| Wednesday, April 27, 2011.  Chaos and violence continue, protests continue  in Mosul, Nouri preps for a takeover if his 100 days results in failure, Howard  Dean calls Nouri a cold-blooded killer, Tim Arango has a snit fit in front of  the entire world, and much more.     O our people everywhere in the pure land of Iraq  ...
 
 What was expected happened and the occupation supported, corrupt  government bared its teeth when the forces in Nineveh province, raided AlAhrar  Square last night, controllled and closed all entrances all under the  supervision and orders of war criminal Naser Ghannam, commander of the  government second battalion, and then have these forces led by the offender  Colonel Ismail al Joubouri randomly opened fire on the crowd which resulted in a  large number of martyrs and wounded, including the brothers stationed from the  popular movement to save Iraq:
 
 1 - Brother Khalid al-Khafaji, Fri 2 -  Brother Rakan Abdullah al-Obeidi 3 - Brother Ghanim Abid 4 - Brother Haitham  Jubouri 5 - Brother Mohammad AlKadhy, and we shall relsease a detailed list of  names in a later statement.
 
 This cowardly criminal act which flows  directly in the interest of the American occupation and survival, is only  appropriate to the authority of the war criminal Nuri al-Maliki, who will bear  legal and moral responsibility in full for every drop of blood shed being  Minister of Interior and Minister of Defense.
 
 While we promise the  children our brothers to continue to demonstrate and picket, we declare after  depending on God the case of civil disobedience in Medeenat Elremah until the  criminals are tried in court in the city of Mosul, on top of this list of war  criminals is Nasser Al-Ghannam and Colonel offender Ismail Jubouri, which we  call upon the renowned Jabour tribe , to disown him like the people of Heet  disowned the rootless Nasser Al-Ghannam, which has become a wanted criminal not  only for the people of Mosul, but for all the Iraqi people, and we call on this  occasion on our people to exercise restraint and to work closely and avoid  giving them the opportunity to lure us into violence and confrontation and the  need to maintain a peaceful and civil protest and without prejudice to public  and private property.
 
 ((And no victory except from Allah, the Mighty  Holy))
 
 Popular movement for the salvation of of Iraq
 
 Oday Al  Zaidi
 
 NCRI notes Monday's assault on the  people of Mosul, "On April 25th, al-Maliki's forces opened fire on protesters in  Mosul and killed and injured dozens of people. Al-Baghdadia TV quoted witnesses  and announced: The forces of the 2nd Division that had entered Mosul two days  ago, started indiscriminate arrest of a large number of demonstrators. The  protesters, picketing at Mosul's Ahrar square (Freedom square), are asking the  leaders of the southern and central tribes to intervene, join them, and support  them."  An e-mail from Iraq Veterans Against the War  notes that Mosul has "become the  epicenter of the continuing protests" and, "Last week, Iraqi  Facebook pages  administered directly by protest organizers reported that  government security forces encircled their camp, surveiled and taunted them, and  called on them to end their sit-in. Protesters also reported that a low-flying  American military helicopter swept towards the demonstrators, in what was  interpreted as an attempt to intimidate them.  Their response, captured in the  video below, was to throw shoes. Demonstrations have been joined by dozens of  women, who are calling for the end of the U.S. occupation and the release of  their sons and brothers who are held in both Iraqi and US prisons throughout  Iraq. This week tribal chieftains from nearby Anbar province joined the Mosul  prostests as well."  Today the Great Iraqi Revolution notes , "A member of  Ghannam's henchmen has now announced live on air that he and 16 other members of  Ghannam's force are resigning because they cannot accept his comands to detain  women demonstrators as well as shoot at demonstrators.  He also stated that  there are Iranian officers in Ghannam's force in the 2nd Regiment."    Let's move over a second to one of Iraq's neighbors, Syria.  Eleanor Hall (The World Today with Eleanor Hall,  Australia's ABC -- link has text and audio) summarizes  the current events as  follows, "Now to Syria where anti-government protesters say that government  security forces shot dead at least six more people in Deraa overnight in a new  round of clashes.  Human rights groups say that up to 400 people have now died  since the protests began in mid-March.  The United Nations Security Council held  emergency talks on the issue and the secretary-general, Ban Ki-moon, led Western  nations in expressing alarm at the deadly Syrian government crackdown."  AFP adds , "UN chief Ban Ki-moon has  expressed 'increasingly grave concern' at the bloody crackdown on protesters in  Syria, especially at the use of tanks and live ammunition by security forces"  and quotes Ban Ki-Moon stating, "Syrian authorities have an obligation to  protect."  And what about the obligations of Iraqi authorities?  