|
Thursday, February 9, 2012. Chaos and violence continue, Iraq's Parliament
discusses two Iraqi military officers who are reportedly spying on behalf of the
United States government, an MP's brother turns up dead, big news for the peace
movement out of Chicago, the US Congress examines who's watching veterans
benefits, and more.
Contact:
Nathan Tempey,
Communications
Coordinator
(212) 679-5100, ext.
15
"Looking ahead to a spring of protests, Chicago Mayor Rahm Emmanuel
and his peers around the country should take note," said National Lawyers Guild
Executive Director Heidi Boghosian. "Short-sighted attempts to extinguish free
speech often come at great expense."
A Seventh Circuit ruling on the case (Vodak v. City of
Chicago, 639 F.3d, 738 (2011)) holds that police cannot arrest peaceful
protesters without warning just because a demonstration lacks a permit. The
decision bears new weight in light of mass arrests of Occupy Chicago protesters
this winter, as well as recently ratified, far-reaching city ordinances that aim
to squelch protests of the G8 and NATO summits in May.
The over 700 plaintiffs in the Vodak suit will receive
compensation up to $15,000 each, and Guild lawyers are negotiating additional
payments for class representatives and class members who were required to give
depositions.
"The rights of dissenting Chicagoans could have been buried under
the county jail," Boghosian said. "Instead, thanks to years of tireless work by
Guild members, those rights have been vindicated."
The city's settlement offer comes on the eve of a scheduled trial.
The suit was litigated over the course of almost nine years by a team of NLG
lawyers and legal workers including People's Law Office attorneys Janine Hoft,
Joey Mogul, Sarah Gelsomino, and John Stainthorp, as well as People's Law Office
paralegal Brad Thomson, and attorneys Melinda Power and Jim
Fennerty.
The team has reached settlements totaling over $300,000 in other
excessive force lawsuits stemming from the 2003 protest.
The National Lawyers Guild was founded in 1937 and is the oldest
and largest public interest/human rights bar organization in the United States.
Its headquarters are in New York and it has chapters in every
state.
###
In Iraq today, Al
Mada reports that the CIA's mission in Iraq (and Greg Miller's Washington Post article) was
discussed by the Parliament's Commission on Security and Defense. The discussion
noted that the US is still in control of Iraqi air "under the pretext" of
protecting their diplomatic mission. The Commission also discussed two officers
in the Iraqi forces who are said to be paid spies/informants for the US
government and supply information for the monthly salary they receive. The two
Iraqis, who are not named, are the subject of an ongoing investigation and are
expected to be charged at the end of the investigation. Two other Iraqis,
two young males, took their own lives. Aswat al-Iraq reports they died in
Amara as part of a joint-suicide and that it was over "a family feud." Aswat al-Iraq also notes an attack in
Kirkuk by unknown assailants left 1 police officer dead and three more
wounded. For others, today is a day of celebration. Dar Addustour notes a festival
taking place, a Festival of the Sadrist Movement, to celebrate the departure of
so many US forces. Salam Faraj (AFP) explains this latest
celebration resulted in "tens of thousands" attending the ceremonies in Sadr
City and quotes Moqtada al-Sadr from his pre-recorded number, "The armies of
resistance terrified the occupiers, so they left after they lost. [. . .] The
occupying forces were working for strife and destruction and to destabilize
security. The occupier is not the one who can bring peace and safety to Iraq,
but rather you, and only you." Press
TV declares "millions" took part -- Jill Reilly (Daily Mail) says those
present were "mostly men and boys" and AP's video suggests that might actually
be an undercount. Iraqi flags were waived, towers were climbed, Moqtada
appeared on a jumbo screen, balloons were released, and yellow suited
participants stomped the British and US flags painted on what appears to be
styrofoam. Sadr City is a section of Baghdad which means if Nouri's enforcing
the rules properly, this was a rally that required a permit. I do have a point
here. This was an official event, led by one of Iraq's most prominent Shi'ite
particiants. And they symbolically stomped on the flags of the United Kingdom
and the United State so explain to me why the hell the US government is
providing one more dollar to this thuggish regime?
