Friday, December 12, 2008

Junior pouts and whines

BULLY BOY PRESS & CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL-AID TABLE
 
 
 
THE LITTLE WHINER SAID HE HAD ALWAYS FOUGHT CORRUPTION.
 
SINCE HE'S THOUGHT TO BE SENATOR NUMBER 5 AND SINCE HE APPEARS TO HAVE HAD THE MILLION DOLLAR 'DONATION'/BRIBE EXPOSED, APPARENTLY, JACKSON NEEDED SURGICAL HELP TO FIGHT CORRUPTION JUST LIKE SUGAR BRITCHES COULDN'T FIGHT THE BATTLE OF THE BULDGE WITHOUT GOING UNDER THE KNIFE TO GET THAT GIRLISH FIGURE . . .
 
WHICH, FOR THOSE PAYING ATTENTION, IS GOING, GOING GONE.  JUNIOR'S PACKING ON THE POUNDS LIKE CRAZY FROM APPARENT NON-STOP STRESS EATING.
 
GOLLY, JUNIOR, WHAT'S GOT AN 'INNOCENT' MAN SO NERVOUS?
 
 
 
Starting with Alsumaria's  "Iraq: US Forces could be needed for 10 years:"
 
In the first statements that point out to Iraq's need for US Forces in the country since the declaration of the US-Iraqi security pact, Cabinet spokesman Ali Al Dabbagh said Iraq will need US troop presence to help build up its military forces past the newly agreed three-year deadline for the withdrawal of US troops.
Al Dabbagh, representing Prime Minister Nuri Al Maliki in Washington, said some U.S. forces could be needed for 10 years stressing that the terms of any extended presence would be negotiated between the next Iraqi and US governments in 2011 since the security pact has not tackled this issue. He added that until that time, the number of troops needed and the level of cooperation and support required would be clearer.   
Al Dabbagh statements came at a time when the International Security Council is getting ready to adopt during a meeting scheduled next week a resolution to end multinational forces mission in Iraq upon the request of Baghdad. Iraqi Ambassador to the UN Hamed Al Bayati affirmed in a statement to the Kuwaiti News Agency (Kuna) that Iraq has sent a similar letter to the Security Council Chief. He added that the letter has been distributed to members and will be official early next week. Al Bayati affirmed that Al Maliki has noted in a letter to the Security Council that the extension of multinational forces mission has been done for the last time and while their mission will end late this month.
 
 Yesterday's snapshot noted David Morgan and Anthony Boadle's (Reuters) report and they noted that "Dabbagh's comments appeared to be the first to address the potential need for a residual U.S. presence since the pact was announced."  (This topic was covered at length here.)  Adam Ashton (McClatchy Newspapers) becomes the first reporter at a US outlet to report on it, noting today:
 
Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki last month sold the Iraqi people on a security pact with the U.S. that he called a "withdrawal agreement" to end the presence of American forces in his country by the beginning of 2012.   
His top government spokesman, Ali al Dabbagh, undercut that claim this week, however, when he said in Washington that the U.S. might be needed in Iraq for another 10 years, a statement that reverberated with political leaders in Baghdad, renewing criticism of the deal.
 
 
 On the treaty,   American Freedom Campaign:         

The document parading around as the U.S.-Iraq agreement is not valid under the U.S. Constitution. Its legitimacy is based solely on the silence of lawmakers (and members of the media), who seem to be paralyzed by the fear of having an independent and intelligent opinion. Fortunately, one lawmaker has broken the silence and has acknowledged the truth before everyone's eyes.        

It is now time for others, including you, to join their voices with hers.   

A few weeks ago, I wrote about the pending U.S.-Iraq agreement, decrying the fact that the Iraqi Parliament was being given the opportunity to vote on whether to approve the agreement while Congress was being denied - and was refusing to fight for - the same opportunity.           

Well, thanks to our efforts and the leadership of Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA), the U.S. House of Representatives may finally get to voice its opinion on President Bush's unconstitutional usurpation of Congress's legislative power.          

Yesterday, Rep. Lee introduced a resolution related to the U.S.-Iraq agreement, inspired in part by AFC's call for a "signing statement" resolution. The primary purpose of this resolution is to express the sense of the House that President Bush does not have the power under the Constitution to negotiate and sign such a far-reaching agreement with another nation without seeking congressional approval of the agreement.           

Passage of this resolution -- most likely following re-introduction in January -- will send a message to the Bush administration, the incoming Obama administration, and the rest of the world that the agreement holds no legal weight under U.S. law and will be considered merely advisory by Congress.           

In truth, even without passage of this resolution, Congress shall not be bound by its terms. No president can unilaterally commit $10 billion per month in U.S. treasure to keep our troops in another nation. The United States has never been a monarchy or a dictatorship and we are certainly not going to accept any similar kind of system today.      

Putting aside the question over whether this agreement is currently binding or not, it is important that as many lawmakers as possible openly reject the constitutionality of the agreement. So please tell your U.S. representative to co-sponsor, support, and vote for Rep. Lee's signing statement resolution (H.Res. 1535) by clicking on the following link  

Once you have sent your message, please forward this email widely to friends and family. In the alternative, you can use the "Tell-A-Friend" option on the AFC Web site that will appear after you have sent your message.            

Thank you so much for taking action.            

Steve Fox                
Campaign Director        
American Freedom Campaign Action Fund

 
[. . .]
 
