Bob Somerby's funniest when he's exasperated. Here he's explaining how Gene Robinson hurts the Democratic Party with voters and taking a sidetrip into Henry Gates' silly interview granted to his daughter:
As he continues, Robinson talks about something we’ve discussed this past week—the wealth and power which have been involved in much of this past week’s discussions. Before long, he is describing the way Professor Gates rolls:
ROBINSON (7/27/09): This is a new twist. Since the triumph of the civil rights movement, minorities have been moving up the ladder in politics, business, academia, just about every field. Only in the past decade, however, has a sizable cohort of African Americans and Latinos broken through to the tiny upper echelons where real power is exercised.
I'm talking about President Obama, obviously, but also Citigroup Chairman Richard Parsons, entertainment mogul Oprah Winfrey, former secretary of state Condoleezza Rice, Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor and many others—a growing number of minorities with the kind of serious power that used to be reserved for whites only. In academia, the list begins with "Skip" Gates.
He's a superstar, one of the best-known and most highly acclaimed faculty members at the nation's most prestigious university. A few years ago, when he made noises about leaving, Harvard moved heaven and earth to keep him. The incident that led to his arrest occurred as he was coming home from the airport after a trip to China for his latest PBS documentary. Following the traumatic encounter, he repaired to Martha's Vineyard to recuperate. This is how the man rolls.
“This is how the man rolls,” Robinson says—perhaps not believing that when intellectual and moral leaders are turned into “superstars” who “roll” in the manner described, their intellectual and moral powers may perhaps dissipate in the process. We’ll only suggest that you read Professor Gates’ interview with his daughter, Elizabeth Gates, at The Daily Beast; it has to be one of the most embarrassing interviews we’ve ever read, involving any person. Here at THE HOWLER, we don’t know what happened when Crowley collided with Gates; neither does Robinson, though at one point he suggest we “assume” that Crowley’s account is accurate (text below). But reading through that long interview is an act of sustained embarrassment. Forgive the daughter, who should have been spared the embarrassment of grilling “Daddy” in public. But at some point, we all get a choice: Are you willing to see how foolish so much of this interview is? We hardly know what to highlight in this one clip, so much of what Professor Gates says is so thoroughly less-than-intelligent:
ELIZABETH GATES: So you do think this was reduced to race? You do think this was purely racially motivated—that when he came into your home uninvited and didn’t read you your Miranda rights and he didn’t follow procedure?
PROFESSOR GATES: No, when I was arrested I was not read my Miranda rights. I clearly was arrested as a vindictive act, an act of spite. I think Sgt. Crowley was angry that I didn’t follow his initial orders—his demand—his order—to step outside my house because I was protected as long as I was in the house because he didn’t have a warrant. I think what he really wanted to do was throw me down and put handcuffs on me because he was terrified that I could be dangerous to him and that I was causing violence in my own home—though obviously he didn’t know it was my home.
If I had been white this incident never would have happened. He would have asked at the door, “Excuse me, are you okay? Because there are two black men around here try’na rob you [laughter] and I think he also violated the rules by not giving his name and badge number, and I think he would have given that to one of my white colleagues or one of my white neighbors. So race definitely played a role. Whether he’s an individual racist? I don’t know—I don’t know him. But I think he stereotyped me.
Professor Gates has long been an esteemed person, presumably for very good reasons. Beyond that, he was doing no one any harm when Crowley appeared at his door and asked him to step on the porch—though Crowley had no way to know that. And yet, a great deal of that answer is utterly daft—like a large part of what Gates has said in several interviews about this event.
It may be that this event has been traumatic for a person who has been so esteemed for so long. But people are dying all over the world—and many black people who aren’t rich and famous face real violence from the police, not the Gethsemane Gates describes in the four utterly torturous hours he spent before his release. (They only allowed him to speak with one professor friend at a time! They took his belt away!) Is Professor Gates a moral and intellectual leader? We can only speculate: He may have lost a bit of perspective during his long association “with the kind of serious power that used to be reserved for whites only.” Down through the years, that “serious power “has made moral and intellectual fools of a great number of prominent whites, with terrible consequence to your nation and your interests. Reading Gates’ interviews, we can’t help wondering if this same dadburned thing can imaginably sometimes happen to good people of other “races.”
And the points that Somerby's making? I've tried to make them for over a year. C.I.'s tried to make them. Good luck to Bob but I'm not sure the ones who should be listening will.
This goes to my point about the sneering at Sarah Palin. I've explained this and so has Marcia. "She went to community college!" And?
Seriously, and?
Where do you think my race goes to college? What, Howard University or a Harvard?
A huge number of Black people go to community college -- due to expense, due to proximity.
And this idea that Sarah got a degree and we're going to make fun of her because of her college career? In the Black community, I don't ever hear anyone laughing. I do hear people, especially older people (who value it more as we will when we're older), saying things like she doesn't seem like the best speaker but, good for her, getting her degree.
And what the sneering 'progressives' think of as funny -- more than one college -- the Black community sees as proof that she was determined. And I bet the White working class has a similar reaction.
A lot of the remarks made about Sarah Palin were sexist. And a lot of them were classicst. The Socialist Worker -- and C.I. made this point repeatedly -- needs to build its readership and its party and it's not going to do that by running off the working class but when you make fun of people for their working class status, you do run them off.