The Iraq War is illegal. I have no expectations that Iraqis are in love
with the US. But these thugs who were put in power by the United States and
still depend on aid from the United States? There's a world of difference
between these official functions -- and this was official -- and what happens in
Tahrir Square. A jumbo screen was put up for Moqtada. That thing was huge.
And the government of Iraq is in fact stomping on both the British and American
flags. So there's no reason for either government to provide a damn thing to
Nouri. Repeating, this is different than Tahrir Square and I've never called
them out for burning a US flag and wouldn't. But this should have been a
permitted march, it had security, it had prepared parts to it and that huge
jumbo screen.
The New York Times' Tim Arango was on NPR's Morning Edition
yesterday (link has audio and text) discussing his report on the US State Dept in Iraq with Steve
Inskeep and Arango noted of hostility towards the US within Iraq, "It also
suggests how easy an issue the American presence is for Iraqi politicians to
sort of demagogue on, and to use with their own public. They don't want to be
seen in public supporting the Americans or accommodating them in every way."
The stomping on the 'flags' and the cheering crowds were an awful lot like,
highly reminescent of, the street activity in Iran before the US Embassy in
Tehran was seized. Now maybe that's just me being overly cautious or paranoid
or whatever. But if Americans are seized (more than likely it would be outside
of the Baghdad compound) in Iraq, networks should cue up that AP
footage and ask why it didn't alarm the US government in real time?
In other news, Aswat al-Iraq reports, "A leading
al-Qaeda Commander, of Saudi nationality and holding the post of Military Emir
(Prince) of al-Qaeda in northern Iraq's city of Mosul, has been sentenced to
death by the Central Iraqi Criminal Court, according to a statement from within
the High Judicial Council on Wednesday." The government of Iraq has been on a
major killing spree of late. Already having a 'legal' system that's a joke
throughout the world wasn't enough for the Iraqi government and now they
apparently want to be seen as having a backward and brutal 'legal' system far
beyond their practice of forced confession. Human Rights Watch
issued the following this morning: (Washington, DC) -- Iraqi authorities should halt all
executions and abolish the death penalty, Human Rights Watch said today. Since
the beginning of 2012, Iraq has executed at least 65 prisoners, 51 of them in
January, and 14 more on February 8, for various offenses."The Iraqi government seems to have given state
executioners the green light to execute at will,"said Joe Stork, deputy Middle
East director at Human Rights Watch. "The government needs to declare an
immediate moratorium on all executions and begin an overhaul of its flawed
criminal justice system."Human Rights
Watch is particularly concerned that Iraqi courts admit as evidence confessions
obtained under coercion. The government should disclose the identities,
locations, and status of all prisoners on death row, the crimes for which they
have been convicted, court records for their being charged, tried, and
sentenced, and details of any impending executions, Human Rights Watch
said.A Justice Ministry official
confirmed to Human Rights Watch on February 8 that authorities had executed 14
prisoners earlier in the day. "You should expect more executions in the coming
days and weeks," the official added.According to the United Nations, more than 1,200
people are believed to have been sentenced to death in Iraq since 2004. The
number of prisoners executed during that period has not been revealed publicly.
Iraqi law authorizes the death penalty for close to 50 crimes, including
terrorism, kidnapping, and murder, but also including such offenses as damage to
public property.Human Rights Watch
opposes capital punishment in all circumstances because of its inhumane nature
and its finality. International human rights law requires that, where it has not
been abolished, the death penalty be imposed only in cases for the most serious
crimes in which the judicial system has scrupulously complied with fair trial
standards, including the rights of the defendant to competent defense counsel,
to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, and not to be compelled to confess
guilt.Criminal trials in Iraq often
violate these minimum guarantees, Human Rights Watch said. Many defendants are
unable to pursue a meaningful defense or to challenge evidence against them, and
lengthy pretrial detention without judicial review is common.
