Monday, December 24, 2012

'Fiscal cliff' and other nonsense

Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Barry O's Favorite Topic"


barry os favorite topic

That's really a powerful cartoon.  And it's so much more powerful than "The Drunk Between The Trees." That's the latest post from Hillary Is 44 and seems to exist solely to let people know that I was wrong to wish they'd post more.

Is there a point to this post?

It reads like a remix.  A bad remix.

Clearly, they can't lead.

That's why they post so rarely.  They just follow.  'What's a topic to glom on?  Nothing?  Oh, okay, we won't post for a few days.'

What a sad website.

I'm sorry but I don't cut you slack if you know things are wrong.  If you know things are wrong, you need to be leading the way in calling out an abusive government.  If you're unable to do so, then you need to consider packing it in.  I really don't have time for websites that think they can take a week off here, a week off there . . .

Barack Obama is on vacation.  Again.

He's gone to Hawaii.  The supposed 'emergency' of the supposed 'fiscal cliff' has not effected his holiday.

Would anything?

Of course not.

As we know, when the underwear would-be-bomber was trying to ignite, they had to wait hours Christmas Day 2009 to tell Barack because he was sleeping and no one wanted to wake the princess.

The 'fiscal cliff' was always a lie.

People don't seem to realize what this means, though.

What it most likely means is automatic cuts (gutting) of the safety net.  And Barack can whine, "It wasn't my fault."

The whole thing's his fault.  He created this artifical 'cliff.'

Want to know the real Barack?  Here he is via NPR:

Although President Obama supports setting a path to citizenship for many illegal immigrants, his administration deported a record 1.5 million of them in his first term.
In addition, the latest data released by the government in recent days show that an unprecedented 409,849 people were deported for the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30.

That's Barack, always stabbing people who voted for him in the back (Latinos put Barack over last November).


"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):

Monday, December 24, 2012.  Chaos and violence continue, Nouri's crazy continues, protests spring up against the targeting of the Minister of Finance and against the treatment of women in Iraqi prisons, the torture legacy (from the US and England) remains in Iraq, a new potential successor to President Jalal Talabani emerges as a front runner, and more.
Tom Spender (Voice of Russia -- link is text and audio) reports England's "Ministry of Defence has paid out a total of 14 million pounds to Iraqis who say they were tortured by British troops during the UK's five-year occupation of southern Iraq.  The Mod says the vast majority of British troops in Iraq behaved with integrity and professionalism."  The most infamous Iraqi torture victim of British troops was Baha Mousa.  From the July 13, 2009 snapshot:


Moving over to England, Matthew Weaver (Guardian) notes that Iraqi Baha Mousa's death at the age of 26 while in British custody in September 2003 is the subject of a public inquiry in England which began today and that, "A central issue of the inquiry is why five 'conditioning techniques' -- hooding prisoners, putting them in stress positions, depriving them of sleep, depriving them of food and water, and playing white noise -- were used on Iraq detainees.  The techniques, inflicted on IRA suspects, were banned in 1972 by then prime minister, Edward Heath."  The Telegraph of London offers that Baha "was beaten to death" while in British custody, "sustaining 93 separate injuires, including fractured ribs and a broken nose."  The Telegraph also notes that the inquiry was shown video of Corporal Donald Payne yelling and screaming, "shouting and swearing at the Iraqis as they are force to main painful 'stress position'."
The inquiry, like so many others, didn't offer much.  However, in June of this year, ITV reported that the doctor on dusty, the one who examined Baha, Dr. Derek Keilloh, was facing charges that he had "failed to conduct an adequate examination of Mr Mousa's body after death and failed to notify a superior office of the circumstances of his death.  He faces similar claims relating to two other detainees he examiend after Mr Mousa's death."  From last Monday's snapshot:
Today, Andrew Johnson (Belfast Telegraph) reports the latest, "A former British Army doctor has been found guilty of attempting to cover up the death of an Iraqi civilian who was fatally beaten by British troops in 2003, and of failing to protect other detainees."  Peter Magill (Lancashire Telegraph) notes of the Baha Mousa inquiry,  "Another detainee, Ahmed Al Matari, who had also been seen by Dr Keilloh at the detention centre after being kicked in the kidneys and legs, accused him of behaving like a 'criminal' during."  Press TV adds, "Britain's Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service will now decide what penalty the British doctor will face.The editorial board of Scotland's Herald weighs in, "Army medics cannot afford to be squeamish but ignoring such brutality amounts to a betrayal of all the servicemen and women who behave decently and within the rules. It also acts as a recruiting sergeant for extremism and destroys at a stroke any goodwill built up with the local population. It is shameful that it has taken so long to uncover the truth. Though maltreatment of detainees may not have been routine, the fact that a number of other such inquiries are still crawling through the system suggests this was more than the work of a 'few bad apples'."
Yesterday, Ashleigh Barbour (Press and Journal) reported Dr. Derek Keilloh had been "struck off the medical register."  The Yorkshire Post adds, "The Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service announced its decision to ban Dr Keilloh from working as a doctor yesterday after finding him guilty of misconduct." The Herald Scotland explained, "The MPTS recognised Dr Keilloh, now a GP at Mayford House Surgery in Northallerton, North Yorkshire, never harmed Mr Mousa and did everything possible to save his life, in a setting that was 'highly charged, chaotic, tense and stressful'. But they ruled he must have seen the injuries and, especially as a doctor, had a duty to act."  Mary Gearin (Australia's ABC) quotes MPTS Chair Brian Alderman telling Keilloh, "The panel determined that erasure is the only appropriate sanction in this case.  Given the gravity and nature of the extent and context of your dishonesty, it considers that your misconduct is fundamentally incompatible with continued registration."
On the payouts by the UK government to Iraqi victims of torture, Melissa Stusinski (Inquisitr) notes, "The Ministry of Defense has promised it will launch an investigation for every abuse allegation that is brought forward."  Lutz Oette (Guardian) feels the only way to deal with torture is a public inquiry:
This compensation leaves a sour taste: although it is an important measure of redress for victims, it is certainly not justice done. The full truth of what happened is yet to emerge, and those responsible have not been held to account. There is still no sign that the government is prepared to do the right thing and establish a full independent public inquiry into torture and ill-treatment by members of the British armed forces in Iraq from 2003 to 2008.
This failure is part of a clear pattern. When allegations of abuse are made they are first downplayed -- any wrongdoing, we are told, is down to a "few rotten apples" -- then, if any investigations do follow, they are carried out within existing military structures. This "trust us, we will deal with it" approach has long since lost credibility; as for rotten apples, the numbers of victims are too large and the patterns of abuse too similar to speak of exceptions.
On the topic of torture, director Kathryn Bigelow is in the crosshairs of many for her film Zero Dark Thirty.  What's that?  You haven't seen it?  Oh, don't let that stop you from weighing in, it hasn't stopped any of the pigs from weighing in.  Ava and I covered it in "Media: The allure of Bash The Bitch" at Third and Third also wrote "Can't do their jobs, so they blame a film."
Before we get to that second piece, Glenn Greenwald felt so 'validated' this weekend when he appeared on Chris Hayes' MSNBC program and the two of them got to bash the Bigelow.  I like Chris.  If Chris gives you his word, he keeps it.  I have negatively criticized Chris for only one thing since Winter Soldier but it's not a minor thing. 
Back in 2010, Ava and I called out Chris for the fact that he was covering the White House for The Nation magazine.  That was an ethical no-no.  Not a minor one, a major one.  Chris is married.   His wife is an assistant attorney in the Office of Special Council.  Due to that, he shouldn't be covering the White House.  Whether or not he can be objective and fair, it creates the impression of a conflict of interests and journalists are supposed to avoid not just a conflict but the appearance of one.  His wife was not working in that department under Bully Boy Bush but that is where many of the torture memos orignated.  She works there now.  There has been no effort to punish any former officials, especially not those working for that legal office out of the White House (one that Bruce Ackerman argued at Slate should be abolished).
Chris Hayes is a nice person.  But maybe part of being a nice person is running interference for his wife?  Maybe if his wife's department isn't doing their job -- and clearly, they are not -- it's a lot easier to glom on and attack a film.  Maybe not.  But if someone didn't realize that they were ethically compromised by reporting on the White House when their wife worked for it?  That's not anyone I need to listen to for a film review filled with righteous indignation. 
In Third's "Can't do their jobs, so they blame a film," we took on Senators Dianne Feinstein, Carl Levin and John McCain for their idiotic letter to the head of Sony trying to alter Bigelow's film.  As we noted:
First, the complaints they lodge are that the film distorts things that happened. 
If that's true, that's the fault of the Senators who have allowed programs to take place in secrecy.  If they fear the American people do not know what happened and might be 'swayed' by a film, that goes to the secrecy level that they Congress has allowed the CIA to operate in.
So in other words, Dianne, Carl and John are complaining about the fact that they didn't do their own jobs.  That's on them.
Second, they insist, "The use of torture should be banished from serious public discourse for these reasons alone, but more importantly, because it is a violation of the Geneva Conventions, because it is an affront to America's national honor, and because it is wrong."  If, indeed, they feel that way, they need to (a) hold hearings into the torture that took place (public hearings) and (b) demand the Justice Department prosecute cases of torture carried out by people working for the US government.
In other words, Dianne, Carl and John's real problems stem from the fact that they haven't done their jobs.
And let's move beyond that.  Dianne was Chair in 2007 (after the 2006 mid-terms).  She has an obligation and responsibility in that role: If she knows of torture or any other law breaking, she is tasked with reporting it.  It appears Dianne did the exact opposite.  John McCain claims that watching Kathryn's film made him sick.  Good.  Because he was in the Senate looking the other way while the actual torture took place.  I'm glad it made him sick.  And while he and Dianne may find it easier to hiss and scratch at Kathryn and her film, the fact remains that they're just trying to distract from the reality that the US government tortured people -- as they admit in their full letter -- and they did nothing to punish the law breakers.  They did nothing.
And now they want to show up and hiss about some film?  They need to take accountability for their own actions.  What's becoming very clear about Kathryn's film is that it's a Rorschach test.  And people bring to it what they've done.  So if you didn't do your job as a senator, for example, the movie's going to upset you and make you issue a lot of stupid statements that people may pick up on and notice go to the fact that you didn't and haven't done your job.  In England, there's a call for a public inquiry into torture.  In the US, where's that call?  Dianne?  John?  Barack?
And for those who think the US government only tortured under Bully Boy Bush or that Barack stopped extraordinary renditions, they might want to look into the story of Mahdi Hashi.  Then again, life is so much easier when you can just hiss and spit at a movie and let the government and all the officials off.  Peter Van Buren notes at Al Jazeera:
The president, a Nobel Peace Prize winner, has made it clear that no further investigations or inquiries will be made into America's decade of torture. His Justice Department failed to prosecute a single torturer or any of those who helped cover up evidence of the torture practices. But it did deliver a jail sentence to one ex-CIA officer who refused to be trained to torture and was among the first at the CIA to publicly admit that the torture programme was real.
At what passes for trials at our prison camp in Guantanamo, Cuba, disclosure of the details of torture is forbidden, effectively preventing anyone from learning anything about what the CIA did with its victims. We are encouraged to do what's best for America and, as Barack Obama put it, "look forward, not backward", with the same zeal as, after 9/11, we were encouraged to save America by going shopping.
In the essay, Peter does a walk through on a point that's so obvious it's easy to forget that not everyone realizes it.  Torture isn't about the broken finger or bleeding cut or about gaining information.  Torture is about the memory.  Those who, for example, survived the concentration camps, still carried the scar of torture.  John McCain was sickend by Kathryn's film because he carries what was done to him (but apparently was fine with it being done to others until forced to actually witness it in Kathryn's film).   We're not using terms like 'spouse abuse' or 'domestic abuse' here or at Third.  If you've missed it, we call it what it is: Torture.   It's meant to scare and scar.  It's not about the moment of violence, it's about what will follow.   Jennifer K. Karbury wrote a very detailed examination entitled Truth, Torture and the American Way: The History and Consequences of U.S. Involvement in Torture
In Iraq, the US government ordered torture and the reasons weren't for 'information.'  What happened at Abu Ghraib wasn't for information.  It was to break people, to humilitate them, to destroy them with the intent of sending them back into the community filled with shame and knowing that photos of their torture could surface at any time.  It's terrorism.  Terrorism was practiced in Iraqi prisons before the start of the 2003 Iraq War, but the US government ensured that their Iraqi proxies would be trained on how to use torture.  It's effects are still felt (and practiced) in Iraq today.  The BRussells Tribunal's Dirk Adriaensens (Global Research) reports:
Kitabat reports on 18 December. The chairman of the Iraqi List, Hamid al-Mutlaq, said in a press conference in Baghdad on 18 December: " Iraqi prosecutors have submitted today a report to the Chairman of the Iraqi judiciary Medhat al-Mahmoud that confirms the occurrence of torture and violations and rape of women detained in Iraqi prisons. The report
is based on confidential testimonies of female prisoners in Iraqi jails."
Mutlaq said that "the report confirms what has been recently stated by some parliamentary committees and human rights organizations, that there is a systematic violation, torture and rape of female prisoners in Iraqi prisons,"
The Chairperson of the Committee on Women presented a report on the situation of women prisoners. This report confirms that prisoners are routinely subjected to torture and rape. The presentation led to a heated argument between the deputies of the Iraqi List and the Coalition of State of Law, evolving into a serious affray.
Mutlaq demanded that the Iraqi government and the judiciary system would "do their legal duties by issuing a death sentence against those who commit such crimes against Iraqi women and take the necessary measures to prevent these abuses. He also asked to protect the confidential informant and to implement Article IV of the Anti-terrorism Act.
The announcement of the Public Prosecutor to the Iraqi Judicial Council coincides with the statement of the Governor of Nineveh  Ethel Nujaifi, on Tuesday, about an officer in the Second Division of the Iraqi army who raped a 17 year old minor after forcing her into the Headquarter of his Regiment in the Nimrod's District.
The prison abuse is not going away.  Yesterday protests took place in Falluja and Ramadi.  Mohammad Sabah (Al Mada) explains that in Falluja they also demanded the release of prisoners.   Kitabat goes further and reports that yesterday's Falluja protest found people protesting what's taking place in Iraqi prisons and detention centers -- the abuse of women.


Kitabat also reports that the Supreme Judicial Council has found four cases of females being raped in a Baghdad prison.  The article also notes the young girl in Nineveh Province who was raped by one of Nouri's soldiers and how the Ministry of  Defense (Nouri -- because he never nominated anyone to head the ministry) refuses to turn over the soldier despite the arrest warrant.  As we noted Saturday, "Alsumaria reports that Nineveh Governor Atheel al-Nujaifi has closed the road linking the province to Baghdad.  This is over one of Nouri's soldiers raping a young girl and the refusal of Nouri to obey a court order to turn the soldier over to Nineveh police. "
As noted, there were protests in Falluja and Ramadi yesterday.  The Falluja protests noted the treatment of women in Iraqi prisons.  Both protests revolved around one central issue, Nouri's targeting of the Minister of Finance.   Xinhua reports:

Thousands of Sunni Arabs on Sunday took to the streets and blocked the highways in Iraq's western province of Anbar to neighboring Syria and Jordan, demanding the ouster of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki.
The demonstrators, including local officials and Sunni clerics, mainly rallied in Anbar's capital city of Ramadi and the provincial cities of Fallujah and al-Qaim near the Syrian border.
"We want the government to abandon its sectarian rhetoric when it deals with Sunni community and to free Sunni detainee," a Sunni cleric told protestors by loudspeakers in a demonstration on a highway at the edge of Fallujah, some 50 km west of the Iraqi capital city of Baghdad.


As noted in Friday's snapshot, Nouri's created a new crisis -- he sent forces into the Green Zone in Baghdad to round up 150 people working for the Minister of Finance Rafie al-Issawi and ten of them have been charged with 'terrorism' while the others are being 'questioned' (tortured).  The arrests led to protests on Friday in Falluja, Tikrit, Samarra, Ramadi and just outside of Falluja.  It also led to condemnation from Moqtada al-Sadr's parliamentary bloc and from Iraqiya (which came in first in the 2010 parliamentary elections).  Mohammad Sabah (Al Mada) reported Saturday that the solidarity is holding and that today Iraqiya and Moqtada were joined by statements from National Alliance figures including Islamic Surpeme Council of Iraq head Ammar al-Hakim and Ahmed Chalabi.  The World Tribune quotes a statement from Iraqiya declaring of the targeing of Rafie al-Issawi, "This confirms there is continued systematic symbols and leaders participating in the political process."