Where's the  "increasingly grave concern" for the Iraqi protesters?  When even the governor  of Ninevah Province is calling out the Iraqi military's attacks on the people of  Mosul, where's the concern from the United Nations?  Human rights groups --  Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Women's Freedom in Iraq -- have  decried the targeting of protesters (and the targeting of Iraqi journalists).   Where's the concern for what's happening to Iraqis from the UN -- or, for that  matter, from the US government?    I'll get a pen and make a list And give you my analysis But I can't write this story With a happy ending. Was I the bullet or the gun Or just a target drawn upon A wall that you decided  Wasn't worth defending? -- "I Can't Help You Anymore" written by Aimee Mann ,  first appears on her album The Forgotten Arm      Al Jazeera: In Iraq, security forces opened fire on protesters in  Mosul city's Ahrar Square.  In light of the events, the Ninevah Provincial  Council suspended its official duties in the province for one day, in protest of  the security forces attack on Mosul demonstrators. In this video, people rising  up are trying to reach Mosul's Ahrar Square.  Security forces prevented them  from doing so in an open fire on them with live bullets.  There is no doubt that  this video will be followed by others.  Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki was  unexpectedly confronted on three different levels.  These days it comes from al  Mosul.  These are stressful days for every ruler that finds himself surrounded  by angry protesters calling for his downfall unless he meets a list of demands.  Their first no is a firm rejection of the Ninevah Provincial Council's  nomination of a new police commander in the province who protesters accuse of  killing hundreds of Iraqis.  The second no comes as a rejection to Nouri  al-Maliki's invitation for delegation of Mosul residents to meet with him.  What  is the purpose of such a meeting when their demands are as clear as the sun at 4  o'clock in the afternoon.  The government of Baghdad is politically  marginalizing Mosul and imposing its security mechanism on the city -- security  forces arrest whomever they want and impose arbitrary rules on the people's  movements to impede traffic and daily life. And this rejection is based on the  marytyrs.    Speaker at protest: Brothers in your name and in the name of all  honorable people, we reject this offer! We reject this offer!  We say to  al-Maliki -- we say to al-Maliki that those who want to talk to us can come to  us They can meet with us here in the Square.    Al Jazeera: Then came an official rejection -- in addition to that  of the masses -- to the curfew and teh ban on demonstrations because as soon as  the curfew is imposed, the people take to the streets en mass. Their actions are  reciprocated as if the issue is some sort of struggle to break the people's will  and see who will last longer. An additional facet was added to the issue when  security forces fired live bullets at protesters. The Constitution of the  country allows the people of the country to stage sit-ins and protests but then  the land seems to be devoid of a Constitution.  Powerism imposed on the people  telling them either you stay home or live bullets from above and probably to  your heads is what you can expect.  In reality a number of Mosul residents were  hit after security forces forcibly dispersed protests; however, this has been  tried and proven: As soon as people hear the sounds of bullets, feelings of  nationalism and revenge are born inside of them.  'Why are they killing us and  depriving us of our rights?'  So the ruler applies in the end, 'How I wish  hadn't killed and how I wish I had met their demands on the very first  day.'           On Monday 11 April, the four of us from the CPT short-term  delegation accompanied the CPT Iraq team to the central square in Suleimaniya to  meet the demonstrators and the people organizing the demonstrations.   As soon as we entered the square, we were surrounded by  twenty-thirty men of different ages. One of them started asking CPTer Michele  Naar Obed, "Have CPT done the report that you were talking about? What are you  doing to tell the world about what's happening here?"  I started talking with a young man standing next to me. He had been  a student at the university, but was now unemployed. "Our leaders are worse than  Saddam," he said, with a tired voice. "They have learnt from Saddam. There are  no human rights for us here." In his opinion, many of those who come to the  square each day are unemployed. "It is very difficult to get a job if you don't  have a connection to one of the parties, PUK or KDP.  And if you don't have a  job, you have no money.  You can't even afford to buy a cup of tea."   Michele told one of the men questioning her that Amnesty International  would publish a report on the repression against  protesters in Iraq and Kurdistan the following day.  He said they would mention  this from the stage as an encouragement to the people that the information is  getting out.  