Jill Reilly (Daily Mail) notes, "Iraq
primarily uses hanging as a method of execution." Reuters adds these executions come
"despite objections from the United Nations human rights chief." Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) notes a statement Iraq's
Ministry of Judiciary has posted online, "Questioning the credibility of the
Iraqi judiciary system by the U.N. High Commissioner is (a) strange thing and
the High Commissioner should also (be) aware of the size of the challenges that
Iraq is facing by terrorist groups who had committed heinous crimes and mass
executions against innocent people." UPI notes that the executions are seen
by some as also part of Nouri al-Maliki's targeting opponents:
The executions and Maliki's targeting of the Sunni leadership of
the opposition Iraqiya bloc, using his Shiite-controlled security forces, seem
intended to further his drive to establish a new dictatorship in Baghdad
following the U.S. military withdrawal in December.
Leaders of Iraq's Kurdish minority, which has its own
semi-autonomous enclave in the north, say they are alarmed at the direction
Maliki has taken and has given sanctuary to a senior Sunni politician the
government is targeting. This could inflame the swelling crisis.
The Americans, whose boast they left behind a "stable and
democratic Iraq" soon proved to be perilously empty, have starkly failed to
replace military influence with political and economic influence and so are
powerless to smother the mushrooming violence.
The spate of executions is a gruesome indication of the way things
are heading in Iraq where the Sunnis, once the backbone of Saddam Hussein's
regime, are struggling against being marginalized by the majority
Shiites.
Al Rafidayn reports that the corpse
of Akrahm al-Daini was discovered today outside Tikrit, five days after the man
and his bodyguard weTe kidnapped. The family was ordered to pay a one-million
ransom but refused. The deceased was MP Nahida al-Daini's brother. MP al-Daini
is a Sunni and she is also a member of Iraqiya. A woman's corpse was also
discovered. As for the bodyguard, the kidnappers shot him from behind,
apparently assumed he was dead and left him, according to an unnamed National
Security source. The bodyguard was able to make it to the police. Was this part
of the continued targeting of Sunnis or of Iraqiya or of both? Possibly. Equally
true, kidnapping remains a huge money maker in Iraq and the attraction here
might have simply been: Here is someone who can afford a bodyguard, here is
someone whose sister serves in the Parliament, surely they have money.
In Australia, the issue of off-the-book prisons, hidden from the Red
Cross and others, is in the news. Tony Eastley (AM on Australia's ABC, link is audio and text)
explains, "There are claims this morning that Australia played a key
role in the potentially illegal detention of Iraqi prisoners of war. The British
newspaper, the Guardian, has sourced a US military document that says an
Australian SAS squadron of 150 men was 'integral' to the operation of a secret
facility, known as H1, in Iraq's western desert in April 2003. The revelations
are the first to suggest that the Australian military was directly involved in
so-called 'black sites'." Ian Cobain wrote the Guardian article (" RAF helicopter death revelation
leads to secret Iraq detention camp") which reported on a 2003 secret
prison and how at least one prisoner, Tanik Mahmud, died while the RAF was
transferring him to the secret prison (he was apparently killed on the
helicopter ride). Emily Bourke (Australia's ABC)
summarizes, "The Guardian report says an SAS team manning a roadblock
in Iraq's desert arrested and detained a group of 64 men during a sweep for
"high-value" members of Saddam Hussein's regime. The paper says the men were
listed as being detained by US personnel because a single American soldier was
attached to the SAS unit manning the roadblock." Dylan Welch (Goondiwindi Argu)
observes: The revelation has
led to an Australian human rights organisation investigating such secret prisons
to claim that the Australian military might have been complicit in war crimes by
handing detainees over to the so-called ''black site'' known as H1.
The
revelations - which the Defence Department last night denied, saying it was only
''providing security'' when the detainees were handed over - would be the first
time the Australian military has been implicated in the black
sites.
Today the House Veterans Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations held
a hearing on the VA's fiduciary system. There are veterans who are unable to
overseeing or manage their benefits solely by themselves so they might ask that
someone be a fiduciary -- thereby putting someone in charge of overseeing the
benefits. The veteran might pick someone they know or they might ask the VA to
select someone. There are problems with the system currently. The Subcommittee
attempted to determine why that was.
The hearing had two panels (and many breaks due to votes on the House
floor). The first panel was the VA's Dave McLenachen (with the VA's Diana
Rubin), the second panel was composed of Katrina Eagle with the Veterans Law
Office of Michael Wildhaber, Veteran Fiduciary Pam Estes, attorney Doug Rosinski
with the Law Office of Douglas J. Rosinski, and Vietnam Veterans of America's
Rick Weidman. US House Rep Bill Johnson is the Chair of the Subcommittee. And
we'll note this exchange.