AP notes of Sunday's protest in Falluja, "In al-Issawi's hometown of Fallujah, some demonstrators covering their faces with red-checkered traditional tribal headdress carried pistols under their clothes. Others held flags from the era of deposed dictator Saddam Hussein and those now being raised by Syrian anti-government rebels."  AP has a slide show here.   On the Ramadi protest, Ammon News adds, :"Around 2,000 protestors blocked a main highway leading to Syria and Jordan in Ramadi in western Iraq on Sunday."  AFP notes that Ramadi protestors were composed of many different sections, "including local officials, religious and tribal leaders."  Aswat al-Iraq notes that both protests resulted in armed guards in heavy numbers being sent to 'observe' the protests.  Jason Ditz covers today's protests for Antiwar.com.
The targeting of Rafie al-Issawi comes exactly a year after Nouri targeted two other high profile Sunnis who were also members of Iraqiya.  Fakhri Karim (Al Mada ) notes the similiarity between targeting al-Issawi and the December 2011 targeting of Vice President Tareq al-Hashemi.  He writes of how this is seen as an attempt to monopolize power and how it is contrary to the Constitution. 
Right about now, usually, Iraqi President Jalal Talabani would attempt to clean up Nouri's mess.  He can't do that.  Iraqi President Jalal Talabani is in Germany having been medically transported there ThursdayOn Monday evening, following a meeting with Nouri, Jalal was taken to Baghdad Medical Center Hospital for what the prime minister's office has said was a stroke but the president's staff has left it as an unidentified health condition.  The news broke on Tuesday.  Wednesday, Iraqi doctors were joined by British and German doctors.  It was felt that Talabani was in stable enough condition and could be transferred to Germany.  Al Mada reports he is  at Berlin's  Charite University Hospital which is one of Europe's largest hospitals and was established in the year 1710.

All Iraq News notes that a letter from US Vice President Joe Biden was delivered to the Talabanis Saturday wishing Jalal improved health and successful treatment in Germany.  The letter praised Jalal Talabani for having long been a voice of sobriety and reason and that he is urgently needed.  It cited his work in the last weeks on de-escalating tensions between Baghdad and Erbil over the military-standoff between the Tigris Operation Command forces and the Peshmerga in the disputed areas.  Biden stressed that Iraq greatly needs Talabani and asks the Talabani family to call on him if there is any way he can provide assistance at this time.  Alsumaria adds that the letter noted Biden's distress over hearing of Jalal's medical problems and stressed the partnership between Jalal and the US.


Last Tuesday, we noted that there was another person who could become Iraq's new president and would have a similar profile to Jalal Talabani:
Like many notable Iraqis, her family has a long history of involvement in Iraqi politics and in being persecuted.  Novelist Ibrahim Ahmad was her father.  He was also a judge and one of the first chairs of the Kurdistan Democratic Party (the first after it changed its name).  Moving up the political chain in Iraq has always meant creating enemies.  He would end up in Abu Ghraib prison for two years.  He would go on to become an editor of a newspaper and, more importantly to the political situation, the voice of the KDP following it's split into two parties -- the other, the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, would be headed by Mustafa Barzani.    Today the PUK is headed by Massoud Barzani who is also the President of the Kurdistan Regional Government.  He is the son of the late Mustafa Barzani.  Mustafa's grandson is KRG Prime Minister Nechirvan Barzani. 
Jalal and Hero have been married for over thirty years -- by all accounts a happy marriage -- and their own personal histories and experiences go to why Jalal has been an international presence. When Parliament votes in a new president, which may not be until 2014 when Talabani's term expires, it is very doubtful that anyone with the same national or international stature will be the president.  (Although Hero Ibrahim Ahmed would obviously have a similar stature and the Talabani tribe has long supported women politicians.  It was nieces of Jalal's that were most vocal in decrying Nouri's  Cabinet in January 2011 for it's lack of women.)  The editorial board of  Lebanon's Daily Star observes, "Replacing Talabani with someone as charismatic and experienced, with the same skills of mediation, and with as few blemishes on his nationalism, will be no easy task, especially for a government's whose reputation has thus far been far from clean."
At that time she wasn't being mentioned.  That has no changed.  Saturday, Dar Addustour noted Jalal's Patriotic Union of Kurdistan political party met Friday to discuss potential successors to Talabani.  The news outlet states it is coming down to three choices: Barham Saleh, Fuad Masum and Hero Ibrahim Ahmed.  They stated Hero Ibrahim Ahmed, First Lady of Iraq (who is in Germany with her husband Jalal), is the current favorite. However, All Iraq News reported that her brother Hluwa  Ibrahim Ahmed states that the news is untrue regarding the First Lady.  He notes that the family is praying -- along with all of Iraq -- for President Talabani's speedy recovery.  This is me, not All Iraq News, her brother also knows, as does she, that if she's called on to serve, she must.  In her family, that's really not open to debate due to the historical presence in Iraq (think the Kennedys in America).  Were a successor needed, she would make the best choice because of her presence in Iraq and the region, because of the accomplishments of her family, because of the accomplishments and history of her husband and concern for her husband (either due to illness or passing away) would translate into international attention for her.  She would bring a whole level of attention to Iraq that the other two being mentioned cannot.


The point of the presidency for the Kurds is to have a prominent person in the post -- personal stature of the individual can combine with the duties and functions of the office to make the presidency a powerful position.  Under Jalal Talabani, that has happened.  Great care must be taken in selecting any replacement.  They need to come with an independent base of power that will allow them to stand up to Nouri or anyone else.   Hopefully, Jalal Talabani will recover quickly and be back at work.  If that does not happen or is not possible, the names so many have mentioned bring little stature to the post.  Only Hero Ibrahim Ahmed has stature on the international stage -- stature that she would bring with her if she became the next president.  That would be the best thing for the Kurds and it would also be the best thing for Iraq.  With Nouri attempting to put a non-Kurd in the post, it would probably be good for the Kurds to begin coming together on one choice right now and to name that choice publicly so that Nouri cannot pull a double cross.
Today Michael Rubin (Commentary) notes that last Wednesday he went over a list of possible successors to Jalal
Several Iraqi Kurds -- and a commenter on my AEI-Ideas post -- have put forward another name: Jalal Talabani's wife, Hero Ibrahim Ahmad, also known as Hero Khan.
Hero Khan has long been a major power within Jalal Talabani's Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK). Her power is based not only on her marriage, but also her pedigree and frankly her intellect and ability. Her father, Ibrahim Ahmad, was a famous Kurdish writer whose split with Masud Barzani's father ultimately led to the PUK's creation. Many Westerners are impressed with her for her obvious independence and intelligence. I first met the chain-smoking Hero more than 12 years ago, when she gave me a tour of the television studio she ran in Sulaymani. She came in wearing a t-shirt and jeans to serve me coffee as I waited, and it took me a moment to realize that she was -- at that point -- the PUK's first lady. She also has established a number of "non-governmental organizations" in Iraqi Kurdistan, most notably Kurdistan Save the Children.
I was iffy about linking to Rubin on this.  Not because he's conservative and I'm left but because of his next pargraph.  We're not quoting and I don't approve.  When Ted Kennedy was dying, I didn't know it because I gossiped with medial personnel -- who damn well should know how to keep their mouths shut (that is what patient confidentiality means).  I noted it because it was known in the Senate.  (And I only noted it because a House member went on NPR to talk about how he was promised Ted would fight for his legislation in the Senate.  So we noted that day in the snapshot that that was not happening because Ted was much sicker than most people knew.)  I would never talk to a doctor or nurse about anyone else's health condition and I would seriously doubt the ethics of any doctor or nurse who chose to gossip with me about someone else's health.