After a half hour we met with two organizers of the protests in a  cafĂ©.  One was a journalist, the other works for an international  non-governmental organization. They told us how, in mid-February, the  demonstrations started in a very spontaneous way, with inspiration from the  people's nonviolent fight for democracy and human rights in Tunisia and Egypt.  After just a few days of demonstrations, representatives from different sectors  of society  created a committee to coordinate activities and to think  strategically.  One decision they took early on was to always follow the  principles of nonviolence. Another was to have an "open mike" at the square,  where anyone could share his or her opinions and experiences.  The demonstrations at the square in Suleimaniya have become a daily  event for almost two months. Demands to the government that it prosecute persons  responsible for the killing of unarmed protesters, have not been met. There is  no dialogue between  the demonstrators and the authorities. The ad hoc committee  organizing the demonstrations is thinking about its next step. They have written  and published a "Roadmap for a peaceful transition of power in Southern  Kurdistan," where they would call for the resignation of the president, among  other things.    We're going to be pulling from the Amnesty report mentioned above.  But  first,  Tim Arango (New York Times)  reports : When he returned to  his native Kurdistan in February to join the flickering of a protest movement,  Dr. Pishtewan Abdellah, a hematologist who lives in Australia but also carries  an Iraqi passport, suspected that the demonstrators might face harsh treatment  from the Kurdish authorities. At several protests during the last two months  security forces have opened fire, and an estimated 10 people have been killed  and dozens wounded, according to human rights activists. What Dr. Abdellah  did not anticipate, though, was a barrage of one of this country's more peculiar  menaces: death threats by text message.        At around 2.30pm as I had just finished a phone conversation with a  friend, three men confronted me and asked me to give them the mobile. Other men  arrived within seconds, including from behind, and then I received several  punches on the head and different parts of the body.  I fell to the ground, they  kicked me for several minutes, but I managed to stand up.  They put one handcuff  on my right wrist and attached it to someone else's left wrist.  But I managed  with force to pull my arm away and the handcuff was broken. I ran away towards  the Citadel but within seconds another group of security men in civilian clothes  blocked my way and they started punching me and hitting me. There were now many  security men surrounding me and kicking me. There was blood streaming from my  nose and from left eye. My head was very painful.  They put me in a car . . . One security man told me I was one of  the troublemakers. I was taken to the Asayish Gishti in Erbil. I was first asked  to go to the bathroom to wash my face wash my face which was covered in blood. I  was then interrogated in the evening and the person interrogating me kept asking  about why I was in the park and kept accusing me of being a troublemaker. I was  asked to sign a written testimony. When I said I needed to see what is on the  paper he hit me hard.  Then I signed the paper without reading it.  I stayed  there for two nights sharing a room with around 60 people. Then on the third day  I was taken to a police station where I stayed for one night before I was  released. I was not tortured in the Asayish Prison or in the police  station."    As noted earlier this month, "There are many more in the KRG who share  stories and one of the most disturbing aspects -- something that sets it apart  from the arrests/kidnappings of activists elsewhere in Iraq -- is how and when  the forces appear.  The report doesn't make this point, I am.  Forces in the KRG  show up as people are on the phone or have just finished a call.  It would  appear that beyond the physical abuse and intimidation, they're also violating  privacy and monitoring phone calls."  Tim Arango's article today makes that even  more clear.  How do you call someone to threaten them over the phone or to text  them over the phone?  You start by knowing their phone number.  How do you get  that information if you don't personally know the person?  How do you end up  with their cell phone number?  Privacy is not being respected within the KRG and  the big question is are telecoms cooperating with the government to spy on  residents and, if so, when did this spying begin?     We're still on the protests -- specifically teh coverage of them.  Dan Hind  is a British writer who posts at The  Return of the Republic .  He wrote about the protests in Iraq.  He questioned  Tim Arango's coverage.  A friend at the New York Times was pleased (proud) of  Tim's response and thought I'd like to include it.  Friends know I'm not just  going to write what they want and there's nothing to be proud of here.  Dan Hind  weighed in on coverage of the protests here .  