more than 130 in
at least three cities a week after the U.S. military withdrew combat
forces from Iraq's major cities." Ned Parker and Usama Redha's " In self-policed Iraq, bombings kill 54" ( Los Angeles Times) covers the back and forth blaming: Provincial
council member Yahya Abed Majoub, a member of the Sunni Arab Iraqi
Islamic Party, blamed the attack in Tall Afar on political factions as
well as neighboring countries."There
are groups who want to ignite sectarian and ethnic tensions all over
Iraq. Nineveh is just the starting point," Majoub said. "There is a
political agenda from inside and outside related to the election."Kurdish
officials blamed the attack on the group Al Qaeda in Iraq. They lashed
out at the U.S. military, however, saying it had allowed security to
deteriorate by withdrawing. The Kurds have viewed the American forces
as a partner and a check on Arab ambitions in the provinces adjoining
Iraqi Kurdistan.In today's New York Times, Steven Lee Myers and Campbell Robertson's " Insurgency Remains Tenacious In North Iraq"
whose key characteristic appears to be the continued low-balling of
fatalities. For example, going with 12 for Wednesday's bombings in
Thursday morning's paper (as happened in NYT)
was understandable in that the article could have been filed before the
final toll was in. An article appearing in this morning's paper on
yesterday's violence, an article written yesterday (Thursday) has no
excuse for still not having the death toll from Wednesday correct. But
that's the New York Times, always heading the undercount. We'll note this from the article: The
persistent violence in Mosul and Nineveh underscores the broader
turmoil afflicting Iraq. But it also reflects the region's unique
mixture of insurgency and ethnic tensions between Kurds and Arabs, as
well as a proliferation of criminal gangs, that makes the north the
most dangerous part of the country.That
was supposed to change last spring, when 4,000 American troops joined
more than 25,000 Iraqi security personnel to clean out Mosul's
neighborhoods one by one. Just as significantly, a Sunni Arab political
bloc won in January’s provincial elections, giving the Arab citizens of
the north proportional representation for the first time and, it was
hoped, defusing antigovernment sentiment and support for insurgents. It
has not turned out that way.Along with undercounting,
the article stands out for suddenly noticing things that others have
long been noting. (Including Mosul being the target of violence and the
targeting of the police.) And you really have to laugh at this coming
from the New York Times: "Much of the death toll in Iraq these days
results from large, high-profile attacks that can skew perceptions of
day-to-day violence. The attacks in Mosul, though, are just as often
small, directed and constant, with a toll that accumulates inexorably
even as it draws less attention." If it's not a large high profile
attack, the paper ignores it. That's why the violence in Mosul has
largely gone uncovered by the paper. The targeting of the police, for
example, became the story of the weekend and yet the paper never noted
it until today. It was a slow and steady targeting. And then the paper
wants to claim that perceptions are skewed about the violence because
of high profile attacks? No, the only the violence gets covered
is if it's a high profile attack. When it's not, it goes uncovered and
the paper pretends everything's 'safe' and 'peaceful' in Iraq. It's not
the attacks that are skewing perceptions, it's bad reporting. On the front page of this morning's New York Times, Sam Dagher's " Kurds Lay Claim To Land and Oil, Defying Baghdad"
that some strong points and some strong problems. First, I grasp that
anytime you write about the Kurdish region, it's up for
misunderstanding. Making basic points of fairness here leads to e-mail
drive-bys from people who assume I am pro-KRG or anti-KRG. I'm neither.
The KRG exists and it exists without my say-so and neither requires nor
needs it. So I grasp that simple statements can easily be misconstrued
on this issue -- by readers in the US and outside. And I grasp that
efforts at fairness can upset some groups. But the news needs to strive
towards fairness and Dagher's article fails that test. This is
the statement that matters: "Iraq's federal Constitution allows the
Kurds the right to their own constitution, referring any conflicts to
Iraq's highest court." The Kurds have the right to their own
constitution. That's not debatable. Nor do we need fretting from Nouri
al-Maliki or any Iraqi MP. Fairness is that any power the Constitution
outlines can be exercised without need for a tizzy or uproar. The
Kurds creating their own Constitution is within their rights. Whether
or not some in the KRG area feel they'll have time to know it before
July 25th really isn't an issue. Not one for outsiders. July 25th is
when the region holds their elections (they did not hold elections
January 31st -- and it's interesting to note how much time the press
spent/favored on those elections and how little attention the
international press has given to these elections). A body has ruled
that the Constitution cannot be voted on by the people in the region
July 25th (they now hope to have it August 11th or before September).
But bringing the aspect of oh-I-don't-have-time-to-read into it is just
nonsense because the article already sets up that Nouri's opposed to
the Constitution that Iraqi MPs are and by tossing in that useless
information, the paper appears to be taking sides. I doubt
anyone is ever ready for any vote. Myself included. I know the
referendums, I know the statewide (and national offices) but there's
always at least one local office I have no idea on. Boo-hoo. That's the
way it goes. Had the constitution been put before the people, as the
KRG wanted, you can be sure it would have been printed in newspapers in
the region. You can be sure it would have been available. And those who
cared to inform themselves would do so and those who didn't care (as
well as those who didn't have the time) wouldn't inform themselves.
They might, as I do on a local office, ask friends for input before
deciding their own vote. They might just skip that section of the
ballot. Or they might just mark something on their ballot without
caring. That's the way it goes in every election around the
world. When you've already weighted the argument to one side, and the
paper had long before it began whining that voters wouldn't know what
was in the constitution, including that nonsense is taking a side. And
it's also flaunting ignorance because, again, the constitution, were it
being included in the July 25th vote, would be publicized and widely
printed. Did they have the right to write their own
constitution? Yes, they did. That should have led the article. Instead,
it led with how Americans are fretting about tensions and how Nouri's
opposed to it and how some Iraqi MPs are (a lot of Iraqi MPs were
outraged by it). And then, it briefly notes what the actual law is
before turning to various groups to trash the constitution for various
reasons. That's not reporting. And it's not fair and this is a volatile region so care needs to be taken. Care was not taken. That
includes in the last two paragraphs which are devoted to Gareth
Stansfield. I would be very curious to read his full quote because the
two sentences fit the article's alarmist tone; however, they do not
reflect Stansfield's manner of speaking -- which is usually more
weighted and thoughtful than the paper's quote indicates. Dagher writes: Kurdish
officials defended their efforts to adopt a new constitution that
defines the Kurdistan region as comprising their three provinces and
also tries to add all of hotly contested and oil-rich Kirkuk Province,
as well as other disputed areas in Nineveh and Diyala Provinces. Iraq's
federal Constitution allows the Kurds the right to their own
constitution, referring any conflicts to Iraq's highest court.No
where in that paragraph -- or elsewhere in the article -- is it noted
that any disputes are the fault of the centeral government in Baghdad.
These issues were supposed to have been resolved long ago. They have
not been. Nouri spent the weekend floating the idea that maybe Kirkuk
could be resolved with a vote before killing that at the start of the
week. The issues need to be resolved. The issue of Kirkuk was
Constitutionally mandated to be resolved by November 2007 (in the 2005
constitution). Not only that but Nouri agreed to the White House's 2007
benchmarks and those benchmarks included resolving the Kirkuk issue. Nouri agreed to that, he signed off on it. He hasn't done his job. Where in the article is that noted or made clear? It isn't. It's those pesky Kurds, in such a rush, and, my, how greedy! That's
how the article reads (headline is from the print version, by the way).