Chair Bill Johnson: What are the criteria for choosing a
fiduciary:
Dave McLenachen: Mr. Chairman, the criteria for choosing a
fiduciary is-is controlled by law. Congress required us when looking to see who
should be a fiduciary to check a number of things: criminal history, credit and
general willingness to act as a fidcuairy for a beneficiary. VA's policy, Mr.
Chairman, is to always try to select the least restrictive and most effective
payment for a beneficiary. To do that, the first thing that we do is look at who
does the beneficiary want us to appoint? That's our first step. If we can
qualify that person we will -- we will appoint that person. If that person
cannot be qualified, we'll look to the person who has the care and custody of
the beneficiary. That may be a family member that lives with the beneficiary
and provides care or maybe a guardian? That's who we look to next. The next
step is any other family member of person interested in performing these
functions for a beneficiary. Only as a last resort, Mr. Chairman, will we look
to a paid fiduciary or a court-appointed fiduciary. That is because we're
looking for the least restrictive method. And I -- And I can assure you, Mr.
Chairman, that that is our policy and that Just so there's no misunderstanding,
currently only about 8% of the roughtly 120,000 beneficiaries pay a commission
for fiduciary services.
Chair Bill Johnson: Okay, the CFR states that a commission is only
given to a beneficiary when it is necessary to obtain his or her services.
Further it states that commissions should only be used if the veterans best
interests would be served by the appointment of a qualified professional or a
qualified person. What does qualified mean to the VA?
Dave McLenachen: To us, Mr. Chairman, qualified -- as I've
described -- means that it's a person that has the interest of the beneficiary
in mind, is willing to perform the service and meets the qualifications that
have been prescribed by Congress for us to implement. That is what the
regulations are referring to. So if it's an individual who has a criminal
history or that has bad credit history or for some other reason cannot be
bonded, that individual will not be appointed as a fiduciary --
Chair Bill Johnson: Are there -- are there any educational or other
qualifications required to be classified as a qualified person?
Dave McLenachen: Not at this time, sir. However, one of the first
things that I did when I took this job approximately five months ago was to
initiate a complete review of our current regulations which Congressman [Jon]
Runyan mentioned during his statement. I think there's a real need to update
those regulations. We've reviewed all of those regulations and are currently
revising them now. That is one issue that I would like to address in our
regulations is whether there should be such requirements for
fiduciaries?
Chair Bill Johnson: Would it -- would it surprise you to know that
we have sworn testimony that a VA fiduciary stated that she had approximately
one semester of community college education while she is the appointed fiduciary
for 43 veterans, as a single mother working full time. Is that -- Would that be
the VA's acceptable criteria for a qualified person?
Dave McLenachen: Sir, I can tell you that with our current
regulations, there is nothing to prohibit that fiduciary from serving in that
role.
Chair Bill Johnson: In your opinion, would that be a qualified
fiduciary? If you're a veteran would you want -- is that who you would want to
put in charge of your daily care?
Dave McLenachen: It may be, sir. If that's the wishes of the
veteran to have that particular --
Chair Bill Johnson: No, not this wasn't the wishes of the veteran.
I'm talking about the VA appointing someone who is a qualified person. The
veteran has gone to the VA saying I need a fiduciary and you request a
fiduciary. Would that be your idea of a qualified person?
Dave McLenachen: Sir, I would like to strengthen the requirements
to be a fudiciary. So in that instance, I think that there should be some more
stringent requirements.
Chair Bill Johnson: Okay. How many fiduciaries have the background
checks or certifications waived?
Dave McLenachen: Sir, we just recently issued new guidance that
affirms our responsibility to check the background --
Chair Bill Johnson: Does the VA waive fiduciary background checks
and certifications?
Dave McLenachen: It's not my knowledge that we do. Uh, the guidance
out there now is to check background in every fiduciary --
Chair Bill Johnson: I hope you're going to stay around for all of
the testimony today then.
