"What happens when the US abandons some good friends?" Katie Couric asked that at the start of yesterday'sCBS Evening News with Katie Couric, The footage of the assault was shown. Footage. What other network newscast made time for this story? And while you're checking that, step on over to PBS and find out if The NewsHour made time for the story. (Answer: No.) Footage of the assault. Footage and violence supposedly drive TV news so what's the excuse for the silence from others on Camp Ashraf?
That was in today's snapshot leading to an indignant drive-by (who works for PBS) who insists that The NewsHour did a segment on the assault just like CBS. No, Lara Logan had a segment. (See the snapshot if streaming isn't an option for you.) Gwen Ifill offered a headline.
Let's break down PBS' one hour news program. 21:01 were spent on Bernake and the Federal Reserve. (More than anyone needed and this was another chapter in the multi-part segment for the week.) Health care was 12:26. Iran was 6:24. "So why are you complaining? Right there, they're covering the Iranians at Camp Ashraf in Iraq." No, this was on turbulence in Iran. 7:46 was Elvis Costello discussing his new album. (It's a good album, I recommend it. But I don't know that was news or news worth seven minutes plus.) And?
They did headlines. 5:02. That was their entire hour. Plus telling you who underwrote the show -- commercials, but don't call them that, PBS doesn't like it when you do.
Now the PBS-er (how appropriate) wants me to know they did a segment just like CBS News did. No, they didn't. They touched on it in headlines. They offered a whopping 39 seconds. Color us underwhelmed.
There was no segment on it. It got a tiny mention in headlines. It wasn't even the lead headline. It wasn't even the lead headline on Iraq.
That's disgusting.
People are dead, people are wounded. And viewers heard about Elvis Costello's new album.
Now it's a great album, I like Elvis, I know Elvis, I think it can lift you up on a really bad day and I think it can provide you hours and hour of enjoyment. But I don't really think that it couldn't have been trimmed to cover the assault on Camp Ashraf.
Although honestly, the Bernanke segment's what should have been ditched.
It's nonsense. It's worship the way Alan Greenspan was worshipped -- and don't we all know where that got the country?
This wasn't a probe. This was let Bernanke pontificate and, again, I believe that's part of the reason the US is in so much trouble. Not just Alan Greenspan's actions but the lack of a critical press when it came to economic issues.
We didn't Bernanke's oratory from the mount and it never qualified as news -- let alone TV worth watching. (Snooze time.) So that segment could have been ditched completely. It certainly didn't deserve 21 minutes last night. And that's before you factor in how many minutes they gave to Bernanke yammering away already this week.
That's not news. And it's not probing. It's a static talking head (bad television) and he's being allowed to pontificate (one source) about complex issues with no real check on him (no other guests, no debate). It was boring as hell and it didn't qualify as news. Next up, we'll be calling the speeches aired on CSPAN news? Is that how it works?
Bernanke got tons of time from PBS this week to try to sell a plan. Well it's not news. News is an examination of what he's selling and, guess what, you can't do that with just Ben as the expert.
There's nothing wrong with Bernanke. There's nothing wrong with Alan Greenspan. Both have economic ideas and if the press wants to do their jobs then the American people can decide whether they like an economic theory or not and they can hear what might and might not happen as a result. But when you do what PBS did, you've left hypothesis and theories and turned Economis into a field with no margin of error and no disputes and it's gospel. That doesn't inform anyone and it just creates the same He Can't Fail image that they did for Alan Greenspan. And that didn't help Greenspan and it certainly didn't help the country.
PBS, an informercial -- for any product -- is not news.
But the worship of officials, always PBS biggest journalistic crime, helps get the country into one huge problem after another. Two that easily spring to mind: The economic crisis and the Iraq War. And, uh, no, neither's ending.
And both were sold to you by an industry that didn't want to inform you, by an industry that wanted you to just take the word of officials. There was no skepticism, just more worship of official-dom. And look where it gets us? PBS has no excuse, public television, for airing the Bernanke nonsense. And it's nonsense. It would be nonsense if it was Hillary talking about foreign policy (while Secretary of State). It is nonsense to hang on every word of any official without challenging it. That would be state TV, not public television. It's nonsense and its hurts the country.
It's over, I'm done writing songs about love There's a war going on So I'm holding my gun with a strap and a glove And I'm writing a song about war And it goes Na na na na na na na I hate the war Na na na na na na na I hate the war Na na na na na na na I hate the war Oh oh oh oh -- "I Hate The War" (written by Greg Goldberg, on The Ballet's Mattachine!)
Last Thursday, ICCC's number of US troops killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war was 4327. Tonight? 4328.
Thursday,
July 30, 2009. Chaos and violence continue, the assault on Camp Ashraf
continues, the inquiry into the Iraq War begins in England, a US
military colonel in Iraq advises that the US needs to remove all forces
by August 2010, a Senate committee hears testimony stating the federal
circuit should be removed from the VA appeals process, and more.
Yesterday's snapshot included quoting Elisabeth Bumiller (New York Times) report,
"The Iraqis will be unable to handle their own air defense after all
American troops withdraw from the country by the end of 2011, the top
commander of American forces in Iraq said Tuesday. . . . Asked if the
Iraqis would be in a position to fly their own defensive air patrols at
the end of 2011, when a United States agreement with Iraq calls for all
American troops to be out of the country, General Odierno replied,
'Right now, no'." And then noting, "If you don't realize what a shock
Bumiller's article is and how much it needs to be buried for some, note
how heavily an AP story about Gates declaring maybe some US troops may
leave earlier. Some. May. Some. News gets in the cycle, better dump
a bunch of fluff. " Bumiller was one of the few to cover that but the
fluff made it everywhere. Surprising when you consider, as Katie
Couric noted on yesterday's CBS Evening News with Katie Couric,
that there are 130,000 US forces in Iraq, "10,000 are scheduled to be
withdrawn by the end of this year. According to Gates, 5,000 more could
be home for the holidays." Of the 'news,' Thomas E. Ricks (Foreign Policy) notes,
"Obama has broken a campaign promise to take a brigade a month (I think
he was right to do this, but that's neither here nor there.) Right now,
we have about as many troops in Iraq as on average over the last six
years." Instead of actually writing about the assault on Camp Ashraf,
Ricks strings together a small number of words with a link to Juan
Cole.
Juan Cole's post
that went up early, early Thursday morning -- this morning --
demonstrates both all that's wrong with the Iraq 'coverage' and all
that's wrong with I'm-for-the-war-I'm-against-it-I'm-for-it-again Juan
(and don't bother disputing that, I'm not Steve Rendall, I can nail it
to the wall because I actually do the work). At his laughably named
"Informed Comment," he had to do an update to a post written this
morning, an update that says "The Iraqi government is now acknowledging
that 7 MEK members were killed in the assault on Camp Ashraf." Prior
to that Juan can't tell you anything about deaths. Not even a "one
side claims . . . and the other claims . . ." But Juan's just
discoved, late today, that the Iraqi government said 7 were killed.
Juan just discovered that. Late today. Informed Comment? From yesterday's snapshot, "Alsumaria quotes
an unnamed Iraqi security source stating '200 Iranian residents and 50
Iraqi security forces [were] wounded' and that Nouri ordered the
assault. [. . .] Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) reveals
Iraq's Interior Ministry is admitting to 7 deaths -- MEK is stating
they have lost 11 members." So 'professor' Juan, at "Informed"
Comment, decides to weigh in this morning and doesn't even know the
basics -- and a death total would be among the basics. Informed, my
ass.
"What happens when the US abandons some good friends?" Katie Couric asked that at the start of yesterday's CBS Evening News with Katie Couric,
The footage of the assault was shown. Footage. What other network
newscast made time for this story? And while you're checking that,
step on over to PBS and find out if The NewsHour made time
for the story. (Answer: No.) Footage of the assault. Footage and
violence supposedly drive TV news so what's the excuse for the silence
from others on Camp Ashraf? From the segment on Camp Ashraf (link has text and video):
Katie
Couric: When the US began turning over security to the Iraqis, it
stopped protecting some valuable allies, thousands of Iranian exiles.
And their camp outside Baghdad is now under attack. For two days,
Iraqi police have been beating the residents. No food or doctors have
been allowed in. All with the approval of Iran's government. Here's
chief foreign affairs correspondent Lara Logan.
Lara
Logan: It started peacefully but quickly turned violent. Iraqi police
using wooden sticks against these unarmed civilians. These people are
Iranians living inside Iraq, members of an Iranian opposition group
known as the MEK. It was the MEK that provided the US with intelligence
on Iran's nuclear program.
Ali
Safavi (Nationcal Council of Resistance of Iran): Were it not for the
MEK, the world would not be in a position to find out about Iran's
nuclear weapons program and the mullahs may have had the bomb.
Lara
Logan: The MEK have lived in this camp, known as Camp Ashraf, for
decades. The Iranian government wants them expelled and accuses them
of being involved in the recent unrest in Iran. Since the US invasion,
the camp's roughly 3,000 residents have been living under US
protection. That ended in January when the Iraqis took control under
the security agreement. Now the US appears to have washed their hands
of the people of Ashraf.
US
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (speaking at the State Dept): It is
a matter now for the government of Iraq to resolve.
Lara
Logan: Images captured by the inside Ashraf showed the dead and
wounded. Residents told CBS News at least 11 people were killed,
hundreds wounded and thirty arrested. The number's impossible to verify
because the Iraqi government has sealed off the camp. The attack was
seen as the latest sign American influence in Iraq is waning as Iranian
influence rises. Iraq's Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and his
government increasingly pro-Iranian.
Kenneth Katzman:
The Iranians would have to cross the border to get at them directly
because Camp Ashraf is clearly over the border. But they have an
obviously willing ally in Prime Minister Malik, willing to do their
bidding.
Lara Logan: The Iranian
government praised the Iraqi governement action against MEK saying
they're cleaning the country of terrorists.
This morning, AFP reported
that while Iraq says everything is under 'control' and a police station
is set up, Iraq's refused to allow reporters to enter the camp. Not
noted in the report, they're also rebuffing requests from human rights
organizations and charities. But today in a US State Dept briefing,
spokesperson Ian Kelly asserted the US military now had access.
Ian
Kelly: Embassy officials met yesterday with representatives of the
government of Iraq. We wanted to stress the importance to the
government of Iraq, the importance of Iraq fulfilling its commitment to
the US government to treat the camp residents humanely. And we also
proposed permitting an assessment of injuries and possible deaths, an
assessment by US forces. The government of Iraq did agree to allow US
forces to provide medical assistance to those who were injured in Camp
Ashraf. And there is, right now, a US medical team there performing
this assistance. We're providing medical care and treatment, medical
supplies and assessing any kind of follow-on treatment or support that
these residents might require. And regarding other issues regarding
Camp Ashraf, we'd refer you, of course, to the government of Iraq.
UPI notes,
"Statements by members of the PMOI blame Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri
al-Maliki for the assault on the Ashraf residents. The PMOI claims
several hundred residents were severely wounded, with at least 12
people dead." An Iraqi security official (unnamed) tells AFP that 11 MEK have died -- seven on Tuesday and two on each day since. Sebastien Malo (The Daily Star) reports
that tensions remain high and that the assault continues -- the most
recent "clashes occurred on Thursday morning according to [MEK
spokesperson Shariar] Kia." Kia refuted rumors that the MEK has
weapons noting that Camp Ashraf has been inspected repeatedly and he
noted that residents had begun a hunger strike. The weapons charge is
ridiculous and it needs to be noted that the Iraqi government is trying
to circulate false rumors that MEK have shot one another to garner
sympathy from the world. Yes, Nouri is just that stupid and sick.
This is the thug the US installed. Oliver August (Times of London) observes
the Iraqi government's "brazen actions show that the balance of power
in Baghdad has shifted in ways unthinkable when President Bush was in
office, or even a few weeks ago." Robin Corbett (Guardian) points out:
The
violent attack on the residents of Ashraf City was a clear indication
of the Iranian regime's growing influence in Iraq and the coalition's
failure to uphold international law.
In
scenes reminiscent of those seen on the streets of Iran: unarmed
civilians were attacked with batons, chains, hot-water cannons, rocks,
armoured personnel carriers and machine guns. In video footage released
by the residents, civilians inside the camp are brutally beaten, while
bodies of the dead victims show gunshot wounds as the cause of numerous
deaths.
The underlying message
of the attack, which is still continuing, is the incredible influence
that the Iranian regime now holds. However far it has infiltrated Iraq
and caused violence there since the 2003 invasion, it seems that the
regime now has a willing partner in Nouri al-Maliki to do its bidding
in eliminating the main Iranian opposition group, the People's
Mujahideen Organisation of Iran (PMOI), which is based in
Ashraf.
PMOI members there are "protected persons" under the Fourth Geneva Convention,
but the attitude of the US administration and UK government has been
far from forceful. To look on as civilians are killed and wounded is
nothing but shameful.
NCRI
- The Iranian Resistance's Leader, Mr. Massoud Rajavi, released a
statement broadcast yesterday by the Simaye Azadi (Iran National
Television), with regards to the brutal assault of Iraqi forces against
Camp Ashraf residents in Iraq. Mr. Rajavi said:
Through
his agents in Iraq, the regime's Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, took
revenge for the Iranian people's uprising from Ashraf, which is the
strategic nucleus of the struggle for freedom. He wishfully thinks that
by targeting Ashraf the uprising would cease; But, the water that has
already gone over the dam can't be forced back into the regime's
channel and save the disintegrating religious
regime. Mr.
Rajavi urged all Iranians across the world to rush to support the
hunger strike and demands of Ashraf residents, which are:
1. The leaving of Iraqi forces from Ashraf;
2.
Protection of Ashraf to be assumed by US forces, who have disarmed and
signed agreements with every single one of Ashraf residents about
protecting them until the determination of their final
status;
3.
Presence of lawyers and international human rights organizations in
Ashraf, which has been banned for the past 7 months;
4.
Presence of a representative of the UN Security Council or Secretary
General in Ashraf for talks about the determination of the final status
of Ashraf residents;
5.
Compliance of the Iraqi government with the April 24, 2009 resolution
of the European Parliament on the humanitarian situation of Ashraf
residents;
6.
Prosecution and punishment of parties who ordered or perpetrated the
brutal attacks and massacre in Camp Ashraf by an international tribunal
for crimes against humanity.
At Thomas Rick's post linked to earlier, the New York Times' Bill Keller leaves
a link promoting an article at the outlet he's executive-editor of.
Are times really that tough? Will Keller next be forced to stand in
the center of Times Square crying, "Extra! Extra! Read all about it!"?
If so, it would probably be preferable to Bill's attempts to flaunt his
'education.' Translation, his Diogense reference may impress the same
people who thought Diane Chambers (Cheers character) was
educated. Those of us who studied philosophy in grad school? We're
aware that he doesn't grasp the name he dropped (even if we're generous
and apply to it either Digoenes -- Laertius or Sinope). We're also
aware it was pretty stupid not to have indicated which one he was
speaking of but that it was pretty pretentious to drop to begin with.
So what had Bill Keller flaunting his poor education? Michael R. Gordon's report on a memo written by Col Timothy R. Reese ("adviser to the Iraqi military's Baghdad command") which states:
As
the old saying goes, "Guests, like fish, begin to smell after three
days. Since the signing of the 2009 Security Agreement, we are guests
in Iraq, and after six years in Iraq, we now smell bad to the Iraqi
nose. [. . . ] The massive partnering efforts of U.S. combat forces
with I.S.F. [Iraqi Security Forces] isn't yielding benefits
commensurate with the effort and is now generating its own opposition.
We should declare our intentions to withdraw all U.S. military forces
from Iraq by August 2010. This would not be a strategic paradigm
shift, but an acceleration of existing U.S. plans by some 15 months.
Because
the US military is now becoming sitting ducks. Barack "stupidly" made
the decision to continue the illegal war. And each day, thug Nouri
takes a piss on the US military. Pressed and aware his puppet masters
are watching, he'll say, "Oh, we shouldn't have prevented the US
miltiary from responding to an attack on them." But it happens again.