Starting with Alsumaria's  "Iraq: US Forces could be needed for 10 years:"
 
In the first statements that point out to Iraq's need for US Forces in the country since the declaration of the US-Iraqi security pact, Cabinet spokesman Ali Al Dabbagh said Iraq will need US troop presence to help build up its military forces past the newly agreed three-year deadline for the withdrawal of US troops.
Al Dabbagh, representing Prime Minister Nuri Al Maliki in Washington, said some U.S. forces could be needed for 10 years stressing that the terms of any extended presence would be negotiated between the next Iraqi and US governments in 2011 since the security pact has not tackled this issue. He added that until that time, the number of troops needed and the level of cooperation and support required would be clearer.   
Al Dabbagh statements came at a time when the International Security Council is getting ready to adopt during a meeting scheduled next week a resolution to end multinational forces mission in Iraq upon the request of Baghdad. Iraqi Ambassador to the UN Hamed Al Bayati affirmed in a statement to the Kuwaiti News Agency (Kuna) that Iraq has sent a similar letter to the Security Council Chief. He added that the letter has been distributed to members and will be official early next week. Al Bayati affirmed that Al Maliki has noted in a letter to the Security Council that the extension of multinational forces mission has been done for the last time and while their mission will end late this month.
 
 Yesterday's snapshot noted David Morgan and Anthony Boadle's (Reuters) report and they noted that "Dabbagh's comments appeared to be the first to address the potential need for a residual U.S. presence since the pact was announced."  (This topic was covered at length here.)  Adam Ashton (McClatchy Newspapers) becomes the first reporter at a US outlet to report on it, noting today:
 
Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki last month sold the Iraqi people on a security pact with the U.S. that he called a "withdrawal agreement" to end the presence of American forces in his country by the beginning of 2012.   
His top government spokesman, Ali al Dabbagh, undercut that claim this week, however, when he said in Washington that the U.S. might be needed in Iraq for another 10 years, a statement that reverberated with political leaders in Baghdad, renewing criticism of the deal.
 
 
 On the treaty,   American Freedom Campaign:         

The document parading around as the U.S.-Iraq agreement is not valid under the U.S. Constitution. Its legitimacy is based solely on the silence of lawmakers (and members of the media), who seem to be paralyzed by the fear of having an independent and intelligent opinion. Fortunately, one lawmaker has broken the silence and has acknowledged the truth before everyone's eyes.        

It is now time for others, including you, to join their voices with hers.   

A few weeks ago, I wrote about the pending U.S.-Iraq agreement, decrying the fact that the Iraqi Parliament was being given the opportunity to vote on whether to approve the agreement while Congress was being denied - and was refusing to fight for - the same opportunity.           

Well, thanks to our efforts and the leadership of Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA), the U.S. House of Representatives may finally get to voice its opinion on President Bush's unconstitutional usurpation of Congress's legislative power.          

Yesterday, Rep. Lee introduced a resolution related to the U.S.-Iraq agreement, inspired in part by AFC's call for a "signing statement" resolution. The primary purpose of this resolution is to express the sense of the House that President Bush does not have the power under the Constitution to negotiate and sign such a far-reaching agreement with another nation without seeking congressional approval of the agreement.           

Passage of this resolution -- most likely following re-introduction in January -- will send a message to the Bush administration, the incoming Obama administration, and the rest of the world that the agreement holds no legal weight under U.S. law and will be considered merely advisory by Congress.           

In truth, even without passage of this resolution, Congress shall not be bound by its terms. No president can unilaterally commit $10 billion per month in U.S. treasure to keep our troops in another nation. The United States has never been a monarchy or a dictatorship and we are certainly not going to accept any similar kind of system today.      

Putting aside the question over whether this agreement is currently binding or not, it is important that as many lawmakers as possible openly reject the constitutionality of the agreement. So please tell your U.S. representative to co-sponsor, support, and vote for Rep. Lee's signing statement resolution (H.Res. 1535) by clicking on the following link  

Once you have sent your message, please forward this email widely to friends and family. In the alternative, you can use the "Tell-A-Friend" option on the AFC Web site that will appear after you have sent your message.            

Thank you so much for taking action.            

Steve Fox                
Campaign Director        
American Freedom Campaign Action Fund

 
 
"The Common Ills"

Posted by at No comments:

Thursday, December 11, 2008

The cowboy way

BULLY BOY PRESS & CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL-AID TABLE
 
 
YEP, LITTLE MISTERS AND MISSYS, IT'S TIME TO MEET THE NEW COWBOY, SAME AS THE OLD ONE, PILGRIM.
 
 
 
This morning, we were wondering which of Patrick Cockburn's personalities would show up next?  Turns out it was Patrick Crazy Ass Cockburn.  And if you doubt it, check this from Reuters: "Ali al-Dabbagh, spokesman for the government of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, said some U.S. forces could be needed for 10 years but told reporters that the terms of any extended presence would be negotiated between the next Iraqi and U.S. governments."  Poor Crazy Ass Patrick Cockburn.  You know what, if I had LIED non-stop about what the treaty said, if I was nothing but a FILTHY LIAR, I'd be hanging my head in shame.  If I were, for example, Leila Fadel, I'd hide away for days (and maybe use some of that time to buy a decent bra).  But if I was Patrick Cockburn and had just FLAT OUT LIED about the treaty this morning at CounterPunch, I think I would have to just state, "I am a worthless liar that no one should ever believe.  Like everyone else in my crazy family, I have no grip on reality."  Sucks to be one of the liars today.  Poor babies.  Poor, pathetic, useless trash babies.  That's our topic for this evening.  Lies the sort that Patrick, Leila and oh-so many others have trafficed in KILL.  That's what's wrong with them.  It's not like they're pretending they're still virgins or something personal.  They're lying in ways that cost lives.  
 