I don't live in Kirkuk. Who ends up with it isn't really a pressing
concern of mine. But you can't pretend to explore the topic and ignore
the fact that the issue was supposed to have been addressed four years
ago and that Nouri has been the impediment there for three years. You
should note that the United Nations attempted to graft an agreement and
Nouri was again the problem. But you are required to note that the
issue was supposed to have been resolved long ago and that Nouri
agreed, in 2007, to resolve it when he signed off on the White House
benchmarks. You might need to note that the paper reported in June of 2007
(Damien Cave), "The future of oil-rich Kirkuk was left in limbo, with
Kurds holding out for a referendum scheduled for the end of this year
that they hope will grant them control." Furthermore, the paper
is accepting the boundaries set by the central government and those
boundaries have always been in dispute, even in Saddam's time. The
areas are disputed on both sides. It's not just the Kurds disputing the
boundaries. And it needs to be noted that the Kurdish elections
take place July 25th . . . with none of the drum rolls or breathless
panting the New York Times
offered non-stop in the lead up to the January 31st elections --
elections that the repeatedly forgot to note were not taking place
across Iraq. Turning to TV, this week on NOW on PBS: Once
one of the most dangerous and violent cities in the West Bank, Jenin
was the scene of frequent battles between the Israeli military and
Palestinian fighters, and the hometown of more than two dozen suicide
bombers.The Weekly QDoes the U.S. relationship with Israel help our national security? Yes No Not sureSurvey software by SurveyGizmoSend this Weekly Q to a friend!Today,
however, there's been a huge turnaround. Jenin is now the center of an
international effort to build a safe and economically prosperous
Palestinian state from the ground up. On Jenin's streets today, there's
a brand new professional security force loyal to the Palestinian
Authority and funded in part by the United States. But can the modest
success in Jenin be replicated throughout the West Bank, or will the
effort collapse under the intense political pressure from all sides?This
week, NOW talks directly with former British Prime Minister Tony Blair,
the international community's envoy to the region and an architect of
the plan. We also speak with a former commander of the infamous Al-Aqsa
Martyrs Brigade in Jenin about his decision to stop using violent
tactics, and to residents of Jenin about their daily struggles and
their hopes for the future.To
Blair, the Jenin experiment can be pivotal in finally bringing peace to
the Middle East. He tells NOW, "This is the single most important issue
for creating a more stable and secure world."This
show is part of Enterprising Ideas, NOW's continuing spotlight on
social entrepreneurs working to improve the world through
self-sustaining innovation.Next week NOW on PBS reports from inside the Israeli Defense Force to get the Israeli perspective on peace in the Middle East.Next week NOW on PBS reports from inside the Israeli Defense Force to get the Israeli perspective on peace in the Middle East.That begins airing tonight on most PBS stations as does Washington Week
which finds Gwen sitting around the table with James Barnes (National
Journal), Ceci Connolly (Washington Post), Doyle McManus (Los Angeles
Times) and Deborah Solomon (Wall St. Journal). Bonnie Erbe sits down with Melinda Henneberger, Eleanor Holmes Norton, Kay James and Genevieve Wood on PBS' To The Contrary. Check local listings, all three PBS shows begin airing tonight on many PBS stations. And turning to broadcast TV, Sunday CBS' 60 Minutes offers: Kill Bin Laden
The officer who led the army's Delta Force mission to kill Osama bin
Laden after 9/11 reveals what really happened in Tora Bora,
Afghanistan, when the al-Qaeda leader narrowly escaped. Scott Pelley reports. | Watch Video Eyewitness
Lesley Stahl reports on flaws in eyewitness testimony that are at the
heart of the DNA exonerations of falsely convicted people like Ronald
Cotton, who has forgiven his accuser, Jennifer Thompson. (This is a
double-length segment.) | Watch Video 60 Minutes, Sunday, July 12, at 7 p.m. ET/PT. On NPR's The Diane Rehm Show, Steve Roberts fills in for Diane Rehm. The first hour (domestic) includes E.J. Dionne ( Washington Post), Dante Chinni ( Christian Science Monitor) and Karen Tumulty ( Time magazine). The second hour (international) features Andrei Sitov (Itar-Tass), Farah Stockman ( Boston Globe) and Tom Gjelten (NPR). The Diane Rehm Show begins airing on most NPR stations (and streaming online) live at ten a.m. EST. We'll note this from Michael Schwartz' " The US takes to the shadows in Iraq" ( Asia Times): Unfortunately,
not just for the Iraqis, but for the American public, it's what's
happening in "the dark" - beyond the glare of lights and TV cameras -
that counts. While many critics of the Iraq War have been willing to
cut the Obama administration some slack as its foreign policy team and
the US military gear up for that definitive withdrawal, something else
- something more unsettling - appears to be going on.And
it wasn't just the president's hedging over withdrawing American
"combat" troops from Iraq which, in any case, make up as few as
one-third of the 130,000 US forces still in the country - now extended
from 16 to 19 months. Nor was it the re-labeling of some of them as
"advisors" so they could, in fact, stay in the vacated cities, or the
redrawing of the boundary lines of the Iraqi capital, Baghdad, to
exclude a couple of key bases the Americans weren't about to give up.After
all, there can be no question that the Obama administration's policy is
indeed to reduce what the Pentagon might call the US military
"footprint" in Iraq. To put it another way, Obama's key officials seem
to be opting not for blunt-edged, former president George W Bush-style
militarism, but for what might be thought of as an administrative push
in Iraq, what Vice President Joe Biden has called "a much more
aggressive program vis-a-vis the Iraqi government to push it to
political reconciliation".An
anonymous senior State Department official described this new "dark of
night" policy to Christian Science Monitor reporter Jane Arraf in this
way: "One of the challenges of that new relationship is how the US can
continue to wield influence on key decisions without being seen to do
so."Without being seen to
do so. On this General Odierno and the unnamed official are in
agreement. And so, it seems, is Washington. As a result, the crucial
thing you can say about the Obama administration's military and
civilian planning so far is this: ignore the headlines, the fireworks,
and the briefly cheering crowds of Iraqis on your TV screen. Put all
that talk of withdrawal aside for a moment and - if you take a closer
look, letting your eyes adjust to the darkness - what is vaguely
visible is the silhouette of a new American posture in Iraq. Think of
it as the Obama Doctrine. And what it doesn't look like is the posture
of an occupying power preparing to close up shop and head for home. Plugging a friend's movie. The Hurt Locker
opens today in San Francisco, Dallas, Chicago, Atlanta, Austin, Oahu,
Portland, Phoenix, Salt Lake City, San Diego, Minneapolis, Denver,
Toronto and DC. The amazing film directed by Kathryn Bigelow is winning
raves all over. Ann Hornaday's " 'Locker' Serves as Iraq Tour De Force" ( Washington Post): "War
is a drug," writes Christopher Hedges in the epigraph that precedes
"The Hurt Locker." Someone else described war as "interminable boredom
punctuated by moments of stark terror." Director Kathryn Bigelow
comprehends both those observations and conveys them in this
captivating, completely immersive action thriller. "The Hurt Locker"
just happens to be set in Iraq in 2004, but, like the best films,
transcends time and place, and in the process attains something
universal and enduring. "The Hurt Locker" is about Iraq in the same way
that "Paths of Glory" was about World War I or "Full Metal Jacket" was
about Vietnam -- which is to say, utterly and not at all. "The Hurt
Locker" is a great movie, period. From Mick LaSalle's "' The Hurt Locker' shows Bigelow's skill" (San Francisco Chronicle): She
uses handheld cameras in "The Hurt Locker" not to make viewers dizzy or
to instill excitement that isn't there but to create a subtle sense of
being alongside the characters. Her camera doesn't shake. It breathes.
It pulses. The camera becomes the viewer's eyes, not those of a spastic
cameraman. Through such intuitive means, Bigelow takes an audience from
the opening credits into a state of fierce attention and total empathy
within about 60 seconds. Notice
how quickly Bigelow conveys the charm and humanity of Guy Pearce, a
soldier called upon to neutralize a bomb in the movie's first scene.