(It has happened more than once already.) They're sitting ducks and,
we'll repeat, when a Somolia event happens, Barack's going to finally
learn the meaning of outrage. It won't be pretty. The illegal war is
unjust and needs to end for that reason alone. But it's equally true
that Barack's actions (actually, his inaction, Bully Boy Bush was
better at playing bully and keeping Nouri in line, Barack fawns over
Nouri) are endangering the US miltiary. They need to be out of Iraq
immediately. Col Reese is not a crackpot, nor is he alone in his
assessment within the US military. Many in the brass are making
comments that they may start taking public. The US military, at
present, are sitting ducks. And the military brass blames the
ineffective actions of Barack for that. (Some also think that Barack
fell into the trap the previous administration set for him. Either
way, it's due to his own ignorance.)
Turning to some of today's reported violence . . .
Bombings?
Mohammed Al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports
a Baghdad roadside bombing which wounded eighteen people, a Qaem city
suicide car bombing which claimed 3 lives and left twenty injured. Reuters notes
the Qaim bombing death toll has risen to 4 and a bombing of the Reform
and Development Movement's offices in Baquba which resulted in the
deaths of 6 men and 1 woman who were attending a meeting at the time.
In
England, an inquiry is being conducted into the Iraq War and commenced
this morning. No report is expected to be released prior to their
national elections. Even so, as Rebecca's pointed out, Gordon Brown's
taking a hit on this (deserved). Carole Walker reports on the inquiry for BBC (link has video and text) and we'll note her opening for recap:
The
official end of the British military mission in April of this year,
cleared the way for this inquiry. Its aim is to learn the lessons of
the conflict which claimed the lives of 179 British service men and
women. When Gordon Brown announced the inquiry last month, he said
evidence would be heard in private to protect national security. But
after numerous protests, the man appointed to head the inquiry, Sir
John Chilcot, said he believed that as much as possible should be held
in public. Now some want the scope of his inquiry to be extended.
Francis Elliott and Sam Coates (Times of London) explain,
"Tony Blair was today confirmed as one of the witnesses who will appear
before Britain's long awaited inquiry into the Iraq war as it was
launched with a promise to level criticism where necessary. The former
prime minister is likely to be joined by Gordon Brown among those
called to give evidence." Deborah Summers, Andrew Sparrow and Haroon Siddique (Guardian) quote
Chilcott, "The inquiry is not a court of law, and nobody is on trial.
But I want to make something absolutely clear -- the committee will not
shy away from making criticism. If we find that mistakes were made,
that there were issues which could have been dealt with better, we will
say so frankly."
Yesterday's snapshot
offered some coverage of the US House Committee on Veterans Affairs
hearing entitled Meeting the Needs of Injured Veterans in the Military
Paralympic Program. Kat offered
more last night at her site, focusing on US House Rep Ann Kirkpatrick's
questioning of the second panel. The snapshot was long (too long) and
had to be edited which meant losing some details of that hearing and
all details of another hearing which we'll cover today, the US Senate's
Committe on Veterans Affairs hearing entitled the Review of Veterans
Disability Compensation: Forging a Path Forward. I had copies of
Senator Daniel Akaka's opening statement and Richard Burr's -- Akaka's
the Chair, Burr's the Ranking Member but I was only present for the
second panel where Michael P. Allen (Steston University College of
Law), Daniel Bertoni (GAO) and John WIlson (Disabled American Veterans) testified (via a friend, Congressional staffer, we'll briefly note one section from the first panel).
In
his prepared opening statement, Chair Akaka noted, "My goal is to
ensure that claims are adjudicated accurately and in a timely fashion.
Everyone involved realizes that there is no quick fix to solving all
the problems with disability claims, but the Committee, teaming with
the Administration and those who work with veterans, intends to do all
it can to improve this situation. To bring optimal change to a process
as complicated and important as this, we must be deliverative, focused,
and open to input from all who are involved in this process. It is in
that spirit that we have held previous hearings, and it is the backdrop
for this hearing as well." Ranking Member Burr's prepared remarks
included, "It takes more than five months on average for VA to make an
initial decision on a claim for veterans' benefits and, if the veteran
decides to appeal, the delays can go on for years. In fact, Professor
Allen noted in a recent article that the average time from when a
veteran files a claim with VA until getting a decision by the Court of
Appeals for Veterans Claims is between five and seven years! I think a
process that takes that long is indefensible. Our veterans and their
families deserve better."
On the first panel,
Senator Jon Tester asked the VA's Patrick Dunn for some hard numbers.
Tester noted, the VA had 406,000 pending claims and wondered how that
compared to one year age and Dunn responded that it was about 25,000 to
30,000. Tester wanted to know at what point a claim gets a red flag
and the VA works on addressing it? At 365 days, Dunne said, the claim
is referred to a team known as the VA Tiger Team. This is not when
appeals make the claim reach 365 days. This is before any appeal is
made. Point being, there are claims being filed by veterans that the
VA is not getting and veterans are waiting over a year. How many,
Tester wanted to know? About 11,000 was the number Dunne provided.
And
as outrageous as that number is, grasp that all the numbers are
climbing each month, the number of claims pending. Tester asked about
more employees being added but Dunne didn't want to go for that and
claimed more employees would mean more administrative duties -- Dunne,
in effect, said the VA doesn't need more employees. In one year, these
numbers will be higher. "We haven't hit break even yet, we're still
going the wrong direction," Tester stated. In one year's time, no one
better play surprised when the number have risen yet again.
Senator
Patty Murray introduced the second panel and took over the chair
duties. Michael Allen, in his prepared statement, provided an overview
of the process, "A veteran wishing to receive a benefit to which she
believes she is entitled begins the process by submitting an
application with one of the VA's regional offices (RO). If the veteran
is satisfied with the benefits awarded, the process is at an end.
However, there are a number of reasons why the veteran may be
dissatisfied with the RO's decision. When the veteran is dissatisfied
with the RO's decision, she has the option to pursue an appeal within
the Department by filing a 'Notice of Disagreement' (NOD) with the RO.
The NOD triggers the RO's obliagation to prepare a 'Statement of the
Case' (SOC) setting for the bases of the decision being challenged. If
the veteran wishes to pursue her appeal after receiving the SOC, she
must file VA-Form 9 with the RO indicating her desire that the appeal
be considered by the Board of Veterans' Appeals ('Board')." That
provides a strong overview of the process (which continues into the
courts). Having submitted his prepared remarks, Allen wisely used his
opening remarks to speak to the committee, not read from his written
remarks. His verbal remarks can be boiled down to his advocacy for "a
working group to study the system. What changes can be made in the
process from beginning to end including judicial review?"
Tester
reviewed the number on the first panel for claims filed, not appeals
(Dunne told Tester he didn't have numbers on the appeals but would get
back to him with them). The GAO's Daniel Bertoni stated on the second
panel that the VA is taking 96 days more to resolve appeals than it
did in 2003 and he stated this had to do with workload. (Remember,
Dunne rejected the idea that the VA needs more employees to handle
caseloads.) Bertoni presented those figures while reading aloud from
his prepared remarks. He ran out of time and never got to this
section, "We have reported that an infusion of a large number of staff
has the potential to improve VA's capacity. However, quickly absorbing
these staff will likely pose human capital challenges for VA, such as
how to train and deploy them. The additional staff has helped VA
process more claims and appeals overall, but as VA has acknowledged, it
has also reduced individual staff productivity. . . . According to VA,
this decline in productivity is attributable primarily to new staff who
have not yet become fully proficient at processing claims and to the
loss of experienced staff due to retirements. VA expects its
productivity to decline further before it improves, in part because of
the challenges of training and integrating new staff."
We'll note this exchange where one witness (and only one) advocated for cuttng the federal court out of the review process.
Senator
Patty Murray: Mr. Bertoni, let me begin with you. You testified that
the VA has not collected date to evaluate the impact of using the
resource centers to redistribute work load. We've heard that mentioned
by several of our colleagues this morning concerning that. Can you
tell us what measurement you would recommend the VA use to evaluate the
effectiveness of these center?
Daniel
Bertoni: I think critical to any process -- any of these processes--
timeliness, accuracy and consistency. I-I think it behoves any manager
as opposed to going out talking to the troops trying to discuss issues
on sight -- that's all important and good but I-I think there's no
substitute to the data -- to help management make good date driven
decisions. So if you have a resource center and there is indications
-- and you do the analysis -- and indications of problems in certain
areas, you can take, make remedial interventions. To date, I don't
believe that is occuring. I think even most very recently, I don't
believe there were any quality assurance reviews being conducted. That
would be first and foremost very critical. What type of quality
assurance reviews are being done? What is the MI data showing? And
what do you do with that data going forward to make the interventions
that need to be done?
Senator
Patty Murray: Okay, thank you very much for that. Mr. Allen, you
talked about the current structure for judicial review of veterans
benefits and it has two appellate levels of the veterans court and
federal circuit that you indicate increased delays and can be
duplicative. You raised the option of removing the federal circuit
from the structure of the veterans benefits determination process one
way of perahps delaying or reducing some of the delays in this system.
Didn't sound like you were 100% committed to that. Can you tell us why
you sort of lean towards the federal circuit?
Michael
Allen: Sure, Senator, let me start out by saying that it seemed to me
that when Congress created the Veterans Corps, one of the things it was
trying to do was to create an independent body to review these issues
outside of the VA and that that body would be the expert in that area
of the law. But since this was a new process, it provided for this
second layer of review at the federal circuit. Now I should say that
the level of review at the federal circuit is not plenary, is not
total. The federal it doesn't have jurisdiction to review any matter
of fact or quite oddly any application of law to fact. It, in theory,
should only review pure questions of law. Now it made perfect sense to
structure the system, at least in my view, at the time like that.
Today I think that on balance it's not worth having the federal
circuit involved anymore. I don't say that lightly because that is a
major change And what it goes to is that what are the competing values
that one wants? Because if the value that was absolutely top on the
list was making sure that the maximum number of judges' eyes looked at
a case, figuring that would reduce over all inaccuracy in decision,
well then it might make sense to have this two level court. To use a
silly analogy if you're absolute 100% number one value in a day in
making sure that your pants don't fall down wearing belt and suspenders
makes perfect sense. It is not irrational because that is your value.
But I think that for the federal circuit employment here it is
not having the maximum number of eyes looking at a case because over
time having that second layer review has increased delay and I am not
sure -- I'm sure myself, that it has not increased the quality
of veterans law sufficiently to justify its continued place in the
system.
Senator
Patty Murray: Okay Colonel Wilson have you given any thought to a
proposal to remove the federal circuit from the veterans benefits
determination process and what that would mean?
John Wilson: No ma'am, I have not but would be glad to respond later.
Senator Patty Murray: If you could respond to the committee, I'd appreciate it. Mr. Bertoni, do you have any input on that?
Daniel
Bertoni: I would say we have not looked into that or given any
considerations there but I would say the would be a range of
stakeholders that you would have to bring in to get --
Senator Patty Murray: That's why you suggested the commission, right?
Daniel Bertoni: Yes.
Michael Allen: Yes, that's right senator.
Senator Patty Murray: Alirght. Senator Burr?
Senator
Richard Burr: Mr. Allen, you're right. It is a major shift. But I
think we're all challegned to look at it in a different context and I
was serious months ago when I suggested to the service organizations,
let's start with the blank sheet of paper and come in and tell you how
you would design it in the 21st century. To the credit of DAV they
took on the task and I'm appreciative of that. You're right when you
mention the word commission. What little bit of hair I have on the
back of my neck did stand up. So let me ask, what additional
information do you believe a commission would find that we don't have
readily available to us today?
Michael
Allen: I thought of two ways to respond to that. The first and most
direct is I don't know what additional information the commission would
have that you don't and I don't mean to refer back to [former]
Secretary [of Defense Donald] Rumsfeld but there are things that we
know we don't know out there. But more importantly, Senator, I think --
Senator
Richard Burr: And that was sort of the basis of why you had the
creation of the VA appellate process and the federal court. We didn't
know what we were going to run into.
Michael
Allen: Absolutely and second, though Senator, I think that the key,
because I think that this has been the key over time as various
veterans benefits issues have been discussed, is it reaches a tipping
point when enough of the relevant constitutincies come together on an
idea. And I don't know whether something can truly be successful if
it's in fact deemed to be imposed.
Senator
Richard Burr: How long do you think a commission would need to do --
need to take to accomplish the work that you perceive a commission
should -- should attempt to
accomplish?
Michael
Allen: Part of it would be how broadly the commission should be
structured. In-in-in my perfect world, I would say that it should
actually be a commission that looks at the claims processing from
cradle to grave because the situation we have now, some have described
it as a spider web, and that's not quite right, I think, because it is
an older spider web -- the administrative process -- on which a new
spider web has been grafted and anything you do to one part is going to
effect another. And I think now that we have a system that we have
seen if it starts at the beginning and looks at the end because
things that are done at claims processing on the administrative level
are going to make a difference in the judicial review arena as well and
vice versa so if the process were from beginning to end, I think, this
could probably be done -- with commitment -- in-in six months.
Lastly,
for those wondering about the KRG elections. Some outlets are
reporting things. These are a prelimnary count, not an official one
and the KRG has made no announcement regarding the elections yet -- not
even the most basic assumption that the current president, Masoud
Barzani, was re-elected as president. We'll wait for the official
results or until the KRG issues their statement, which ever comes
first. The KRG does note the following from the US Embassy in Iraq on the elections:
The
US Embassy in Baghdad congratulates the people of the Kurdistan Region
of Iraq for coming out to vote in large numbers for the regional
presidential and parliamentary elections, thus demonstrating their
commitment to the democratic process. Representatives from the US
Mission in Iraq closely followed the elections at polling stations
throughout the Kurdistan Region.
The Embassy commends
the Independent High Electoral Commission (IHEC) and its staff for
efficiently organizing and conducting the elections. We call upon all
citizens to remain patient as election results are tabulated and
certified, and as IHEC reviews complaints that have been filed.
I
am glad to hear that initial reports from the elections in the
Kurdistan Region indicate a large turnout, especially among women
voters, and which the UN says took place in an orderly environment,
notably free of violence. We congratulate the Iraqi Kurds on
this and look forward to working with the President, Government and all
parties in Parliament to cement links between Iraqi Kurdistan and the
UK. As our recent fact finding delegation reported
there are great opportunities for increased trade investment and a host
of cultural sporting social and other exchanges.
At present, that's all that's known about Saturday's elections.
Maybe.
Might. The Iraqi air force is not scheduled to take over control of
their air space by the end of 2011 and Gen Ray Odierno says the US may
have to stay in Iraq longer. A "may" statement largely buried by the
news despite the fact that it jibes with everything Iraqi military
officials and US military officials as well as Iraqi government
spokespeople have said for at least the last three years. US Secretary
of Defense Robert Gates declares yesterday that maybe some US troops
might leave Iraq early and no one can stop yammering about it. If only
the maybe facts could live up to the maybe (and breathless) headlines.
As Katie Couric noted on yesterday's CBS Evening News with Katie Couric,
there are 130,000 US forces in Iraq, "10,000 are scheduled to be
withdrawn by the end of this year. According to Gates, 5,000 more could
be home for the holidays." No links to any of the silly and breathless
report on 'withdrawl!' 'early!' 'maybe!'
Turning to reality. In
England, an inquiry is being conducted into the Iraq War and commenced
this morning. No report is expected to be released prior to their
national elections. Even so, as Rebecca's pointed out, Gordon Brown's
taking a hit on this (deserved). Carole Walker reports on the inquiry for BBC (link has video and text) and we'll note her opening for recap:
The
official end of the British military mission in April of this year,
cleared the way for this inquiry. Its aim is to learn the lessons of
the conflict which claimed the lives of 179 British service men and
women. When Gordon Brown announced the inquiry last month, he said
evidence would be heard in private to protect national security. But
after numerous protests, the man appointed to head the inquiry, Sir
John Chilcot, said he believed that as much as possible should be held
in public. Now some want the scope of his inquiry to be extended.