American diplomat Peter W. Galbraith (Foreign Policy) shares some thoughts on Jalal Talabani:

At this stage, the long-term prognosis for Iraqi President Jalal Talabani, who suffered an apparent stroke earlier this week, is unclear. He has been my friend for 25 years and I am hoping that his innate exuberance will carry him through this latest crisis. After all, he defied even longer odds to become the first ever democratically elected head of state in the multi-millennia history of a place that is considered the cradle of civilization. It's as yet too soon to guess at a prognosis, but he clearly will be out of action for some time -- and he will be missed.Talabani, who devoted his life to the Kurdistan national cause, has been described as a unifier -- and, indeed, he may be the only unifying figure among Iraq's top political leaders. There is a certain irony to this because Talabani remains a Kurdish nationalist. When he speaks of "his country", he means Kurdistan, not Iraq. As president, he has tirelessly advocated for Kurdistan's rights under the Iraqi constitution.But, by dint of personality, Talabani has used the largely ceremonial office of president of the republic to calm conflicts among Iraq's Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds. He is, in effect, the mediator-in-chief. Most recently, he won agreement from the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) and the federal government to withdraw their armed forces from a disputed area around Kirkuk. In other cases, he mediated conflicts between Sunnis and Shiites, and even within the Shiite community.
Aswat al-Iraq reports, "Iraq's Parliament's Speaker Osama al-Nujaifi on Monday congratulated Christians in Iraq and all over the world on Christmas, stressing on the national unity among all Iraqi factions."  December 25th is Christmas.  Those of the Christian faith celebrate it as the birth of Jesus Christ.  (Some people celebrate Christmas in terms of Santa Claus, the jolly man who travels the world bringing presents to children.)  Nouri al-Maliki, this month, wanted to attack Europe yet again for taking in Iraqi Christians (who flee for their own safety).  Yet today, one of the two biggest holidays of the Christian faith (Easter in April would be the other), Nouri can't issue a statement.  That's how you know he's insincere. 
Through Sunday, Iraq Body Count counts 219 people killed in violence so far this month.  Today? All Iraq News notes that a Ramadi parking garage bombing has left one child injured, two Baghdad bombings have left six people injured,  and 2 police officers were shot dead in an armed attack in SamarraAlsumaria adds that a Falluja bombing has killed 1 shepherd and left three more injured.
On this week's Law and Disorder Radio,  an hour long program that airs Monday mornings at 9:00 a.m. EST on WBAI and around the country throughout the week, hosted by attorneys Heidi Boghosian, Michael S. Smith and Michael Ratner (Center for Constitutional Rights) topics addressed include the late Robert Bork, the shooting in Newton Connecticut and political prisoner Lynne Stewart  is discussed with guest Ralph Poynter (Lynne's husband).  Lynne was always there for anyone who needed her.  She took the clients no one wanted, the clients other attorneys were scared to take, the clients who couldn't afford an attorney.  She did all of this and more earning the title The People's Lawyer.  She is a credit to her profession and a role model for many.  She is also, now, a political prisoner.
Heidi Boghosian:  Criminal defense attorney, political prisoner and our good friend Lynne Stewart continues to inspire people around her while serving a ten year sentence in the Federal Medical Center in Fort Worth, Texas.  As many listeners know, Lynne was convicted on charges of materially aiding terrorism related to her representation of Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman.  Her original two year sentence was later increased to ten years after the government pressured the trial judge to reconsider his sentencing decision.  Michael Smith will read a few paragraphs from a recent letter that Lynne sent.  Let's take a listen.
Michael Smith:  Lynne Stewart wrote this letter on November 29, 2012:
Dear Friends, Supporters, Comrades, Brothers and Sisters:
I am now beginning my fourth (4th) year of imprisonment.  It does not get better and I have to gut check myself regularly to be certain that I am resisting the pervasive institutionalization that takes place.  A certain degree of reclusiveness  with the help of good books, interesting people to correspond with, writing on topics of public interest, seems to work for me.  Of course I still am working with any woman who needs help but I know that my sometimes truthtelling self is not what folks here want to hear. 
[. . . -- the letter is avaible in full here -- our 'edit' is Michael Smith's]
Some of you have written asking where I get the strength to keep on.  My  simple and truthful and sincere and heartfelt answer is that I get it from the depth of love and respect from my beloved partner, Ralph, my dear children and their children, and  from all the people, that stay in touch with me, yes.    I receive regular and wonderful mail from all segments of the movement, from the young asking for advice "on being a lawyer like you", from octogenarians, nonagenarians and 70 + who have given their political all for their lifetimes and continue to do so, from the lawyers in the Guild, from the poets and the songwriters, the rappers and  the writers whose art is not separated from our movement for change -- So Many More. So impossible to include everyone but know that even if I am slow to answer, I read every word I receive and it sustains me and strengthens me and makes it possible to face each new day.  While the political landscape is gloomy at best, I always remember that in the 50′s, no-one imagined that the 60′s were right around the corner !  Onward !!
Michael Smith: That's a letter from Lynne Stewart.
Heidi Boghosian: Joining us today for a personal and legal update is Lynne's partner Ralph Poynter.  Welcome, Ralph, to Law and Disorder. 
Ralph Poynter:  Yeah, and thank you so much for having me.  When you have me, you have Lynne.
Michael Smith: I know you've been down to see her recently.  Could you tell our listeners how Lynne is feeling?
Ralph Poynter: Well Lynne is Lynne -- that's the only thing I can say.  She's always up.  Her spirits are such -- Imdomitable.   She's just constant and she amazes me -- but she's been doing that for fifty years.  And it troubles me, just the whole concept, the idea of Lynne in prison is tragic -- but there she is in prison And her response every time I look down or say something that's not upbeat -- like "I'm so sorry to see you there" --  is, "Hey, don't worry about me, I have enjoyed the benefits of racist, impearlist America and so many people have struggled so hard and paid such a high price tp bring America to the level that it now is although we have a long way to go, Lynne says, "I can't complain."
Michael Smith: Well  that-that leads into my next question and that's how are we going to get her out of there?  What's her legal status?  She lost at the trial level and the appellate level, where do you go from here?
Ralph Poynter:  Well we are going, as Lynne says, to the Supremes.  And she says, "I don't mean Diana Ross."  And her letter about her loss at the Second Circuit was so clear and so historical and she says, "Well you don't go to the company store to get a fair deal." And the Second Circuit is a company store.  And this brought in the whole history of unionism, the struggle for a fair deal in this country, all in one sentence.   And this is the importance of Lynne, she can do that, she can say these things.  And so now we're on our way to the Supremes and the issues -- She says to remind everybody to read the letter you wrote about why you should support Lynne Stewart defending the Bill of Rights.  And that letter is so clear. You may want to remind people or read a short paragraph from that as to why we should all be supporting Lynne Stewart.  But we're going to the Supremes, Michael, I'm certain, to see if they are going to look at the issues of her First Amendment rights, her ability to speak and say what she had to say.  And the question of changing her sentence from 28 months to 120 months with no new facts, the same case, nothing was added, just change their view of the facts that were there.  And the third issue we're looking at is the issue of supplying material support.  The government claims that she supplied personnel to a terrorist organization by her press release through Reuters.  And the question is, they know better than that, material support.  Why should anybody go to the [. . .] -- they should just say something about al Qaeda or whomever is the government's favorite terrorist of the day and that would be supporting them.  They know that you have to put personnel on the ground with guns, material, etc.  But they just wrapped Lynne up in this nonsense to say, 'Well the Sheikh's words were the same as personnel."  We're also looking for groups of people, lawyers particularly, to add in, to give us advice because the papers are not due until February the 21st.  There was a sixty day extention -- the papers that were due to the Supreme Court December 24th.  So February the 21st, we have that date.  And we're looking for attorneys of good will, smart attorneys, those who believe in the Bill of Rights, those who believe that the law has meaning to give help, to add in, to speak to us about what they would do and how they would frame these particular issues that we're carrying to the Supreme Court.
Heidi Boghosian: Now, Ralph, just to briefly touch on the First Amendment claim in case our listeners aren't familiar with the case, what happened was basically after the initial sentencing, a few comments that Lynne made we believe were meant to punish her and to help justify that increasingly harsh sentence.  I assume that will be the thrust of the First Amendment argument. 
Ralph Poynter: Yes.  And the sad thing about that issue is they misquoted her.  When everybody knows if you want to find out what somebody said in front of a television camera, you send $19 or $20 to the station and you get the transcript.  They mistated what Lynne had said.  They left out a lot of it.  Otherwise, they lied about what Lynne said --  and then said, 'Because you said that, we're going to extend your sentence.'  And so many people jumped on that terrible bandwagon without listening, without going back over her statements and it hurt.  But we maintain that whatever the statement Lynne made -- and as her attorney said at trial, 'Well suppose she came out and said the judge is wonderful, would they have reduced her sentence?'  Which is, well, you know, well stated.  No, it has nothing to do with anything.
Heidi Boghosian:  Her comments after have no effect on sentencing --
Michael Smith:  Well Ralph --
Heidi Boghosian: -- or shouldn't.
Michael Smith: -- thank you very much for coming on Law and Disorder.  I know you're going to be going back down to Texas to see Lynne and I want you to please convey Michael and Heidi and my good wishes to her and the good wishes from our entire radio audience.  A good holiday to the two of you, as best as it could be under the circumstances and thanks for being on the show.
Ralph Poynter: Well thanks for giving me a few minutes to speak on Lynne and if you were to ask your audience to look up her commissary, it would be a great help.
And Heidi then noted Lynne's website.