Notice also how the direction and Mark Boal's screenplay inject a
workaday quality into this tense moment. Throughout "The Hurt Locker,"
the human element is central, so that whenever something happens, it
feels personal.The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com. iraqthe new york timessam daghersteven lee myerscampbell robertsonthe washington postnada bakrithe los angeles timesned parkerusama redhamichael schwartz60 minutescbs newsto the contrarybonnie erbenow on pbsnprthe diane rehm showpbskathryn bigelowann hornadaymick lasalle
Posted at 07:15 am by thecommonills
Permalink
Yesterday,
the US released five Iranian diplomats that they had imprisoned for
over two years. At the US State Dept, Ian Kelly was at a loss for words
other than to repeat "concerns" over the release. Nouri al-Maliki
greeted the five diplomats warmly and allowed them to call their
families. The five then moved on to the Iranian embassy in Baghdad. In
today's New York Times, Steven Lee Myers' " American Military Releases 5 Iranians Detained in Iraq"
covers the release and notes, "Mr. Maliki, who has both cultivated ties
with Iran and criticized its interference in Iraqi affairs, clearly
sought to exploit the situation diplomatically." The more telling
observation in the article, however, is this: "It was not clear why Mr.
Maliki's government chose now to ask for the release of the men, who
had been held for two and a half years; it could have done so any time
since January under the security agreement terms. Even senior Iraqi
officials seemed to know little about the release." But Myers writes in a vacuum and, if that's not clear, notice how Damien McElroy's " Barack Obama threatened by Iraq prisoner release" ( Telegraph of London) immediately provides the context that the New York Times refuses to: Iran's
foreign ministry had called for their release as recently as a week ago
and had the support of Baghdad in pressing its claims. My colleague, Toby Harden
exclusively revealed last week that US senators were up in arms against
President Barack Obama after the release of a prominent militia leader
to launch a process that could free British hostages.With
about 10,000 mostly Sunni Muslim prisoners left in American-run
detention facilities in Iraq, the pitfalls are not limited to the
examples above but also the global fight against extremist al-Qaeda
linked terrorists. If people released start turning up on the
Afghanistan battlefield there will be anger but if there is a link to a
plot in America or Europe there will be uproar.The
release he's referring to, the previous one, was the release of two
brothers who were said to be the ringleaders of an attack on a US base
in Iraq (the attackers entered with the help of Iraqi police and posed
as Iraqi security forces) that resulted in the death of 5 US service
members. It's the release that no one really wants to talk about in the
US press (the Christian Science Monitor has been the exception there).
The brothers were released in a deal that was supposed to allow their
organization to release 5 British hostages they'd held for over two
years. Two of the five were released. Or rather their corpses were.
From Toby Harnden's " US accused of negotiating with Iraqi terrorists over murdered hostages" ( Telegraph of London): Senior
Republicans have expressed concern about the release of Laith
al-Khazali, a member of the Shia group Asaib al-Haq, as part of a
reported deal to gain the release of five British hostages held since
2007.It appears that any
deal went badly wrong as the bodies of Jason Creswell, from Portlethen
near Aberdeen, and Jason Swindlehurst, from Skelmersdale, Lancashire,
were handed over to the British Embassy in Baghdad last month, two
weeks after he was freed.The
accusations have been made in a letter to President Barack Obama from
Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama and Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona and
Republicans on Capitol Hill have said they could soon push for public
hearings on the issue.Warren P. Strobel and Mike Tharp's " U.S. military didn't want to release Iranians held in Iraq" ( McClatchy Newspapers) notes: Kelly
acknowledged misgivings about the release, and its impact on U.S.
military personnel in Iraq. "That is a big concern of ours, is the
safety of American forces. And we . . . have of course made our
concerns known to the Iraqi government," he said.Kelly
and other U.S. officials said the release did not involve a quid pro
quo with Iran and was not a part of the Obama administration's attempts
to engage that country's leaders.Rather
than re-arrest the five, the Iraqi government granted them a meeting
with Maliki and then reportedly turned them over to Iran's embassy in
Baghdad,Yesterday, UNESCO released [PDF format warning] " FINAL REPORT on Damage Assessment in Babylon"
about the damages to the historical archaeological site as a result of
the US' decision to construct a base on the site, Camp Alpha, which was
running from April 21, 2003 through December 22, 2004. Alix Kroeger
files a video report for BBC that can be seen here.
On a related topic, art, we're not highlighting Leo Paz' report. We're
not interested in promoting the self-promoting woman who helped install
Barack through deciet and trickery. If he'd left her out of the report
(and there was no reason to include her other than to allow her to
yammer on -- not about the exhibit but about herself), we might
highlight it. But I'm not interested in that liar. Equally true is
that the State Dept issued a report last week that noted the number of
Iraqi refugees admitted in the last fiscal year so if you're going to
cite the numbers, you've got the official ones right that and don't
have to say "approximately" anything according to an NGO. On the topic of numbers, the Dept of Defense issued the following yesterday: The
Army released suicide data for the month of June today. Among
active-duty soldiers there were no confirmed suicides and nine
potential suicides. In May, the Army reported one confirmed suicide and
16 potential suicides among active-duty soldiers. Since that time,
seven have been confirmed and nine remain under investigation. There
have been 88 reported active-duty suicides in the Army during calendar
year 2009. Of these, 54 have been confirmed, and 34 are pending
determination of manner of death. For the same period in 2008, there
were 67 confirmed suicides among active-duty soldiers.During
June 2009, among reserve component soldiers not on active duty, there
were no confirmed suicides and two potential suicides; to date, among
that same group, there have been 16 confirmed suicides and 23 potential
suicides currently under investigation to determine the manner of
death. For the same period in 2008, there were 29 confirmed suicides
among reserve soldiers not on active duty."Every
soldier suicide is different and tragic in its own way," said Brig.
Gen. Colleen McGuire, director, Army Suicide Prevention Task Force.
"Our current research and prevention efforts are identifying common
denominators that lead soldiers to take their own life. It's often a
combination of many factors that overwhelm an individual."Although
suicide can impact anyone, we're finding that male soldiers, in
combat-arms occupational specialties, between ages 18 and 27 are more
vulnerable," McGuire said. "That's why we're looking at existing
programs and other institutional safety nets to see what works, and
what needs to be changed to enhance the support network of trained
leaders and behavioral healthcare providers who can identify and treat
risk factors before young soldiers get to the point where they feel
there’s no way out."The
Army will complete the second phase of a three-phased service-wide
suicide stand-down and chain teach program, July 15, 2009. Phases one
and two included an interactive training program, that features a
video, and a small unit leader training effort which began on February
15, 2009. The third phase of the Army program will include sustained
annual suicide prevention training for all soldiers, emphasizing common
causes of suicidal behavior and the critical role Army leaders,
friends, co-workers and families play in maintaining behavioral health.The
Army's Suicide Prevention Task Force will continue implementation of
the Army Campaign Plan for Health Promotion, Risk Reduction and Suicide
Prevention to further enhance suicide prevention and behavioral health
programs that directly affect our Army community and save soldiers’
lives.Soldiers and families
in need of crisis assistance should contact Military OneSource or the
Defense Center of Excellence (DCOE) Outreach Center. Trained
consultants are available from both organizations 24 hours a day, 7
days a week, 365 days a year.The
Military OneSource toll-free number for those residing in the
continental U.S. is 800-342-9647, their Web site address is
http://www.militaryonesource.com. Overseas personnel should refer to
the Military OneSource Web site for dialing instructions for their
specific location. The
DCOE Outreach Center can be contacted at 866-966-1020, via electronic
mail at Resources@DCoEOutreach.org and at
http://www.dcoe.health.mil/resources.aspx.The Army’s most current suicide prevention information is located athttp://www.armyg1.army.mil/hr/suicide/ .Tony Perry (Los Angeles Times) reports
Robin Long was released from Miramar Marine Corps Air Station's brig
yesterday "after serving 12 months of a 15-month sentence." Long is a
war resister who self-checked out and went to Canada where he attempted
to be granted asylum. Not only did that not happen, he was imprisoned
and whisked across the border back to the US in violation of his rights
and those of his child -- his child is a Canadian citizen. The following community sites updated yesterday: -
-
-
Talking post 10 hours ago -
-
-
-
-
-
-
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com. iraqthe new york timessteven lee myersthe telegraph of londondamien mcelroytoby harndenalix kroegerbbc newsthe los angeles timestony perrywarren p. strobelmcclatchy newspapersmike tharpthe world today just nutskats kornersex and politics and screeds and attitudethomas friedman is a great manthe daily jotcedrics big mixmikey likes itruths reportsickofitradlzoh boy it never ends
Posted at 07:13 am by thecommonills
Permalink
Thursday, July 09, 2009
Under questioning from Senator Joe Lieberman on Tuesday in the Senate Armed Services Committee hearing, Jeh Johnson stated the administration believed that the appeals to any military commission decision should go to military courts to be heard. Johnson's with the Defense Dept. David S. Kris, Justice Dept, and JAG's Vice Adm Bruce E. MacDonald were also on the first panel. Kris' final testimony to Levin? Explaining he wasn't just speaking for himself, he was speaking for the administration and how they (the administration) were in agreement with Johnson and MacDonald. Did they miss that? How did the ACLU miss Kris' declaration that they were three peas in a pod? Point? The ACLU keeps doing cartwheels ( here most recently) on "due process" out of the mouth of David Kris of the Justice Dept. More important than that fleeing moment was Lindsey Graham's exchange. That needs to be paid attention. He brings up the Due Process issue to Kris. And how does anyone have Due Process with "the totality of the circumstances test"? Does no one get that?