There really is an attitude of I'm-so-much-better-and-smarter-than-you on the left. There may be on the right as well. I don't know, I'm not a right-winger and know very few people who are. But their pundits know how to cater the argument while our 'helpers' keep spitting on the working class. (Of all races!). Read Trina's "I know a sneer when I see one" from last night.
"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):
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?
Yesterday, an assault began on Camp Ashraf. We'll start by noting Amnesty International's statement which will also serve as a recap:
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).
iraq
the new york timeselisabeth bumillerpress tvamnesty internationalthe washington posternesto londonogreg jaffemcclatchy newspaperslaith hammoudileila fadelalsumariathe wall street journalcharles levinsonyochi j. dreazenbbc newssam daghertimothy williamsanthony shadid
david bacon
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
Bob
Pre-existing frameworks rule these discussions. Pundits refuse to learn simple facts. Ninety percent of on-air time is devoted to a dim-witted, fruitless process, as the pundits attempt to determine, by some sort of introspection, what must have happened in the specific incident.
Very little time is left over to discuss real societal issues. On cable, the OJ case was really about running videotape of Nicole, not about discussing race [or] sexual violence. Please. Let’s get semi-real.
It has been stunning to see the way pre-existing frameworks have been forced onto the murky events of this latest unfortunate incident. In all candor, your big major pundits just aren’t very smart. It isn’t good for your society when they pretend to discuss serious topics.
Last night, another “teachable moment” occurred.
On CNN, the cable buffoons were pondering possible “teachable moments” last night. Lou Dobbs mused about where the “moment” might lie. And then, Keith Richburg, of the Washington Post, said this. We did not make it up:
RICHBURG (7/27/09): Let me just add one thing on—
DOBBS: Quickly if you will.
RICHBURG: Yes, it just seems that one thing is, Professor Gates and his neighbor should get to know each other.
JAMES TARANTO: But she was not a neighbor. She lived about seven miles away.
RICHBURG: Well, she worked— Yes, but she worked in an office 100 yards away.
By now, Richburg understood that the caller wasn’t a neighbor—but for reasons only these Martians can explain, such narratives must never die. When Taranto corrected him, Richburg advanced a new Mars-ready theory: You should make sure you get to know everyone who lives within 100 yards of your office. You should get to know everyone who works in a building 100 yards from your home.
(We can’t vouch for Richburg’s yardage.)
We’d call that a teachable moment—about a group of unteachable life-forms. Our teaching? Only on Mars do life-forms like these actually grow and thrive.
And yet, these strange people remain on the air, shaping America’s “public discussions.” Indeed, people like Matthews remain good friends of our liberal intellectual leaders.
That's from today's Daily Howler by Bob Somerby. And it goes to how the narrative is imposed on the story and facts and anything else can be squeezed out as a result of the narrative. Above all, the narrative must be served. You can actually see that in any news program (I'm talking news, not chatting heads) when a report begins airing. There is a narrative and you can pick it out, if you pay attention, as easily as you can pick out the plot points of a summer blockbuster.
So news happens to fit the frame, not to be told. That's the broadcasting motto (unofficial). And they will shape it and shade it and get what they want out of it however they have to.
It's honestly scary when you think about it and think about how much trust they have just because they are on TV. People really think they do research and work before stepping in front of the camera. But that's not the case.
So think about that tonight and think about how hard Bob Somerby's been working for at least the last two weeks explaining these points.
That's it for me. Folks are here and we're going out to eat. First time they're letting me treat them (and they were here all last week). (Reminded, time stamp is EST. I'm not taking my parents out to eat at 11 at night. It's PST here. So it's eight which is late but they needed a nap from running around with my kids. Our reservations are for 8:45 which almost gives me enough time to get my kids cleaned up and presentable.)
"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):
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.
August 8, 2004, the US Embassy in Baghdad [PDF format warning] sent a report by John Negroponte which noted:
(D) PROTECTED PERSON: THE MUJAHIDDEN-E-KHALQ
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.
Amnesty International wasn't the only one raising concerns. April 24th the European Parliament adopted the following resolution:
The European Parliament,
- 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.
The US captured Farhadi during a raid in the northern Kurdish province of Sulimaniyah on Sept. 20, 2007 [see LWJ report, Captured Iranian Qods Force officer a regional commander in Iraq].
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 intervened and 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?
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". An Iraqi correspondent for McClatchy blogs (Inside Iraq):
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, 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."
Monday, July 27, 2009
Isaiah, Bonnie Erbe, Thomas Ricks, Bob Somerby
Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Barack The Magnificent"
I love it and there's something else I love that a number of us are noting tonight. This is from Bonnie Erbe's "Obama Abortion Backtrack Shows He's All Rhetoric, No Fight" (US News & World Reports):
And of course there is Sonia Sotomayor. Whose corporatist views I do not agree with but I could have supported her had she been pro-choice and that position been known.
But we weren't 'old enough' to be told that apparently. Barack promised, on the campaign trail, that he would only appoint Justices who were pro-choice. The promise apparently flew out the window because Robert Gibbs stated, shortly after her announcement was made, that she and Barry never discussed abortion and Sotomayor echoed that when asked during her confirmation hearings.