mashreq abbas

Friday, December 21, 2012

Inouye's funeral

Jillian Hughes (CBS News) reports on remarks Barack made at Daniel Inouye's funeral today.  Inouye was one of Hawaii's senators.  Daniel Akaka is the other remaining one.  Hughes notes:

At a funeral service for the late Sen. Daniel Inouye, D-Hawaii, President Obama honored his friend and former colleague by recounting a boyhood memory of watching Inouye on television during the Watergate hearings - saying Inouye, who "was not a central cast when it came to what you'd think a Senator might look like at the time," showed him, a boy with a white mother and a black father, "what might be possible in my own life."
But he didn't do that.  He didn't call him "Inouye."

If Barack dies while I'm blogging, I will probably call him "Mr. Obama" and things like that because people do see it as a show of respect and you want to be respectful of the dead.

In Inouye's case, he was over eighty-years-old so he was also an elder.  (88-years-old, in fact.)

So I just cringed as I heard him referred to -- by the president of the United States! -- over and over as "Danny."  Not even "Daniel" or "Dan."  It seemed belittling.  I felt he should have been called "Senator Inouye" repeatedly with one "Danny" if needed.

Instead, it made the Senator sound like a kid and Barack was already grabbing the spotlight for himself (as usual) and bragging about himself (ibid) so to also be calling Inouye "Danny"?  I just felt as if I was watching one of the most disrespectful eulogy's of the year. 


"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):

Friday, December 21, 2012.  Chaos and violence continue, Nouri uncorks The Crazy, the New York Times rushes to cover for him and invents their own set of 'facts,' Iraqiya and Moqtada al-Sadr's bloc both call Nouri out, the leader of Sahwa calls him out, top US officials insult Iraq by refusing to issue a statement from the President or Vice President or Secretary of State note that the President of Iraq is ailing and hospitalized, we go back to the Benghazi hearings yesterday, and more.
In Iraq, it's seasonal tidings.  Yes, that time of the year when Nouri uncorks The Crazy.  How bad is it?  So bad that rumors attach War Criminal Henry Kissinger's name to the current crisis.   Or, with a take from a different angle,  conservative Max Boot (Commentary) proclaims, "Ho hum, another holiday season, another power grab by Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki."  AFP says the new crisis "threatens to reignite a long-running feud between the secular, Sunni-backed Iraqiya bloc" and Nouri and his State of Law political slate.  What the heck are we talking about?  Look at this Reuters photo (individual photographer is not credited by the news agency or we'd note him or her by name) of the thousands who turned out to protest in Falluja today demanding Nouri al-Maliki resign as prime minister.


After morning prayers, Kitabat reports, protesters gathered in Falluja to protest the arrests and Nouri al-Maliki.  They chanted down with Nouri's brutality and, in a move that won't change their minds, found themselves descended upon by Nouri's forces who violently ended the protest.  Before that, Al Mada reports, they were chanting that terrorism and Nouri are two sides of the same coin.  Kitabat also reports that demonstrations also took place in Tikrit, Samarra, Ramdia and just outside Falluja with persons from various tribes choosing to block the road connecting Anbar Province (Falluja is the capitol of Anbar) with Baghdad.  Across Iraq, there were calls for Nouri to release the bodyguards of Minister of Finance Rafie al-Issawi.  Alsumaria notes demonstrators in Samarra accused Nouri of attempting to start a sectarian war.


So what happened yesterday?  Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) reports:

Iraq's Finance Minister Rafei al-Essawi said Thursday that "a militia force" raided his house, headquarters and ministry in Baghdad and kidnapped 150 people, and he holds the nation's prime minister, Nuri al-Maliki, responsible for their safety.
 Members of the al-Essawi's staff and guards were among those kidnapped from the ministry Thursday, the finance minister said. He also said that his computers and documents were searched at his house and headquarters. He said the head of security was arrested Wednesday at a Baghdad checkpoint for unknown reasons and that now the compound has no security.
Kitabat explains that these raids took place in the Green Zone, were carried out by the Iraqi military and that Nouri, yesterday evening, was insisting he knew nothing about them.    In another report, Tawfeeq quotes al-Essawi stating, "My message to the prime minister: You are a man who does not respect partnership at all, a man who does not respect the law and the constitution, and I personally hold you fully responsible for the safety of the kidnapped people." BBC News adds, "Rafie al-Issawi, a prominent member of the al-Iraqiyya political bloc, said about 150 of his bodyguards and staff members had been arrested on Thursday."  Nine in some reports, the Ministry of the Interior states 10.  So al-Essawi's just a liar?
No.  What appears to have happened is what Nouri practices, it's disgusting and it's illegal and the White House looks the other way every damn time.
What appears to have happened was that about 150 people were kidnapped.  Of those 150, 10 or so were arrested on charges of 'terrorism.'  And the rest?
They're being held.  They're being 'questioned' which, in Nouri's Iraq, means they're being tortured.  At least one of Tareq al-Hashemi's bodyguards was tortured to death -- beaten so badly he had kidney failure.  Two women who were part of Tareq's office staff were held for weeks, kidnapped and held for weeks, to get them to 'confess.'  Nouri did the same thing in October when he 'fired' (he didn't have that power) Sinan al-Shabibi as Govenor of the Central Bank of Iraq.  Suddenly, al-Shabibi's staff was rounded up and 'detained.'
We now have to drop back to the March 22nd snapshot:
Since December, those working for Tareq al-Hashemi have been rounded up by Nouri's forces.  At the end of January, Amnesty International was calling for the Baghdad government "to reveal the whereabouts of two women arrested earlier this month, apparently for their connection to the country's vice-president.  Rasha Nameer Jaafer al-Hussain and Bassima Saleem Kiryakos were arrested by security forces at their homes on 1 January.  Both women work in the media team of Iraqi Vice-President Tareq al-Hashemi, who is wanted by the Iraqi authorities on terrorism-related charges."  Yesterday, al-Hashemi noted that his bodyguard had died and stated that it appeared he had died as a result of torture.
 Alsumaria notes Vice President Tareq al-Hashemi is calling for the international community to call out the death of his bodyguard, Amer Sarbut Zeidan al-Batawi, who died after being imprisoned for three months. al-Hashemi has stated the man was tortured to death. The photo Alsumaria runs of the man's legs (only the man's legs) appear to indicate he was tortured, welts and bruises and scars.  They also report that the Baghdad Operations Command issued a statement today insisting that they had not tortured al-Batawi and that he died of chronic renal.  They also insist that he was taken to the hospital for medical treamtent on March 7th and died March 15th. Renal failure would be kidney failure.  And that's supposed to prove it wasn't torture?
If you work for an outlet that just spits out what you are told and didn't actually learn a profession, yes.  Anyone with half a brain, however, apparently that's half more than the average journalist possess today knows to go to science.  The Oxford Journal is scientific. This is from the Abstract for GH Malik, AR Reshi, MS Najar, A Ahmad and T Masood's "Further observations on acute renal failure following physical torture" from 1994:
Thirty-four males aged 16–40 (mean 25) years in the period from August 1991 to February 1993 presented in acute renal failure (ARF), 3–14 (mean 5) days after they had been apprehended and allegedly tortured in Police interrogation centres in Kashmir. All were beaten involving muscles of the body, in addition 13 were beaten on soles, 11 were trampled over and 10 had received repeated electric shocks.
Out of that group? 29 did live. Five died.  I don't think the Baghdad Command Operations created any space between them and the charge with their announcement of renal failure as the cause of death.  But, hey, I went to college and studied real topics -- like the law and political science and sociology and philosophy -- and got real degrees not glorified versions of a general studies degree with the word "journalism" slapped on it.  So what do I know?
We have to note that -- all of that -- because one of the worst outlets on Iraq decided to 'report' today and they didn't get one damn fact right.  We'll get back to it. 
Now if Bully Boy Bush were in office currently, I would honestly cut him some slack here because he can't call out Nouri for rounding up innocent people, not after he ordered US troops to pick up the wives and mothers of various supposed criminals, not after he ordered US troops to 'talk tough' to these women, not after he ordered US troops to let them think they would be raped and tortured if they did not talk.  (As far as is known, no woman was raped or tortured by US troops to give up information on a family member.  But many Iraqi women were threatened and bullied into believing that would happen.  There is a word for that: "Terrorism.")  So if Bully Boy Bush were still occupying the White House, I'd understand why he couldn't call out actions so similar to his own.  But President Barack Obama is a different person -- one who supposedly hasn't decided that the US government should demonstrate less scruples than the mafia -- so I'm having a real hard time understanding why the current White House can't call out these clear violations of the law and of human rights.
We all need to grasp and acknowledge what's happening.  AFP's quoting Abdelsattar Bayraqdar ("Higher Judicial Council spokesman") stating that the commander of the bodyguards has "confessed" -- these are forced confessions.  And it's past time that Nouri's screwed up 'justice' system in Baghdad was called out.  The judiciary does not issue statements on guilt before any trial.  They did that with Tareq al-Hashemi as well (with multiple judges holding that press conference and one 'objective' judge telling reporters present that Tareq had tried to kill him).  This is a joke but it's a sad one because Iraqis have to live with this.  It's yet another failure of the US government's war on Iraq.
As a result of these actions, Al Mada reports, Sahwa leader Ahmed Abu Risha has called for Nouri to apologize (and do so within 24 hours) and to release the hostages.  He floated the notion that Nouri's refusal could relate in the international highway that links Iraq to Jordan being cut off.  Al Mada also notes that a member of the Sadr bloc spoke to the media to note that this is yet another political crisis, yet another one created by Nouri in his six years in office, that the way this was carried out makes people lose trust/faith in the government, that this seems to be an echo of the divisions Nouri started last year with the targeting of Tareq al-Hashemi, that the operation was unobjective and unprofessional and that the lack of respect shown to Minister al-Issawi is a worry and threat to all the political blocs.   The article notes that Iraqiya repeated their assertion from a few weeks back that Nouri creates these crises to distract from his failure as head of state.  That's not all Iraqiya is doing.  The Iraq Times reports that they have formed two delegations.  The one headed by Speaker of Parliament Osama al-Nujaifi will go to Erbil and discuss this latest crisis with various Kurdish officials including KRG President Massoud Barzani.  A second delegation (the head of which is not noted but is most likely Saleh al-Mutlaq) will remain in Baghdad and meet with cleric and movement leader Moqtada al-Sadr and with the head of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq Ammar al-Hakim. 
Al Arabiya reports he held a press conference today with Speaker of Parliament Osama al-Nujaifi and Deputy Prime Minister Saleh al-Mutlaq standing by his side as al-Issawi declared, "I call on the prime minister to resign, because he did not behave like a man of state."