Let's be really clear that Kris supports that, he even said so in his final remarks to Levin.
MacDonald talked about the totality of circumstances test. He brought it up, "And I am worried that a military judge that has a voluntarism imposed on him is going to look at a statement taken when a soldier goes in and breaks down the door and -- and takes a-takes a statement from a detainee, I'm worried that they're going to apply a voluntariness standard to it and I would argue that's an inherently coercive environment -- when you have a rifle [. . .] pointed at you. I'd rather see this leading to a totality of circumstance [. . . determining] is the statement reliable?"
Remember that they're speaking of military commissions. Not civilian courts.
Point, this test is also being brought up by Senator Graham (and I know Lindsey and I've known him for years) deals with confessions. That's why Lindsey is bringing it up. And Lindsey knows the law including military law. (I don't agree with his conclusions which are often scary, but he does know the law.) The totality test goes directly to confessions. The totality test determines whether or not a confession is admissible. You're looking at not just a claim that the confession was forced or otherwise inappropriate, you're looking at "the totality" including whether or not it'll allow for a conviction.
The totality test was utilized to determine whether the confession of a suspect could be admissible? Were rights violated? Was a defendant misled or forced? But a "yes" on those or any other violations didn't necessarily kick out under the "totality" argument. So when Kris supports a totality test (and he supports it -- he made that clear, on his own accord, in his final replies to Carl Levin), there's no Due Process. That's ridiculous to imagine otherwise. The totality test is why the country needed Miranda. Are we unaware of who supports totality? That's Rehnquist's decision. Do we not get that? Do we not get that Rehnquist pushed that in civilian courts (specifically when he wrote the majority opinion in Illinois v. Gates) in terms of judging search warrants? Brennan and Marshall dissented and their dissent was based on the fact that a better means was being shoved aside (the Aguilar-Spinelli test) in order to simplify. Simplify for whom? Not the defense. Not in a Rehnquist decision. Their dissent, written by Brennan, noted that the totality test "reflects impatience with what it perceives to be overly technical rules governing searches and seizures under the Fourth Amendment."
Oh, that overly technical Fourth Amendment!
Do we all not get that when the Constitution is just "too technical" for some, that group doesn't support Due Process?
Not noted by the ACLU is that Kris supports "indefinite detention" and, when questioned on that by Graham Tuesday, corrected Lindsey to say, "I'm not sure that dangerous is even part of the initial judgment under the law." Lindsey quickly agreed, "That's true, it's not required." On "indefinite detention," Kris wanted it pointed out that you don't need a judgment from a court that the person is "dangerous" to continue to imprison them.
With Kris nodding while MacDonald was speaking, MacDonald would declare that when US forces are breaking "down doors," "we don't want them to stop and think about giving Miranda rights or giving Article 31 B rights under UCMJ."
Article 31 predates Miranda and outlines for the military the guidelines to questioning a suspect and what the suspect must be informed of.
Levin continued questioning MacDonald -- whom Kris agrees with -- about the totality test and MacDonald agreed confessions obtained under torture would be inadmissible; however, "I'm talking about some level of coercion below" torture. So coerced confessions would be admissible. And let's remember how damn difficult it is to get even torture labeled as such by the US courts. So, in other words, what international bodies consider torture, what anyone with common sense considers torture, it would be allowed due to the totality test. Those confessions would be allowed to be entered as evidence. That's not Due Process and the ACLU should know that so we'll just assume they didn't follow the entire first panel. Or worse, that they felt they needed to toss out a compliment and went with Kris. Kris didn't earn any compliment.
Wait, some will whine, you're talking about MacDonald above. Yes, and Kris follows him telling Levin how much in agreement they are how he supports the totality that MacDonald was just speaking of and how the administration's views are "very similar to what Admiral MacDonald was talking about." The only witness that deserved praise was on the second panel, Retired Rear Admiral John Hutson. If you missed the hearing -- and the ACLU appears to have missed it as evidenced by their mistaken praise for Kris -- Huston's opening statement is [PDF format warning] posted online by the committee and it can be found in HTML (what you're reading right now, normal webpage) at Franklin Pierce Law Center where is the Dean and President. He was the only one that deserved praise. Like the ACLU, his position is that the military commissions are not workable. So instead of praising Kris who doesn't believe in Due Process (as he made clear in his long form answers) and doesn't believe in the Fourth Amendment and is in agreement with right-wing fanatic Rehnquist (now thankfully departed), the ACLU should have been noting Hutson's statements. It's over, I'm done writing songs about loveThere's a war going onSo I'm holding my gun with a strap and a gloveAnd I'm writing a song about warAnd it goesNa na na na na na naI hate the warNa na na na na na naI hate the warNa na na na na na naI hate the warOh oh oh oh-- "I Hate The War" (written by Greg Goldberg, on The Ballet's Mattachine!) Last Thursday, ICCC's number of US troops killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war was 4321. Tonight? 4322. In tomorrow's gina & krista round-robin, four doctors have columns about PTSD and explaining how idiotic Thomas E. Ricks and his unnamed friend are. I'd said we might grab that issue again for tonight and planned to until two friends e-mailed their comments. They gave permission for them to run in the round-robin and they recruited two more to write on the topic. The topic's well covered, far better than I could do, so we grabbed the military commissions and the ACLU instead. The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com. iraqi hate the warthe ballet
Posted at 09:15 pm by thecommonills
Permalink
July
9, 2009. Chaos and violence continue, the US military announces a
death, Nouri al-Maliki launches a verbal attack on the KRG (while
setting himself up as a law-abiding-martyr), 5 Iranians are finally
freed, Thomas E. Ricks pimps 'miracle cures' and more. Yesterday violence made a strong impression in Iraq even if the press wasn't paying attention. (See Timothy Williams' article in today's New York Times
which reduces the deaths to an aside saved for the final paragraph of
the article and note that Williams was one of the few reporting on Iraq
that you could find in a US paper today.) If the ongoing, never-ending
illegal war has demonstrated anything over the last six years and
counting, it's that reality always crashes into the latest wave of
Operation Happy Talk. Jamal al-Badrani (Reuters) counts 50 dead in Iraq today from bombings in northern Iraq and Baghdad. Ned Parker and Usama Redha (Los Angeles Times) report
on two suicide bombers in Tal Afar where one bomber detonated outside
the home of a police officer causing a crowd to gather, at which point,
the second bomber detonated. Nada Bakri (Washington Post) adds
that the police chief states the bombers wore police uniforms and, "The
first suicide bomber managed to sneak inside the house of a
counter-terrorism officer and blew himself up, causing the home to
collapse. The attack took place in a neighborhood called al-Qala,
inhabited by mostly Shiites. When neighbors gathered to help the family
trapped inside, a second suicide bomber struck, increasing the
bloodshed." Caroline Alexander (Bloomberg News) explains,
"Tal Afar, a mostly Turkmen town about 30 miles (48 kilometers) west of
Mosul, has been targeted by militans before. In March 2007, it was hit
by one of the deadliest single attacks since the U.S.-led invasion of
2003 when a suicide truck bomb killed more than 150 people." Jomana Karadsheh and CNN count
35 dead and sixty-five injured from the two bombings. The two Tal Afar
bombings were not the only reported violence today . . . Bombings? Laith Hammoudi and Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) report a
Baghdad market bombing which claimed 7 lives and left twenty injured, a
Baghdad roadside bombing which left five people injured, a Baghdad
sticky bombing which injured two people, a Baghdad bicycle bombing
which left four people injured, two Baghdad bombings which claimed 9
lives and left thirty-five people wounded and a Ramadi car bombing
which claimed the life of the bomber and left four police officers
wounded. Reuters notes a Mosul roadside bombing which injured one person and a Kirkuk roadside bombing which claimed 1 life and left three injured. Shootings? Reuters notes one woman and one man were wounded in a Mosul attack by unknown assailants and 1 Iraqi soldier was shot dead in Kirkuk. Today the US military announced:
"BAGHDAD – A Multi-National Division–Baghdad Soldier died July 8 after
being found unresponsive at a Coalition forces facility. The Soldier's
name is being withheld pending notification of next of kin. The names
of deceased service members are announced through the U.S. Department
of Defense Official Web site at http://www.defenselink.mil/
. The announcements are made on the Web site no earlier than 24 hours
after notification of the service member's primary next of kin. MND-B
will not release any additional details prior to notification of next
of kin and official release by the DoD. The incident and cause of death
are currently under investigation." It's the first US service member
announced death in Iraq for the month and it brings the total number of
US service members killed in the illegal war to 4322. "I don't know the exact percentage but I'm sure it's well over 70% that want the US out as soon as possible," explains Mike Tharp in a video posted at McClatchy. He's speaking with Paul Jay for The Real News Network ( click here for the clip at TRNN).