On violence, mass fatalities today in Iraq from a single bombing.   Caroline Alexander (Bloomberg News) notes the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan warned earlier this morning (when the death toll was said to be 30) that the "toll in today's attack is expected to rise."  The BBC notes that the bombing took place "at a restaurant near the northern Iraqi city of Kirkuk" and that it was done by a suicide bomber.  Hurriyet adds, "The bomber detonated explosives inside a Kurdish restaurant about 10 km (6 miles) north of Kirkuk, said Major General Jamal Tahir, police chief of Kirkuk."  CNN reports the death toll is "at least 55" with one-hundred and nine people injured according to local police and that the name of the restaurant is Abdalla Kabab.  PBS' NewsHour calls it "one of the deadliest attacks in Iraq in the past six months" and also notes 'at least 55" dead but with one-hundred and twenty injured before adding, "The bombing apparently targeted a high-profile meeting of Kurdish officials from the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, the party of President Jalal Talabani, and a group of Arab tribal leaders called the Awakening, who had gathered in an attempt to negotiate ethnic tensions in the region."  Yaseen Taha and Adam Ashton (McClatchy Newspapers) quote Khadijah Mohammed whose sixteen-year-old son died in the bombing, "My son has become a body.  He was invited by his friends to have lunch on the last day of Eid.  He went out with them.  He told me that they will have a nice time in this restaurant and reluctantly, we allowed him to go, and now he is just a body."  Now picture that.  The son is begging his mother to go Adballa Kabab.  She is stating it is still too dangerous.  At some point he brings up or maybe she remembers the reports of how violence is down in Iraq, of how David Petraeus says that's true and of how every news outlet she can think of has run with that garbage.  Bad news 'reporting' costs lives.  Own it, accept that the blood of the young men is on your hands if you've lied or pimped the illegal war.  Not just before it started or at the start, but if you 'report' spin as fact, accept your responsiblity in this death and all the others.  Operation Happy Talk kills, accept it.  Mustafa Mahmoud (Reuters) describes an emergency room following the bombing, "Men and women clutched their wounds as they lay on gurneys, while medics and family members rushed about, shouting and wailing. A small girl around five years old was curled up quietly on a stretcher, her clothes bloodied."  AP quotes Salam Abudllah who was wounded in the attack along with his wife, "I held my wife and led her outside the place.  As we were leaving, I saw dead bodies soaked with blood and huge destruction."  Aswat Al Iraq reports President Jalal Talabani stated, "With heartfelt grief, we have received news of the death and injury of a large number of innocent citizens in a cowardly terrorist operation that targeted a crowded restaurant on the Kirkuk-Arbil highway. As we vehemently condemn this heinous terrorist operation perpetrated by the vanquished terrorist remnants, we stress for our great Iraqi people, particularly the steadfast residents of Kirkuk, that terrorists will never be able to upset the fantastic security achievements made all over the country's province."
 
 
  
Turning to US politics, Dee Dee Myers (Vanity Fair) observes of Barack Obama's speech writer and professional pig Jon Favreau (not the actor-writer-director) groping a cut-out of Hillary Clinton:
 
I can't stop thinking about this picture, and I confess I find it really upsetting. And, no, it's not because I don't have a sense of humor. I like to think I have a well-earned reputation for often irreverent, sometimes ill-advised humor. But I'm not laughing now.
And it's not that I was never young. My friends from college and in the years just beyond can testify that I did some things then that I wouldn't want to see on the Internet now. But I had a big job in the White House at a young age too; at 31 -- just a few years older than Favreau is now -- I became White House press secretary. And I knew instantly that the rules had changed for me, that I could no longer go to all the parties of the people just a little younger than me, who had just a little less responsibility, and expect to be anonymous. Clearly, Favreau should have understood that too. If he's old enough and wise enough and mature enough to write for the president of the United States -- and not just any president but one who seems poised to take words more seriously than any since Abraham Lincoln -- than he's clearly old enough and wise enough and mature enough to avoid getting his picture taken behaving in a way that is embarrassing to him, his boss, the secretary of state -- designate, his family, and, one hopes, a majority of 27-year-old males (though that may be too optimistic.) It's indefensible. But that's still not what's bugging me.
What's bugging me is his intention. He isn't putting his hand on her "chest," as most of the articles and conversations about the picture have euphemistically referred to it. Rather, his hand -- cupped just so -- is clearly intended to signal that he's groping her breast. And why? Surely, not to signal he finds her attractive. Au contraire. It's an act of deliberate humiliation. Of disempowerment. Of denigration.
And it disgusts me. 
 
It is disgusting.  And good for Dee Dee for speaking out.  Murphy (PUMA Pac) observes:
 

Every day that Jon Favreau continues to have a job as obama's chief speech writer is ANOTHER day that the office of the Secretary of State is undermined. Every day that the above image is in the news is another day that creeps like Carville and Blitzer can convene all-male panels of sexperts and joke about how fun it is to gang up and sexually assault Hillary Clinton in effigy. (Wolf Blitzer, Alpha Epsilon Pi brother, along with Robert Novak and Jerry Nadler.Carville was a raging frat boy at LSU, where the motto is, "frat hard, frat often.")

We need to amp up our message. Columnists ARE talking about this issue, but they are saying that women's groups have been strangely silent. We know that National NOW and Emily's List are keeping a deafening silence, but the good women at New York and Los Angeles NOW have spoken up. But still, the message is not being received. 

 
Emily's List won't say a damn word.  You don't get cabinet positions (or more of them) by speaking out.  What about the pathetic Women's Media Center?  They haven't said one word as usual.   Yesterday, they had the nerve to write about human dignity while being silent on Jon Favreau.  Ms. is just as bad with their Feminist Wire that managed to note violence against women has "increased attention in Angola" but fails to raise objections to Favreau and his friend/male lover's attempt to prove they can get it up by (at best) disrepecting women.
 