Francis Elliott and Sam Coates (Times of London) explain,
"Tony Blair was today confirmed as one of the witnesses who will appear
before Britain's long awaited inquiry into the Iraq war as it was
launched with a promise to level criticism where necessary. The former
prime minister is likely to be joined by Gordon Brown among those
called to give evidence." Deborah Summers, Andrew Sparrow and Haroon Siddique (Guardian) quote
Chilcott, "The inquiry is not a court of law, and nobody is on trial.
But I want to make something absolutely clear -- the committee will not
shy away from making criticism. If we find that mistakes were made,
that there were issues which could have been dealt with better, we will
say so frankly."
From the beginning, many expected it to be a
white wash and, while that may turn out to be the case, it's also true
that Gordon Brown planned on the inquiry to be hidden behind closed
doors and to have a much more limited scope. Public outrage and
pressure forced Gordon to step back from his original plans.
Violence contines in Iraq today, Reuters reports
a a bombing of the Reform and Development Movement's offices in Baquba
which resulted in the deaths of 6 men and 1 woman who were attending a
meeting at the time and they note
a Baghdad roadside bombing which injured seven people and, dropping
back to yesterday, 2 police officers shot dead in Mosul. (Other
Wednesday events listed were noted in yesterday's snapshot.)
Dan Murphy (see previous entry)
can take comfort in the fact that he's not the biggest journalistic
fool this week. Trudy Rubin almost always goes for that Fool's Gold.
And, yet again, she's achieved it. In her latest cracked view at reality, she scribbles,
"So al-Maliki only got media notice when he said Iraq might reconsider
the deadline 'if Iraqi forces require further training and support.' But the focus on whether some U.S. trainers and enablers may stay on misses a key aspect of the visit." Trudy goes on to declare that the nonsense Saturday event (the
one I noted last week and noted I wouldn't be attending but it was
being hyped as his biggest US event after his meeting with Obama --
apparently Trudes does leg work for the US government -- let's hope
they pay her well). But we don't need to go on. We only need to note
that for Trudy, Americans are silly to care about whether or not the US
might remain in Iraq beyond the (supposed) departure date of 2011.
Trudy like to self-style as best-friend-to-the-US-military. Guess she
forgot that pose, huh? Because, point of fact, it does matter. It damn
well matters if a war ends in eight years or beyond. And shame on Trudy
for implying otherwise. It's that sort of stupid mistake that could get
her lousy column pulled from many papers because her bad writing's only
carried due to her I'm-with-the-grunts pose. As she reveals this
go-round, uh, no, she isn't.
We jumped into a river on the moon But the water was too cold We tried to buy the morning star But it was already sold I wanted to make it big with you But my plans must have been too bold And it's back down to earth again -- "Back Down To Earth," written by Carly Simon, from her Boys In The Trees album
The
reality is probably scarier. Iraq is in the throes of what some
officials are calling an environmental catastrophe, and the increased
frequency of dust storms is only the most visible manifestation. Decades
of war and mismanagement, compounded by two years of drought, are
wreaking havoc on Iraq's ecosystem, drying up riverbeds and marshes,
turning arable land into desert, killing trees and plants, and
generally transforming what was once the region's most fertile area
into a wasteland. Falling
agricultural production means that Iraq, once a food exporter, will
this year have to import nearly 80% of its food, spending money that is
urgently needed for reconstruction projects.
US Defense Secretary holds talks with Kurdistan Region leadership
»
U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates, right, shakes hands with Kurdistan Region President Massoud Barzani
Erbil,
Kurdistan -- Iraq (KRG.org) -- United States Secretary of Defense Dr
Robert Gates today in Erbil met President Masoud Barzani, congratulated
him on the recent election and assured him of the US commitment to Iraq.
The
US Defense Secretary was accompanied by Multi-National Force in Iraq
Commanding General Ray Odierno, and US Embassy in Baghdad Charge d’
Affaires Ambassador Robert Ford.
Secretary Gates congratulated
President Masoud Barzani on the recent election, and assured officials
that the responsible drawdown of troops would not diminish US
commitment to Iraq. He explained that the US values friendship with the
Region and with a united, federal and democratic Iraq, and stands ready
to help the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) and the federal
government as they address outstanding issues.
Mr Gates
reiterated the message he delivered to federal government officials in
Baghdad yesterday – the need to base decisions on the Constitution and
strive for peaceful solutions that account for the needs of all
concerned. He affirmed that the US would remain engaged with all
parties on unresolved issues. Secretary Gates underlined the history of
friendly relations between the Kurdistan Region and the United States
and also welcomed the improved relations between the KRG and Turkey.
President
Barzani outlined his vision for the Region and Iraq. “We have
participated in the construction of a new and better Iraq, with the
understanding that all components of society would be equal under the
rule of law.”
He said, “The Constitution, as the supreme law of
the land, must serve as the starting point for dialogue on outstanding
political issues. So long as this is the case, we are ready and willing
to engage in serious discussions at any time. Our only weapon will be
the Constitution of Iraq. Now that our election has passed, and we
expect the official results today, we will resume political discussions
on these matters with Baghdad.”
Vice President Kosrat Rasul
added, “We appreciate the role that the United States has played in
Iraq. It is important that the US remains engaged as we move forward in
addressing key issues.”
Prime Minister Nechirvan Barzani said,
“Our insistence on certain demands for our people should not be
misconstrued as separatist demands. We simply want to ensure that our
tragic history is not repeated, and that we can arrive at a formula to
serve the interest of all Iraqi people.”
He continued,
“Understanding the culture and background of all components of Iraqi
society is important. We must be considered equal partners in Iraq. And
in this regard I think the passage of revenue sharing legislation will
bring us closer – more than any other political slogan – and promote
dialogue on other outstanding issues. As the US undertakes a
responsible drawdown of forces, we believe there is a moral obligation
for the US to remain politically involved as we strive towards
stability and security.”
The meeting, which took place in the
capital of the Kurdistan Region of Iraq, was attended by a number of
senior KRG and US officials.
"The raid was the latest assertion of total military independence by Iraqi forces from US control. Video of the event, with Iraqi soldiers delivering severe beatings to unarmed residents, adds evidence of brutal tactics within the new Iraqi Army," giggles Dan Murphy at the Christian Science Monitor disgracing himself in the process as well as the memory of Mary Baker Eddy. What a proud moment for the paper that . . . no longer is a paper.
E . . . entertaining elephants . . . F. . . forever fooling . . . G . . . getting gigles . . . H . . . having headaches . . . -- "Alligators All Around," lyrics by Maurice Sendak and music by Carole King, Really Rosie.
And when Dan Murphy's out of short pants (and pull ups), we'll work on the next series of letters. Grasp for a moment that Iran's Tehran Times opens with, "On Tuesday, Iraqi soldiers and riot police stormed Camp Ashraf, where Mojahedin Khalq Organization members had been based, triggering violent clashes that left at least 260 people injured." It's all too much for Murphy.
Grasp that AFP reports that while Iraq says everything is under 'control' and a police station is set up, Iraq's refusing to allow reporters to enter the camp. Not noted in the report, they're also rebuffing requests from human rights organizations and charities. Grasp that Iraq's Alsumaria treats the issue with more balance and more seriousness than the Christian Science Monitor. "Assertion of total military independence"? No, Nouri did at Camp Ashraf what he did throughout Baghdad to ethnically cleanse neighborhoods.
NCRI - The Iranian Resistance's Leader, Mr. Massoud Rajavi, released a statement broadcast yesterday by the Simaye Azadi (Iran National Television), with regards to the brutal assault of Iraqi forces against Camp Ashraf residents in Iraq. Mr. Rajavi said:
Through his agents in Iraq, the regime's Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, took revenge for the Iranian people's uprising from Ashraf, which is the strategic nucleus of the struggle for freedom. He wishfully thinks that by targeting Ashraf the uprising would cease; But, the water that has already gone over the dam can't be forced back into the regime's channel and save the disintegrating religious regime. Mr. Rajavi urged all Iranians across the world to rush to support the hunger strike and demands of Ashraf residents, which are:
1. The leaving of Iraqi forces from Ashraf;
2. Protection of Ashraf to be assumed by US forces, who have disarmed and signed agreements with every single one of Ashraf residents about protecting them until the determination of their final status;
3. Presence of lawyers and international human rights organizations in Ashraf, which has been banned for the past 7 months;
4. Presence of a representative of the UN Security Council or Secretary General in Ashraf for talks about the determination of the final status of Ashraf residents;
5. Compliance of the Iraqi government with the April 24, 2009 resolution of the European Parliament on the humanitarian situation of Ashraf residents;
6. Prosecution and punishment of parties who ordered or perpetrated the brutal attacks and massacre in Camp Ashraf by an international tribunal for crimes against humanity.
They also note that sit-ins took place yesterday "in the cities of Washington (US), Berlin (Germany), London (Britain), Dublin (Ireland), Brussels (Belgium), Copenhagen and Aarhus (Denmark), Stockholm, Gothenburg, and Malmo (Sweden), Geneva (Switzerland), Paris (France), Helsinki (Finland), Ottawa and Vancouver (Canada), Oslo (Norway), Amsterdam and The Hague (The Netherlands), and Sydney (Australia)" to protest the assault on Camp Ashraf.
Wednesday,
July 29, 2009. Chaos and violence continue, two of three remaining
British hostages in Iraq are thought to be dead, the assault on Camp
Ashraf continues, there is no binding get-out-of-Iraq for the US, and
more.
US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates
visited Iraq yesterday and, among those he met with were the top US
commander in Iraq, Gen Ray Odierno. Today Elisabeth Bumiller (New York Times) reports,
"The Iraqis will be unable to handle their own air defense after all
American troops withdraw from the country by the end of 2011, the top
commander of American forces in Iraq said Tuesday. . . . Asked if the
Iraqis would be in a position to fly their own defensive air patrols at
the end of 2011, when a United States agreement with Iraq calls for all
American troops to be out of the country, General Odierno replied,
'Right now, no'." If you don't realize what a shock Bumiller's article
is and how much it needs to be buried for some, note how heavily an AP
story about Gates declaring maybe some US troops may leave earlier.
Some. May. Some. News gets in the cycle, better dump a bunch of
fluff. We've covered this. This community is fully aware that the
Iraqi air force will not be able to take control at the end of 2011
barring a miracle. Example, from the November 4, 2008 snapshot:
There's
no rush to leave Iraq or even a desire. That needs to be grasped. Iraqi
General Nasier Abadi made that pretty clear during Sunday's press
conference in the Green Zone. Questioned by the Washington Post's
Mary Beth Sheridan as to when the Iraqis would be able to handle "their
own internal security . . . how many years are you away from reaching
that goal," Abadi tried to distract by listing duties before declaring,
"We have no duties or missions to protect the air on the borders of the
country. But in case we have this responsibility, there is a brief that
-- to the minister of defense, if he ask us to -- task us with that, a
reportw ent also to the Prime Minister, what are the capabilities and
the army's specifics to do those duties?" Asked how many years again,
he responded, "Building an aerial force, building an Army is not easy,
but it's still easier than building naval and air force. The naval
force, as I said before, that the first ship will come in 2009 and the
fourth will arrive in . . . at the end of 2011. In regard to 200- . . .
Air Force, the first aircraft we will receive in 2011 until 2015. And
that depends on the support and the help that the coalition forces can
secure to Iraq so we can be able to maintain and defend our airspace
and territories. Without that, there will be also agreements with the
neighboring countries on the security of Iraq. But it's possible that
we will go with those missions without having an air force or naval
force because this is a common battle, it's not just an army's duty."
Setting aside the naval force and focusing only on the air, if the
period they'll be taking possession of aircraft will last from 2011
through 2015, how likely is it that they will be prepared to handle
their own airspaceby the end of 2011?
But
Bumiller deserves credit -- a lot of credit -- for covering Odierno's
statments which were news and which are in keeping with statements from
the last three years -- statements made by US and Iraqi military
figures as well as Iraqi government officials. And, again, note the
fluff immediately dumped into the news cycle to undercut Bumiller's
report.
Robert Gates didn't just meet with Odierno. Greg Jaffe (Washington Post) reports,
"Before leaving northern Iraq on Wednesday, Gates pressed Kurdish
leaders to resolve their disputes with the Iraqi government in the next
few months, while the United States still had tens of thousands of
soldiers in the country and some influence over Baghdad." In Kurdistan,
Jaffe reports, Gates delivered a lecture to KRG President Massoud
Barzani which began, "We have all sacrificed too much in blood and
treasure to see our gains lost over political differences." That's the
thing about lectures given by those who flit in and out of the area,
they rarely grasp the basics. Political differences? Gates is trying
to defuse pressure from the Kurdish leaders on the issue of Kirkuk.
That's not a political difference. That's a territorial dispute.
Saddam Hussein attempted to Arab-ize Kirkuk and drove many Kurds out
and pushed many Arabs in. Kurds feel they have a historical claim on
Kirkuk. The central government in Baghdad feels that they have a claim
on the region. The fact that it's oil rich adds the layer of economics
to it. This isn't merely a political difference and to attempt to
reduce it to that is to come off as uninformed as Chris Hill did in his
one Senate hearing for the post of US Ambassador to Iraq. And, by the
way, Hill was supposed to be working on that. He was in Iraq for weeks
before he even had a face to face with KRG leaders. Which no one was
bothered by. Certainly Gates wasn't offering lectures as the KRG was
supposed to continue to wait and wait and wait.
Iraq's
constitution mandated a census and a referendum on Kirkuk. That was
supposed to take place no later than the end of 2007. In 2007, the
White House devised a list of benchmarks to prove 'progress' in Iraq.
Kirkuk was on that list of benchmarks. Nouri al-Maliki signed off on
those benchmarks, agreeing to strive towards reaching them. There has
been no census (one is currently scheduled for October) and no
referendum. al-Maliki has given numerous interviews in the last six
months stating that Kirkuk will not go to Kurdish region. [For one
interview in English, see Deborah Haynes and Richard Beeston's "Time to go home, Nouri al-Maliki tells Britain" (Times of London) and pay attention to the transcript of the interview which got
more attention in the Arab world than the interview itself --
statements by Nouri like, "Kirkuk is a city that belongs to the federal
government and is outside the boundaries of the Kurdistan region."}
From the Kurds point of view, they have waited patiently on this
issue. They have backed off when the US asked them to. They have
understood that ethnic cleansing was going on (Nouri's thugs cleaning
neighborhoods in Baghdad) and other serious problems. Their point of
view is that they waited, they went on with business in their area and
now the US is not backing them. The US isn't backing them, the United
Nations isn't backing them. Last summer the UN got involved as
tensions boiled yet again. They were supposed to devise a plan and the
Kurds were supposed to wait. They have waited over six years and
they're not idiots. They can see the United States pulling away from
them and the UN revealed itself to not be an honest broker a week ago
when a UN official and blabber mouth began trashing the Kurds to the press.
Whether the Kurds should have Kirkuk or not is something for the people
of Kirkuk to decide. But the Kurds are not in the 'wrong' for asking
that what was agreed to be followed: a census and a referendum. That
was supposed to have taken place no later than 2007 -- that's promised
in the 2005 Constitution. Again, it was part of the benchmarks. These
things have already been agreed to by all sides and foreign entitites
such as the US and United Nations. They just aren't being
implemented. They need to be. The Kurds don't need lectures from
Gates or to be told to wait another year or another or another. One
side acted on good faith. In any situation, when one side acts on good
faith and sees others get rewarded without doing the same, tensions
build. The tensions on the issue of Kirkuk now are not just between
the central government in Baghdad and the KRG.
Sam Dagher (New York Times) reports
that Barzani "rejeacted proposals by the United Nations to resolve
Iraq's explosive internal border disputes, and reiterated his
determination to proceed with a contentious local constitution." Let's
take the latter part first. "Contentious local constitution"? Is it
contentious in Kurdistan? If it is, it won't be passed (the people of
the region have to vote on it). Is it contentious to people outside
Kurdistan? Too damn bad. The people upset are Nouri and his puppet
government. Too damn bad. At this point, Dagher is just a DAMN LIAR.
There's no other term for him right now. His distortions have already
been called out by someone who knows what they're talking about.