Tharp states, "They've seen the last six years as an occupation, not as
a liberation, not as bringing freedom and democracy to Iraq but instead
the loss of tens of thousands of Iraqi lives as well as over 4300
American troop losses, a trillion dollars spent by the US, I don't know
what estimates are put on the damage done to the Iraqi society and
economy but it's incalcuable." On the topic of the physical damage
done to Iraq . . . Today the United Nations
Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) has issued
[PDF format warning] "FINAL REPORT on Damage Assessment in Babylon."
The twenty page report prepared by the International Coordination
Committee for the Saveguarding of the Cultural Heritage of Iraq
explores the damage done by the US' decision to install a military base
on an archaeological site in Babylon after the issue was raised by
Iraq's Minister of Culture. The report explains the historical context: Babylon
is unquestionably one of the most important archaelogical sites in the
world. It was the capital city of two of the most famous kings of
antiquity, Hammurabi (1792-1750 BC) who introduced one of the world's
first law codes, and Nebuchadnezzar (604-562 BC) who built the Hanging
Gardens of Babylon, one of the Seven Wonders of the World. Alexander
the Great chose Babylon as his new capital but died before he could
implement this plan. The existence of Babylon is first mentioned in
cuneiform texts of the Akkadian period (2371-2230 BC), but the city did
not become significant until the time of Hammurabi. It was
substantially enlarged in the Neo-Babylonian period (626-539 BC) when
it became the largest city of the contemporary world. Although its
location was forgotten for centuries the fame of Babylon survived
through a number of historical and religious texts. In view of the
historical and archaelogical significance of Babylon, recent
allegations of damage to the site during its occupation as a military
camp are particularly serious. Since
1935, Bablyon has been listed as an archaeological site. In 2003, the
US invaded and the Iraq War started, the Hammurabi and Nebuchadnezzar
museums were looted ("Fortunately, the objects in the two museums were
plaster replicas rather than the origianls"). April 21, 2003, the US
military created Camp Alpha -- a US base that continued through
December 22, 2004 during which time the US military and contractors
such as KBR "directly caused major damage to the city by digging,
cutting, scraping, and leveling." Nine trenches and two pits were dug
including on areas that had not been excavated. This was true of cuts,
scrapings and leveling efforts by the US military and contractors as
well. In addition the report notes: The
Ishtar Gate serves as a ritual gate leading into the northern part of
the inner city. The damage to the gate includes smashed bricks on nine
of the bodies of the animals adorning the gate. These animals depcit
the legendary dragon-snake, the symbol of Marduk, the god of the city
of Babylon. [. . .] Major damage can be observed in the southern part
of the Proecessional Way, which was rediscovered during the Babylon
Revival Project excavations in 1979. Starting from the Nabu-sha-Hare
Temple, the effects of heavy vehicle wheels are clear, breaking the
paving of the street. Three rows of 2-ton concrete blocks were placed
in the middle of the Processional Way on top the paving by heavy
vehicles, which is itself an encroachment. These blocks were removed
by helicopter on November 29, 2004 to prevent further damage to the
Processional Way. In addition, a row of HESCO containers with soil
taken from the eastern wall of the sacred precinct were placed on the
way, and barbed wire was attached by steel stakes to the wall itself
and in the middle of Processional Way. There is also a cut in the wall
itself with a length of 2.5 m, a depth of 50 cm, and a height of 1.5 m. UNESCO's director of the Office for Iraq Moahmed Djelid states,
"In view of Babylong's historical and archaeological significance,
recent allegations of damage to the site during its military use were
particularly serious. The report is key because it establishes a
description of damages on which there is international agreement.
Without pointing fingers, we now have a clear picture of the
situation. It provides the starting-point for the major challenge of
restoration and conservation." In related news, CBC reports nearly seventy stolen Iraqi artificats were recovered and returned by the Dutch government. Mike Corder (AP) adds,
"Dutch Education, Culture and Science Minister Ronald Plasterk said the
ancient artifacts were surrendered by Dutch art traders after police
informed them they were stolen. U.S. customs authorities and Interpol
had alerted Dutch officials that the items were being sold here." In
other diplomatic news, five Iranian diplomats were rounded up by US
forces in Iraq in January of 2007 and have been held ever since in
indefinite detention/imprisonment. BBC News reports they have been released. Mike Tharp (McClatchy Newspapers) goes
with the number four (four diplomats) and reports they were not
released to Tehran but to Iraqi officials and then they met with Nouri
al-Maliki. Philippe Naughton (Times of London) quotes
Hassan Ghashghavi, spokesperson for Iran's Foreign Ministry, stating,
"They called their families from there. They are in good health. They
will be handed over to our embassy within hours. They were innocent
and arrested against all international regulations under the Vienna
convention." They are: Mohsen Bagheri, Majid Dagheri, Mahmoud Farhadi,
Majid Ghami and Abbas Jami. Liz Sly and Ned Parker (Los Angeles Times) quote
Hoshyar Zebari, Foreign Minister of Iraq, stating the five are "happy
and safe." At the US State Dept today, spokesperon Ian Kelly continued
the pattern of the Bush administration by insisting they were not
diplomats, stating they were connected to Iranian paramilitary forces
(Iranian Revolutionary Guard) and declaring that, along with turning
the five over to the Iraqi government, they passed on "our concerns".
Kelly stated the hand-off took place after Iraq requested it and that
it went "to our obligations under the US - Iraq Security Agreement." Yesterday's snapshot included: " 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'." The most recent [PDF format
warning] US State Dept status report on Iraq (July 1st) explained
that the constitution passed the Kurdish Parliament June 24th with 96
members voting for it and that the members of the Iraqi Parliament
immediately objected to the planned July 25th vote (same time the KRG
holds their elections) and to the Constitution itself. Gina Chon (Wall St. Journal) interviews
Nouri al-Maliki and quotes him stating the KRG is guilty of
"provocations" and then declaring, "I am struggling for the unity of
Iraq, and Iraq cannot be divided into two." Chon doesn't note it, but
that is a "provocation" from Nouri because the KRG already considers
itself independent of the central government in Baghdad. Chon reveals
that US forces are currently sending drones all over Kurdistan in an
attempt to spy (she doesn't use the word "spy") on the region and how
Iraqi and Kurdish forces interact. Chon quotes al-Maliki on the
non-progress between the KRG and the central government in Baghdad
stating, "We are upset, but we are not worried because there is a
constitution and we can tell (the KRG) they are violating it." Again,
that's a "provocation." The KRG does not feel they are violating it
with regards to land disputes or anything else. In terms of the oil
rich Kirkuk, the KRG isn't violating anything because the Constitution
said that an election was to take place to determine Kirkuk's fate.