Excerpt:   The reader might reasonably wonder what these other issues were,  but the article, at least in its British incarnation, was remarkably  unforthcoming. Arango tells us later that 'inspired by uprisings by Arabs  elsewhere, Iraqis held their own protests in Tahrir Square' in late February.  The authorities attacked the protesters and the protests did not 'blossom  nationally'. But apparently the government did decide to 'dial back the  crackdown on night-life'. But why were the protesters taking to the streets in Iraq? The  New York Times doesn't give us much of a clue. But the  Guardian, the Observer's sister paper in London, published a  piece by Sami Ramadani that sheds light on their grievances. Ramadani quoted  some of the  slogans:    Dan Hind was very kind.  There's no point in being kind.  Reporters -- ask  any editor -- can't take criticism, they're married to every damn word and  convinced that they've done something amazing when most haven't even risen to  "adequate."  Tim's one of those who likes to whine in e-mails.  Instead he left a comment .  He opens saying he's  responding "with great relish" -- thereby explaining the breath.  He snaps that  if Hind had "read the original article" -- there's no reason for him to, Tim.   Your paper chose to syndicate the article.  Dan read it in the  Observer .  If your larger points are missing (or, more likely, you  think they are) you take it up with people at your paper who syndicated the  article, don't blame British readers of the Observer .  Tim could have  noted -- but fails to -- that he wrote the piece for the Week In Review sectio  nof the paper and therefore it is an opinion piece and not actual reporting.   That's no reflection on Dan Hind's commentary but it would explain the point of  view in the piece.  Instead he wants to note that if Dan had "perused The New  York Times' coverage of the ongoing protests in Iraq you would have discovered  that your points of criticism do not hold up to scrutiny."  First, Tim,  familiarize yourself with your paper's style manual.  You should get the point  very quickly.  Secondly, it's not on the reader.  No reader of an article has to  "familiarize" themselves with past coverage.  If I don't convey something in the snapshot -- and frequently I don't,  these are dictated and dictated quickly, any edits are done in my head with  'take out paragraph three and move the section on Camp Ashraf up above the  Parliament section' -- that's on me.  If you don't, that's on you. You wrote a  piece for your paper's opinion section on Sunday -- biggest day of the week for  the paper in terms of circulation so you had the potential to reach a large  section of readers you've never reached before.  Your article, as Dan Hind  pointed out, did not offer clarity on the protest motivations.  It should have.   Instead of carping and trying to bicker, you should file that away for when you  next write for The Week In Review.    Tim Arango then writes, "You then continue with a more general critique of  The Times' coverage of the protests in Iraq, a gripe that you surely wouldn't be  able to make had you taken the time to read our numerous articles over the last  several months about the grievances of Iraqis. It is astonishing that you would  take the liberty to make the following statement, without seemingly reviewing  our coverage: '… for The New York Times to be so vague about the grievances of  the Iraqi people in a country that is, after all, still occupied by 50,000  American troops seems to me to be extraordinary'."  Take the liberty?  Again, no  one's required to read every article the paper's published to weigh in on one of  your pieces.  If you'd practiced clarity in your Week In Review piece, no one  would have been confused.   Of course, they wouldn't have been informed either.  Because the Times  has done a lousy job of covering the protests. That includes the fact that  the Washington Post has owned the government's reaction to the protests  because the Times has ignored journalists being pulled out of cafes,  beaten in Baghdad by security forces.   You pretend to know, Tim Arango, how the protests started in Iraq -- well  they re-started.  They were enough last year to force the Minister of the  Electricy out.  But you weren't covering Iraq then and are apparently unfamiliar  with that aspect of the protests.  To prove the paper's been on the ball and  show that the paper covered the issues, you provide a list of links.  But, thing  is, Tim, those links don't go back far enough this year alone.   What started the protests?  The paper's never been huge on crediting others  but Iraqi protests this year kicked off in February and kicked off outside of  Baghdad.  As January wound down, Ned Parker . reported  on the secret prisons for the Los Angeles Times  and Human Rights  Watch  issued their report on it.  Parker's January report on the  secret prisons and how they were run by Nouri's security forces, the Baghdad  Brigade followed up on his earlier report on how the Brigade was behind the prison that he and the paper exposed in  April 2010 .   