As Johnson noted in the hearing, ten veterans saw their fiduciary walk away
with $900,000 of their money. 4% is supposed to be the largest amount the
fiduciary can take of the veterans annual benefits. However, the Subcommittee
was already aware of fiduciaries taking more than 4%. As the exchange above
made clear, there appears to be a lack of serious oversight. The House Veterans
Disability Subcommittee has also been examining this issue and a number of them
sat in on the hearing. The Ranking Member on that Subcommittee is Jerry Mcnerny
and he noted the lack of "oversight and accountability." He noted a 2010 field
hearing where family members serving as fiduciaries were actually experiencing
more government oversight than were strangers the VA picked to serve as
fiduciaries. (One of the most public cases in the news during the current wars
was of a family -- parents -- who used their disabled war veteran son's VA
benefit checks to buy themselves a new truck, to go gambling and much more. I'm
not implying that family members don't need oversight nor was Mcnerny implying
that. He was noting that hand picked choices by the veterans, people who had
the veterans trust, were getting more oversight than these people who are
professional fiduciaries -- meaning they are primarly being fiduciaries for
strangers due to the pay.) Mcnerny noted that most fiduciaries are doing an
outstanding job. Rubens agreed noting that 90% of the fiduciaries are taking
care of only one veteran.
Still on veterans issues, Senator Patty Murray is the Chair of the Senate
Veterans Affairs Commitee and her office notes the following:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 2012
Contact: Murray Press Office
(202) 224-2834
VETERANS: Senator Murray Participates in Virtual Town Hall Meeting
hosted by Disabled American Veterans
Murray fielded questions, concerns, and suggestions from veterans,
members of the military, and their family members across the country.
View full transcript of the Disabled American Veterans' Virtual
Town Hall HERE.
(Washington, D.C.) -- Today, U.S. Senator Patty Murray, Chairman of
the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee, had the opportunity to chat one-on-one
with veterans across the country in a Virtual Town Hall Meeting, organized by
Disabled American Veterans, a
non-profit charity dedicated to building better lives for America's disabled
veterans and their families. In the hour-long chat, Senator Murray discussed a
wide range of issues including mental health care, VA claims wait times, women
veterans, and veteran jobs. Over 3,000 veterans, members of the military and
family members participated in the chat. Senator Murray will use the struggles,
stories, and suggestions she heard today to continue to fight for veterans in
Washington, D.C.
###
Glen Ford: On the last day of Feburary, a court will hear the
appeal of movement lawyer Lynne Stewart imprisoned for 10 years on charges of
supporting terrorism. Stewart was the attorney for Omar Abdul Rahman the
so-called "blind Sheikh" charged with the 1993 bombing of the World Trade
Center. Attorney Stewart is in federal prison in Fort Worth, Texas. She was
first sentenced to only two-and-a-half years but then the courts decided to pile
on some more years. Her husband and co-activist Ralph Poynter
explains.
Ralph Poynter: This is an appeal of the re-sentencing Lynne
received. She received a sentence of two-and-a-half years. 28 to 30 months.
Then, when she was appealing, when she was free on her appeal, they called her
back for a re-sentencing because a government appeal to the 2nd Circuit of a
sentence 'too light' was taken up and two of the three judges agreed that the
sentence was 'too light.' And besides Lynne Stewart continued "traveling around
the country at the law schools and universities corrupting our youth." These
are the words of the judges of the 2nd Circuit.
Glen Ford: In other words, her sentence was increased -- five times
-- to ten years based upon her speech?
Ralph Poynter: Based upon her speech and they said it: "traveling
around the country at law schools and universities corrupting our youth." Now
Lynne Stewart said that the treatment of Sheikh Omar Abdul Rahman was racist and
government funded and that there was no terror plot, that the government had
done it. And it was all done by an Egyptian double agent, Emad Salem, who was
hired by the Egyptian government and the American FBI --or CIA -- and so she
had him on the witness stand and she caught him lying 32 times. And it got to
the point where he just said, "Well I guess, Miss Stewart, I mis-stated,
I lied," and put his head down. The jury heard that and yet they convicted
Sheikh Omar Abdul Rahman.
Glen Ford: So when Lynne went to these universities and law
schools, she was not just exercising her own freedom of speech to say whatever
she said, but also she was speaking on behalf of her client as a
lawyer?