Earlier this month, Sam Dagher had another bad article (click here for critique) which demonstrated either no knowledge on the subject he was covering or a desire to misrepsent it. A letter ran in the July 14th edition of the New York Times setting the record straight:
To the Editor: Re "Defiant Kurds Claim Oil, Gas and Territory" (front page, July 10): The
Iraqi Constitution, specifically Article 140, requires a vote by
referendum to resolve Iraq's disputed territories. To cast this as a
"threat" is unfair. The Iraqi Kurds are simply trying to carry out the
constitutionally mandated referendum. Furthermore,
the Iraqi Kurds are not defying Baghdad in formulating a regional
constitution; they are embracing their right to create such a document,
which is allowed in the Iraqi Constitution. The
Kurds, who represent the most stable and progressive element of Iraq,
have made it clear that they desire to be a part of a united Iraqi
nation. To allow for a
responsible and phased withdrawal of American forces from Iraq, which
is the stated policy of the Obama administration, several issues must
first be resolved, the most important of which is that of the disputed
territories. Only then will a stable and united Iraq be able to
thrive. Jay Garner Erbil, Iraq, July 10, 2009
The
writer, a retired lieutenant general in the Army, was director of the
Office for Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance for Iraq in
2003.
Jay Garner knows the promises
made and what's in the Iraq Constitution. The Constitution gives the
KRG the right to write their own Constitution. Not with Baghdad's
approval -- no approval from anyone outside the region is required.
Dagher's been corrected but continues to play Drama Queen. And that's
very sad because he actually had a gift for journalism. Moving from
distorting the Constitution to lying about/for the UN. The UN proposal
for how to address the dispute of borders?
Trash
Iraq's Constitution, trash the benchmarks, trash every promise --
including promises from the United Nations -- repeated promises -- that
Kirkuk would hold a referendum. The UN is proposing that neither
Baghdad nor the KRG get Kirkuk, instead make it independent. Why would
the KRG go for that? If you tell me that you'll pay me twenty bucks
tomorrow and then tomorrow comes and you tell me you're not going to
pay me twenty dollars, you're going to instead give it to someone else
so that it's 'independent,' am I supposed to go along with that? The
Kurds are asking for Article 140 to be followed. That's not a new
demand nor is it really a demand. They're asking that the law be
followed. And Dagher's working overtime to paint them as hysterics and
greedy. It would appear the paper spends far too much time attempting
to manipulate what happens on the ground and far too little time
grasping they are outsiders on the ground to report what happens.
Jalal
Talabani is the president of Iraq (a ceremonial position with no real
power) and he's a Kurd. The Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, the
political party he belongs to (and heads as the highest official in the
party), is thought to have done less than well in Saturday's elections
(ballots are still be counted -- Saturday, the KRG held provincial and
presidential elections in their three provinces -- preliminary results, not final ones, were released today). From the March 16th snapshot: "Sabah got the interview
and they quote Talabani stating, 'Iraq will not be separated and the
civil war is over' and 'The ideal of a united Kurdistan is just a dream
written in poetry. I do not deny that there are poems devoted to the
notion of a united Kurdistan. But we can not continue to dream.' If
accurate, Talabani's remarks will spark anger among some Kurds." In
the lead up to the election, the big rallying cry was Kirkuk belongs to
the KRG. No surprise that Talabani's party would do poorly with him
making statements like that -- and he's done that for some time. He's
also announced he's not running for re-election as president, wait, he
is, no, he's not, wait . . . As the figure head of his political
party, he's come off as a defeated and confused voice repeatedly. Anthony Shadid (Washington Post) reports
on him and observes, "Talabani himself was buffeted by criticism from
each direction. Some said he spent too much time in Baghdad, losing
touch with his Kurdish constituency. He acknowledged the criticism.
Others said that as Iraq's president, he belonged in Baghdad." And
demonstrating why Talabani's party may be in trouble, Shadid goes on to
reveal that as the KRG demands that promises be kept, Jala "was much
more conciliatory, even suggesting the possibility of an alliance with
Maliki in January elections that will choose a new national
parliament." And Talabani wants to wonder why his party might be in
trouble?
AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL PUBLIC STATEMENT AI Index: MDE 14/021/2009 28 July 2009 Iraq: Camp Ashraf residents attacked Amnesty
International is seriously concerned at today's attacks by Iraqi forces
on unarmed residents of Camp Ashraf which left several people injured
and led to the arrest of at least eight others. Hundreds
of armed Iraqi security forces are said to have stormed the camp, north
of Baghdad, at around 3pm local time. They used tear gas, water canons
and batons against unarmed Iranian residents who tried to stop them
from entering the camp. Video
footage seen by Amnesty International clearly shows Iraqi forces
beating people repeatedly on different parts of the body, including the
head. Dozens of people are said to have been injured. Two
of them, Reza Chelcheraqi and Mohammad-Reza Shahsavandi, are believed
to be in serious condition. At least eight people, including Hasan
Besharati, Humayoun Deyhim, Gholam Reza Behrouzi, Hosein Fili, Mehdi
Zareh and Naser Nour Ebadian, were arrested and their current
whereabouts are unknown. In
the last few months the Iraqi government has publicly stated that it
wants to take over full control of Camp Ashraf, in Diyala governorate,
north of Baghdad. On 27 July government spokesperson Ali al-Dabbagh
told an Iraqi satellite television channel that the government "will
take over the responsibility of internal security affairs of Camp
Ashraf". The authorities are reportedly planning to establish a police
outpost inside the camp. Amnesty
International calls on the Iraqi government to investigate the apparent
excessive use of force by Iraqi security forces. The government should
reveal the whereabouts of the eight people detained and ensure that
they are protected from torture or other ill-treatment, as well as from
forcible return to Iran. Background Around
3,400 residents of Camp Ashraf are members or supporters of the
People's Mojahedeen Organization of Iran (PMOI), an Iranian opposition
organization whose members have been resident in Iraq for many years.
Until recently the PMOI was listed as a "terrorist" organization by the
European Union and other governments, but in most cases this
designation has now been lifted on the grounds that the PMOI no longer
advocates or engages in armed opposition to the government of Iran. The
US forces provided protection for the camp and its residents, who were
designated as "protected persons" following the 2003 invasion of Iraq,
but this situation was discontinued following the Status of Forces
Agreement (SOFA) between the US and Iraqi governments, although the
SOFA makes no reference to Camp Ashraf or its residents. Public Document **************************************** For more information please call Amnesty International's press office in London, UK, on +44 20 7413 5566 or email: press@amnesty.org International Secretariat, Amnesty International, 1 Easton St., London WC1X 0DW, UK www.amnesty.org
Ernesto Londono (Washington Post) was reporting on the assault yesterday evening and this morning, he and Greg Jaffe report
the assault continues and they note: "The operation, which caught U.S.
officials off guard, coincided with a visit to Iraq by Defense
Secretary Robert M. Gates. Analysts said it appeared designed to send a
message of Iraqi independence. " This morning, BBC also reports
the assault is still ongoing: "Eyewitnesses say Iraqi police have
surrounded the People's Mujahideen of Iran (PMOI) camp and clashes are
continuing inside. Iran wants the camp closed. The exiles fear they
will be forcibly repatriated." (They also quote a portion of the
Amnesty International's statement.) Odierno told AP
that "non-lethal force" was used and "We have had promises from the
government of Iraq that they would deal with the [group] in a humane
fashion." AP goes on to point out, "But a video provided by an exile
group showed Iraqi forces using batons and water cannons against the
residents gathered at the camp's gates. The group also released photos
showing injured people and bloodied bodies, although the authencity of
the images couldn't be independent verified." Alsumaria quotes
an unnamed Iraqi security source stating "200 Iranian residents and 50
Iraqi security forces [were] wounded" and that Nouri ordered the
assault. Charles Levinson and Yochi J. Dreazen (Wall St. Journal) note,
"Residents of Camp ashraf said hundreds of Iraqi security forces tore
down the camp's walls on Tuesday afternoon with bulldozers." Laith Hammoudi and Leila Fadel (McClatchy Newspapers) offer
more on that, "An Iraqi security official in Diyala told McClatchy that
on government orders, security forces from the Ministry of Interior and
riot police entered the camp Tuesday afternoon using bulldozers to tear
down the walls." Liz Sly (Los Angeles Times) reports
that Nouri's flunkies are insisting this was not done to please Iran
and Sly notes the actions have other potential impacts as well, "The
pledge to assert the right of Iraqi forces to extend their authority
over all of Iraq has potentially profound implications for another
simmering dispute, over territories claimed by the semiautonomous
region of Kurdistan and currently controlled by Kurdish peshmerga forces." Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) reveals Iraq's Interior Ministry is admitting to 7 deaths -- MEK is stating they have lost 11 members. Aljazeera airs video of the assault here.
Today at the US State Dept, CBS' Charlie Wolfson asked Secretary of
State Hillary Clinton about the assault. Her response follows with my
snark in brackets.
Well first with
respect to the MEK at Camp Ashraf, we are urging restraint on both
sides. [Yes, MEK, please restrain yourself from yelling too loudly as
your homes are bulldozed and you are assaulted.] The government of Iraq
has stated that the residents of Camp Ashraf will be treated in
accordance with Iraq's constitution, laws and international
obligations. [Really? Well that would be a first for Nouri and his
thugs.] The Iraqi govenrment has assumed security responsibility for
Camp Ashraf and its residents which obviously largely consists of MEK
members -- the full transfer from the coalition forces in Iraq to the
Iraqi army forces occured on February 20, 2009. This is part of the
turnover of responsibilities to a sovereign nation. [We washed our
hands clean, in their blood, didn't we?] And although the US government
remains engaged and concerned about this issue, it is a matter now for
the government of Iraq to resolve in accordance with its laws. [No,
she doesn't believe what she's saying. In fairness to Hillary, this
issue was supposed to have been resolved before she was even confirmed
and, in fact, she was kept out of the loop on it. She was not the
person on this issue, assigned by Barack, back in November.] And we are
very clear that we expect that the Government of Iraq, now that it has
assumed this security responsibility, will fulfill its obligations to
show restraint, will not forcibly transfer anyone to a country where
such a transfer might result in the mistreatment or the death of that
person based on their political affiliation and activities. But it is
now the responsibility of the Government of Iraq. [In other words,
MEK, don't fill out refugee applications for the US.]
Timothy Williams (New York Times) explains,
"There is a permanent American military presence in the area in the
form of a military police platoon, acting as observers and reporting
directly to Gen. Ray Odierno in Baghdad, an American military officials
said."
Over 130,000 US troops on the ground in Iraq for
why? This is exactly what the current vice president warned about in
April, in an April Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing when he
noted the thug Nouri al-Maliki would attack the people and the US
military -- if still on the ground -- would be put in a position of
supporting the thug. That's exactly what's happening and it's one more
reason all US troops need to be out of Iraq immediately.
Turning to some of the other reported violence . . .
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports
a Baghdad cafe bombing which claimed 3 lives and left thirty-one people
injured, a Mosul roadside bombing which claimed the life of 1 police
officer and left a police officer and a child injured, and a Mosul
bombing which injured two children.
In Iraq, five British hostages appears to be down to one. For background, we fall back to the June 9th snapshot:
This morning the New York Times' Alissa J. Rubin and Michael Gordon offered "U.S. Frees Suspect in Killing of 5 G.I.'s." Martin Chulov (Guardian) covered the same story, Kim Gamel (AP) reported on it, BBC offered "Kidnap hope after Shia's handover" and Deborah Haynes contributed "Hope for British hostages in Iraq after release of Shia militant" (Times
of London). The basics of the story are this. 5 British citizens have
been hostages since May 29, 2007. The US military had in their custody
Laith al-Khazali. He is a member of Asa'ib al-Haq. He is also accused
of murdering five US troops. The US military released him and allegedly
did so because his organization was not going to release any of the
five British hostages until he was released. This is a big story and
the US military is attempting to state this is just diplomacy, has
nothing to do with the British hostages and, besides, they just
released him to Iraq. Sami al-askari told the New York Times,
"This is a very sensitive topic because you know the position that the
Iraqi government, the U.S. and British governments, and all the
governments do not accept the idea of exchanging hostages for
prisoners. So we put it in another format, and we told them that if
they want to participate in the political process they cannot do so
while they are holding hostages. And we mentioned to the American side
that they cannot join the political process and release their hostages
while their leaders are behind bars or imprisoned." In other words, a
prisoner was traded for hostages and they attempted to not only make
the trade but to lie to people about it. At the US State Dept, the
tired and bored reporters were unable to even broach the subject. Poor
declawed tabbies. Pentagon reporters did press the issue and got the
standard line from the department's spokesperson, Bryan Whitman, that
the US handed the prisoner to Iraq, the US didn't hand him over to any
organization -- terrorist or otherwise. What Iraq did, Whitman wanted
the press to know, was what Iraq did. A complete lie that really
insults the intelligence of the American people. CNN reminds the five US soldiers killed "were:
Capt. Brian S. Freeman, 31, of Temecula, California; 1st Lt. Jacob N.
Fritz, 25, of Verdon, Nebraska; Spc. Johnathan B. Chism, 22, of
Gonzales, Louisiana; Pfc. Shawn P. Falter, 25, of Cortland, New York;
and Pfc. Johnathon M. Millican, 20, of Trafford, Alabama." Those are
the five from January 2007 that al-Khazali and his brother Qais
al-Khazali are supposed to be responsible for the deaths of.
The
brothers were supposed to lead the group that kidnapped five British
hostages. That's why the trade went through. And it resulted in? Two
corpses originally. Apparently two more. BBC News' Humphrey Hawksley (link has video and text) reports:
Humphrey
Hawksley: Alan [McMenemy] from Dunbarton, Alec [Maclachlan] from South
Wales believed to be two more victims in this long running Iraq hostage
tragedy. Security guards whose colleagues Jason Swindlehurst from
Lancaster and Jason Creswell from Glasgow were shot dead, their bodies
recovered last month. There's hope that Peter Moore, the IT specialist
they were protecting, is still alive. This is the fortified Finance
Ministry in central Baghdad from where the five men were kidnapped more
than two years ago in May 2007 in a highly organized operation. Forty
men wearing the uniforms of the Iraqi police drove up surrounded the
building and took the hostages off to a secret location. For moths
there was no news then, in November, there came a video from Jason
Swindlehurst and, three months later, another from Peter Moore. He
called for the release of nine Shia Iraqis being held by the Americans,
release them so we can go, he said. And a year ago Alan asked the
British government to try to get them home as soon as possible. The
Foreign Office has adopted a low profile, softly-softly approach
although the families did speak out from time to time hoping their
voices might lead to the freedom of their loved ones. But nothing
until last month. Thousands of suspected insurgents are being held in
Iraq but are slowly being released. On June 7th, one of the nine
referred to in Peter Moore's appeal was freed. Twelve days later, the
two bodies were recovered. They'd been shot some time earlier. It's
not know if there was a connection. The hope now is that somewhere in
the dangerous world of Iraqi militias, Peter Moore is alive with a
chance of being released. Humphrey Hawksley, BBC News.
Deborah Haynes (Times of London) notes
the news "raises uncomfortable questions about Britain's handling of
the crisis. For more than two years, the Foreign and Commonwealth
Office stuck to the mantra that it was doing everything possible to
secure the 'safe release' of the computer consultant and his four
security guards. Officials warned the media that extensive coverage of
the men's plight could put them in greater danger. It now turns out
that two of the guards had been dead for a long time and the other two
are also thought to have perished." In another report, BBC News notes,
"BBC security correspondent Frank Gardner said the Foreign Office told
the families of Mr McMenemy and Mr Maclachlan last week that the men
had most likely died while in captivity. And he revealed the kidnappers
told the British government a month ago they had two more bodies."
Earlier this month, Kim Howells, former Foreign Office Minister in the UK, told BBC:
"I'm not convinced we were ever negotiating with the right people. I
mean, that's doubtful. And the only real proof of life that I saw were
the videos. And there were stories circulating that a suicide had taken
place, there were deadlines which came and went." To listen to the
interview in the immediate future, click here and go to the July 16th broadcast of The Report. Simon Cox explores the topic of hostage taking in the broadcast and starts with the Telegraph
of London's James Brandon who was one of the first known British
citizens to be kidnapped. "I opened the door," Brandon tells Cox about
the August 13, 2004 kidnapping, "there was just over a half a dozen
guys, mostly wearing police uniforms, mostly with balaclavas and guns.