Rafei al-Essawi is a Sunni.  He is also a member of Iraqiya, the political slate that came in first in the March 2010 parliamentary elections.  Nouri's State of Law came in second.  Per the Constitution, Iraiqya should have had first crack at forming a government and one of their members named prime minister-designate.  However, Barack Obama decided -- the will of the Iraqi voters, democracy and the Iraqi Constitution be damned -- he wanted Nouri to have a second term instead.   From John Barry's "'The Engame' Is A Well Researched, Highly Critical Look at U.S. Policy in Iraq" (Daily Beast):


Washington has little political and no military influence over these developments [in Iraq]. As Michael Gordon and Bernard Trainor charge in their ambitious new history of the Iraq war, The Endgame, Obama's administration sacrificed political influence by failing in 2010 to insist that the results of Iraq's first proper election be honored: "When the Obama administration acquiesced in the questionable judicial opinion that prevented Ayad Allawi's bloc, after it had won the most seats in 2010, from the first attempt at forming a new government, it undermined the prospects, however slim, for a compromise that might have led to a genuinely inclusive and cross-sectarian government."
In Iraqi eyes, it's actually even worse than that as one report maintains that Nouri was in conversations with former US Secretary of State and noted War Criminal Henry Kissinger.  That may not be an accurate rumor.  Whether it's true or not doesn't matter.  The fact that it's being passed around goes to the distrust Iraqis now have with the US government and, if it's not true, the selection of Kissinger is especially meant to offend.
 If you're thinking, "He's trying to arrest a member of Iraqiya in December," and you're thinking, "This seems so familiar," you are correct.  It was this time last year that he tried to oust one Iraqiya member from his Cabinet and to have the Vice President arrested.  And, for those who've forgotten, al-Issawi was being mentioned even then as being on the targeted list.  Dropping back to December 24th:


Mustafa Habib (Al Mada) notes that Nouri al-Maliki's targeting Iraqi Vice President Tareq al-Hashemi with terrorism charges and calling for Deputy Prime Minister Saleh al-Mutlaq have many noticing that both are members of Iraqiya and political opponents of Nouri and that while the political crisis has revealed a diminished role for the US it has underscored that the Kurds remain the heart of the country's political process. Dar Addustour reports that Speaker of Parliament Osama al-Nujaifi announced the postponement of the scheduled meeting yesterday of the political blocs while Nouri's spokesperson floated the notion that there are other charges waiting in the wings. Reportedly this includes charging the Minister of Finance, Rafie al-Issawi, with terrorism, specifically with killings in Falluja back in 2006. Like Tareq al-Hashemi and Saleh al-Mutlaq, Rafie al-Issawi is a member of Iraqiya. Dar Addustour also notes Hoshyar Zebari, Foreign Minister, issued a statement declaring the matter should have been resolved by the political blocs but has instead played out in the press. Al Mada adds that Kurdistan Regional President Massoud Barzani and US Ambassador James Jeffrey spoke yesterday and are calling for a meeting among the political blocs and that State of Law was whining about the Friday meet-up, whining that Iraqiya is boycotting Parliament but they want to attend the meet-up. Aswat al-Iraq notes, "Iraqiya bloc leader Iyad Alawi described recent events in Iraq as 'liquidation of differences', warning an explosive era waiting Iraq in the coming days, according to an interview with Arabia TV late yesterday (Friday)." Sinan Salaheddin and Qassim Abdul-Zahra (AP) report that Moqtada al-Sadr is proposing a "14-point 'peace code'" and attempting to present himself as a leader.

Last December, he waited until the bulk of US troops had left the country to uncork The Crazy.  This December, he waited until Jalal Talabani had a stroke and was out of the country.  Nouri is paranoid.  When we made that point in 2006 and 2007 and 2008, you could ignore it.  You could ignore it when I'd say, "State Dept friends say . . ."  But thanks to WikiLeaks release of the US State Dept cables, there is now proof that the State Dept found him paranoid, called him paranoid in one cable after another and at what point does the US government stop stroking the crazy and start demanding justice for the Iraqi people?

Alsumaria notes that Saleh al-Mutlaq is calling for  Iraqiya to withdraw from Parliament, the government and the political process if there is not an immediate investigation into what was done and Rafie al-Issawi is not protected.  al-Mutlaq says it's a question of sovereignty and the law.  (Nouri's attempt to oust al-Mutlaq were abandoned by last May due to the fact that Nouri could not get the votes in Parliament needed to oust the Deputy Prime Minister).  Patrick Mareky and Rasheem Salman (Reuters) note:

Finance Minister Rafie al-Esawi, a member of the Sunni-backed Iraqiya bloc, said late on Thursday that more than 100 bodyguards and staff were snatched illegally by militias, and blamed Maliki for orchestrating the raids to target opponents.
Maliki's office said only six bodyguards were arrested under counter terrorism laws.