Independent journalist John Pilger and Chris Martin won Best Documentary for The War On Democracy at the One World Media Awards and The War on Democracy is now available on DVD.  Groundhog Day is a Harold Ramis film starring Bill Murray and Andie MacDowell and Pilger references it in his new column (New Statesman):
 
Obama's slogan is now "continuity".  His secretary of defence will be Robert Gates, who serves the lawless, blood-soaked Bush regime as secretary of defence, which means secretary of war.  (America last had to defend itself when the British invaded in 1812.)  Gates wants no date set for an Iraq withdrawal and "well north of 20,000" troops to be sent to Afghanistan.  He also wants America to build a completely new nuclear arsenal, including "tactical" nuclear weapons that blur the distinction with conventional weapons.
[. . .]
There is more continuity in Obama's appointment of officials who will deal with the economic piracy that brought down Wall Street and impoverished millions.  As in Bill Murray's nightmare, they are the same officials who caused it.  For example, Lawrence Summers will run the National Economic Council.  As treasury secretary, according to the New York Times, he "championed the law that deregulated derivatives, the . . . instruments -- aka toxic assets -- that have spread financial losses [and] refused to heed critics who warned of dangers to come." 
There is logic here.  Contrary to myth, Obama's campaign was funded largely by rapacious capital, such as Citigroup and others responsible for the sub-prime mortgage scandal, whose victims were mostly African Americans and other poor people.
 
 
Yes, the greed.  As Elaine noted of the scandal involving who will replace him in the Senate, "I think the whole thing is poetic. Barack's home state governor accused of attempting some form of payment to appoint someone to replace Barack. It's all about greed and what was Barack's campaign run on but greed?  He refused public financing. Broke the pledge on that. He took in overseas donation and has no way to prove that the donations came from US citizens. He allowed individuals to repeatedly break the legal donation limit. The greed that built him could break him and, in fact, it should."  That's Illinois.  In New York, the assumption is that, in January, Hillary Clinton will be confirmed as the Secretary of State and will leave the US Senate.  That will allow the current governor (never elected to that post, as Ruth has pointed out) to appoint someone to serve the remainder of Clinton's Senate term.  Caroline Kennedy wants the Senate seat.  Marie Cocco (Washington Post Writers Group) wonders:
 
How can Democrats, who ridiculed Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as an inexperienced political wannabe, now embrace the idea of elevating Caroline Kennedy -- who hasn't served a day in public office -- to Hillary Clinton's New York Senate seat? How, indeed, can the same "progressives" who opposed Clinton's election as president because they were repelled by the notion of extending the "Clinton dynasty" now be keen on perpetuating the Kennedy dynasty through an appointment?
As a longtime admirer of Sen. Ted Kennedy, I am embarrassed.
The iconic Massachusetts senator and others in the family are actively promoting John F. Kennedy's daughter -- who famously shunned the gritty political world for the sanctuary of public service through her private endeavors -- to take the Senate seat once occupied by her late uncle, Robert F. Kennedy, and now held by Clinton. A decision on filling the vacancy should Clinton be confirmed as secretary of state is up to New York Gov. David Paterson, who could be forgiven, in moments like this, if he fleetingly wishes that he'd not ascended to the office after predecessor Eliot Spitzer's indiscretions.
What, exactly, is the case to be made for Caroline Kennedy?

 
 

Posted by at No comments:

Kenny Hearts Barack

BULLY BOY PRESS & CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL-AID TABLE
 
 
KENNY SILVERSTEIN FELL OFF HIS BAR STOOL LAST NIGHT AS HE INSISTED, "THERE'S NOT A SHRED OF EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT" THAT BARACK OBAMA IS TIED UP IN THE ROD BLAGOJEVICH CRIMES.  ACTUALLY, KENNY USED "SCANDAL" TO DESCRIBE THE CRIMES. 
 
APPARENTLY, IF SOMEONE BREAKS INTO KENNY'S HOME AND MAKES OFF WITH THE PORNY COLLECTION HE'S HIDDEN IN THE BOTTOM DRAWER OF HIS WORK DESK THAT BREAK IN WOULD BE A "SCANDAL" AND NOT A "CRIME."
 
MOST CURIOUS IS HOW 'REPORTER' KENNY SCREAMS "NOTHING HERE! MOVE ON!" BEFORE REPORTERS CAN EVEN BEGIN DIGGING.
 
HOPPED UP ON WINE SPRITZERS, HE-MAN KENNY WASN'T TAKING NO GUFF AND, DESPITE CALLS FOR HIM TO PIPE DOWN, INSISTED HE WAS GOING TO DECLARE HIS LOVE FOR BARACK IF NOT THE TRUTH AS HE TOSSED BACK ANOTHER ZIMA.
 
NOT SINCE KENNY DECIDED TO WRITE ABOUT FIRE ARMS HAS HE DEMONSTRATED SUCH GROSS IGNORANCE.  HE SMILED AT THAT AS HE STAGGERED HOME LAST NIGHT.
 