They pushed their way in. They started hitting me around the head, took
my passport and I was blindfolded, dragged out down the stairs, into a
car and driven off." Brandon escapes and makes it to a police
checkpoint where he thinks he will get help.
James
Brandon: They were very welcoming and kind to me, said that, "It's
okay, you're safe now. Sit down and have a drink of water. It's all
okay." And then, um, the guys who I thought were my friends told me to
hide under a sheet. I was under the sheet for about ten seconds. I
heard feet running down the corridor, the blanket was kind of ripped
off of me where I was hiding and all these guys were standing around
with guns and they basically started hitting me, kicking me with guns.
And I thought, "Right. If I had a chance before this time, I don't have
a chance" because they were so angry. Just look in their eyes and see
pure hatred basically. And it's the kind of hatred that you've never
seen before in your life. And then they took me off to another building
and we did one of these hostage videos basically.
Brandon wrote about his kidnapping for the Telegraph of London. Simon
Rex explains on that Margaret Hassan and Ken Bigley's kidnappings would
follow also in 2004 (both would be murdered by their kidnappers) and
over 200 foreigners would be kidnapped in Iraq in the next years but it
had slowed down by 2007. Cox asked Howells about what he was
experiencing in the Foreign Office during this period?
Simon Cox: And how much were we dependent on the Iraqi government and their contacts in order to try and sort things out?
Kim
Howells: Well I became very frustrated with the Iraqi government
because we would hear stories that the kidnappers had influence with
elements of the Iraqi government or that there were ministers in the
Iraqi government who were Sadrists and knew roughly who was involved in
this kidnapping and they would talk in very rational way and they would
persuade people to release the hostages. Now none of this, none of
this, proved to be true. And it really used to frustrate me that the
Iraqi government ministers themselves would hint to you that they knew
something about what was going on but then nothing would happen.
Deborah Haynes (Times of London link has text and also has video of the press conference) reports
the families of all five British citizens who were kidnapped appeared
in public today to make a statement: "We are all deeply upset and
troubled to hear the reports that Alec and Alan have died in the hands
of their captors, as well as Jason Swindlehurst and Jason Creswell.
This is a terrible ordeal for us all. We ask those holding our men for
compassion when so many are working hard for reconciliation in Iraq and
we continue to pray for the safe return of our men." Haynes also
reports, "Release efforts will now focus on Peter Moore, the computer
consultant whom the four men had been guarding." CNN quotes
Haley Williams from the press conference but leaves out a bit including
a very important sentence in her remarks. We'll note her remarks,
we'll note Peter Moore's stepmother and then conclude with Alan's wife.
Haley
Williams: These reports are the worst possible news for us but we
continue to hope that they cannot be true. But whatever Alec's
condition, he no longer should remain in Iraq. We appeal to those
holding him to please send him home to us. I speak to you as the
mother of Alec's son. We are not the people holding your men but I do
understand your feelings cause you're going through the same pain we
are going through. If we had any influence over the release of your men
we would release them to you but we don't. Please send him home
because as a family we can't cope with this anymore."
Pauline
Sweeney: Please let them go now, enough is enough. We've been to the
two funerals of Jason Creswell and Jason Swindelhurst and now we are
informed, allegedly informed, that Alec and Alan are also no longer
with us. I plead with the hostage takers to send home the bodies of
Alec and Alan so that their parents can have, you know, closure and
move on. And I appeal to them to please let Peter come back alive.
Rosalyn
McMenemy: You understand how frightened we are to hear these reports
and how hard it is for us to consider what might have happened to
Alan. We continue to hope and pray that these reports cannot be true.
We are desperate to have Alan home with his family. Please return him
so that he can return to me and his children where he belongs.
For
anyone wondering, CNN did not include this by Haley Williams "We are
not the people holding your men but I do understand your feelings cause
you're going through the same pain we are going through. If we had any
influence over the release of your men we would release them to you
but we don't." They did include her sentence before those two
statements and her sentence after. They did not note online that they
edited her remarks; however, they did edit her remarks and edited out:
"We are not the people holding your men but I do understand your
feelings cause you're going through the same pain we are going through.
If we had any influence over the release of your men we would release
them to you but we don't."
Today the Los Angeles Times editorializes on
the topic of the current government in Iraq's obligations (or not) to
pay reparations for the violence of Saddam Hussein and concludes,
"Kuwait should consider reducing reparations, and its proposal to
reinvest some of the remaining debt in Iraq would benefit both
countries. In return, Iraq should act quickly and decisively to resolve
the other outstanding issues of concern to Kuwait, proving itself to be
a good neighbor." Staying with LAT, yesterday's snapshot noted AFP's estimate of a Baghdad bank robbery resulting in $3.8 million dollars being stolen. Liz Sly and Usama Redha report that the figure was $7 million.
Turning
to the US, local community is the key and so is word of mouth. Those
were the two messages coming out of today's House Committee on Veterans
Affairs hearing entitled Meeting the Needs of Injured Veterans in the
Military Paralympic Program. The hearing was divided into three
panels. The first panel was composed of three veterans: Sgt. Kortney
Clemons, Capt Nathan Waldon and Capt Mark Little. Panel two was
composed of Disabled American Veterans' Adrian M. Atizado, Paralyzed Veterans of America's Carl Blake. Wounded Warrior Disabled Sports Project's Julia Ray, National Recreation and Parks Association's David Stringer and Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America's
Carlos Leon. The third panel was composed of Dept of Defense's Dinah
Cohen, United States Olympic Committee, Charlie Huebner and Dept of
Veterans Affairs' Diane Hartmann.
"I think we
have a very interesting and important hearing this morning," declared
Chair Bob Filner as he brought the meeting to order. "I think you all
know since the early years of our country, Congress has had to reassess
programs created to care for our men and women in uniform, our veterans
who have courageously answered our call to duty and their families who
have joined in the military experience. For many service members and
veterans who have been severely injured from service to our country,
their rehabilitation can sometimes be quite disheartening. Many become
concerned about having the same quality of life that they had prior to
their injuries. This was known to be true in WWII and has held true
today in the midst of our nation's commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan."
In
his opening remarks, Ranking Member Steve Buyer noted, "I believe that
sports are the most valuable rehabilitative tools that we can provide
our wounded warriors." On the first panel, Clemons noted that he lost
his right leg in a 2004 roadside bombing in Iraq and explained,
"Paralympic sports has given me opportunities that I never thought
would be possible. Prior to my injury, I was an athlete who absolutely
loved sports. I played football, basketball and baseball in high
school in Little Rock, Mississippi and played football at East
Mississippi Community College before joining the army." Clemons
was recovering in the Brooke Army Medical Center and learned of the
Paralympic Military Program through word of mouth. He explained that
John Register of the US Olympic Committee visited the medical center
and explained the USOC's Paralympic Military Program and,
Clemons explained, "his inspirational message made me realize that
sports could give me the strength, courage and confidence to live a
great life." Little also learned of programs by word of mouth. After
losing both of his legs from the below the knee down in an IED
attack in Iraq, Little went to Walter Reed Army Medical Center. "Very
similarly also, sports was huge in my identity being an almost
pro-rollerball hokey player ice hockey player, rugby, tennis, golf,
soccer, football, etc, I had similar concerns, now I'm missing both of
my legs, how am I going to be an excellent sports star like I always
knew I would be? And it was as I was expressing those concerns my first
day of physical therapy a couple of weeks after returning home that
Gunnery Sgt from the marine corps who is a double below the knee
amputee walked in with his set of prosthetic roller blade inline
skates, telling me that they had just custom made them for him He was
the second person to ever receive that style and was already skating
outside. Right then and there, competitive spirit took over and I knew
exactly what I knew before in the military and even prior in sports, I
have to be better than this man, I have to do one more. So I asked my
physical therapist who ironically was also his physical therapist
what-what records had he set? She said pretty much everything for a
double amputee. So after getting a laundry list of those, I set out to
beat every single one."
US House Rep Timothy
Walz wondered about how to get the word out and what sort of events
were needed? Little explained that it needed to be community based
because most people don't live in DC and they will be interacting in
their own communities. Clemons agreed with that and added that the
word needed to be out there that "there are things to do when you get
back home to move forward." Waldon spoke on the issue noting, "Pretty
much the daily community programs. Just moving it down to a more, just
like classroom size. The smaller the classroom, the more personal
instruction can be for the students the same thing with this. The more
one-on-one, one-on-three, one-on-four time you can really get with an
instructor, someone to help you out, the better it will be and you know
pretty much being everywhere. It's a far reaching goal but you at
least have something in mind, like something to push towards. No
reason to settle if we can achieve something else." On the second
panel, Julia Ray noted, " I think what we're noticing from the most
recent grop of injured veterans is the extreme diversity in what their
needs and interests are. It's not your classic disabled sports that we
began with back in the Vietnam era -- skiing and so forth. They're
wanting to do the Iron Man in Hawaii. They all want to compete and
train alongside the communities-- people with and without
disabilities. All kinds of diffent things and that kind of support
needs to be individualized, it needs to be adjusted according to the
type of injury. With polytrauma, we're seeing the effects of Traumatic
Brain Injury, multiple amputations and very severe injuries that
require very individualized attention." Kat
will cover some of the hearing at her site tonight and we need to wind
down. We'll close on the hearing with these remarks by Little, "I
would never have known half of what I do about being an amputee, being
a returning disabled veteran and just getting around in life had it not
been for people like my first snow board trip Captain [Nathan] Waldan
who you may have met earlier teaching me how to properly fit my
prosethetic in a snow board boot to get down the hill -- which I did
sucessfully my first time. And then going on to be that person.
There's someone out there right now that's going on about how Capt
Little showed him how to do that the first time he was out there."
Finally, independent journalist David Bacon continues to report on labor issues. How did TARP -- the Big Business bail out -- help residents in Oakland? At In These Times, Bacon reveals
that it didn't help them at all: "Tosha Alberty had just left for work,
for her job as a transportation services coordinator for Alameda
County. Her children were still at home, though. Sheriffs told her
adopted son Christian, a nine-year-old with autism still in his
undershorts, to get dressed. Alberty's daughter Sharquita rushed to
collect the bottles and diapers she needed to take care of her
nine-month-old baby Zmylan." And they were evicted, right then, right
there. Bacon can be heard on KPFA's The Morning Show (over the airwaves in the Bay Area, streaming online) each Wednesday morning (begins airing at 7:00 am PST) and his latest book is Illegal People -- How Globalization Creates Migration and Criminalizes Immigrants (Beacon Press).
Iraqi security forces have stormed the base of the anti-Iranian terrorist group the Mujahedin-e-Khalq Organization. An Iraqi military official has said that Iraqi forces have taken complete control of the camp. MKO
spokesman Shahriar Kia said that four people were killed and 300
wounded when Iraqi soldiers and police stormed Camp Ashraf on Tuesday,
AFP reported.
Iraqi
soldiers and police raided on Tuesday Ashraf camp triggering clashes
using white weapons. Battles left around 200 Iranian residents and 50
Iraqi security forces wounded, an Iraq security source reported. 50
members of the People Mujahedeen of Iran (PMOI) were arrested, the
source added. "After the
failure of negotiations with the Mujahedeen to enter peacefully, the
Iraqi army entered Camp Ashraf with force and it now controls all of
the interior and all entrances to the camp," the source speaking on
condition of anonymity told AFP. The operation was ordered by Prime
Minister Nuri Al Maliki’s office, the source noted adding that the
decision to enter the camp is included in the agreement signed between
Baghdad and Washington over handing authority to Iraqis.
Search in vain through the New York Times,
which files three reports from Iraq in today's paper, for any article
on this. There is none. There's a really bad article we'll note in a
second, but this? Not covered.
There was plenty of time to cover it. It was a question at yesterday's State Dept briefing, reports were already coming out. As Elaine noted last night, before I dicated the snapshot
yesterday, I was on the phone with friends at Amnesty in London (who
got photos and film of the assault early on) asking for descriptions of
what was taking place in the footage. A friend with Amnesty asked that
a statement be noted:
AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL PUBLIC STATEMENT AI Index: MDE 14/021/2009 28 July 2009 Iraq: Camp Ashraf residents attacked Amnesty
International is seriously concerned at today's attacks by Iraqi forces
on unarmed residents of Camp Ashraf which left several people injured
and led to the arrest of at least eight others. Hundreds
of armed Iraqi security forces are said to have stormed the camp, north
of Baghdad, at around 3pm local time. They used tear gas, water canons
and batons against unarmed Iranian residents who tried to stop them
from entering the camp. Video
footage seen by Amnesty International clearly shows Iraqi forces
beating people repeatedly on different parts of the body, including the
head. Dozens of people are said to have been injured. Two
of them, Reza Chelcheraqi and Mohammad-Reza Shahsavandi, are believed
to be in serious condition. At least eight people, including Hasan
Besharati, Humayoun Deyhim, Gholam Reza Behrouzi, Hosein Fili, Mehdi
Zareh and Naser Nour Ebadian, were arrested and their current
whereabouts are unknown. In
the last few months the Iraqi government has publicly stated that it
wants to take over full control of Camp Ashraf, in Diyala governorate,
north of Baghdad. On 27 July government spokesperson Ali al-Dabbagh
told an Iraqi satellite television channel that the government "will
take over the responsibility of internal security affairs of Camp
Ashraf". The authorities are reportedly planning to establish a police
outpost inside the camp. Amnesty
International calls on the Iraqi government to investigate the apparent
excessive use of force by Iraqi security forces. The government should
reveal the whereabouts of the eight people detained and ensure that
they are protected from torture or other ill-treatment, as well as from
forcible return to Iran. Background Around
3,400 residents of Camp Ashraf are members or supporters of the
People's Mojahedeen Organization of Iran (PMOI), an Iranian opposition
organization whose members have been resident in Iraq for many years.
Until recently the PMOI was listed as a "terrorist" organization by the
European Union and other governments, but in most cases this
designation has now been lifted on the grounds that the PMOI no longer
advocates or engages in armed opposition to the government of Iran. The
US forces provided protection for the camp and its residents, who were
designated as "protected persons" following the 2003 invasion of Iraq,
but this situation was discontinued following the Status of Forces
Agreement (SOFA) between the US and Iraqi governments, although the
SOFA makes no reference to Camp Ashraf or its residents. Public Document **************************************** For more information please call Amnesty International's press office in London, UK, on +44 20 7413 5566 or email: press@amnesty.org International Secretariat, Amnesty International, 1 Easton St., London WC1X 0DW, UK www.amnesty.org
That
was e-mailed (to one of my personal e-mail account) and I can't find it
at the website currently. I'll assume it will be there later today.
But there is footage, there are photos. An assault took place and the New York Times
isn't interested. (Possibly because Gen Ray Odierno, top US commander
in Iraq, isn't interested? Possibly because the US embassy in Iraq has
told some in the press that covering the assualt will "inflame
tensions"? I don't know, ask the paper.)
Iraqi
authorities raided the camp of a small Iranian opposition group living
in the north of Iraq on Tuesday, killing at least four of the group's
members in a spate of clashes that ensued, members of the group said. At
Camp Ashraf in the northern province of Diyala, about 3,400 members of
the Mujahadeen-e-Khalq group went on a hunger strike following what
they called a "brutal" raid that targeted unarmed members of their
organization. Since the U.S.
handed control of the camp to Iraqi authorities on Jan.1, Iraq has
increased efforts to push the group out. U.S. officials were promised
that the cult-like MEK organization on the U.S. list of terror groups
would be treated "humanely" under Iraqi authority.
Residents
of Camp Ashraf said hundreds of Iraqi security forces tore down the
camp's walls on Tuesday afternoon with bulldozers. The forces fired
water cannon and tear gas and swung batons against camp residents who
tried to block their entry, residents said. The
operation against the sprawling desert compound 80 miles north of
Baghdad and about 70 miles from Iran's border was continuing into the
night, they said. Gen.