Vice President Tareq al-Hashemi remains Vice President.  Let me repeat that: Tareq al-Hashemi remains Vice President of Iraq.  The New York Times has wrongly stated this evening that he is no longer vice president.  I'm sorry but the New York Times is a newspaper, it is not a governing body.  It would do well to stick to facts. I'm sorry that facts are so hard for it.  Tareq al-Hashemi is a Vice President of Iraq.  Until his term expires, until he is removed from office before his term expires, until he dies or resigns before his term expires, he remains Vice President.  Tareq al-Hashemi was convicted of terrorism by the Baghdad 'court,' yes.  So you can say he is the only convicted Vice President in the world.  Or you can say he's the only sitting Vice President who has been sentenced to death -- five times, not three as the New York Times also wrongly states.  AFP noted last Friday (December 14th), "An Iraqi court has handed down a fifth death sentence on the country's fugitive Sunni Vice President Tareq al-Hashemi on a weapons charge, Iraqiya state television reported on Thursday."  Al Arabiya carries that AFP report here. Xinhua reported, "An Iraqi court on Thursday issued for the fifth time a death penalty verdict in absentia against the fugitive Sunni vice president Tariq al-Hashimi, a judicial source said."  Adam Schreck, Qassim Abdul-Zahra, Sinan Salaheddin and Sameer N. Yacoub (AP) reported:
Also on Thursday, an Iraqi court handed the country's fugitive Sunni vice president a new death sentence after finding him guilty of possession, transportation and using silenced weapons. It is the fifth death sentence since trials against Tariq al-Hashemi began last spring, according to his defense team leader, Muayad Obeid al-Ezzi.
Do I need to continue or is the point established that the New York Times is 100% wrong when they claim Tareq was "sentenced to death three times."  Did you also notice everyone calls him the "fugitive vice president."  Not the former vice president.  He's not been removed from office.  Iraqiya has not turned on Tareq.  (Ayad Allawi made that clear in a video interview earlier this month that we'll try to link to before the end of this month.)  The Kurds have not turned on him.  To say that last year he "was then a vice president," Tareq remains a vice president.  I'm sorry that the New York Times doesn't care about accuracy.  I'm actually more troubled that the same outlet that covered for Nouri's attack on protesters and journalists at the end of February 2011 is yet again slanting things for Nouri instead of playing it down the middle.
Maybe Tim Arango shouldn't be reporting on Iraq from Vermont?  Maybe it's not Tim's fault, maybe it's the co-writer?  (As a general rule, an Iraqi writer gets several strikes before I call them out here. That reporter just had their first strike and I'm not mentioning their name.)  I don't know but I know the report is factually wrong -- as we've already noted and could continue to note --  and it is offensive.  To note an alleged "confession" and not note the history of torture in Nouri's Iraq -- well documented by Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International -- or that last March saw the death of Amer Sarbut Zeidan al-Batawi while in Iraqi custody -- the man was tortured to death and they can't even note that he died.  I try to avoid the New York Times, it's too frustrating but then I've got a voice mail, NYT friend, "We've got an Iraqi story can you link to it?"  Can you read it to me?  Can you tell me how that crap made it into print?  The second question they never can answer. 
Nouri didn't have the votes to oust him either.  Nouri does control the kanagaroo court in Baghdad -- which declared Tareq guilty in a February press conference, months before the trial even began.  But according to the law, the conviction and the five death sentences Tareq received were really not received.  Tareq would have to first be stripped of his office to be tried.  Due to the targeting, Tareq left Baghdad and then the KRG and now resides in Turkey.  All Iraq News reports Tareq states today that Nouri's actions aren't surprising (they aren't) and that this is futher targeting of political rivals because Nouri does not want to share power.   He also notes that what's happening was completely expected.

And he's correct there as well.  So the question is, how much longer is the US going to support the tryant Nouri who they know has repeatedly run secret prisons in which Iraqis have been tortured?  He's run these secret prisons since first being installed by the US as prime minister in 2006?

Secret prisons, broken contracts, targeting of political rivals, corruption and so much more.

And in the US, there has been a Republican occupant of the Oval Office (Bully Boy Bush) and now an elected President (Barack Obama) from the Democratic Party and both men have supported and backed thug Nouri -- a thug so sick and disgusting that he spent the start of this year demonizing and targeting Iraqi youths -- Emo and LGBT and those suspected of being either.  He had his Ministry of Interior draw up warnings about these groups, he had them to go to school and demonize these people and the deaths followed and only international attention stopped it.

This is what two different US administrations have embraced.  It's disgusting and it needs to stop.
But reporters don't even call it out.  At today's US State Dept press briefing, spokesperson Patrick Ventrell was finally asked about Iraq at the very end of the press conference.

QUESTION: Change topics? Iraq?
MR. VENTRELL: Iraq? Sure.
QUESTION: With the Iraqi President Jalal Talabani in the hospital, tension seems to be rising between the KRG and the central government. Is our – your ambassador in consultation or in talks with both parties to sort of mitigate these tensions?
MR. VENTRELL: Yeah. Thanks for the question, Said. We're absolutely engaged. Since learning of the reports, we've been engaged across the political spectrum. We've urged Iraqi leaders to uphold their commitments to due process and the rule of law as enshrined in their constitution. Any actions from any party that subvert the rule of law or provoke ethnic or sectarian tension risk undermining the significant progress Iraq has made toward peace and stability and important work that the United States and Iraq are doing together. So we've absolutely been engaged on this, certainly from our Embassy in Baghdad, and we will continue to be engaged.
QUESTION: One of the most daunting issues between the two, the KRG and the central government, is actually the oil law, the hydrocarbon law. What have you done? Sort of what kind of progress is being made in that area, and what kind of assistance are you giving?
MR. VENTRELL: Well, suffice to say our – this is a longstanding policy of the U.S. that we support a constitutional solution to disputes over the management of Iraq's hydrocarbon resources. So this is something that we continue to urge both sides to reach an agreement on, but I have no update for you on our policy in that regard.
Since we're on the US State Dept, let me ask a question -- am I the only one bothered that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Vice President Joe Biden and President Barack Obama have all failed to issue any statement regarding Jalal Talabani?  Other heads of states and organization have issued statements wishing the Iraqi President a speedy recovery.  The Obama administration just seems to ignore Iraq day after day.  This while they continue to spend billions in Iraq and while they are planning to ask for more billions for the next fiscal year.  Yes, for example, Hillary was injured over the weekend and has been working from her home.  But she had plenty of time today to issue a statement about Senator John Kerry being named to replace her as Secretary of State. Barack's issued a ton of statements as well, Joe's last statement issued was December 17th.  What must Jalal Talabani's wife think of America?  She's probably too busy to think of it now but when things calm down and she reflects on which leaders and officials reached out and which didn't, there's going to be a lot of hurt there.   The US government can throw all the (taxpayer) money at Iraq that it wants to, until it demonstrates that it actually gives a damn about Iraqi people, that money is useless.  And while I feel very sorry for the offense and bad manners the US government is showing to the First Lady of Iraq, I think we also need to remember that the silence is also an insult to the people of Iraq.
Jalal Talabani is in Germany having been medically transported there yesterday.  Al Mada interviewed First Lady Hero Ibrahim Ahmed on the plane en route to Germany yesterday.  She stated that her husband's condition was stable and that he was able to gesture.  Seh stressed that the President was giving his all to bring peace in Iraq (Jalal has been mediating on several of the crises Nouri al-Maliki's created in the last two years -- ongoing crises).  She explains that Talabani returned to Baghdad solely to address the crisis involving the stand-off between the Peshmerga and Nouri's forces in the disputed areas.  She stated everyone knows that the president was willing to do anything to resolve the issue, even sacrifice his own health.  The couple has been married for over thirty years.

On Monday evening, following a meeting with Nouri, Jalal was taken to Baghdad Medical Center Hospital for what the prime minister's office has said was a stroke but the president's staff has left it as an unidentified health condition.  The news broke on Tuesday.  Wednesday, Iraqi doctors were joined by British and German doctors.  It was felt that Talabani was in stable enough condition and could be transferred to Germany.  Al Mada reports he is  at Berlin's  Charite University Hospital which is one of Europe's largest hospitals and was established in the year 1710. 

Of Jalal's role in Iraqi politics, AKE Group's John Drake tells AFP, "While on paper his role is somewhat limited, his influence and mediation skills have gone a long way in smoothing over the country's troubled political scene. Some may describe his position as 'ceremonial' but he has made it a lot more active, simply through dialogue and discussion, which play a strong role in Iraqi politics."