 
 
Yesterday's snapshot noted Reuters journalist Ibrahim Jassam who is wrongly being held by the US military despite the Iraqi court system ordering that Ibrahim be freed. Ibrahim is one of many reporters suffering in the 'free' Iraq.  Last Wednesday's snapshot noted the United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq's "Human Rights Report" [PDF format warning, click here]. The report was the latest (thirteenth) and noted the attacks on the press especially in the Kurdish region where journalists spoke of being "arrested, harassed and ill-treated by KRG police. . . .  Local journalist associations have condemned the conduct of the KRG authorities while other journalists were also prevented from covering the military operations."  And the snapshot included:
 
. . . last month saw another journalist targeted in the Kurdistan region.  Adel Hussein is the journalist and he's been convicted to six months of prison for the 'crime' of "writing an article about homosexuality".  Reporters Without Border notes: "Sexual practices are part of the individual freedoms that a democratic states is supposed to promote and protect.  Furthermore, Hussein did not defend homosexuality.  He limited himself to describing a form of behavior from a scientific viewpoint. . . .  We are astonished to learn that a press case has been tried under the criminal code.  What was the point of adoptiong -- and then liberalising -- a press code in Kurdistan region if people who contribute to the news media are still be tried under more repressive laws?"  The Committee to Protect Journalists is calling for the immediate release of Adel -- "a doctor and a freelance journalist with the independent weekly Hawlati".  CPJ's Robert Mahoney (Dept Director) states, "A judge of all people should know that ignorance of the law is no excuse.  This is the second time in a month that a court in Iraqi Kurdistan has sent a journalist to prison in violation of the new press law.  We call on the authorities to ensure that the new legislation is widely promulgated and enforced, and we urge the appeal court to overturn this conviction and free Adel Hussein immediately."  The other reporter referred to was Shwan Dawdi whose conviction was overturned by the court of appeal.  Yahya Barzanji (AP) quotes the Kurdistan Journalist Union's Zirak Kamal stating, "We will appeal this unjust verdict and we hope that Kurdistan officials intervene and solve the problem."  BBC explains the Kurdish government is attempting to say that Adel "violated a public decenty law" by reporting.
 
In a new development,
The Committee to Protect Journalists announces that Adel was pardoned Sunday by KRG President Massoud Barzani and quotes CPJ Deputy Director Robert Mahoney stating, "We are relieved that President Barzani intervened to right this injustice. We call on the authorities to ensure that the new legislation is enforced and that Adel Hussein is the last journalist to be sent to prison in Iraqi Kurdistan because of his work." Reporters Without Borders notes:

Reporters Without Borders welcomes yesterday's release of physician and freelance journalist Adel Hussein from prison in Erbil (330 km north of Baghdad) under a pardon granted by the president of the Iraqi region of Kurdistan at the start of every religious festival.
Hussein had been in prison since 24 November, when he was found guilty of offending public decency under article 403 of the criminal code for writing an article about homosexuality for the independent Kurdish-language weekly Hawlati.
 
Turning to the topic of Blackwater -- Monday 5 mercenaries turned themselves into US federal authorities for charges stemming from the September 16, 2007 slaughter in Baghdad, Tina Susman and Usam Redha (Los Angeles Times) guage Iraqi opinion on the development.  A veteran of Iraq's military, Ali, tells the reporters, "It means no one is above the law, even if he's an element of foreign forces.  It also means the victims will get justice."  An unnamed police officer states, "Because they killed 17 innocent people, of course they should be arrested." It's very rare that Iraqis are quoted or their opinions reported on.
 
Take McClatchy's Leila Fadel being interviewed by Paul Jay for the Real News Network in what is supposedly a nine minute interview about Iraqi suspicion of the treaty masquerading as a Status Of Forces Agreement.  Yet at 2:37 in, she's still not talking about Iraqis.  And she's wasted everyone's time with what appears to be a defense of McClatchy's AWFUL coverage from Baghdad of the treaty.  She's yammering on and on endlessly about the Arabic version of the agreement ('which we translated into English") and who gives a damn, Leila?  What do we care about?  Well, how about you explain how Adam Ashton, in Iraq for McClatchy, couldn't (for McClatchy) write the truth about the treaty; however, Ashton works for The Modesto Bee and one Saturday, while still in Iraq, he could (for The Modesto Bee) write the realities that McClatchy wouldn't allow?  How about you trying explaining that?
 
In what plays like yet another attempt to excuse the AWFUL reporting by McClatchy coming out of Baghdad, Leila begins referring to  the "way that Maliki has sold the agreement to the population and has talked about it is as the end of the American occupation, he has won a date" -- uh, Fadel, he doesn't control the US press and the US press went with that -- including the Baghdad division of McClatchy that you head -- so how about taking a little damn responsibility or is that too difficult? 
 
And, since you're now in DC and since the White House posted an English language version of the agreement (on Thanksgiving, as soon as the Iraqi Paliament voted it into effect -- as they said they would), why don't you address what that says?  
 
And since you haven't read the White House version -- availabe for three weeks now -- maybe you ought to lose the attitude evident at 3:32 regarding Iraqis? (How "a lot of them haven't read" the Arabic version or done so well enough "to have an opinion.")  In fact, if the average Iraqi that hasn't read the agreement in full doesn't have the right to an opinion in your opinion, then maybe you just should just close yourself off until you MAKE the time to read the White House version, published at the White House's website.  You are, after all, a reporter and what's required and expected of you is a great deal more than what's required and expected of civilians whose country is occupied and under attack and who live in fear and do not have US passports that allow them to breeze in and out of Iraq at will?  And, by the way, the Iraqis that "don't believe" in all the hog wash you have sold via McClatchy?  They're right.  They're right not only because it's a one-year treaty that either side can cancel in 2010 or 2011 -- which means you embarrass yourself in public when you bore us all with what's going to happen in 2011.  But you don't need to know about that cancellation clause -- a clause Fadel 'forgot' to note when discussing the Arabic version for over 2 minutes (though that clause is also in the Arabic version).  You only need to know that no US Embassy in any country is not protected by the US military.  You only need to grasp that a larger embassy would require a larger US military force to protect it.  You only need to realize that as long as the US Embassy remains in Baghdad, US forces will be on the ground in Iraq.  That's reality.  Here's some more -- don't show up for an inteview looking like a Los Molcajetes waitress serving chips and salsa.  And for any little whiner at McClatchy who feels that's .just so harsh, let me be really clear: What McClatchy and others have done with regards to the treaty OUT DOES what Judith Miller did.  Judith Miller (wrongly and laughably) believed that there were WMDs in Iraq.  She should have shown skepticism, she shouldn't have been a stenographer.  (And she was one of many.)  But this illegal war continues because 'reporters' lie.  LYING about the treaty, lying to Iraqis and Americans to lull them into a false belief that the war is winding down is nothing but an attempt to reduce pressure on the governments of both countries.  You are servicing the adminstration, you are not servicing the people.  And with all the lies that led to the illegal war having been exposed as lies, to provide new cover is outrageous and goes far beyond (my opinion) anything Miller could have hoped to do.  In 2004 and 2005, we were regularly noting that if the Judith Millers got the US over there, the Dexter Filkins kept the US over there and they did so by lying in print regularly. 
 