Odierno and a spokesman for Prime Minister Maliki confirmed Iraqi
forces had seized control of the camp by force after the camp's leaders
refused requests by Iraqi police to enter the camp peacefully to
establish a police station there. A
U.S. military official said the Iraqis used primarily tear gas and
smoke grenades, as opposed to live ammunition or other deadly weaponry.
AP notes
that Odierno is claiming that Iraq used "non-lethal force" and insists,
"We have had promises from the government of Iraq that they would deal
with the [group] in a humane fashion." However, AP doesn't just swallow official-speak and parrot it:
But
a video provided by the exile group showed Iraqi forces using batons
and water cannons against the residents gathered at the camp's gates.
The group also released photos showing injured people and bloodied
bodies, although the authenticity of the images couldn't be
independently verified.
Ernesto Londono (Washington Post) was reporting on the assault yesterday evening and this morning, he and Greg Jaffe report
the assault continues and they note: "The operation, which caught U.S.
officials off guard, coincided with a visit to Iraq by Defense
Secretary Robert M. Gates. Analysts said it appeared designed to send a
message of Iraqi independence. " This morning, BBC also reports
the assault is still ongoing: "Eyewitnesses say Iraqi police have
surrounded the People's Mujahideen of Iran (PMOI) camp and clashes are
continuing inside. Iran wants the camp closed. The exiles fear they
will be forcibly repatriated." (They also quote a portion of the
Amnesty International's statement.)
In today's New York Times, Rod Nordland and Timothy Williams allegedly cover yesterday's violence but somehow miss the assault. As was noted here in January and February and in March (roundtable in March),
I was asked not to push on that issue here by friends in the
administration who stated they were dealing with it and they knew how
important it was and tensions didn't need to be raised higher (this was
during the transition phase) and I agreed I wouldn't hit on the issue.
It wasn't that much of an issue because US forces were protecting the
group and had been for years. And if the administration was seriously
going to address this and find a peaceful outcome on it, no problem,
there are dozens of other topics having to do with Iraq that can be
covered here. However, that clearly did not happen. Point, I was a
fool. I've been one before and will be one again. So those outlets
thinking, "Oh, well, let's give the administration more time . . ." No.
I stated back then that if the group was assaulted, we'd cover it and
we'd call the administration out. (And the administration did not
protect the group. They sold the group out. This is a huge human rights
stain on Barack's administration.) I was a fool -- not the first time.
I feel foolish. (Not the first time. Not the last time.) But I'd feel
even more foolish if I continued the silence. Those still being silent
better grasp that at some point, they're going to move from foolish to
culpable. Sam Dagher writes about Kurdistan today and we'll try to note his article in the snapshot later today. Greg Jaffe covers it for the Washington Post as does Anthony Shadid.
But the story this morning is the continued assault on Camp Ashraf.
Even more then the nonsense about "our first blantant betrayal" by the
administration served up by an 'immigration' 'activist' on Democracy
Now! this morning. Nearly one year ago (one month away) Ava and I were
calling out Janet and what she would be bringing to the table
(anti-immigration policies). You're a little a late to the party and
excuse yourself from the table because you've spilled stupid all over
your dress.
The
Iraqis will be unable to handle their own air defenses after all
American troops withdraw from the country by the end of 2011, the top
commander of American forces in Iraq said Tuesday.
Golly. Who could have guessed that? The above is from Elisabeth Bumiller's "Iraq Can’t Defend Its Skies by Pullout Date, U.S. Says" (New York Times
-- buried inside the paper instead of on the front page where it should
be but if it were on the front page how could the non-news of a 'furor'
over Wikipedia make the front page?). Bumiller's reporting on the
comment made by the top US commander in Iraq, General Ray Odierno:
Asked
if the Iraqis would be in a position to fly their own defensive air
patrols at the end of 2011, when a United States agreement with Iraq
calls for all American troops to be out of the country, General Odierno
replied, "Right now, no."
Bumiller's become one of the
strongest reporters on Iraq, poking around at the things others have
just accepted as 'truth' and Odierno's been the closest thing to a
straight talker the US military's had in Iraq. So my (no doubt barbed)
comments which follow aren't aimed at either of them.
But they
are aimed at the liars and the fools, the Tom Haydens, the Leslie
Cagans, all the faux peace crew. Because, good for Bumiller for
covering it, this didn't just emerge. And shame on those in the
so-called peace movement especially the worthless ones hiding behind
"we're a religious organization" when, no, they're not and they're not
a peace group. From the June 14, 2007 snapshot:
The Pentagon report
has many sections and one of interest considering one of the 2007
developments may be this: "There are currently more than 900 personnel
in the Iraqi Air Force. . . . The fielding of rotary-wing aircraft
continued with the delivery to Taji of five modified UH II (Iroquois)
helicopters, bringing the total delivered to ten. The final six are
scheduled to arrive in June. Aircrews are currently conducting initial
qualifications and tactics training. The Iroquois fleet is expected to
reach initial operation capability by the end of June 2007." By the end
of June 2007? One of the developments of 2007 was the (admission of)
helicopter crashes. US helicopters. British helicopters. Some may find
comfort in the fact that evacuations and mobility will be handled by
Iraqis . . . whenever they are fully staffed and trained. Four years
plus to deliver the equipment, training should be done in ten or twenty
years, right?
They
note the claims by puppet of the occupation Nouri al-Maliki made over
the weekend that can only be described as 'get tough' and how
"Additional Iraqi tanks and aircraft arrived in Mosul" and I'll assume
they think we're flat out stupid since there's no Iraqi "aircraft" to
speak of and the Iraqi air force does not conduct missions and is
begging for money to upgrade their air 'power.'
There's
no rush to leave Iraq or even a desire. That needs to be grasped. Iraqi
General Nasier Abadi made that pretty clear during Sunday's press
conference in the Green Zone. Questioned by the Washington Post's
Mary Beth Sheridan as to when the Iraqis would be able to handle "their
own internal security . . . how many years are you away from reaching
that goal," Abadi tried to distract by listing duties before declaring,
"We have no duties or missions to protect the air on the borders of the
country. But in case we have this responsibility, there is a brief that
-- to the minister of defense, if he ask us to -- task us with that, a
reportw ent also to the Prime Minister, what are the capabilities and
the army's specifics to do those duties?" Asked how many years again,
he responded, "Building an aerial force, building an Army is not easy,
but it's still easier than building naval and air force. The naval
force, as I said before, that the first ship will come in 2009 and the
fourth will arrive in . . . at the end of 2011. In regard to 200- . . .
Air Force, the first aircraft we will receive in 2011 until 2015. And
that depends on the support and the help that the coalition forces can
secure to Iraq so we can be able to maintain and defend our airspace
and territories. Without that, there will be also agreements with the
neighboring countries on the security of Iraq. But it's possible that
we will go with those missions without having an air force or naval
force because this is a common battle, it's not just an army's duty."
Setting aside the naval force and focusing only on the air, if the
period they'll be taking possession of aircraft will last from 2011
through 2015, how likely is it that they will be prepared to handle
their own airspaceby the end of 2011?
We could go on and on. Click here,
at least 100 of the over 600 listed entries address the Iraqi air
force. See, we could go on and on, but we've covered it in real time.
While
liars like Patrick Cockburn and Amy Goodman were pimping the treaty
masquearding as a Status Of Forces Agreement as "historic" and the
rumor (repeated at the US Socialist Worker this week) was spreading
that Iraq forced Bush to do something, reality was always obvious. And
on that latter point, LIARS need to stop. The SOFA replaces the UN
mandate. US officials leave Dec. 31, 2008? Nouri is toppled. He knew
it, they knew it. Bush sent a ton of heavy hitters into Iraq in the
lead up to the vote. There was no cave on the part of the White House.
The White House got what it wanted in the SOFA. But idiots and liars
misread the SOFA and idiots and liars (especially Patrick Cockburn who
is the worst 'independent' 'reporter') and put out the rumos that the
US was forced to cave. You stupid, stupid idiots. (Patrick's so stupid,
he was claiming weeks after the White House published the SOFA online
that they wouldn't release it.) There are 275 members of the Iraqi
Parliament. While liars like Patrick wanted to insist a huge majority
had passed the SOFA, reality was far different. How many voted for it?
149. And how many showed up for the vote? This community knows because
we covered it in real time. When the SOFA was forced through the
Parliament -- on Thanksgiving Day -- we covered it. We didn't show up a week later, rested and fat on turkey and thin on facts to start talking the SOFA.
The left's 'voices' have been uninformed and have repeatedly betrayed either due to stupidity or some other reason.
The
SOFA does not end the illegal war. That was never its purpose. Its
purpose was to replace the UN mandate and Nouri wanted the mandate
replaced for a number of reasons but the US wanted away from it for
numerous reasons as well including legal obligations -- which none of
you Paddy Cockburns or Liar Goodmans bothered to tell you about. The
SOFA only replaced the UN mandate. It did not end anything. And it is
the Bush plan in place and that's what Barack acts under so all the
raving lunatics who think there's something amazing about what Barack's
'doing' better start singing the praises of Bully Boy Bush.
The SOFA extends the illegal war, it does not end it. The purpose of the SOFA was not to end the illegal war.
And
what's really disgusting about the SOFA is that one organization stood
up and called it out, one organization was telling you in real time
that it was a farce. But they were attacked for doing that, they were
told that it was "hurting Obama" and they dropped it (one of their
board members is a raving lunatic prone to calling Barack a "feminist"
-- yeah, you know the one). So it's not just a case of people didn't
understand, it's a case of they didn't want to. They wanted their
dream, they wanted their lie. It was more important to them than the
Iraqis dying, it was more important to them than ending the Iraq War.
Let's
hope they found a way to profit from stupid. It would be a shame to
think they worked so hard to mislead and got nothing out of it.
Personal note: Jim, remind me of this entry, editorial idea for Third. Which reminds me, a friend at the paper wants the Los Angeles Times editorial linked to and we'll include it in the snapshot today as well:
To
what degree is the elected government of Iraq obligated to pay for the
sins committed by the late dictator Saddam Hussein? Should neighboring
Kuwait forgive Iraq's new leadership $24 billion in outstanding debt
for the destruction wrought by the 1990 invasion, a seven-month
occupation, looting and the violent retreat of Iraqi forces? And is it
relevant that Iraq may need the money more than Kuwait does? These are
some of the questions the United Nations Security Council must consider
when it addresses Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki's request to
release his country from the remaining sanctions imposed after the 1991
Gulf War, including a requirement that the country use its oil revenues
to pay reparations.
Tuesday,
July 28, 2009. Chaos and violence continue, the US Defense Secretary
visits Iraq, Nouri launches an attack on civilians at Camp Ashraf,
Baghdad loses millions in a bank robbery, and more.
Today Gabriel Gatehouse (BBC News) reveals
that, oh, US troops? Still patrolling. US troops are patrolling in
Mosul. The 'pull-back' was for-show as was Nouri al-Maliki's
no-no-we-don't-want-US-troops-in-Mosul. The largest question
Gatehouse's report raises is why the BBC is the one breaking the news?
Don't several US papers have staff in Baghdad?
He's
not patrolling (and he's hopefully not editing copying) but US
Secretary of Defense Robert Gates was in Iraq today. As always, it was
an unannounced visit. They keep splashing waves of Operation Happy Talk
but the US officials still can't visit Iraq openly. Kevin Baron (Stars and Stripes) reports
that the press was told about the visit on Friday by someone at the
Defense Dept and quotes the unnamed person telling them, "The purpose
of going to Talil is so the secretary can get an understanding of the
advisory and assistance brigades that are sort of being developed. This
is what eventually we will be left with when we have a transitional
force come September 2010." Elisabeth Bumiller (New York Times) is part of the press traveling with Gates and notes
this his first visit to Iraq for 2009 -- seven months in, rather sad --
and that he plans to visit with both Nouri al-Maliki (puppet of the
occupation) and Gen Ray Odierno (top US commander in Iraq). She also
notes Gates will be playing an Amway salesman for US defense
contractors as he meets with Iraqi officials to discuss "whether the
U.S. will sell Iraq any F-16 fighter jets." Jim Wolf (Reuters) reports
it more bluntly: "One of the topics they are expected to discuss is
Baghdad's interest in acquiring Lockheed Martin Corp's (LMT.N) F-16
multirole fighter jets to counter possible threats from neighbouring
nations after U.S. forces leave." And he will visit Kurdistan President
Masoud Barzani. Al Bawaba reports that Gates' visit as 8 security guards were killed in a Baghdad bank robbery. AFP places the amount stolen at $3.8 million (US dollars). Gates was greeted with a parade. Well . . . a protest. Aljazeera reports followers of Moqtada al-Sadr staged a demonstration chanting "NO, NO TO AMERICA!" BBC reports,
"At a news conference after his talks in Baghdad, Mr Gates side-stepped
a question about whether some US forces might stay on beyond a 2011
deadline for withdrawal. The issue, he said, was best left until the
end of 2010 or even 2011."
Whose funding
the so-called "insurgents" in Iraq? For years General David Petraeus,
Robert Gates and assorted others have insisted it was the government of
Iran. Turns out, it may be the US. Free Speech Radio News explained yesterday:
Andrew
Stelzer: The US Agency for Intenational Development, or USAID, has
suspended a $644 million dollar program in Iraq because of two reviews
indicating a portion of the money was ending up in the hands of
insurgents and going to fund jobs that didn't exist. The government
hired the Virginia-based International Relief and Development to run
the public works job creation program. Former employees told USA Today that documents were faked and projects that didn't exist were included in progress reports.
Ken Dilanian (USA Today) explains
the program "was designed to tamp down the insurgency by paying Iraqi
cash to do public work projects such as trash removal and ditch
digging." So the US government, not the Iranian one, has been funding
the so-called 'insurgency.' Government officials in Iran are no doubt
happy by another development. Nouri al-Maliki did their bidding
today. Ernesto Londono (Washington Post) reports
that Camp Ashraf, to the north of Baghdad, was raided today by Iraqi
forces who "used batons, hoses, pepper spray and sound grenades during
the raid at Camp Ashraf, home to the Mujahadeen-e-Khalq [approximately
3500 people]. The raid came a day after the Iraqi government announced
it would assume complete responsibility of the camp and vowed to
'protest the people inside the base'." You can't trust Nouri. The Foreign Affairs Committee of the National Council of Resistance of Iran is stating that "Peyman Kord-Amir, artist and singer, is in coma right now due to severe blows to his head." They note 2,000 Iraqi forces were sent in and they note
that following the 300 wounded and the 4 dead, residents of Camp Ashraf
have started a hunger strike and have issued a list of demands which
include the immediate removal of Iraqi forces and the freeing of
prisoners, returning protection responsibilities for the camp to the
US, allowing attorneys and human rights organizations into the camp. Nouri's bag boy Ali al-Dabbagh insists to UPI,
The entrance of the Iraqi forces into Camp Ashraf is not a break-in but
rather a well-coordinated operation to stabilize the security situation
inside the camp." AFP is reporting
that 150 were injured as Iraqi forces stormed the camp. Until
recently, the US had been protecting the camp. Before the start of the
illegal war, the Iranians were allowed in the country by Saddam
Hussein. Nouri's close ties to Iran include the many years where his
cowardly streak found him living there because it took to much strength
and courage to fight to overthrow a government he didn't believe in.
Much better to hide like a coward and wait for the US military to do
so. AFP quotes US Gen Ray Odierno insisting the US had no
prior knowledge of the assault: "We didn't know they were going to do
this." Really? After May when Nouri ordered what was obviously the
trial run for the assault, no one suspected? When he sent Iraqi forces
into Camp Ashraf May 28th, no one had a clue?
Barack
Obama's administration has failed. Following the election, they knew
this was one of the issues that the previous administration would be
dumping in their laps and they knew it was time sensitive. They
refused to seriously address it and, in fact, took the promises of thug
Nouri at face value in order to be done with the matter and wash their
hands clean. They knew this was a serious issue and instead of
treating it seriously, they passed the buck. On an issue that was
early on desginated as "a litmus test" regarding Barack's dedication to
human rights.
32.
(U) 3,839 members and former members of the USG-designated foreign
terrorist organization Mujahideen-e-Khalq (MEK) are currently resident
at Camp Ashraf in Diyala Province under Coalition guard and protection.