I'm sorry but for a campaign built around "TOO MUCH IS AT STAKE" and meaning Roe and using the loss of Roe to scare up votes, it's disgusting how quickly he caved.
Thomas E. Ricks has some interesting media criticism in "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.
And Bob Somerby continues to point out what is known and unknown about the incident the whole country keeps talking about (myself included):
"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):
The following has been agreed upon between the two parties, Political Coundil for Iraq Resistance (PCIR) and the US Government Representatives in this meeting:
U.S. lawmakers and the Office of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, which has released a report about the Caravan Hotel, are increasingly scrutinizing the use of CERP and urging the Pentagon to be more vigilant in its selection and oversight of projects.
The success stories and cautionary tales of CERP initiatives in Iraq are shaping the way commanders in Afghanistan use the program as they place greater emphasis on counterinsurgency and keeping the civilian population safe.
Since 2003, the U.S. Congress has appropriated more than $10 billion in CERP funds for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
"CERP was meant to be walking-around money for commanders to achieve a desired effect in their battle space," said the office's deputy inspector general, Ginger Cruz. "Slowly, it has become a de facto reconstruction pot of money."
I love it and there's something else I love that a number of us are noting tonight. This is from Bonnie Erbe's "Obama Abortion Backtrack Shows He's All Rhetoric, No Fight" (US News & World Reports):
In an interview with Katie Couric, the president said, "I'm pro-choice, but I also think we have a tradition in this town, historically, of not financing abortions as part of government funded healthcare."
Actually, President Obama is about as pro-choice as he is anti-war, pro-environment, and pro-women's rights, which is to say, not so much or hardly at all when it comes to action versus rhetoric.
And of course there is Sonia Sotomayor. Whose corporatist views I do not agree with but I could have supported her had she been pro-choice and that position been known.
But we weren't 'old enough' to be told that apparently. Barack promised, on the campaign trail, that he would only appoint Justices who were pro-choice. The promise apparently flew out the window because Robert Gibbs stated, shortly after her announcement was made, that she and Barry never discussed abortion and Sotomayor echoed that when asked during her confirmation hearings.
I'm sorry but for a campaign built around "TOO MUCH IS AT STAKE" and meaning Roe and using the loss of Roe to scare up votes, it's disgusting how quickly he caved.
Thomas E. Ricks has some interesting media criticism in "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.
And Bob Somerby continues to point out what is known and unknown about the incident the whole country keeps talking about (myself included):
Warner is a long-standing ninny. But this is the way your High Pundit Class reasoned its way through the 1990s. Most consequentially, they reasoned this way for twenty months during Campaign 2000. Endlessly, they invented brainless psychiatric theories, explaining why Candidate Gore said various things—various things he hadn’t said. They also invented psychiatric theories explaining the candidate’s clothing. (Bill Turque and Brian Williams, come on down!) The dead of Iraq look up from the ground into these various nincompoops’ faces. These people still sit at the nexus of power, serving selected lions.
The dead of Iraq look up from the ground into these nincompoops’ faces. So do the abused men and women who are exposed to racial profiling by police, sometimes at gigantic cost, including the loss of their lives. Of course, this is a problem no one on cable TV was discussing until a lion at the nexus of power said he was such a victim. As Gates continues speaking with his daughter, he goes on—and on, and on and on—about the four hours he was forced to endure in this recent incident. We’ll be honest: Thinking of the dead of Iraq; thinking of victims of deeply consequential racial injustice; thinking of the way this professor’s cohort routinely failed to help in the past several decades—we found the professor’s comments there to be border on the disgusting.
(Or should we perhaps be more sympathetic? By his own account, Gates was forced to spend four hours speaking with Harvard professors!)
(For the record, the professor who supervised our senior thesis is a smart, sane prince of a man.)
In fact, Gates’ last PBS program was in large part silly pap, the kind of program a professor may start to produce after becoming a bit too famous and fawned-to. This professor now says he will do a new program about the problems of profiling. Of course, everyone mentally alive on the planet has known that this is a major problem—has known it for a very long time. To watch Glenn Loury hit Gates rather hard about his born-again outrage, you know what to do—just click here. (“I find laughable, and sad, Professor Gates’s declaration that he now plans to make a documentary film about racial profiling...Where has this eminent scholar of African-American affairs been these last 30 years?”)
We wouldn’t be that judgmental ourselves. (And what would he know—he’s at Brown!) But similar thoughts have come to mind as we’ve watched the wealthy/famous/influential lion professor complaining this week.
Your fancy professors have done very little on your behalf in these past thirty years, as you as your society has been pillaged, mocked and looted. They have routinely avoided the fray; instead, they’ve had great fun in Beijing with their daughters, by whom they will later be grilled in the “press.” In this case, the press corps’ performance goes well beyond clownish. Here’s the first “question” in that “interview.” No, we’re not making this up:
Daddy, how did it feel to read in the police report that although you had been cooperative with Sgt. Crowley, while he was standing uninvited in your home, your behavior had been reduced to “loud and tumultuous” after asking to see to his badge? Were you surprised at the inaccuracy of the police report?
No, we didn’t make that up. Almost no one could have. No one but a pampered child of America’s upper class.