"The Common Ills"

Posted by at No comments:

Tuesday, December 09, 2008

Barack's consistency

BULLY BOY PRESS & CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL-AID TABLE
 
PRESIDENT-ELECT BARACK OBAMA CONTINUES TO BREAK MORE PROMISES THAN DELTA BURKE AT A FAT FARM.  SAID TO BE THE LATEST?  IMMIGRATION!
 
BARACK TOLD THESE REPORTERS, "AT LEAST I'M CONSISTENT."
 
 
 
 
 
Starting with Blackwater.  Yesterday five mercenaries for Blackwater Worldwide surrendered themselves to authorities as a result of grand jury indictments for the September 17, 2007 slaughter that resulted in at least 17 Iraqis being killed in Baghdad.   CBS and AP (link has text and video) ask Iraqis for their reactions to the news.  Mohammed Latif states, "I think it is a move in the right direction to make the security company employees realize that they are no longer above the law and they should stop behaving like cowboys on the streets of Baghdad."  Rasim Hussein offers, "This indictment is not enough because there are still dozens of criminal security company employees on the loose in Iraq."  Rania Abouzeid (Time magazine) also reports on Iraqi reaction to the news and quotes Hosham Abdel Kader stating, "It's about time they pay for their crimes.  I recoil, I freeze when I see those mercenaries on the street."  US Attorney General Jeffrey Taylor declared yesterday that "we are duty-bound to hold them accountable, as no one is above the law, even when our country is engaged in war."  The Dallas Morning News uses that statement to editorialize, "Iraqis have waited far too long to hear these words from the U.S. government.  Nevertheless, Iraqi government should cautions its people not to have high expectations. Security contractors at the time of the shooting fell under no clear legal authority.  Since they were operating on foreign territory, U.S. law did not necessarily apply to them." The San Francisco Chronicle notes, "The incident became a flash point in many different ways. It proved to be a fantastic recruiting tool for insurgents. It enraged the Iraqi government, which lobbied unsuccessfully for the right to try the guards in Iraq. . . . And here in the United States, the case sparked discussion of why the war depended so much on private firms in the first place. One guard - perhaps sensing the scope of the reaction to the incident - already has pleaded guilty to killing at least one Iraqi, in exchange for a reduced sentence. The other five are facing 35 counts and at least 30 years."
 
Meanwhile Mike Doyle (McClatchy Newspapers) explores the primary (evolving) law that would apply and notes, "The Blackwater contract was with the State Department. The five indicted Blackwater guards were part of a Tactical Response Team called Raven 23; the killings in question occurred when Raven 23 responded to the detonation of an improvised explosive device near another Blackwater team guarding, apparently, a State Department employee. Who was this employee, and what was his or her function? Would protecting, say, an agricultural attache amount to 'supporting the mission' of the Pentagon?" Pamela Manson (Salt Lake Tribune) reports that the attorneys for the five are publicly maintaining that there is no case and that all "will be cleared."  Dan Slater (Wall St. Journal) argues a recent case holds the key to the fate of the five, "Remember Jose Luis Nazario? He was the former Marine who was charged, under the MEJA, with voluntary manslaughter for allegedly killing unarmed Iraqis. In August, a jury in Riverside, Calif., acquitted Nazario. As today's WSJ report about Blackwater notes, prosecutors in the Nazario case faced jury skepticism. After the not-guilty verdict, jurors hugged Nazario and said they didn't feel they 'had any business' judging combat conduct."  A great deal will ride on the testimony of Jeremy P. Ridgeway who copped a plea bargain.  Ginger Thompson and James Risen (New York Times) report he "described how he and the other guards used automatic rifles and grenade launchers to fire on cars, houses, a traffic officer and a girls' school." Ridgeway, Josh Meyer (Los Angeles Times) notes, was "the turret gunner in the last vehicle had a panoramic view, has provided invormation that strongly indictes the shootings were unprovoked, authroities said."  At the International Herald Tribune, Ginger Thompson explains, "Ridgeway said in the court documents unsealed Monday that the episode in Nisour Square on Sept. 16, 2007, started when the guards opened fire on a white Kia sedan 'that posed no threat to the convoy'."
 
How does photo-journalist Ibrahim Jassam pose any threat?  Answer: He doesn't.  But he's imprisoned by the US military in Iraq. The December 1st snapshot noted that the the Central Criminal Court of Iraq ruled Ibrahim must be freed.   But Reuters reports this morning that the US military is refusing to release Ibrahim and stating they will continue holidng "him into 2009".