All the while Nouri insisted that there were no secret  prisons in Iraq -- such as February 6th when Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN)  reported , "The Iraqi government on Sunday denied a human rights  organization's allegation that it has a secret detention center in Baghdad, run  by Prime Minister Nur al-Maliki's security forces." The report then quoted  Nouri's spokesperson Ali al-Moussawi stating, "We don't know how such a  respectable organization like Human Rights Watch is able to report such lies."   Camp Honor is a prison that's under Nouri's control, staffed by people working  for him.  Amnesty  International  would also call out the use of secret prisons while  Nouri continued to deny them.  But while many in the press would play dumb, the Iraqi people knew better.   They knew their loved ones were gone, disappeared into Iraq's legal system.   That is what began the protests in Iraq: the prisons.  It's what fueled them  throughout.  From the Feb. 10th  snapshot :  Alsumaria TV  reports protests took place in Babel Province today  with one protest calling for the release of prisoners and another calling out  the continued lack of public services. Dar Addustour  reports the the Council of the Bar Association  issued a call for a Baghdad demonstration calling for corruption to be  prosecuted, for the Constitution to be followed and sufficient electricity in  all the schools. Nafia Abdul-Jabbar (AFP)  reports that approximately 500 people (mainly  attorneys "but also including some tribal sheikhs") marched and that they also  decried the secret prisons.  They carried banners which read "Lawyers call for  the government to abide by the law and provide jobs for the people" and "The  government must provide jobs and fight the corrupt." Bushra  Juhi (AP) counts 3,000 demonstrating and  calls it "one of the biggest anti-government demonstrations in Iraq" this year.   Juhi also notes that attorneys staged smaller protests in Mosul and Basra  today.  Al Rafidayn  reports that five provinces saw protests yesterday  as the people demanded reliable public services and an end to government  corruption. Noting the Babylon Province protest, the paper quotes Amer Jabk  (Federation of Industrialists in Babylon president) stating that the provincial  government has not provided any of the services the province needs, that basic  services have deteriorated and that heavy rains have not only seen streets  closed but entire neighborhoods sinking.  Hayder Najm  (niqash) observes protests have taken place  across Iraq, "The protesters' grievances have been many and varied: the quality  and level of basic services, government restrictions on civil liberties and  freedom of expression, violations against civil servants, and the rampant  financial and administrative corruption within state institutions. [. . .] Eight  years after the US invasion of Iraq, the electricity supply in most areas of the  country still does not exceed two hours a day, and the country still suffers  from poor infrastructure, a weak transport network, and an acute crisis of  drinking water and sanitation." The February 10th snapshot.  But Tim Arango can only go back to Feb.  15th because that's when the paper finally, kind of sort of (Jack Healy's  article is an embarrassment of non-knowledge) acknowledges the protests.
   Again, I didn't seek out the above topic.  A friend with the paper thought  Tim Arango had done an amazing job responding to a critique.  I said I'd review  it and then note it in some way but warned I might disagree.  And I do.  Tim  Arango wrote an article (an opinion piece) that his paper chose to syndicate  around the world.  A reader in England, reading the syndicated version, was left  confused.  Instead of owning that and addressing it, Arango wants to stomp his  feet and insist it is the reader's job to go back and read eight other  articles.  No, that's not how it works.  And Arango's stomping of the feet? Off  putting here in the US.  But overseas, probably a little worse than that?  If I  made the call at the Observer, Tim Arango would not be featured again  since he's unable to take criticism from Observer readers and wants to  insist that it is their job not just to read what the Observer prints  but all these articles from another paper.  It's a point I'll be making to two  friends at the Observer on the phone tomorrow morning.                   Ben Birnbaum (Washington Times)  reports former head of the Democratic National Committee Howard Dean is  speaking out on behalf of the MEK and said yesterday of Nouri al-Maliki, "The  truth is the prime minister of Iraq is a mass murderer."  What's Howard Dean  referring to?  Camp Ashraf.  