That's my favorite section, it's fiery and it's funny. And it's true. From the part about Iraq to the part about Gates' daughter. Read the whole thing."Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):
Monday, July 27, 2009. Chaos and violence continue with at least 6 dead and at least nineteen wounded, the KRG held elections Saturday and no violence reported, Nouri hopes to cut them out of Kirkuk, KBR continues to deny responsibility in the electrocution deaths of US service members in Iraq but a new Pentagon report emerges, the US government officially denies any protocol signed with Iraqi exile leaders but the Los Angeles Times publishes the protocol, and more.
Saturday the Kurdistan region in northern Iraq held provincial and presidential elections. Early voting started on Thursday. Ballots will be counted in Baghdad and results are expected, at the earliest, on Tuesday but US embassy staff are predicting Wednesday at the earliest. Alsumaria noted on election day, "Kurdistan elections are the most intense since 1992 as parliamentary and presidential elections will be carried out on the same day. Five candidates are competing for the presidency while 24 political entities including 19 lists are standing the test of people's vote to occupy 111 seats in Parliament." Adam Ashton (McClatchy Newspapers) reported, "Kurdish voters on Saturday packed polling places in Iraq's second election this year, weighing the promises of a new party that pledged to shake up the status quo by exposing corruption in the incumbent regional government. . . . The mood at polling places remained calm through the morning with many men walking to the polls in traditional Kurdish attire and women filling in wearing colorful dresses. Opposition party leaders complained about activity at the polls later in the day, when they said supporters of incumbents tried to sway votes." Liz Sly (Los Angeles Times) reports, "Long lines snaked out of polling stations Saturday" which "attests to the enthusiasm generated by the appearance for the first time, of a viable challenge to the 18-year monopoly of the two ruling parties, the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan and the Kurdish Democratic Party." Tim Cocks and Shamal Aqrawi (Reuters) explain voting was extended for one hour today and that the Electoral Commission estimates a turnout of 78.5%. The United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq issued a statement today noting they applaud "the people of the Kurdistan Region of Iraq for having turned out in large numbers, especially among women, on July 23rd and 25th to exercise their right to elect new regional, parliamentary, and presidential representatives, in an orderly environment, notably free of violence." Saturday started with the region under curfew but the KRG lifted it after the first four hours when no incidents of violence were reported. The January 31st provincial elections which took place in fourteen of Iraq's 18 provinces required curfews and crackdowns. In Baghdad, for example, voters had to walk to polls as a result of the vehicle ban -- and frequently had to then walk to another polling station and sometimes a third. Don't remember it?
Mohammed Hussein (New York Times) explained, "I walked more than three miles and four polling centers to vote today. I have lived in the same neighborhood for more than 30 years, but my name was not on the list. With the sound of hovering American helicopters filling the unusual silence on the streets I walked to the polling center nearest my house to vote. First I had to be searched and take off my wristwatch, my box of cigarettes and my mobile telphone because an American patrol was watching the main checkpoint of the polling center. I checked my name but I could not find it." He recounts the trip to four polling stations only to note that at the fourth, where he was allowed to vote, he didn't recognize the names of any candidates. Nasreen Yousif couldn't put up with it and she told Stephen Farrell and Alissa J. Rubin (New York Times), that after her third Baghdad polling station, "Now I am going home. Maybe there is a forth school, but it is too far and I can't walk anymore." Back then, Tina Susman (Los Angeles Times) reported, "The thousands of schools being used as polling places were ringed with coils of razor wire days ago, and the police began 24-hour guard of them earlier in the week." Stephen Farrell and Alissa J. Rubin noted, "Driving was banned in most of the country to prevent suuicide bombers from attacking any of the more than 6,000 polling places and security checkpoints, often spaced just yards apart. The tight security, couples with confusion over where voters should cast their ballots, appeared to have reduced turnout in many districts across the country." And though the claim quickly became that there was no violence at all on this allgedly political holy day, in real time violence was being noted including McClatchy's Laith Hammoudi reporting a Saturday tribal fight in Baghdad that resulted in one death and one person injured and Alissa J. Rubin and Stephen Farrell (New York Times) reporting security forces shot two people in Baghdad who "tried to enter a polling place carrying cameras and recorders". Reuters states, "The vote was not entirely without incident. Kurdish Prime Minister Nechirvan Barzani, the president's nephew, said that one person was killed and 12 were wounded on Sunday evening when election revellers began firing shots into the air." That's Sunday, the day after the vote and, as described, also unintentional violence.