That's 2005. It's now 2009. The election has never taken place and
al-Maliki just this week refused to allow it again. Who is violating
the Constitution of Iraq? And who's played the
Quiet Game? As noted last week, former US House Rep and 2008 US
presidential candidate Cynthia McKinney was imprisoned by the Israeli
government. Margaret Kimberly (Black Agenda Report) notes what some focused on while ignoring McKinney: While
Cynthia McKinney languished in an Israeli jail, black leaders mobilized
to say and do absolutely nothing. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton were
busy advising Michael Jackson's family, too busy apparently to deal
with any other issues. Perhaps that explains their silence on the
subject of McKinney and Maguire. McKinney's former colleagues in the
Congressional Black Caucus must have also been similarly occupied. They
too went out of their way to say and do nothing about the illegal and
immoral treatment of someone they should have defended very
publicly. The
silence from the corporate media is, sadly, not at all surprising. The
complete surrender of black American leadership is also sad and also
not surprising, but is nonetheless disgraceful, and should not pass
without comment. Cynthia McKinney was one of the first victims of the
corporate takeover of the Congressional Black Caucus. She was targeted
for defeat in 2002 by Zionists and other powerful forces determined to
get rid of one of the few truly progressive members of
congress. The
silence from the corporate media is, sadly, not at all surprising. The
complete surrender of black American leadership is also sad and also
not surprising, but is nonetheless disgraceful, and should not pass
without comment. Cynthia McKinney was one of the first victims of the
corporate takeover of the Congressional Black Caucus. She was targeted
for defeat in 2002 by Zionists and other powerful forces determined to
get rid of one of the few truly progressive members of
congress. The
black caucus could have responded in any number of ways to prevent
falling prey to McKinney's fate. They might have insured electoral
success by mobilizing their supporters, resurrecting movement politics
and exposing the forces who would seek to undermine popular will.
Instead they chose to capitulate, to go along to get along. They
decided not to put up a fight for themselves or for their constituents,
who were left without the representation they thought they were getting
when they made their choices on Election Day. As
always, the result of capitulation is more capitulation, and it now
spreads beyond the hallowed halls of Congress. The only national action
requested by the president of the National Action Network, was a demand for a Michael Jackson postage stamp and a national day of mourning. CYNTHIA
McKINNEY: Well, clearly, we just had a visit to Gaza by President
Carter, Former President Carter. Basically, he acknowledged that with
the complete and utter devastation that the people of Gaza experienced
at the hands of weapons that were supplied to Israel by the United
States, he said that unfortunately the Palestinians are treated worse
than human beings. I challenge the Israelis to respond to what
President Carter had to say. AMY
GOODMAN: Former Congress member McKinney, tell us about the jail. Were
you able to reach the Obama administration while you were there? CYNTHIA
McKINNEY: Well, the jail was very interesting. In fact, the first most
interesting thing I witnessed was the seemingly endless stream of
people of color who are being processed as we were being processed. And
on my cell block, there were women from Africa and Asia who thought
they were going to Israel because Israel was the Holy Land. And many of
them, not all of them, but many of them had United Nations refugee
status. They have been certified by UNHCR as refugees, but what they
were told as they faced the threats and intimidation from the police is
that the United Nations is not in Israel. [. . .] AMY
GOODMAN: Former Congress member McKinney, we only have ten seconds.
But, you've just been deported. What are your plans right now? CYNTHIA
McKINNEY: Well, I would like to see the children of Gaza have the
coloring books and crayons that we had on board with us. I would like
to see the houses that have been destroyed rebuilt. I would like to see
the lives rebuilt for the people of Gaza and I would like to see the
people of Palestine have, and enjoy their human rights. AMY GOODMAN: Do you think president Obama is headed in that direction? CYNTHIA
McKINNEY: I think you can probably answer that as well as we can,
because while we were in detention, the Foreign Ministry of Ireland
made protests and asked the government of Israel to release its
nationals, several Members of Parliament -- AMY GOODMAN: We have 5 seconds. CYNTHIA McKINNEY: from the United Kingdom -- AMY GOODMAN: -- 5 seconds -- CYNTHIA McKINNEY: -- also wanted to censure Israel. Nothing from the United States. Turning
to the world of JUNK SCIENCE. Thomas E. Ricks is a journalist. He
forgets that a lot lately. He forgets it in blog posts where he writes
about "we" when referring to the US military, for example. He forgets it today with one of the dumbest and most disgusting things he could do
-- and, yes, I am aware of his highly unprofessional tendency to post
cheesecake photos which is surely the middle aged male blogger
equivalent of purchasing a sports car. Thomas E. Ricks is a
journalist. He's not a doctor. He's not trained in helping anyone.
His training is supposed to be in ferreting out information and
attempting to determine whether information is reliable or not. If so,
he's supposed to promote it. Today he promotes some unnamed marine's
anger passed off as 'medical counseling.' Unlike "Doctor" Thomas E.
Ricks, I showed the crap he posted to medical professionals who work
with veterans. The consensus? The unnamed marine has a problem with
what he sees as 'weakness' (any illness) and Thomas E. Ricks didn't
even grasp that or what he posted. After including the lay
'diagnosis,' Tom's babbling about this and that but the guy's already
argued -- telling Tom to ask Nate Flick -- that "it should mean he's
cured, not that it's always just around the corner". There's not a
cure. If Thomas E. Ricks had offered the same nonsense on the topic of
alcoholism, he'd be the joke of the net today but because there's such
a strong desire in this culture to deny sickness, crap like this will
be embraced. PTSD is a diagnosis. Neither Thomas E. Ricks nor his
unnamed marine are experts on science or even the diagnosis they claim
to be weighing in on. Sometimes people just makes asses out of
themselves and today it's Thomas Ricks and his unnamed friend. And
shame on him, at a time when veterans' health care is so woefullly
underfunded, for promoting the notion that an illness that can be
treated but not cured is 'curable' and apparently the fault of the
person with PTSD. And question for Thomas E. Ricks, should the marine
kill himself or someone else while Ricks is alive, how much blame will
Tom grab? He should have a huge portion of it because he's encouraged
the marine's delusion that he's 'cured'. Lastly, what kind of an ass
prints a medical 'diagnosis' that calls the mind a "bone"? What kind
of a journalist endorses that? Tom, I know you can't do math for s**t
but are you telling me you failed science as well? The brain's an
organ. Not a bone. If I recorded a workout video tomorrow, I'd have
to include a heads up at the start that people should check with their
doctors first but Tom is so sure of himself and he's buddy that he
fails to do even that. It's irresponsible. Ethically and
journalistically. We may return to this topic tonight. I've still got
calls coming in from people who work with PTSD patients and it's not
pretty. Again, it was irresponsible for Thomas E. Ricks to pimp that
Quack Science -- ethically irresponsible and journalistically
irresponsible. As dumb decisions go, it ranks alongside the refusal to allow Dr. David Orgen to testify at Trevor Loope's mental assessment hearing at Fort Drum. Next up for Thomas E. Ricks: Restoring missing limbs via leeches. Finally, in snapshot yesterday we noted the Voices of Honor press
conference. The press conference didn't receive the attention it
deserved so we'll note US House Rep Patrick Murphy's remarks again and
some of the press it did receive. 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. One
officer, Lt. Dan Choi, who recently was subjected to a recommendation
of discharge for publicly declaring his homosexuality, told readers in
an email circulated by The Courage Campaign, "At West Point, I recited
the Cadet Prayer every Sunday. "It taught me to 'choose the
harder right over the easier wrong' and to 'never be content with a
half truth when the whole can be won.'" Dear friend -- I've
got some bad news. After 10 years of service to our country--including
leading combat patrols, rebuilding schools and translating Arabic in
Iraq for 15 months--the Federal Recognition Board issued its
recommendation on Tuesday that I be discharged from the Army for "moral
and professional dereliction" under the military's "Don't Ask, Don't