33.
(U) MF-I has designated these 3,839 individuals as protected persons
under the Fourth Geneva Convention and considers the restrictions
placed on MEK travel outside the compound and on visitor entry as
"measures of control and security" permitted under Article 27 of IVGC.
34.
(U) Those 74 residents of Camp Ashraf who are citizens or legal
residents of third countries are permitted to repatriate with the
approval of their respective governments. MNF-I and Post are currently
facilitating a number of possible repatriations.
35.
(U) IRC has been invited to vist Camp Ashraf to conduct individual
interviews with the residents of the Camp. It is expected that these
interviews may result in ICRC's recommendation that UNHCR make a
determination of refugee status in many cases.
The
term "terrorist" may be applied to the group. That was being
re-evaluated by the US government (prior to the assault). Already this
year England and the European Union took the Mujahadeen-e-Khalq off
their list of terrorists groups. If "terrorist" is used, don't let
that distract from the fact that this was a camp for exiles, that
children were present during the assault. In March 2008, the International Red Cross' Juan-Pedro Schaerer explained,
"The main responsibility to protect civilians lies with the States that
have effective control over them -- in this case, the governments of
the United States and of Iraq have to find a suitable solution in
accordance with international law and relevant provisions of national
law. Our main concern is to ensure that the authorities meet these
obligations. In particular, they must always protect the lives, the
physical and moral integrity and the dignity of those concerned.
Morevoer, should anyone in Ashraf be suspected or accused of committing
criminal offences, judicial guarantees must be respected as provided
for in international law." The residents of the camp had rights.
Those rights were not respected and the camp was assaulted. April
20th, Amnesty International issued "Iraq: concerns regarding the future of Camp Ashraf resident:"
Amnesty
International has written directly to the Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri
al-Maliki about recent developments relating to the more than 3,000
Iranian exiles currently living in Camp Ashraf, northeast of Baghdad,
who Iraqi officials have said should leave the country. The Iranians
are members or supporters of the People's Mojahedin Organization of
Iran (PMOI).
In
particular, Amnesty International expressed concern at a recent
statement reportedly made in an interview with al-Forat, an Iraqi TV
channel, by National Security Advisor Dr Muwaffaq al-Rubaie, in which
he said that the authorities intend gradually to make the continued
presence of the Camp Ashraf residents "intolerable". Shortly after
this, possibly in a related development, a team of medical doctors were
denied access to the Camp for several days. One purpose of their visit
was reportedly to provide treatment to a woman in the Camp in need of
surgery for an internal cancerous tumour. The doctors were later
allowed into the camp.
In
its letter, Amnesty International urged the Iraqi Prime Minister to
ensure that no action is taken by the Iraqi authorities that violates
the human rights of the Camp Ashraf residents and to clarify the
government's intentions towards them in the light of Dr al-Rubaie's
reported threat to make their lives "intolerable." Amnesty
International has previously called on the Iraqi government to ensure
that none of the Camp Ashraf residents or other Iranian dissidents are
forcibly returned to Iran in view of fears that they would be at risk
of torture or other serious human rights violations there.
Background:
The
PMOI is an Iranian opposition organization and many of its members have
been resident in Iraq for many years. Until recently the organization
was listed as a "terrorist" organization by the European Union (EU) and
governments of non-EU states, but in most cases this designation has
now been lifted on the grounds that the PMOI no longer advocates or
engages in armed opposition to the government of Iran. Following the
invasion of Iraq in 2003 the US forces provided protection for the
Ashraf Camp residents, who were designated as "protected persons" under
the Geneva Conventions. This situation has apparently been discontinued
following the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) between the US and
Iraqi governments which came into force on 1 January 2009, although the
SOFA does not make any reference to Camp Ashraf or its residents. The
Iranian government is said to be putting pressure on Iraq to expel the
PMOI members and supporters from Iraq.
-
having regard to the Geneva Conventions and notably Article 27 of the
Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons
in Time of War,
- having regard to
the Geneva Convention of 1951 relating to the Status of Refugees and
the 1967 Protocol thereto,
- having regard to the Status of Forces Agreement between the US and Iraqi Governments, signed in November 2008,
- having regard to its resolution of 12 July 2007 on the humanitarian situation of Iraqi refugees(1) and its resolution of 4 September 2008 on executions in Iran(2),
which include references to Camp Ashraf residents having legal status
as protected persons under the Fourth Geneva Convention,
-having regard to Rule 115(5) of its Rules of Procedure,
A.-
whereas Camp Ashraf in Northern Iraq was established during the 1980s
for members of the Iranian opposition group People's Mujahedin
Organisation of Iran (PMOI),
B.- whereas
in 2003 US forces in Iraq disarmed Camp Ashraf's residents and provided
them with protection, those residents having been designated "protected
persons" under the Geneva Conventions,
C.-
whereas in a letter dated 15 October 2008 the UN High Commissioner for
Human Rights urged the Iraqi Government to protect Camp Ashraf
residents from forcible deportation, expulsion or repatriation in
violation of the non-refoulement principle, and to refrain from any
action that would endanger their life or
security,
D.-
whereas following the conclusion of the US/Iraqi Status of Forces
Agreement, control of Camp Ashraf was transferred to the Iraqi security
forces as of 1 January 2009,
E.-
whereas, according to recent statements reportedly made by the Iraqi
National Security Advisor, the authorities intend gradually to make the
continued presence of the Camp Ashraf residents "intolerable", and
whereas he reportedly also referred to their expulsion/extradition
and/or their forcible displacement inside Iraq,
1.-
Urges the Iraqi Prime Minister to ensure that no action is taken by
the Iraqi authorities which violates the human rights of the Camp
Ashraf residents and to clarify the Iraqi government's intentions
towards them; calls on the Iraqi authorities to protect the lives and
the physical and moral integrity of the Camp Ashraf residents and to
treat them in accordance with obligations under the Geneva Conventions,
in particular by refraining from forcibly displacing, deporting,
expelling or repatriating them in violation of the principle of
non-refoulement;
2.- Respecting the
individual wishes of anyone living in Camp Ashraf as regards his or her
future, considers that those living in Camp Ashraf and other Iranian
nationals who currently reside in Iraq having left Iran for political
reasons could be at risk of serious human rights violations if they
were to be returned involuntarily to Iran, and insists that no person
should be returned, either directly or via a third country, to a
situation where he or she would be at risk of torture or other serious
human rights abuses;
3.-
Calls on the Iraqi Government to end its blockade of the camp, to
respect the legal status of the Camp Ashraf residents as protected
persons under the Geneva Conventions, and to refrain from any action
that would endanger their life or security, i.e. to afford them full
access to food, water, medical care and supplies, fuel, family members
and international humanitarian organisations;
4.-
Calls on the Council, the Commission and the Member States, together
with the Iraqi and US Governments, the UN High Commissioner for
Refugees and the International Committee of the Red Cross, to work
towards finding a satisfactory long-term legal status for Camp Ashraf
residents;
5.-
Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the
Commission, the Governments and Parliaments of the Member States, the
UN High Commissioner for Refugees, the International Committee of the
Red Cross, the Government of the United States of America and the
Government and Parliament of Iraq.
The issue was debate by the UK House of Lords at the start of this month
with the Labour Party Whip repeatedly assuring that England was on the
issue and conveying this message to the Iraqi government and that
message, and monitoring and they have "sought assurances" and received
them. At the US State Dept today, spokesperson Ian Kelly was asked
about the assault and responded, "We've seen these media reports and
we're looking into them. As you know, the government of Iraq has
assumed responsibility -- security responsibility -- for Camp Ashraf
and its residents. We continue to monitor the situation closely to
ensure the residents of Camp Ashraf are treated in accordance with
Iraq's written assurance that it will treat the residents there
humanely. This is in accordance with the constitutional laws and the
international obligations of Iraq and the government has stated to us
that no Camp Ashraf resident will be forcibly transferred to a country
where they have reason to fear persecution on the basis of their
political beliefs, poitical opinions or religious beliefs or whether
there are substantial grounds for believing they would be tortured."
While
Nouri, if Odierno is correct, ignores the US, they continue to cater to
him. July 9th, five Iranian diplomats were released. Or were they?
Apparently, four were released but the fifth was something else and the
US military used the diplomats release to sneak the non-diplomat out. Bill Roggio (Long War Journal) reports:
The US had previously released two members of the Irbil Five in November 2007, according to The Associated Press,
but the report received little attention. This "left room for Farhadi
to be pawned off as one of the Irbil Five and snuck out the back door,"
one official told The Long War Journal.
Farhadi's
detention caused a row between Iran and Iraq. Iran closed the border
after claiming Farhadi was an Iranian trade delegation representative
named Agha Farhadi who was visiting Iraq on a sanctioned business trip.
Why
would they worry? Why would they hide Farhadi's release? Because
Barack Obama has a large and growing problem with military families
over a stunt pulled without explanation last month. From the June 9th snapshot:
This morning the New York Times' Alissa J. Rubin and Michael Gordon offered "U.S. Frees Suspect in Killing of 5 G.I.'s." Martin Chulov (Guardian) covered the same story, Kim Gamel (AP) reported on it, BBC offered "Kidnap hope after Shia's handover" and Deborah Haynes contributed "Hope for British hostages in Iraq after release of Shia militant" (Times
of London). The basics of the story are this. 5 British citizens have
been hostages since May 29, 2007. The US military had in their custody
Laith al-Khazali. He is a member of Asa'ib al-Haq. He is also accused
of murdering five US troops. The US military released him and allegedly
did so because his organization was not going to release any of the
five British hostages until he was released. This is a big story and
the US military is attempting to state this is just diplomacy, has
nothing to do with the British hostages and, besides, they just
released him to Iraq. Sami al-askari told the New York Times,
"This is a very sensitive topic because you know the position that the
Iraqi government, the U.S. and British governments, and all the
governments do not accept the idea of exchanging hostages for
prisoners. So we put it in another format, and we told them that if
they want to participate in the political process they cannot do so
while they are holding hostages. And we mentioned to the American side
that they cannot join the political process and release their hostages
while their leaders are behind bars or imprisoned." In other words, a
prisoner was traded for hostages and they attempted to not only make
the trade but to lie to people about it. At the US State Dept, the
tired and bored reporters were unable to even broach the subject. Poor
declawed tabbies. Pentagon reporters did press the issue and got the
standard line from the department's spokesperson, Bryan Whitman, that
the US handed the prisoner to Iraq, the US didn't hand him over to any
organization -- terrorist or otherwise. What Iraq did, Whitman wanted
the press to know, was what Iraq did. A complete lie that really
insults the intelligence of the American people. CNN reminds the five US soldiers killed "were:
Capt. Brian S. Freeman, 31, of Temecula, California; 1st Lt. Jacob N.
Fritz, 25, of Verdon, Nebraska; Spc. Johnathan B. Chism, 22, of
Gonzales, Louisiana; Pfc. Shawn P. Falter, 25, of Cortland, New York;
and Pfc. Johnathon M. Millican, 20, of Trafford, Alabama." Those are
the five from January 2007 that al-Khazali and his brother Qais
al-Khazali are supposed to be responsible for the deaths of.
That
was a trade which was supposed to lead to the release of five British
hostages. Two were released, their corpses. Earlier this month, Kim Howells, former Foreign Office Minister in the UK, told BBC
that "he doubts Britain negotiated with the right people in its
attempts to free five men kidnapped in Iraq." Howells: "I'm not
convinced we were ever negotating with the right people. I mean, that's
doubtful. The only real proof of life that I saw were the video. And
there were stories circulating that a suicide had taken place, there
were deadlines that came and went." And all of that goes to why the US
would sneak out a prisoner.
Turning to other reported violence today . . .
Bombings?
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a
Baghdad motorcycle bombing which claimed 8 lives and left seventeen
injured and a two Baghdad roadside bombings which left four people
injured. Reuters notes a Baghdad cafe bombing which claimed 2 lives and left fifteen injured.
Meanwhile,
remember how Iraq was assuming control of paying Sahwa (also known as
"Awakening" and "Sons Of Iraq")? Remember that spin started in
November and we've had several other key 'dates' since. Well the US military announces today
that the Iraqi government paid some members of Sahwa today in Kirkuk
for . . the month of May. Handing out payments, Iraqi Lt Col Afrain
declared, "This payment is for May. We have to work on solutions to
the pay problem." Yes, you do. And, no, it's not a surprise, it's not
something new and it's nothing your government shouldn't have been
planning for some time ago.
Yesterday's snapshot included: " Deborah Haynes (Times of London) reports
British troops will likely have to leave Iraq as a result of the
Parliament failing to ratify the bilateral agreement between England
and Iraq 'Bob Ainsworth, the British Defence Secretary, said that the
naval training personnel would wait in Kuwait until they were given
permission to return. It is an embarrassment to Britain, however, and
an illustration of the low regard in which its role in Iraq -- it once
had 45,000 troops based there -- is held'." Today the Telegraph of London quotes British
Embassy spokesperson Jawwad Syed declaring, "The guys who were doing
the training are temporarily moving out to Kuwait while we talk to the
Iraqi government about what we might do in the interim." CNN reports
that "about a dozen helping to train Iraqi police as part of a NATO
mission" will remain. They also state it was the al-Sadr bloc in
Parliament that kept the agreement from being voted on. "Our story
begins," writes Babak Rahmi (Foreign Policy)
in an article on Moqtada al-Sadr's rise, "in the summer 2007, when Sadr
first dabbled in getting the extra credentials. The idea came after an
outbreak of violence between Sadr's Mahdi Army and the Badr
Organization, another armed Shiite group, in Karbala. Soon afterward,
Iraqi police intervenedand Sadr called a cease-fire, suspending
his militia's activity. He went underground for security reasons. Soon
thereafter, he left for Iran." Well why should he be any different
from the previous exiles?
After the 2003 American-led invasion, Iraqis enjoyed an immediate benefit--freedom of expression. Today, after all the pain and sacrifices we have endured for six years, this freedom is threatened again. After
the Saddam Hussein regime fell, thousands of book and dozens of
newspapers that had been banned, censored or not permitted to be
printed were suddenly free to publish.
Meanwhile Heath Druzin (Stars and Stripes) explores
the northern section of Iraq, "Iraqi Kurdistan's only legal land
crossing along the Turkish border, it is one of the busiest ports of
entry in the country, accounting for much of the estimated $6 billion
in trade between Turkey and the Iraqi Kurdish region, according to a
2008 report released by the U.S. Agency for International
Development." Druzin explains
that the violent exchanges between the PKK and Turkey are handled with
free-flow of information between the US and Turkey; however, that's not
the case for all:
Local villagers
are not so lucky and, while no solid numbers are available, there have
been many reports of civilian deaths and injuries. In March, a
2-year-old boy was killed near the Iranian border, and earlier this
month, a farmer was badly injured by shrapnel.
More
often, the attacks kill livestock, set pastures and farms ablaze and
flatten homes. In between shelling, shepherds who graze their sheep
along the poorly-marked border must worry about being captured by
Iranian troops, a fate that has befallen at least nine Iraqi Kurds in
the past month, according to local officials.
The
fighting makes an already grinding existence, scratched out from
unforgiving terrain through bee-keeping, herding, and subsistence
farming, nearly impossible. At least 8,000 Kurds have fled the
fighting, creating a refugee crisis in surrounding cities, according to
the Refugee Office of Soran, a government organization that works with
Kurdish refugees.
Druzin is the reporter the military attempted to censor. Xinhau notes
today, "Turkish Interior Minister Besir Atalay on Tuesday said that
Turkey, Iraq and the United States were determined to make their
cooperation on fighting against terrorism more influential."
After the 2003 American-led invasion, Iraqis enjoyed an immediate benefit--freedom of expression. Today, after all the pain and sacrifices we have endured for six years, this freedom is threatened again. After
the Saddam Hussein regime fell, thousands of book and dozens of
newspapers that had been banned, censored or not permitted to be
printed were suddenly free to publish. Today I received a statement
from the Society to Defend Press Freedom in Iraq. It said that the
Iraqi Ministry of Culture, in cooperation with the Ministry of
Interior, has decided to censor the importation of books from outside
the country and restrict printing them inside the country.