So the KRG calling off the curfew in the midst of voting Saturday is actually news and it's a shame no one thought to report it as such or to offer the obvious comparison of the three provincial elections over the weekend with the fourteen provincial elections in January. Liz Sly (Los Angeles Times) reported Saturday, "Kurdish President Massoud Barzani touched on an issue dear to all Kurds when he cast his ballot on his mountain stronghold of Salahuddin. 'I will never compromise on Kirkuk,' he said." That moment resulted in one of the few complaints actually filed (as opposed to complaints bandied to reporters by "Change" 'officials' and their US-government backers). Tim Cocks, Shamal Aqrawi, Muhanad Mohammed and Mohammed Abbas (Reuters) explained that Iraq's Independent High Electoral Commission "did say Barzani had broken a campaign deadline rule by speaking to reporters after voting" and quotes IHEC's Qasim al-Sachet, "This is not important, it was a very simple matter and has no effect on the elections." Liz Sly explained Sunday that the parties were releasing their own tallies (these are not official tallies) and that, "Iraq's Independent High Electoral Commission, which is running the election, said it was investigating a number of complaints lodged by opposition candidates but had not yet found any serious enough to affect the outcome of the vote." The KRG adds, "More than 320 international observers from more than 35 organizations were registered by IHEC to monitor the election. This included observers from the United Nations, the European Union, the United States, the United Kingdom, Japan and a variety of other nations and non-governmental organizations. In addition, more than 30 international media outlets were accredited to observe and report on the election. More than 90 organizations based in Iraq and/or the Kurdistan Region also participated in the observation, with more than 10,000 individuals receiving accreditation badges from IHEC. Political parties were also granted the right to monitor the proceedings, with 47 groups and more than 27,000 individuals accredited for observation." Adam Ashton (Modesto Bee's The Hive) blogs about visitng the "multimedia empire" which is the headquarters for the "Change" Party, "I don't want to be cynical because the voting I saw was free and full of healthy debate. I just couldn't help but hear Roger Daltry singing 'Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss,' as we drove away from the Change compound in Sulaimaniya." (He's referring to the Who's "Won't Get Fooled Again," written by Pete Townsend.) "Change" is a US-creation. Founder (frontman) Nawshirwan Mustafa runs that US funded "multi-media empire." Mustafa became a US favorite while allegedly representing Kurdish interests to the US created and controlled Coalition Provisional Authority (interim government run by Paul Bremer). Though a strong voice in public, he was surprisingly weak in protecting Kurdish interests. Despite his fiery words in public and his apparent incompentence as an advocate for Kurdish interests, the US quickly funded Dick Cheney's BFF providing Mustafa with the money needed to start his paper and 'independent' radio station which is a satellite of the US propaganda arm Voice of America (Mustafa's is tellingly known as "Voice of Change").
In addition to crying foul, "Change" has attempted to insist they are the reason for the huge turnout. That claim cannot be backed up. But the issue of Kirkuk's status became a very big part of the KRG elections. Not just on election day with Barzani's remarks. Not just two Sundays ago with a very public speech. For weeks, it has been the driving force behind the elections with candidates from all parties attempting to make the most convincing argument that they would bring Kirkuk under the Kurdistan umbrella. Do not mistakenly think that this campaign talk did not impact voter turnout. The Kurds have long seen Kirkuk as their property and have a historical grievance over the region since Saddam Hussein ran them out of the area. Alsumaria reports the PUK kept a previously scheduled meeting yesterday: "Regardless of the elections results, people's will ought to be respected and whichever party wins, it will form the next government, said Mulla Bakhtyar, PUK political office spokesman. Bakhtyar stressed that the upcoming government will work on achieving major attainments in favor of Kurdistan's people mainly the application of Constitution Article 140." That's the article pertaining to oil-rich Kirkuk which mandated a census and referendum be held to resolve the issue by . . the end of 2007. Also in 2007, Nouri al-Maliki signed off on -- literally signed his name to -- the White House benchmarks for Iraq which included resolving the issue. It has not been resolved. Anthony Shadid (Washington Post) observes this morning, "Since 2003, when U.S. forces barreled into Baghdad, toppling Saddam Hussein, inspiring a Shiite revival and unleashing a Sunni insurgency that drew on a communal sense of siege, the war in Iraq has been in large part a sectarian conflict that pitted Sunni Arab against Shiite Arab. That war has subsided, even if bitterness remains." He argues the new conflict is between Arabs and Kurds. Liz Sly interviewed Iraq's Deputy Prime Minister Barham Salih (and PUK member as well as a candidate for prime minister in Kurdistan) and asked him what the elections would mean in terms of the "strained relationship with Baghdad?" Barham Salih responded, "In terms of relationships with Baghdad, the impact should not be overestimated. This election is a turning point in Kurdish political dynamics and Kurdish politics are becoming more competitive and more focused on domestic issues – services, quality of life, corruption, as opposed to the larger issues of Kurdish nationalism. These issues remain important, such as the fate of Kirkuk, the fate of the relationship with Baghdad. But I do not see that there is much dissent on what I see as the mainstream Kurdish position on these issues." Prime minister of Iraq and puppet of the occupation Nouri al-Maliki has been visiting DC. Sami Moubayed (Asia Times) analyzes the trip and observes that Nouri al "Maliki wants US and UN support to solve an upcoming problem with Iraqi Kurds. During a honeymoon period with the Kurds in 2007, Maliki promised to uphold Article 140 of the constitution, which calls for a referendum in the oil-rich city of Kirkuk (which holds 13% of Iraq's reserves), to see if its residents want to remain part of Iraq or merge with Iraqi Kurdistan. It seemed like the logical thing to do at the time, as Kurdish support was vital for him to maintain a shaky cabinet coalition rocked by major walkouts by Sunnis and fellow Shi'ites loyal to rebel leader Muqtada al-Sadr. . . . That honemymoon is now a thing of the past, and Maliki wants to make sure that so is the promised referendum on Kirkuk. The UN is supporting Maliki's argument, claiming that if such a referendum did take place, it could ignite a civil war between Arabs and Kurds. Maliki could not afford this civil strife, nor could he afford having Iran, Turkey, and Syria -- all of which oppose giving Kirikuk to Kurdistan -- on the offensive."