Following the US invasion, the US made these MEK  residents of Camp Ashraf -- Iranian refuees who had been in Iraq for decades --  surrender weapons and also put them under US protection. They also extracted a  'promise' from Nouri that he would not move against them. July 28,  2009  the world saw what Nouri's word was actually worth. Since that  Nouri-ordered assault in which at least 11 residents died, he's continued to  bully the residents. April 4th, Iran's Fars News Agency reported  that the  Iraqi military denied allegations that it entered the camp and assaulted  residents. Specifically, Camp Ashraf residents state, "The forces of Iraq's  Fifth Division invaded Camp Ashraf with columns of armored vehicles, occupying  areas inside the camp, since midnight on Saturday." Friday April  8th  saw another attack which the Iraqi government again denied. Thursday April  14th , the United Nations confirmed that 34 people were killed in the  April 8th assault on Camp Ashraf. Barbara Grady  (San Jose Mercury News) reported  that the dead included  journalist Asieh Rakhshani who has family in California.  Dean explains to  Birnbaum how he learned of the MEK, "I got asked by my agent to go over to Paris  to speak to a group I knew nothing about.  I spent a lot of time on the Internet  learning about them.  Brinbaum notes, "Mr. Dean cited a long list of former U.S.  officials who had become vocal supporters of the Mojahedin, maing Jim Jones, a  former director of the National Security Council and Louise Freeh, a former FBI  director."   The US government failed to live  up to its legal obligations. It's an issue in England -- even letters  to the editor decry the US, like Martyn Storey's letter to the  Guardian  which includes,  "Foreign Office minister Alistair Burt has issued a strongly worded statement  deploring the loss of life and emphasising the need to make medical assistance  available. There is no sign, however, of the US administration rushing to fulfil  its obligations. We are waiting for President Obama's strong condemnation of the  atrocities committed by Iraqi troops at Ashraf. " For all the attention it  receives in England, it's largely ignored in the US. The Tehran  Times notes , "The Iranian ambassador to Baghdad has predicted  that the members of the terrorist Mojahedin Khalq Organization (MKO) would leave  Iraq by the end of the current Iranian calendar year, which started on March 21.  The Iraqi government has issued a declaration and the Iraqi cabinet has approved  a ratification, both of which require that the MKO members leave Iraq,  Ambassador Hassan Danaiifar told the Mehr News Agency in an interview published  on its website on Tuesday." This week at the Huffington Post, former resident of Camp  Ashraf Hajar Mojtahedzadeh contributed a column : On Thursday, April 8th, I received a phone call a  little before midnight D.C. time. The voice on the other end franticly told me  to turn on the Iranian satellite channel, Iran NTV, adding that Iraqi Prime  Minister Nouri al-Maliki's forces had  stormed Camp Ashraf  just hours  before. As my friend on the phone continued speaking, all I could think about  was my brother Hanif and our mutual friend Elham. Hanif and Elham Zanjani, both  29, are residents of Camp Ashraf located in the Diyala province, north of  Baghdad in Iraq. The camp is home to 3,400 unarmed Iranian refugees, members of  the Mojahedin-e-Khalq (MEK), the primary opposition group to the tyrannical  mullahs in Iran. Surely acting at the behest of Tehran, the Iraqi Prime Minister  ordered the deadly assault. As I  watchedthe scenes of  carnage  unfold that day, I recognized  the familiar face of my dear Elham. Her body, badly injured by a hand grenade  thrown by Iraqi forces, was lying on a medic stretcher. Overwhelmed with a sense  of anger and disbelief, I realized that my loved ones were paying the price of  their legal protector's broken promises, with their blood. In  England, Natalie O'Neill (Times) reports , "A MOTHER has  protested almost every day for 25 years in aid of Iranian refugees in Camp  Ashraf, where her daughter lives. Despite finding it difficult to walk,  75-year-old Fatemeh Mohammad has rallied alongside hundreds of fellow  Anglo-Iranians outside the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and US Embassy in  Westminster calling for the protection of exiles in Camp Ashraf, Iraq."  A British MP, Alex Carlile of the House of Lords,  weighs in on the assault on Camp Ashraf at the Independent of London :     Such international condemnation as there has been of the deadly  attack this month carried out by Iraqi forces against a camp housing members of  the Iranian opposition leaves two pertinent questions unanswered. First, is the  attack a crime against humanity under the principles of international law; and,  secondly, have the US authorities turned a deliberate blind eye to a massacre on  their watch in Iraq as part of a deal with the Iraqi authorities, or as part of  a policy of appeasement?Undoubtedly, the answer to the first question is  yes. Video footage of the incident shows Iraqi forces running over unarmed  residents with armoured vehicles and Humvees. Further as stated by the Bar Human  Rights Committee: "the Camp residents, all of whom are recognised as Protected  Persons under the Fourth Geneva Convention, were shot at indiscriminately". The  United Nations confirmed that at least 26 men and 8 women were killed, while 178  suffered gunshots out of some 300 injured.