Ralph Poynter: Yes, the blind Sheikh, on his appeals, and his right
for the First Amendment. And she answered all questions and she gave these law
students a history lesson on racism in America. And she would use her own
experiences -- experiences the people of the sixties, the activists, because
remember Lynne Stewart was a teacher and an activist, she was a Christian Dutch
Reform and honor student. And when she came to New York City as a 23-year-old
who was born not five miles from Harlem, she didn't know it existed. So she
said, "This is American miseducation. Not only do they not treat the Black
children to read, write and count, they don't teach White children what America
is and I'm the example." And you could imagine what effect that had on the
students. So no wonder we are where we are: Islamophobia. And then she went into
law, what law is about, understanding the Bill of Rights and what a lawyer's job
is and how it came to this formulation. And one of the things that Lynne and I
have an argument about, she says that with all of the warts and flaws in the new
US justice system, she thinks it's the best model. But it will only be that if
the lawyers play their proper role of being the person between the government
and the accused and explaining that that is what protects all of us -- a
vigorous defense by attorneys -- and if one person doesn't have that defense,
none of us do.
Glen Ford: So when Lynne is talking to university students and law
students about her principles and explaining her actions and what she thinks it
means to be a citizen and a lawyer she is then faced with this massive
retribution -- an increase of five times her sentence -- and in her appeal she's
calling that substantial unreasonableness in terms of legalese.
Ralph Poynter: And this is what the appeal is. Now, before you can
appeal your basic sentence, you know, her basic guilt -- she was found guilty in
the federal court of terrorism, supporting terrorism, she has to go through the
Second Circuit so this is a double. She's opposing the unreasonableness and the
unfairness and the illegal upping of her sentence before she can before the
Supreme Court on her original trial, the trial of being found guilty of
supporting terrorism. Now the question is: How are they going to defend this?
My answer to that is: If there were law in the first place, Lynne would never be
in jail. And one of the first speeches that she made, they were holding a
conference in California on the coming of the police state and Lynne was the
speaker and she said, "The coming of the police state? The police state has
always been here for certain members of our nation and now it's coming to White
people and I'm the evidence." And it was standing ovation. The police state
has always been here, the people didn't recognize it because it was against us
[persons of color -- Ralph Poynter is African-American].
Glen Ford: And that statement was one of those -- and reports on
that statement in the press was one of those factors in the judge multiplying
her sentence by five?
Ralph Poynter: You got that 100% right.
Glen Ford: And thus verifying that the police state had
arrived.
Ralph Poynter: And as I said to Lynne, you have to understand, we
just got out of COINTELPRO, they listened to
everything. She felt that one of the most embarrassing things of the left was
allowing our defenders of the community to lay in jail all of these
years.
Lynne's appeal takes place at the end of this month. She
notes:
The same group of 3 Judges that heard and decided the original
appeal will also hear the arguments on the 29th. The government is not asking
for more time; they are satisfied with their pound of flesh but it is not likely
that this Court will take any action that will help me. The times are askew for
prisoners and their lawsuits.
The lawyers that argued in July of 2010 will be on board with the
addition of Herald Price Fahringer, an eminent attorney in the First Amendment
field (the win in the Larry Flynt Hustler case in the US Supreme Court was his.
He was also in the line of fire (no injuries) when the shooting took place.) He
will enthusiastically present our case. I will not be present -- not unusual
once imprisoned. But my spirit will be there to inspire !!!
Of course, my case has always been government firing warning
shots to Lawyers, that a vigorous defense, of certain clients, if not
conforming to government specifications, will be punished severely . This
chill effect in these days that we are confronted with Grand Jury investigations
and dismantling of Occupations is not something we should contemplate with
anything less than alarm. I have just finished David Gilbert's book (Love
Struggle) and the intercession of lawyers when there are arrests of designated
enemies of the "state" are the only meaningful protection
available.
A Large Outpouring of Support in Foley Square and Tom Paine Park
and in the Courtroom will signal to these arbiters of "Justice" that attention
must be paid, the 99% are watching them with suspicion and tallying up the roads
not taken.
| 