US Major Neal Fisher is quoted stating that the court order means when Ibrahim is released, "he will be able to out-process without having to go through the courts as other detainees in his threat classification will have to do." Fisher sees no conflict in that and his earlier statement to Reuters that, "Though we appreciate the decision of the Central Criminal Court of Iraq in the Jassam case, their decision does not negate the intelligence information that currently lists him as a threat to Iraq security and stability." Golly Major Neil, if the US has 'evidence' and 'reason' to hold Ibrahim then surely it would be 'dangerous' to out-process him automatically at some point in 2009, right? All these oodles and oodles of info would need to be turned over to an Iraqi court, right? That is the argument for not releasing him after all: 'The Iraqi court doesn't know what we know.'

But if you make that argument (and mean it), you don't turn around and say, 'When we're done with him, we'll follow the court's order and release him quicker than other prisoners who will still need to go before a court.'  You can't have it both ways. Either the US knows information justifying Ibrahim being held or it doesn't. If it does, then surely such information would not just need to be turned over to an Iraqi court, it would also require a new trial.  The fact that Major Neal doesn't see it that way goes to how weak the US case against Ibrahim is. David Schlesing (News Editor-in-Chief at Reuters) is quoted stating, "I am disappointed he has not been released in accordance with the court order."
 
Turning to the issue of Iraqi women, we'll start with women in general.  Women's eNews runs a really bad article that they make even worse by attempting to put one over on their readers.  Nadira Artyk's "Muslim Feminists Confront a World of Obstacles" has a dateline of 12-9-08 and it avoids ever noting dates for the conference.  That conference took place in October. It ran from October 24 through October 27.  Click here for better coverage from the BBC.  Instead of rushing to post it, Women's eNews should have taken a moment to think, "Hmmm?  Who is ignored in this article?"  Or are they unaware that Dr. Bouthaina Shaaban was at the conference?  Seems like Nadira -- two months after the conference -- should have included something on that, right? Shaaban spoke on the conference's opening day and considering her position with regards to Iraqi refugees fleeing to Syria and considering the employment (I'm referring to prostitution) that so many female refugees have to resort to, one would think there was something of a little more value than the grand standing moments of Nadira's friends.  Isabel S. Murray (Dartmouth Free Press) reported on the same conference (in October, she reported) and stated the Qur'an forbids polygamy.  A good time to note that polygamy remains an issue in Iraq.  This from MADRE:
 
We demand the repeal of polygamous marriages and all other discriminatory laws against women in Kurdistan.  
On October 27, 2008, legislation allowing polygamous marriages was passed in a parliamentary session in Erbil, the capital city of Kurdistan. This legislation is part of a constitutional draft proposing to replace the old family status law, in use since 1958.  It was changed partially, under Saddam Hussein, to subjugate women's rights further.  
After the fall of Saddam's regime in 2003, a new constitution was written and passed in Iraq. This constitution was solely based on Islamic Sharia Law and openly stated its support for gender apartheid against women.  We clearly see that the proposed constitution for the Kurdish region is no better than the Iraqi one.  In fact, it is just a smaller version. 
The current family status law was reactionary enough -- being purely based on discrimination against women and their treatment in society as second class citizens--but now the Kurdish Regional Government wants to change it further, and not for the better.
Women in Kurdistan have been subjected to all kinds of violence and discrimination throughout their history. Under Saddam's regime, they endured all kinds of hardship, torture and abuse.  They have fared no better under the current Kurdish rule.  "Honour killings", female genital mutilation, forced marriages, bullying women to commit suicide and the denial of civil and individual rights have been the main characteristics for almost the past two decades.  
The approval of this current legislation will assist in the oppression of women and lead to a huge increase in violence against women.  This is a historical mistake. We hold the Kurdish parliament and its government responsible for the violations of women's rights in this region, due to these discriminatory laws.     
Therefore, we call upon every concerned organisation and individual to support us in this campaign to repeal this law.  We also call for unconditional equal rights, freedom and equality for women in Kurdistan to be enshrined in law.  
Yours Truly,   

 - Yanar Mohammed: President of Organisation of Women's Freedom in Iraq, Iraq

 - Houzan Mahmoud: Representative of Organisation of Women's Freedom in Iraq, UK  

 - Vivian Stromberg: MADRE, USA  

 - Maria Hagberg: President of Network Against Honour Crimes, Sweden     

 - Rega Svensson: Head of Organisation of Women's Freedom in Iraq, Sweden   

 - Joe Tougas: Journalist, Human Rights Activist, USA   

 - Jennifer Kemp: Women's Rights Activist, USA    

 - Maryam Namazie: Spokesperson for Equal Rights Now, Iran       

 - Joanne Payton: International Campaign against Honour Killings     

 - Thomas Unterrainer: Nottingham 

 - Sam Azad: Socialist campaigner  

 - Ingrid Ternert: Representative of the Peace Movement, Germany 
 
 - Ruth Appleton: Co-ordinator Santé Refugee Mental Health Access Project  

 - Anna-Lisa: Sweden 

 - Aase Fosshaug: Sweden  
 
But why listen to MADRE, they are concerned with human rights and the Women's eNews' story explains to us just how 'passe' human rights is.  (Human rights is passe -- and a subthread of the conference, so is feminism -- which also gets left out of the article.) MADRE sent out the above in November. 
 
 

Posted by at No comments:

Monday, December 08, 2008

Caroline, Princess of Entitlement

BULLY BOY PRESS & CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL-AID TABLE
 
TODAY PRINCESS BRAT CAROLINE KENNEDY PICKED UP THE ENDORSEMENT OF MICHAEL BLOOMBERG IN HER QUEST TO BECOME A SENATOR WITHOUT AN ELECTION OF HAVING TO MIX WITH THOSE "UNGODLY PEOPLE."
 