Friday, the press [see Nada Bakri (Washington Post) and Sam Dagher (New York Times)] was covering the talks the US was having with Ba'athist exile leaders and others and the claim that the central government in Baghdad was left in the dark as they insisted they were "demanding explanations] reported on the angry response of the puppet government in Baghdad to the news (which emerged weeks ago in the Arab world) that the US was negotiating with leaders of Iraqi groups opposed to the puppet government the US installed. Elise Labott (CNN) reports US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton stated Friday that, supposedly like the Iraqi government, she had been unaware of the negotiations until "recently." Labott explains: "Iraqi officials said Friday they were investigating reports of the meetings, calling them a violation of Iraqi sovereignty. The reports, which detail a supposed signed agreement between the Americans and insurgents, have angered Iraqis as they seek to establish their authority in the wake of the withdrawal of American troops from Iraqi cities." Officially the State Dept denies the signing of any protocol. Unofficially, they admit to Labott one was signed. The Los Angeles Times has posted the protocol both parties signed March 6th:
IN THE NAME OF ALLAH THE BENEFICENT THE MERCIFUL
PROTOCOL ON ESTABLISHMENT OF NEGOTIATIONS BETWEEN REPRESENTATIVES OF THE POLITICAL COUNCIL FOR IRAQI RESISTANCE AND US GOVERNMENT REPRESENTATIVES
(Istanbul, 6 March 2009)
The following has been agreed upon between the two parties, Political Coundil for Iraq Resistance (PCIR) and the US Government Representatives in this meeting:
1. The PCIR will give the names of 15 representatives/political leaders in their negotiation team to the Turkish side, in the case of detention or problems in travel inside Iraq or leaving Iraq of this negotiating team, the Turkish Government will inform the US authorities, who will undertake to resolve the problem, in the case of detention by the Iraqi forces inside Iraq or leaving Iraq of this negotiating team, the US as well as the Turkish side will exert their best efforts with the Iraqi Government in order to get release of the respresentative(s) of the PCIR.
2. Both parties agreed upon to take a decision regarding the level of the participation in the negotiating teams (technical experts, politicians and leaders), before the next session of negotiations in coordination with the Turkish side.
3. Both negotiating teams should have the equal number of representatives, including the technicians and experts.
4. The venue of the upcoming sessions will be determined at least 10 days prior to the date of the meeting, in coordination with the Turkish side.
5. dates of the upcoming sessions will be determined by the consent of both parties.
6. This negotiation process is planned to be finalized before the end of June 2009. However, upon agreement by both sides, the negotiation process may be extended.
7. Both parties agreed that the Turkish side to act as the facilitator and guarantor throughout this negotiation process and the PCIR retains the right to ask for other guarantors.
8. Both parties agreed to maintain the confidentiality of the negotiations and to leak information about the negotiations in full or in part to the media, unless otherwise agreed by both parties.
9. Both parties agreed not to use cameras or any recording devices during the sessions.
10. The US will not undertake negotiations with other Sunni resistance groups during negotiation time, in order to allow PCIR to broaden the negotiation with them (This is to be confirmed by the US delegation after consulting with the US Government).
Ned Parker (Los Angeles Times) explains, "Iraqi officials have denied any knowledge of the meetings and have lashed out at the United States about conducting such talks. The reality is that U.S. officials most probably informed the Iraqi government about the talks beforehand, as they have done in the past when they explored discussions with groups that might be willing to negotiate with Iraqi officials." Thomas E. Ricks (Foreign Policy) adds, "Maliki also is shocked -- shocked -- that the U.S. government talked secretly to insurgent leaders. Everyone, don't tell the prime minister about the Sons of Iraq program, either!" Sami Moubayed (Asia Times) offers on Nouri, "Once Maliki's image is transformed in Washington, he will be able to market himself in different manner to ordinary Iraqis, who need time to forget that he was originally brought to power in 2006 by the United States" ahead of elections currently scheduled for next January. Nouri has Barack supporting him (verbally) on the plan to end UN sanctions on Iraq. Louis Charbonneau (Reuters) reports that Ban Ki-moon, UN Secretary-General, is backing a different plan, "I strongly encourage Iraq and other stakeholders to actively discuss alternative solutions to the issue of outstanding compensation and debt payments, including through investments, in the mutual interest of Iraq's people and the region as a while." The amount Iraq owes currently is $25.5 billion of which $24 million is owed to Kuwait.
Meanwhile what Gordon Brown couldn't do (despite promising to) the Iraqi Parliament may have due to its inaction. 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."
Turning to some of today's reported violence . . .
Bombings?
Mohammed Al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad roadside bombing which claimed 1 life and left four people wounded, a Baghdad sticky bombing which left five people injured, a Mosul roadside bombing which injured six Iraqi soldiers, a Mosul roadside bombing which injured one police officer and an Ameriyah sticky bombing which claimed the life of police Captain Ibraheem Khairallah. Reuters notes a Mosul sticky bombing which claimed the life of 1 "local tribal leader" (his driver was injured), a Kirkuk roadside bombing which left one police officer injured.