The above is from a McClatchy Iraqi correspondent's "A Return to '1984'?" (Inside Iraq). Saturday, Khalid al-Ansary (Reuters) reported
the Ministry of Culture is censoring books in 'free' Iraq and quotes
the ministry Taher al-Humoud explaining that all publishers now must
"submit lists of titles for approval". And that's what people died for?
US
Secretary of Defense Robert Gates is in Iraq today. As always, it was
an unannounced visit. They keep splashing waves of Operation Happy Talk
but the US officials still can't visit Iraq openly. Kevin Baron (Stars and Stripes) reports
that the press was told about the visit on Friday by someone at the
Defense Dept and quotes the unnamed person telling them, "The purpose
of going to Talil is so the secretary can get an understanding of the
advisory and assistance brigades that are sort of being developed. This
is what eventually we will be left with when we have a transitional
force come September 2010." Elisabeth Bumiller (New York Times) is part of the press traveling with Gates and notes
this his first visit to Iraq for 2009 -- seven months in, rather sad --
and that he plans to visit with both Nouri al-Maliki (puppet of the
occupation) and Gen Ray Odierno (top US commander in Iraq). She also
notes Gates will be playing an Amway salesman for US defense
contractors as he meets with Iraqi officials to discuss "whether the
U.S. will sell Iraq any F-16 fighter jets." Jim Wolf (Reuters) reports
it more bluntly: "One of the topics they are expected to discuss is
Baghdad's interest in acquiring Lockheed Martin Corp's (LMT.N) F-16
multirole fighter jets to counter possible threats from neighbouring
nations after U.S. forces leave." And he will visit Kurdistan President
Masoud Barzani. Al Bawaba reports that Gates' visit as 8 security guards were killed in a Baghdad bank robbery.
Voices of Honor
is a group we'll note sometimes and not others. As explained, we're not
interested in a group trying to overturn Don't Ask, Don't Tell which
can't tell meaning the efforts of some to hide gayness. You won't
overturn the policy by hiding in a closet or with talking points of,
"It's not about being gay." It's exactly about being gay. If people
weren't gay, they wouldn't be kicked out. A member of the group made
really insulting remarks (publicly) about Ellen Tauscher when she was
still in Congress. He trashed her for showing up -- the only member of
Congress to show up -- at one of the events to repeal Don't Ask, Don't
Tell. He trashed her, he mocked -- publicly -- and did so because she
wouldn't treat the issue as if people were being discharged because
they had sniffles. Gym Bunny apparently has a self-loathing issue and
that's his issue but Voices of Honor was launched only weeks ago and
it's already offended a huge number of gays and lesbians with efforts
to act as if the gay issue is something to run from. When they're
running from it, we're not covering them. And we will not now, or ever,
mention Gym Bunny or quote him or do anything to promote him.
Ellen
(I know Ellen, I've known her for years) went to that public event and
was the only member of Congress to do so. She spoke at that event, she
spoke movingly about the need to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell. She
didn't deserve to be trashed. I don't put up with bad manners and that
was bad manners to the max. The group (this is just months ago) needed
all the Congressional help it could get and they needed a name at their
event to get them any coverage. Ellen's got a life. She went on her own
time. And her thanks for that is to be trashed because she talked about
the issue and she noted it is an issue for the lesbian and gay
community? (Causing Gym Bunny to snort that it's not a gay issue. It's
a gay issue, Dumb Ass. People are being kicked out because they're
gay.) So with that brief (ha) intro, Zoe Tillman (Philadelphia Inquirer) reports:
Marine
veteran and Philadelphia resident Joe Soto, 48, was among the repeal
advocates who joined Murphy at yesterday's news conference. An
openly gay man who grew up in Hershey and graduated from the Naval
Academy in 1983, Soto resigned his commission in 1991. The former
Marine captain said he no longer wanted to hide his sexual orientation. "I was proud to serve, but I had to do so in silence," he said. "We need to end discrimination now." Former
Army intelligence collector Alexander Nicholson, 28, who speaks several
languages, including Arabic, was discharged in 2002 when he was outed. Nicholson
is the founder and executive director of Servicemembers United, an
advocacy group for gay and lesbian troops and veterans. He said he
hopes the tour will "show the American public that this is the face of
a gay soldier."
Things like that we'll note. Dan Choi,
we'll obviously note. Choi knows why he's being targeted and speaks
about it. (Gym Bunny appears to think, based on his statements, that
mentioning "gay" will turn off likely voters. So he thinks it shouldn't
be mentioned. And somehow Americans won't grasp what Don't Ask, Don't
Tell is targeting?) WFMZ offers video of US House Rep Patrick Murphy speaking on the issue. News 8 quotes Alexander Nicholson
stating, "My command was forced to involuntarily discharge me because I
was outed as gay." Which is basic and truthful and gets across that
it's an issue of equality, fairness and dignity. See Marcia's "Voices of Honor" from last night.
Filling in for Elaine while she and Mike
were vacationing in Hawaii this month, I noted that I don't see
anything happening. I believe Patrick Murphy is very sincere and is
willing to work hard. A friend at the White House mentioned, in
passing, how this effort would take the heat off Barack and how nothing
would be done on it this year. I confirmed with others and that is the
White House attitude. It's also the attitude of leadership in Congress.
(Here for that post
at Elaine's site.) People need to grasp that. They need to grasp that
Ellen introduced legislation in the House (again) on March 3rd and that
her bill has 161 co-sponsors. But it's never come to the floor for a
vote. All this time later. 161 co-sponsors.
What's going on? Leadership doesn't want to vote this year and they really don't want a vote next year (an election year).
Murphy's sincere. I'm not doubting him. But most bills with 161 co-sponors quickly come up for a vote.
This didn't.
There
is NO leadership on it in the Senate. The only one who has actively
spoken of it in public repeatedly in the last two months is Senator
Roland Burris. Supposedly Ted Kennedy's going to lead on it but he's
ill, he has a book coming out in a few weeks to promote and he's not
even leading on health care despite efforts to portray as doing so.
(Ted's very ill and should honestly step down.) Kristen Gillbran is the
new senator from New York (she fills Hillary Clinton's senate seat).
First termers rarely get anything passed. (Remember when Homer got
elected to Congress on The Simpsons? Not far from the truth about the difficulties in passing legislation.) Ruth's "Senator Gillibrand's office needs to learn it is okay to say 'gay'"
last night noted that Gillibrand's quote issued by her office avoided
the words "gay" and "lesbian." And Ruth also pointed out that there's
no legislation Gillibrand's proposing. She's proposing a talking
hearing . . . so people can get to know the issues. Get to know the
issues? Are they headless? Where has the US Senate been? It's more
efforts to stall and take the heat off Barack and give the appearance
that something's going to be done.
Kind of like the Iraq War. We
voted Democrats into power of both houses of Congress in 2006 because
they were going to end the war. Immediately after, it was whine-whine,
we need the White House. They got the White House. The Iraq War is not
over.
Not only is it not over the 'plan' to end the illegal war
that has idiots drooling is George W. Bush's plan that he rammed
through in November 2008. (And that 'plan' is not the end of the
illegal war. But fools who think Barack's 'done something' have a hard
enough time grasping reality.)
Nearly
a month after American troops officially withdrew from urban areas in
Iraq, they are quietly going back in again, patrolling the streets of
towns and cities where, despite improvements in security, violence
remains an everyday occurrence. By the US military's own reckoning, Mosul and its surrounding region is the most dangerous area in Iraq. On
average they calculate there are four attacks here every day -
explosions, shootings, suicide bombings. That is down from six per day
in January - progress, of sorts. Since 30 June, Iraqi forces have
been entirely responsible for maintaining security in urban areas. But
the Americans want to keep a close eye. So they are maintaining a
limited number of joint patrols inside cities like Mosul.
The above is from Gabriel Gatehouse's "US troops back on patrol in Iraq"
(BBC News) and the June 30 pull-back is revealed as not quite what it
was promoted as -- but that's been the case throughout the illegal war
so, at this point, it's not that the US government fooled anyone, it's
that people willingly went along with the latest propaganda. There's
not a great deal of difference between "We're out of Iraq cities!" and
"Mission Accomplished!" So those who were foolish enough to believe the
lies really need to take some accountability and dial down the mock
surprise.
The willful stupidity is why waves of Operation Happy
Talk work. It's why a retired colonel feels he can offer ditherings and
not be laughed out of the public square, John M. House "Situation in Iraq is different" (Ledger-Enquirer): American
troops often act as backup for Iraqi Army units on patrol, rather than
leading those efforts. We still have soldiers training Iraqis on how to
be a professional army, but we aren’t leading the combat operations at
the level of a year ago. There will still be plenty of bad days because
the loss of every soldier causes a bad day. [. . .] My main point
is that the situation in Iraq is better. Less news time seems dominated
by the war. That’s a good indicator that the situation has improved.
So
as long as the news doesn't reach him, Hall argues, things are going
good. Do you get the feeling that a lot of news and reality don't reach
Hall?
The networks, tired of covering the illegal war they
helped sell, wanted to withdraw from Iraq which is what they did. They
shut down operations. ABC made a deal with the BBC to carry BBC reports
from time to time. But the American broadcast networks left Iraq.
That's why you get so little coverage of Iraq. The lie -- and it was a
lie -- was that they were moving into Afghanistan. They didn't. Not in
terms of the same number. They played it cheap and sent a tiny portion
of news staff to Afghanistan. They don't care. It's cheaper to cover
celebrities death and lie that they're offering news (hello, Cynthia
McFadden!). They're not covering anything. They're reading a bunch of
headlines based on wire reports and newspaper reports and not doing
much of anything. They should be ashamed of themselves. The country has
two ongoing wars (and the undeclared one on Pakistan) and they're not
covering it.
Because they're cheap and because they're personalities passed off as journalists.
The
BBC, not CBS, not ABC, not NBC, is reporting on US troops staging
patrols in Mosul. So John House can kid himself that things are going
great. And the criticsm of the poor job the media's doing? Not confined
to me. Thomas E. Ricks covered the war on the ground in Iraq (he was a
military reporter) for the Washington Post and he's written two books
on the war. Note this from him in yesterday's "Iraq, the unraveling (XIX): Friends like these" (Foreign Policy):
Also, more bad news in al Anbar -- a big bomb went off in Fallujah, as well as a smaller one
near the headquarters of the Iraqi Islamic Party, and one at a funeral
between Ramadi and Fallujah. And a bunch of police were shot up in Abu
Ghraib. Is the Anbar Sawha going off the reservation? I still don't
understand what is happening out there, and have been surprised by the
lack of news coverage of it. It makes me wonder if in budget cutbacks,
news bureaus let go their stringers in Anbar. If so, what a sad turn
for the news business. Suppose they gave a war and nobody covered it.
"It
makes me wonder if in budget cutbacks, news bureaus let go their
stringers in Anbar"? He's "been surprised by the lack of news coverage"
on the Sahwa?
The Iraq War hasn't ended. US troops have not left. The Boston Globe's Bryan Bender today speaks
of the tactical needs in removing 143,000 troops. Most are using the
figure of "approximately 130,000." What's 13,000 here or there
apparently? And those who leave? They're replaced by troops sent over. David Bauerlein (Florida's Time-Union ) reports:
Until
Sunday, Vietman War veteran Wayne Metcalfe had kept a pocket-sized
Bible for 40 years as a memento of his military service. His
edition of the New Testament has a metal plate inserted in its front
cover, giving another layer of protection when it's tucked into a shirt
pocket over a solider's heart. At
a family fun day Sunday at Camp Blanding for the 631st Maintenance
Company - slated to leave soon for a deployment in Iraq - Metcalfe
handed the Bible to his younger brother, Staff Sgt. Mike Malone.
Malone, a Keystone Heights resident, is among about 170 members of the
631st Maintenance Company who will leave for a one-year mission.
Spc. Michael Alves, 30, of Natick, is leaving a newborn son, a 3-year-old, an 8-year-old and a nervous wife. "That
will be the toughest part, not seeing my kids and not seeing them
grow," he said. "You never know what is going to happen, but we've had
great training." Alves said he and the rest of his unit are prepared for Iraq. "That's
what the military does, prepares you mentally and physically for
situations like these. In joining the military, you have to be prepared
to go at any given time," he said. After
having served in the military for about three years and working there
full-time, Alves knows he is giving back to his country. "I'm
most worried about my family, I know everything will be OK, but not
knowing what to say when you can't see your wife or your kids, it's
hard," he said.
GOVERNOR CRIST HONORS FLORIDA NATIONAL GUARD 631ST MAINTENANCE COMPANY DEPLOYING TO IRAQ
~~ ~Unit to serve as 24-hour maintenance support for Operation Iraqi Freedom~ ~~
July 27, 2009
Contact:
GOVERNOR'S PRESS OFFICE (850) 488-5394
Governor Crist Honors Florida National Guard 631st Maintenance Company Deploying to Iraq Unit to serve as 24-hour maintenance support for Operation Iraqi Freedom STARKE
-- Governor Charlie Crist today expressed his gratitude to members the
Florida National Guard’s 631st Maintenance Company for their service as
they prepare to deploy for Operation Iraqi Freedom. The ceremony was
held at Madison Street Baptist Church Activity Center in Starke with
nearly 200 guardsmen and women and their families, primarily from North
Florida area, in attendance. The 631st Maintenance Company will depart
Camp Blanding Tuesday, July 28, for Fort McCoy, Wisconsin, for advanced
training and preparation before heading overseas. The
631st Maintenance Company specializes in maintenance of wheeled
vehicles, weapons, communications equipment and night vision gear.
During their 2003 deployment, the 631st supported every National Guard
and Reserve unit that processed through Fort Stewart, Georgia, on their
way to and from operations in both Iraq and Afghanistan. The company
processed more than 50,000 pieces of equipment to ensure each unit
going to and from combat zones was "fully mission capable."
Additionally, in 2004, 2005 and 2006 the 631st Maintenance Company also
served for state active duty in support of hurricane missions. Earlier
this year, Governor Crist praised the brave men and women of the
Florida National Guard 779th Engineer Battalion prior to their
deployment in May 2008. Earlier this month, Lt. Governor Kottkamp
thanked the Florida National Guard 144th Transportation Company during
a deployment ceremony in Tallahassee. Collectively, nearly 300
guardsmen and women are deployed. Starke
is known as a "good National Guard" town and has a history that can be
charted from the early 1880's. The company was last relocated to Starke
in 1996 from Crystal River, Florida.
The Iraq War has not ended. Kristina De Leon (San Antonio's WOAI) reports
on the funeral held yesterday for the 20-year-old Brandon Lara who was
killed in Iraq July 19th. While his family mourned him in Texas, Cpl. Meg Murray (Military News) reports
a service was held earlier in Iraq, "Service members traveled from
bases across Al Anbar province to join Marines and sailors of Police
Transition Team 4 at a memorial service aboard Contingency Operating
Location Ubaydi as they paid their respects to their fallen comrade,
Lance Cpl. Brandon T. Lara, July 24, 2009."
The Iraq War hasn't
ended and it's disgraceful enough when the hitchikers on the highway of
causes (Susan Sarandon, for example) abandon the issue but it's even
more appalling when a retired military colonel wants to spin the
public. It's shameful. The lack of awareness -- which people have to
take responsibility for -- is appalling and shameful.
The Iraq War is not over. Last Thursday, Angelina Jolie made another goodwill visit to Iraq on behalf of the United Nations and she pointed out,
"There are still three million people displaced, innocent families,"
she added. "We have still many young men and women from our country who
are fighting every day, there are men and women from all countries who
have lost their lives, and this is a time to try to make some positive
change." Angelina is the UNHCR's Goodwill Ambassador and she was making her third trip to Iraq Thursday. The San Francisco Chronicle quoted
her stating, "There are some changes. There are returns of displaced
people, not a big number, but there is progress. This is a moment where
things seem to be improving on the ground, but Iraqis need a lot of
support and help to rebuild their lives." The UN notes (link has a great photo of a young Iraqi boy and Angelina in Baghdad) that she is calling "for greater support for the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who remain displaced."