Tell" policy. The board's decision to fire me is not the end. Now
that this panel of four officers has recommended my discharge, it still
must be approved by senior officials in the Army, a process that could
take a few weeks to a year. Unless something unexpected happens, it may
be just a matter of time before the Army officially fires me. I will
not give up, no matter the odds. Because I know that the only way we
will win this fight to repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is by facing it
head on. And I need your help again to keep up the fight. I've made my
case to President Obama--supported by more than 140,000 of your
signatures. I've made my case to the Army--supported by more than
160,000 of your signatures. And I will continue to make my case until
they fire me for good. Now we need to make our case to House Speaker
Nancy Pelosi. Will you join me in asking Speaker Pelosi to strongly
support legislation currently in Congress that would repeal "Don't Ask,
Don't Tell"? Please sign on to our letter before July 4th and
I'll personally deliver your signatures to the Speaker ASAP.At West
Point, I recited the Cadet Prayer every Sunday. It taught me to "choose
the harder right over the easier wrong" and to "never be content with a
half truth when the whole can be won." The Cadet Honor Code demanded
truthfulness and honesty. It imposed a zero-tolerance policy against
deception, or hiding behind comfort. That's
why I can't give up now. I've got to keep fighting. My fellow
servicemembers--and the 70 fellow West Point graduates who have also
come out of the closet to join Knights Out, the organization I
co-founded to push for repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"--would expect
nothing less. The only way we can win
this fight for the truth is if the political cost of discrimination
eventually becomes too great for the system to operate successfully. We
need to raise the political cost in Congress so that Speaker Nancy
Pelosi understands that, as Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall
once said, "justice too long delayed is justice denied." Speaker
Pelosi needs to make "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" a priority now and come
out strongly in support of legislative action to repeal this
discriminatory law. Will you stand by my side now and sign our letter
to the Speaker before July 4th? You have my word that I will deliver your signatures to Speaker Pelosi personally. As
I said a few days ago, national security means many things, but the
thing that makes us secure in our nation and homes is love. What makes
me a better soldier, leader, Christian and human being is love. And I'm
not going to hide my love. Love is worth it. Thank you for your support. Daniel W. Choi 1LT, IN New York Army National Guard P.S. You can also help by joining the Repeal Don't Ask Don't Tell Cause and inviting your friends. |
Posted at 03:45 pm by thecommonills
Permalink
US military announces another death, violence sweeps Iraq
Today the US military announced:
"BAGHDAD – A Multi-National Division–Baghdad Soldier died July 8 after
being found unresponsive at a Coalition forces facility. The Soldier's
name is being withheld pending notification of next of kin. The names
of deceased service members are announced through the U.S. Department
of Defense Official Web site at http://www.defenselink.mil/
. The announcements are made on the Web site no earlier than 24 hours
after notification of the service member's primary next of kin. MND-B
will not release any additional details prior to notification of next
of kin and official release by the DoD. The incident and cause of death
are currently under investigation." It's the first US service member
announced death in Iraq for the month and it brings the total number of
US service members killed in the illegal war to 4322. Yesterday's snapshot
notes the increased violence in Iraq but in this morning's papers, it's
either ignored or treated aside. Too bad for them, reality always bites
them in the ass and makes them look like fools. Translation, violence
so far today in Iraq, today, is in the news cycle. Nada Bakri offers " Bombings Kill Dozens in Iraq" ( Washington Post)
about the two suicide bombers in Tal Afar who have claimed the lives of
at least 34 people with an additional seventy injured. Bakri explains: The
head of Tal Afar hospital, Salih Kaddaw, said that the first suicide
bomber blew himself up near the residence of a policeman in the
anti-terrorism force, in an attempt to kill him. The attack took place
in the northern Shiite neighborhood of al-Qala. When people gathered to
help the injured, the second bomber detonated his explosives,
furthering the bloodshed. Ned Parker and Usama Redha offer " Double suicide bomb attack in northern Iraq kills at least 34, wounds 70" ( Los Angeles Times)
which explains bomber one detonated outside the home of a police
officer and a crowd gathered, at which point, bomber two detonated. BBC
has a photo essay of the destruction here. Jamal al-Badrani (Reuters) explains that there are least 41 deaths from bombings in Iraq today. In this morning's New York Times, Timothy Williams' " Nebulous Sunni Insurgent Urges Attacks"
runs inside the paper. It notes yesterday's Mosul car bombings in the
final paragraph and focuses on the announcement issued by the Islamic
State of Iraq instead. CNN notes
"at least 19 people" died yesterday in bombings throughout Iraq with
fifty-eight injured and they point out, "Despite a drop in violence in
Mousl, the city remains a challenging one with daily reports of
attacks." The Salem-News notes a statement by the Muslim Brotherhood and here's an excerpt: Each
day passes revealing a number of facts and proving beyond doubt, the
invalidity of the allegations of the U.S-Western coalition justified by
the invasion of Iraq. They did not apologize for their shameful crimes
against humanity.The Muslim
Brotherhood regarded the withdrawal as a mere deployment of the
occupation forces assuming that the independence of Iraq will only be
accomplished by the withdrawal of the last soldier of the foreign
occupation from the Arab Muslim country.The
Muslim Brotherhood calls for the people of Iraq to completely document
the magnitude of the devastation caused by the occupation without
prejudice as well as recording the numbers of dead, wounded and
displaced by the destruction of the United States war machine. This
documentation must materially be evaluated on all the countries that
participated in the aggression demanded by the international forums and
should be registered as a right of Iraqis not a grant or gift.The
Muslim Brotherhood also demands the prosecution of Bush and his
administration and all those who contributed in war crimes and genocide
committed against humanity and against Iraqi people before
international tribunals.The
Muslim Brotherhood calls on Iraqis to uphold with the national unity,
stating they should regard Iraqi blood as a red line that cannot be
crossed, while maintaining fre noble resistance against the occupation
and the continuation in adhering to the political struggle against the
injustices committed against the sons of Mesopotamia such as detention,
torture and displacement. Iraqis can administer and take charge of
their affairs rather than the mercenary troops interfering in Iraqi
affairs (And Allah hath full power and control over His affairs; but
most among mankind know it not).Turning to indefinite
detention/imprisonment, five Iranians, said to be diplomats by Iran,
were rounded up by US forces in Iraq in January of 2007 and have been
held ever since. BBC News reports they have been released. From World Can't Wait, we'll note this press release for Displaced Films: This
year, people will be able to be part of a historic new web-only series
that features a behind-the-scenes look at "boots on the ground"
testimony from American soldiers and veterans who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan. "In
March of 2008, two hundred and fifty veterans and active duty soldiers
marked the fifth anniversary of the invasion of Iraq by gathering in
Washington, DC, to testify from their own experience about the nature
of the occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq," said David Zeiger,
Director of Sir! No Sir' (the 2006 film that told the suppressed story
of the GI Movement to end the Vietnam War), and this series. "It
was chilling, horrifying, and challenging for all who witnessed it.
Against tremendous odds, they brought the voices of the veterans
themselves into the debate. That was then. Today, we present to you
This is Where We Take Our Stand, the inside story of those three days
and the courageous men and women who testified. This story is as
relevant now as it was one year ago, and we hope that the series will
help revive the debate about these wars that has virtually disappeared
since Barack Obama became President," he added.
Perry
O'Brien, a former medic in Afghanistan and spokesperson for the Iraq
Veterans Against the War Winter Soldier Project said, "Here is our
challenge to the audience: watch the series; spread it far and wide;
and ask yourself if this is about the past, or the present and future.