Shootings?
Mohammed Al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 1 Christian shot dead in Telkev in Nineveh Province. Reuters notes 1 police officer shot dead in Mosul (a civilian injured).
Corpses?
Reuters notes the corpse of 1 police officer ("shot in the head and chest") was discovered in Kirkuk.
We'll again note Angelina Jolie's goodwill visit to Iraq last Thursday where she declared, "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 made her third trip to Iraq Thursday. The above statement by her appears in CNN's coverage. The San Francisco Chronicle quotes 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." [Ann wrote about Angelina's vist last week and Thursday's "Iraq snapshot" covered a Congressional hearing which Kat covered at her site Thursday night in "Subcommittee on Disability Assistance & Memorial Affairs."]
Turning to the US and Dave Phillips' "Lethal warriors day 2" (Colorado Springs Gazette):
It was October 2007. A fellow soldier, Kenneth Eastridge, 24, watched it all from the passenger seat.
At that moment, he said, it was clear that however messed up some of the soldiers in the unit had been after their first Iraq deployment, it was about to get much worse.
"I have no problem with killing," said Eastridge, a two-tour infantryman with almost 80 confirmed kills. "But I won't just murder someone for no reason. He had gone crazy."
Hear the prison interviews with Kenneth Eastridge.
All three soldiers belonged to the 2nd Battalion, 12th Infantry Regiment, part of Fort Carson's 4th Brigade Combat Team. The 500-soldier infantry battalion nicknamed itself the "Lethal Warriors."
They fought in the deadliest places in the war twice -- first in the Sunni Triangle, then in downtown Baghdad. Since their return late in 2007, eight infantry soldiers have been arrested and accused of murder, attempted murder or manslaughter. Another two soldiers from the brigade were arrested and accused of murder and attempted murder after the first tour. Others have committed other violent crimes. Others have committed suicide.
Many of the soldiers behind bars and their family members say the violence at home is a consequence of the violence in Iraq. They came home angry, confused, paranoid and depressed. They had trouble getting effective mental heath care. Most buried their symptoms in drugs and alcohol until they exploded.
At that moment, he said, it was clear that however messed up some of the soldiers in the unit had been after their first Iraq deployment, it was about to get much worse.
"I have no problem with killing," said Eastridge, a two-tour infantryman with almost 80 confirmed kills. "But I won't just murder someone for no reason. He had gone crazy."
Hear the prison interviews with Kenneth Eastridge.
All three soldiers belonged to the 2nd Battalion, 12th Infantry Regiment, part of Fort Carson's 4th Brigade Combat Team. The 500-soldier infantry battalion nicknamed itself the "Lethal Warriors."
They fought in the deadliest places in the war twice -- first in the Sunni Triangle, then in downtown Baghdad. Since their return late in 2007, eight infantry soldiers have been arrested and accused of murder, attempted murder or manslaughter. Another two soldiers from the brigade were arrested and accused of murder and attempted murder after the first tour. Others have committed other violent crimes. Others have committed suicide.
Many of the soldiers behind bars and their family members say the violence at home is a consequence of the violence in Iraq. They came home angry, confused, paranoid and depressed. They had trouble getting effective mental heath care. Most buried their symptoms in drugs and alcohol until they exploded.
The article is part of a package following an investigation by the Gazette, part one is Phillips' "The hell of war comes home" and there's also Tom Roeder's "Fort Carson report: Combat stress contributed to soldiers' crimes back home" and "EDITOR'S NOTE: A note of caution about the Lethal Warriors package." The series addresses what happened after they returned to the US and what happened while serving in Iraq where Iraqi drivers were randomly shot at, where those who didn't stop would be run "over with the Bradley," where Iraqis post-interrogation were dumped from bridges and more. Returning home? No concerns from the command except go-away, left to fend for themselves, some afraid to get help, some targeted for trying. Parents who attempted to get help for the children? Commanding officers mocked the soldiers whose parents called, ridiculed them. It's a complete breakdown in policies and procedures and the Gazette did a wonderful investigation but what's needed is a Congressional one.
Meanwhile at least 18 US service members have died in Iraq from shoddy electrocution. KBR always denies that's the case. Scott Bronstein (CNN) reports on the Defense Dept's inspector-general's finding released today which states nine deaths resulted from "improper grounding or faulty equipment" with five more still being investigated. The nine deaths established to have been caused by faulting work on KRB's part includes Sgt Ryan Maseth. KBR continues to shirk responsibility and spokesperson Heather Browne tells CNN, "While the death of Sgt. Maseth was tragic, KBR continues to maintain that it was not responsible for his death. The building in which Staff Sgt Maseth lived was built by Iraqi and other contractors under previous Iraqi leadership." US Senator Bob Casey Jr.'s office released the following today:
After the Department of Defense Inspector General released its report on the electrocution death of Staff Sergeant Ryan Maseth and 17 other electrocution deaths in Iraq, U.S. Senator Bob Casey (D-PA) released the following statement:
"I am heartened that, after an exhaustive investigation, the Department of Defense Inspector General has finally published its findings and recommendations. The responsibility for the death of Ryan Maseth can be attributed to many quarters. However, the Inspector General has concluded that the water pump which shorted and caused his electrocution was first installed by a KBR subcontractor less than two years prior to Ryan's death. That water pump, located on the roof of Ryan's building, was not grounded during installation. This deficiency was not discovered during a subsequent inspection administered by KBR.