US House Rep Mike Kelly:  Ambassador Burns, when you talk about resources -- only 1% of the budget -- so what is 1$ of the budget?  So what is our budget?

Thomas Nides:  Our budget is $50 billion.

US House Rep Mike Kelly:  Fifty-billion dollars.

Thomas Nides:  That's right.  Approximately 8% of the defence budget.

US House Rep Mike Kelly:  Okay.  So when people hear "1%" it doesn't sound like a lot of money but fifty billion is certainly a lot of money.  When we talk about resources -- and I'm trying to understand because I've listened to a couple of different briefings, I've heard  Mr. Pickering and Adm Mullen, I've heard you gentlemen today and  think maybe you're not the folks that should be here because, as Mr. Johnson pointed out, you weren't really part of the decision making process.  But what I'm trying to understand, what I can't get my mind wrapped around is everybody says this was a very unstable and highly volatile area.  Then why, for God's sake, would we take out the best trained people we have?  Why? Why did we move the SST team?  Was it because of money?
That's from yesterday's House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing.  We noted it in yesterday's snapshot.  Last night, Ava covered it with "Howard Berman's fuzzy figures (Ava)" noting that Howard Berman wanted to talk about how underfunded the security for security was . . .  by talking about global warming funding -- he couldn't find the figures for security apparently (suprising since Senator Barabara Boxer was able to and to cite them in yesterday morning's Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing).  You can't talk money without talking waste and Wally's "Waste at the State Dept. is okay (Wally)" last night addressed the State Dept witnesses William Burns and Thomas Nides being confronted (by two different House Reps) with a long list of money spent on non-necessary items and events and Nides chose to respond that there is waste in the private industry as well.  Yes, there is.  But the private industry doesn't run on taxpayer funds.  Ruth's "Benghazi questions must still wait" covered so much including how accountability got lost as US House Rep Karen Bass went on in the hearing about how she said no one should be called out until an investigation was conducted but now that it was conducted and released, she didn't want to focus on accountability, she wanted to figure out what to do?  And you wonder why no one is ever held responsible for their actions?
Ruth also notes US House Rep Jean Schmidt and I'd planned to include that section of the hearing in full.  Maybe next week.  We've gutted 30K, the original opening of the snapshot, because it was 150K, we've got to lose some more.  We're going to note an exchange by Committee Chair Ilena Ros-Lehtinen instead and then discuss that.
Chair Ilena Ros-Lehtinen:  Secondly, who specifically changed Susan Rice's public talking points by eliminating references to al Qaeda and why?  If there was a national security concern, what was it?  When did the inaccurate, spontaneous protest narrative originate?   Where did it originate?  And why was that story deemed more fit for publication than the accurate terrorism evidence?  And if Ambassador Rice had little knowledge of the facts on the ground in Benghazi, why was she selected by the administration to be the spokesperson on this subject?  Ambassador Burns?
William Burns:  Well, Madam Chair, on your second question, and then I'll turn it over to Tom on the first with regard to the budget, what happened in Benghazi on September 11th was clearly a terrorist attack.  Secretary Clinton addressed that directly the following morning in her first public statement when she talked about an assault by heavily armed militants on our compound.  Later that same day, President Obama talked of an act of terror.  What was not clear that day was who exactly was involved?  Which terrorists were responsible?  What their motives were? How exactly this terrorist attack came about? Whether it was planned well in advance or more of a target of opportunity?  I am confident that the senior administration officials who spoke to this issue and the intelligence community experts -- on whom they relied -- acted in good faith throughout this period.  Their focus was on trying to be as factual as possible. Their focus was on actions because, Madam Chair, as you know, there were a number of other concerns in this period.  Over that period of days, we had mobs coming over the walls in our embassies in Cario, in Tunis and in Sinai and that was a very heavy focus for Secretary Clinton and for people across the administration.
What?  I'm referring to Sinai.  The attack in Sinai was on September 14th (a Friday) and shouldn't have required focus from the State Dept -- it wasn't a State Dept facility it was a military outpost that some US forces were at, but it was an international outpost.  It was not a US facility.  If you're new to that attack, read this Times of Israel report. And after you do, explain to us all why an attack on the Multinational Force and Observers headquarters in Sinai required State Dept attention?  The Telegraph of London noted in a live blog of the attacks, "A little more about the Multinational Force & Observers (MFO) based in Sinai.  There are 1,656 troops stationed at bases throughout the area.  Twelve nations contributed soldiers to the force but the largest contingent is from the United States.  Their mission is to monitor and enforce the 1979 peace agreement that ended the conflict between Israel and Egypt."  Rawya Rageh (Al Jazeera) called it "a camp for the UN multinational peacekeepers in Sheikh Zuwayed town."
William Burns:  As we were able to clear up, the inaccuracies in the original assessments, because, as the ARB points out, there was no protest or demonstration before the attack took place.  But it did take the intelligence community some days to determine that that was inaccurate as they debriefed the survivors of the attack on Benghazi.  I'm sure our colleageus in the intelligence community wish that they could have cleared up those inaccuracies sooner. They did it as quickly as they could and were then in direct touch with the Congress and briefed you on it.
[Thomas Nides then speaks to Ros-Lehtinen's budget question.]
Chair Ilena Ros-Lehtinen:  Thank you.  On the specific questions regarding Susan Rice, do you have anything further to add about the talking points and references?  Because in e-mails, as the attacks were under way, the Diplomatic Operations Command Center was calling it a terrorist attack, as it was under way.  So it's not like the picture was clearer several days later -- while the attack was taking place, in e-mails.
William Burns:  Madam Chair, as I said, both the Secretary and the President, on September 12th addressed, I think, in very clear terms what happened and what the nature of the attack was.  Second, the talking points that you refer to were produced by the CIA.  I think the CIA has briefed a number of people on the Hill about the process that they went through and I'm sure that they'd be able to come out --
Chair Ilena Ros-Lehtinen:  Thank you.
What confuses those of us who have attended all the public hearings on that September 11, 2012 Benghazi attack which killed Glen Doherty, Sean Smith, Tyrone Woods and Chris Stevens with regards to Susan Rice's presentation is that it was not confusing.  Schmidt establishes that.  The State Dept's Patrick Kennedy, in an October hearing, covered that he was in the halls of Congress the day after the attack, speaking to Congress members and their staff, and explaining it was a terrorist attack.  He made a point to state that he and the State Dept did not refer to a spontaneous protest or flash mob or any such nonsense.  We have sat through these hearings as the State Dept officials have been repeatedly clear that they never passed that on to Congress, that they presented it as a terrorist attack from the very first.  So now Schmidt and the Committee Chair are both talking about the observations -- recorded observations -- of those present.  Ros-Lehtinen referred to e-mails, Schmidt referred to a report filed that called it a terrorist attack -- and did so before any US official with the administration ever spoke.  These are the first-hand observations of those people on the ground in Benghazi.  [See Wally's "THIS JUST IN! BAD NEWS FOR BOBBY!" and Cedric's "Somerby's big lie gets rejected" from earlier this week on those who can't grasp what the Congress has been told.]
So when Susan Rice goes on five different live television programs on one Sunday morning and repeatedly talks about a video and about a protest -- no connection to the video, no protest took place -- her words were not just inaccurate, they were misleading.  Whether she's a liar or a dupe is something to take up with her.  But repeatedly, we have watched and heard the State Dept raise their hands in a don't-shoot-me-posture and say, "We never did that.  We always knew." 
Susan Rice may be the stupidest person in the world.  It's possible.  Or she may have lied.  I don't think the American public will get the truth anytime soon.  But to pretend  -- and to lie -- as so many have in recent weeks that 'no one could have guessed,' no one could have known better is a lie.  And since there were people who were first-hand observers, I think if I were entrusted with conveying the truth to the American people about what had happened in Benghazi and since all survivors had been transported (first to Germany, then to the US) days before Susan Rice went on TV, I think I would have asked to speak to at least one of them before going on camera to 'explain' what happened.  I think her failure to do so goes to either her eagerness to lie or to her own gross incompetence.  When you are about to go before the American people to discuss what happened and you weren't there and it's not your area, you speak to everyone you can, not just a few handlers who help you hone some talking points.  Susan Rice is not fit to serve in government.  She's damn lucky she's been able (thus far) to keep her current post as Ambassador to the United Nations.  We will be covering the hearing more next week.