Then add your voice. If you are a veteran or active duty, present your
own testimony. If you are not, but you are still a living, breathing
member of the human race, then do whatever you can to join and fan the
flames of debate. This series is here for you. As the Occupation of
Afghanistan is expanded and little changes in Iraq, the voices and
stories of Winter Soldier are needed now more than ever." The first full episode will be posted on Saturday, July 11th. I
am aware the font and size is all off on that. I have no idea why.
We'll leave it as is and hope that it catches the eye for a worthy
project. Correction, it posts semi-fine. In this screen, however, the
letters to the above press release are three times the size of anything
else. The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com. iraqthe washington postnada bakrithe los angeles timesned parkerusama redhabbc newsthe new york timestimothy williamscnnsalem-newsworld cant waitsir no sir
Posted at 06:29 am by thecommonills
Permalink

Rep.
Patrick Murphy has two pieces of advice for his fellow congressmen: Do
what's right, not just what's political. Oh, and don't cross him. The
Pennsylvania Democrat is currently trying to whip up support for H.R. 1283,
which would repeal "don't ask, don't tell," and he's working hard on
getting the 218 votes it'll need to pass the House. One of the problems
he might run into is the backlash back home. "I'm a congressman, but I
have some criticisms about Congress. And I think some folks in Congress
are afraid of keeping their own seats, and that's affecting the change
that we all know needs to happen in our country," says Murphy. He ought
to know. Murphy won his seat by just 1,521 votes in 2006. "This is
something I don't take lightly, neither," he said, but he's going ahead
with pushing for an end to "don't ask" because "we need congressmen and
congresswomen and legislators to stand by the courage of their
conviction and not worry about the political cycle or when the election
is."That's the opening to Amanda Ruggeri's " 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Foe Patrick Murphy Turns Up the Heat" ( US News & World Reports) and that's from the press conference yesterday, noted in the snapshot.
What's interesting is that press conference had a huge number of
reporters attending. Many such events at the National Press Club aren't
attended unless food is served. But there was a huge turnout and where
are the reports. ( Kat covers it at her site and the other NPC event we attended yesterday -- Mullen's speech). We'll note this from Bob Roehr's " Murphy to Lead Repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell; National Tour Launched for Repeal" ( Windy City Times): The
baby-faced Murphy, seemingly not long removed from his altar boy past,
served in Iraq with the 82nd Airborne Division and taught
constitutional law at West Point. He aggressively took on supporters of
DADT at a congressional hearing last year and showed a firm
determination to repeal the policy as soon as possible.[. . .]Murphy
said Congress passed DADT and it is their responsibility to repeal it.
He was encouraged by the fact that House Armed Services Committee
chairman Ike Skelton ( D-Missouri ) recently committed to holding a
full committee hearing on repeal later this year. The earlier hearing
had been in a subcommittee.He
said when many of his colleagues come to realize that it costs about
$60,000 to recruit and put a single soldier through basic training,
then they start to see the policy in a different light. Many have told
him that while they will not join as one of the current 151 cosponsors,
they will vote for repeal.We'll drop back to the snapshot yesterday to note Murphy's remarks in full: 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.We linked to " Rep. Patrick Murphy, Veterans Announce Efforts to Repeal 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'" from Murphy's office yesterday and we'll note it in full this morning: Congressman Takes Lead on H.R. 1283, Military Readiness Enhancement Act, to Overturn Policy(Washington,
DC) -- Congressman Patrick Murphy (D-PA, 8th District) today joined
veterans and policy advocates to announce taking the lead on H.R. 1283,
the Military Readiness Enhancement Act, the Congressional effort to
overturn the policy known as "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" at a National
Press Club "Newsmakers" event. The law, passed by Congress in 1993,
prohibits gay, lesbian, and bisexual individuals from serving openly in
the U.S. Armed Forces. The MREA would repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell",
which compromises national security and military readiness at a time
when the U.S. is engaged in two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.Rep.
Murphy was joined at the event by gay, lesbian and straight veterans,
including Eric Alva, the first veteran wounded in the Iraq War,
Genevieve Chase, a veteran of Operation Enduring Freedom and the
founder and executive director of American Women Veterans, Jarrod
Chlapowski, a former U.S. Army Korean linguist who opted to not
re-enlist because of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", Joan Darrah, a Navy
captain and intelligence officer, and Alex Nicholson, a U.S. Army
veteran fluent in Arabic discharged under DADT. Congressman Murphy was
also joined at the event by advocates from the Human Rights Campaign,
Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, and Servicemembers United. This
week, HRC and Servicemembers United will begin a national tour to
highlight how "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" compromises national security and
hurts military readiness."'Don't
Ask, Don't Tell' clearly isn't working for our military, and it hinders
national security and military readiness at a time when America is
fighting in two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan," said Congressman Patrick
Murphy. "My time in Iraq taught me that our military needs and deserves
the best and the brightest who are willing to serve- and that means all
Americans, regardless of their orientation. Discharging brave and
talented servicemembers from our armed forces is contrary to the values
that our military fights for and that our nation holds dear.""We
are very fortunate to have Rep. Murphy as the new lead on H.R. 1283,"
said Aubrey Sarvis, Executive Director of Servicemembers Legal Defense
Network. "He brings his unique expertise as an Iraq veteran, his
commitment to ending discrimination, and a passion for ending 'Don't
Ask, Don't Tell.' This change in leadership should be a catalyst to
re-dedicate our efforts to get 218 cosponsors so we can pass the bill.""We
applaud Rep. Murphy, a veteran of the Iraq war, for his leadership on
repealing 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' and his willingness to take on the
fight for the LGBT community and our country’s national security," said
Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese. "Rep. Murphy's
background as a war veteran makes him uniquely qualified to help lead
this effort and work with the Administration to repeal this law. We
look forward to ensuring that our military can recruit and retain the
best and the brightest troops regardless of their sexual orientation.
As this tour will highlight, poll after poll continues to show the vast
majority of Americans, including the majority of active service
members, support the right of gay and lesbian service members to serve
openly and honestly."Enacted
in 1993, over 13,000 men and women in uniform have been discharged from
the military under the policy known as "Don't Ask, Don't Tell",
including 800 mission critical servicemembers such as medics, fighter
pilots, and nearly 60 Arabic linguists. H.R. 1283, the Military
Readiness Enhancement Act, would repeal the policy and allow Americans
to serve their country openly, regardless of sexual orientation.Yesterday's press conference also featured Voices of Honor which is a partnership between the Human Rights Campaign and the Servicemembers United. And the Voices of Honor website has posted videos from the press conference. Those who are better served by or prefer audio can refer to Free Speech Radio News yesterday ( click here for the segment reported by Matt Pearson). The
photo at the top is from Voices of Honor and we'll note two more
speakers from yesterday using photos to put a face to the speaker. This
is from my notes during the press conference and the video for at least
one, Joan Darrah, should be longer than the comments below. I started
taking notes with Darrah when she was speaking about her own
involvement (we just summarized her words of praise for US House Rep
Murphy). 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. 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. Brian Montopoli (CBS News) reports, "The event was a kickoff to the ' Voices Of Honor'
national tour sponsored by gay rights groups the Human Rights Campaign
and Servicemembers United that features members of the military who
oppose the Clinton-era compromise that allows gays to serve only if
they keep their sexuality a secret. Murphy's office also helped set up
a Web site called www.letthemserve.com." Elida S. Perez (Scripps Howard News Service) notes several speakers at the event and we'll excerpt this section: Alex
Nicholson, a former U.S. Army human intelligence collector and founder
of Servicemembers United was discharged from the military six months
after Sept. 11, 2001 when his commanders found out he was gay."This
is the cost of maintaining Don't Ask, Don't Tell: a multilingual human
intelligence collector who speaks Arabic and has an advanced degree,"
Nicholson said, adding that despite everything, he would go back into
the military if the law was repealed.Josh Drobnyk covers the conference here for The Morning Call. The following community sites updated last night: The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com. iraqamanda ruggeribob roehrcbs newsbrian montopolielida s. perezfree speech radio newsmatt pearsonjosh drobnyklike 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 06:26 am by thecommonills
Permalink
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
|
 |
|
|
|
|