"We cannot stop with the publication of this report alone. Those who failed to carry out their contractual obligations in a way that contributed to the death of a U.S. soldier should be held fully accountable for their negligence. I also eagerly await the findings of the Army CID report."
Staying with the US Congress, the issue of CERP funds has been raised repeatedly by Congress. The September 10, 2008 House Armed Services Committee hearing found Chair Ike Skelton pursuing the issue of the CERP funds with DoD's Under Secreatry of Defense for Policy Eric S. Edelman and explaining the process as Congress intended it.
Ike Skelton: The department's understanding of the allowed usage of CERP funds seems to have undergone a rather dramatic change since Congress first authorized it. The intent of the program was originally to meet urgent humanitarian needs in Iraq through small projects undertaken under the initative of brigade and battalion commanders. Am I correct?
Edelman: Yes, sir.
Ike Skelton: Thank you. The answer was "yes." Last year the Department of Defense has used millions of CERP dollars to build hotels for foreign visitors, spent $900,000 on a mural at the Baghdad International Airport and, as I understand this second piece of art, that CERP funds were used for. I'm not sure that the American tax payer would appreciate that knowing full well that Iraq has a lot of money in the bank from oil revenues and it is my understanding that Iraq has announced that they're going to build the world's largest ferris wheel. And if they have money to build the world's largest ferris wheel why are we funding murals and hotels with money that should be used by the local battallion commander. This falls in the purview of plans and policy ambassador.
Edelman: No, no, it's absolutely right and I'll shae the stage here -- I'll share the stage quite willing with uh, with Admiral Winnefeld with whom I've actually been involved in discussions with for some weeks about how we provide some additional guidance to the field and some additional requirements to make sure that CERP is appropriately spent.
Ike Skelton: The department's understanding of the allowed usage of CERP funds seems to have undergone a rather dramatic change since Congress first authorized it. The intent of the program was originally to meet urgent humanitarian needs in Iraq through small projects undertaken under the initative of brigade and battalion commanders. Am I correct?
Edelman: Yes, sir.
Ike Skelton: Thank you. The answer was "yes." Last year the Department of Defense has used millions of CERP dollars to build hotels for foreign visitors, spent $900,000 on a mural at the Baghdad International Airport and, as I understand this second piece of art, that CERP funds were used for. I'm not sure that the American tax payer would appreciate that knowing full well that Iraq has a lot of money in the bank from oil revenues and it is my understanding that Iraq has announced that they're going to build the world's largest ferris wheel. And if they have money to build the world's largest ferris wheel why are we funding murals and hotels with money that should be used by the local battallion commander. This falls in the purview of plans and policy ambassador.
Edelman: No, no, it's absolutely right and I'll shae the stage here -- I'll share the stage quite willing with uh, with Admiral Winnefeld with whom I've actually been involved in discussions with for some weeks about how we provide some additional guidance to the field and some additional requirements to make sure that CERP is appropriately spent.
Appearing before the The Commission on Wartime Contracting February 2nd, the Department of Defense's Inspector General Thomas F. Gimble explained CERP (Commander's Emergency Response Program) funds, "CERP funds are appropriated through the DoD and allocted through each major command's sector of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Up to $500,000 can be allocated to individual CERP projects, and CERP beneficiaries often receive payments in cash. We have also identified occasions where soldiers with limited contracting experience were responsible for administering CERP funds. In some instances, there appeared to be scant, if any, oversight of the manner in which funds were expended. Complicating matters further is the fact that payment of bribes and gratuities to government officials is a common business practice in some Southwest Asia nations. Taken in combination, these factors result in an environment conducive to bribery and corruption." Despite repeated calls by Congress for an accounting, where the money goes remains murky. Ernesto Londono (Washington Post) reports how the millions in CERP funds have had little-to-no impact:
U.S. lawmakers and the Office of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, which has released a report about the Caravan Hotel, are increasingly scrutinizing the use of CERP and urging the Pentagon to be more vigilant in its selection and oversight of projects.
The success stories and cautionary tales of CERP initiatives in Iraq are shaping the way commanders in Afghanistan use the program as they place greater emphasis on counterinsurgency and keeping the civilian population safe.
Since 2003, the U.S. Congress has appropriated more than $10 billion in CERP funds for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
"CERP was meant to be walking-around money for commanders to achieve a desired effect in their battle space," said the office's deputy inspector general, Ginger Cruz. "Slowly, it has become a de facto reconstruction pot of money."
Related, Walter Pincus (Washington Post) reports Congress is questioning defense spending on 'hearts & minds' campaigns (or spending hidden under that umbrella) and, "In Iraq, the [US] military has awarded $100 million contracts to support elections and the aims of the Baghdad government."
Finally, independent journalist David Bacon continues to report on labor issues and "Mixtec farm workers pick blueberries, melons and chiles" (Immigration Prof Blog) covers workers in San Pablo Tijaltepec. 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).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)