 The actions of the Iraqi  authorities and specifically Nouri Al-Maliki is an international criminal  justice offence which demands that the UN, US and EU condemn the attack and  define it appropriately as a crime against humanity. Firing at the unarmed  residents with live machine gun rounds in these circumstances was clearly a  government sanctioned act of war perpetrated against a civilian population and  specifically a civilian population which has repeatedly been recognised as  protected under the Convention.
 
 
 Alsumaria TV reports,  "Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Al Maliki threatened on Tuesday to ask for the  dissolution of the government in case it fails to accomplish the country's  projects beyond the 100 day deadline. The deadline involves Iraq's Parliament  also, Maliki said." If that happens, Nouri says, he may call for early  elections. Yeah, that's what Iraq needs, another round of elections. Those 2010  elections were resolved so quickly. Not noted in the report, it's already been  floated by Speaker of Parliament Osama al-Nufaifi that if the 100 days passes  without marked improvement, it may be necessary to register a vote of no  confidence. That would topple Nouri's government. It is fear of that which has  prompted Nouri to begin speaking of the need for a "majority government." Al Rafidayn reports  Nouri was again  speaking of that yesterday saying it would allow 99% consensus -- that would be  99% consensus on plans that currently his own hand-picked Cabinet can't or won't  agree to. The puppet wants some puppets of his own to play with.Al  Mada reports  on Nouri's press conference in Baghdad yesterday  where he declared that Iraq could not defend its external borders or the country  from an invasion if one should take place. Moqtada al-Sadr's spokesperson Salah  al-Obeidi is quoted insisting that if US forces remain on the ground in Iraq  past December 31, 2011, the Mehdi milita/mob will be in the streets of Iraq  again. Al Rafidayn also reports  on the  press conference noting something others are skipping, Nouri says that afer he  returns from his trip to Korea, he will invite members of Parliament to share  their own views. The wording could be seen as Norui refusing to see the  Palriament as a body that makes the decision -- that's a position in keeping  with his previous stance. Meanwhile Dar Addustour notes  that MP Haidar  al-Mula and 75 others are calling for Nouri to appear before the Parliament and  take questions in his role as commander-in-chief of the military. Al  Sabaah reports
  that the Cabinet has put an end to employees of  "the three presidencies" (Iraq's president and two vice presidents) grabbing up  residential land plots. Dar Addustour calls  it a "private  ownership scheme" It sounds very good but before you buy it  hook-line-and-sinker, note that the source is Nouri's spokesperson Ali  al-Dabbagh.      In the text version of the  report, Muir notes that Firas Ali campaigned for Ala  Nabil's release while he was imprisoned for eight days and that the response was  for "armed security operatives" to seize Firas Ali from an NGO office and that  Ala Nabil is attempting to get Firas released.     In Defense of Marxism notes, "After almost two weeks  of detention, Firas Ali was released from Muthanna Airport prison on the evening  of Monday, 25 April.  We would like to express special thanks to all those who  in the campaign to free Firas Ali the youth leader of Rahrir Square in Baghdad  Iraq."   Turning to violence, Reuters notes  a Baghdad shooting that  left the a Ministry of Defence official injured, a Hamman al-Alil roadside  bombing which claimed 1 life, a Baghdad market bombing which injured five  people, a Baghdad bombing which injured two people, a Baghdad bombing which  injured four people and a Baghdad sticky bombing targeting Shafqi Mahdi  ("general director of Iraq's theatre and cinema department").  On violence in Iraq, Kelly McEvers (NPR's All Things Considered  -- link is audio and text) filed  a report yesterday that's rather  confusing.  John Drake of AKE Group is on speaking.  He does not say in the  report what Michele Norris apparently wanted so Norris puts in his mouth?  Maybe  she just misunderstood him or McEvers' report?  I have no idea but McEvers  interviewed him, recorded the conversation and the pitch of the report Norris  did on air is not him actually being quoted.  That's a problem right there.   It's a bigger problem for those of us who receive AKE Group's reports because  it's hard to believe that the John Drake who writes those reports would have  said the words NPR puts into his mouth.  Kelly McEvers has an interesting  report.  But violence has been on the rise since February 2010.  Steady rise.   And the latest report from AKE opens with, "Levels of voilence rose in Iraq over  the past week."  Those of us who are paying for AKE's reports like to believe  we're not wasting money.      |