IT WAS NO SURPRISE TO CAROLINE THAT A PROFESSIONAL WALKER WOULD ENDORSE HER, SHE SHARED, "THE CLOSET CASES LOVE ME.  THE GAYS OUT OF THE CLOSET, NOT SO MUCH.  THEY BLAME ME FOR MY FATHER SCREWING OVER MARILYN MONROE.  I UNDERSTAND SHE'S VERY POPULAR WITH THE GAYS OR THAT'S WHAT MY HAIR DRESSER SAYS.  I DON'T HANG WITH THE GAYS.  WELL, DAVID GEFFEN.  BUT YOU HAVE TO BE REALLY, REALLY RICH.  IT'S LIKE I ALWAYS SAY, 'YOU AIN'T NEVER BANKED YOUR FIRST BILLION, THEN YOU AIN'T NO FRIEND OF MINE'."
 
PRINCESS BRAT CAROLINE KINDLY POSED FOR THESE REPORTERS BUT STATED SHE WAS CALLING THE PHOTO BELOW "CHARITY WORK" AND "AUNT ETHEL BETTER GET OFF MY ASS ABOUT ANYTHING ELSE!"
 
Princess Brat
 
 
 
The Salt Lake Tribune reports today: "Blackwater Worldwide security guards indicted in Washington D.C. for the 2007 shooting of Iraqi civilians surrendered to federal authorities in Salt Lake City this morning. They arrived one by one with their attorneys starting about 7:45 a.m. As the first three of five men walked in, they offered no comment to reporters. Attorneys said they would attend a 1:30 p.m. hearing, where the exact charges are expected to be unsealed. The indicted men wore suits and expressionless faces as they walked from 400 South into the federal courthouse at 350 S. Main St."  The five are Paul Slough, Nick Slatten, Donald Ball, Dustin Heard and Even Liberty, as Ginger Thompson and Katherine Zoepf (New York Times) reported yesterday after the attorneys for the five men gave some confirmation to the indictments.  Ruth noted the reported indictments on Friday evening (and was careful to note they were reported and not confirmed at that point) citing Kevin Bohn and Terry Frieden (CNN) reporting five (then unnamed) Blackwater Worldwide employees were indicted and a sixth was supposed to be talking plea agreement.  Saturday found Ginger Thompson and James Risen (New York Times) reporting on the indictment and noting that "at least 17 Iraqi civilians" were killed September 16, 2007 a shocker for those of us who remember  the paper's inability to count the number correctly in the days and days after the slaughter.  However, the paper wasn't the worst outlet.  we'll get to the worst.   First, let's refresh via the September 18, 2007 snapshot:
 
Turning to the subject of US mercenaries.  Blackwater's latest slaughter continues to garner attention.  On Sunday, Blackwater fired into crowds and they've repeatedly changed their story ever since.  Are the mercenaries in our out?  Martin Fletcher (Times of London) notes that any effort to eject them from Iraq -- any Iraqi effort -- "would be resisted strenuously by the US Government, whose security arrangements will be thrown into chaos if Blackwater can no longer operate in Iraq."  Which is why US Secretary of State and Anger Condi Rice spent 15 minutes on the phone with puppet of the occupation Nouri al-Maliki.  Ned Parker (Los Angeles Times) noted that "several contractors predicted Monday that it was unlikely the Iraqi government would carry through with the threat to expel Blackwater."For all intents and purposes they belong to the [U.S.] Department of State," one contractor said of Blackwater employees".  Kim Sengupta (Independent of London) reports on "an extraordinary telephone news conference, the US embassy spokeswoman could not answer whether the company was still working for the Americans inside the Green Zone, or what its legal position was along with similar foreign contractors within Iraq."  Sengupta also notes the ever changing story of Blackwater for why the opened fire on unarmed Iraqi civilians killing at least 8 on Sunday.  Ned Parker (Los Angeles Times) notes that Ali Dabbagh spoke to the press in Baghdad and noted that the Iraqi investigation "had found that guards with the private security company Blackwater USA had fired without provocation on a Baghdad traffic circle, killing eight people and wounding 13"  and that a child was among the dead.  As Leila Fadel, Joseph Neff and Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) point out, "Whether the Iraqi Interior Ministry will be able to enforce its decision to ban North Carolina-based Blackwater Security from operating in Iraq is likely to be a major test between the government of Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki and the United States. Blackwater, founded by a major Republican Party benefactor, is among the most prominent -- and most controversial -- of dozens of companies that provide security to both government and private individuals in Iraq.  In 2003, the U.S.-led Coalition Provisional Authority exempted the companies and their employees from prosecution under Iraqi law, but Iraqi officials disputed whether that exemption remains in effect, and U.S. officials declined to comment."
 
September 18, 2007, PBS' NewsHour provided a discussion (link has audio, transcript and video).  Judy Woodruff moderated the discussion and set it up with a clip of an eye witness (speaking through a translator), We see the security firms or the so-called American security firms doing whatever they want in the streets.  They beat citizens and scron them. . . . . They shot randomly."  Woodruff then brought on David Brooks of the wrongly named the International Peace Operations (it's a civilain arm of the US military) and Jeremy Scahill (who was still an independent journalist back then, having not yet joined the Cult of Barack).  Scahill explained that "the Bush administration failed to build the coalition of willing nations to occupy Iraq and so instead it built a coalition of billing corproations.  As you said, there are now [more] private contractors in Iraq than there are official U.S. soldiers."  That was a real attempt at an honest dicussion.  You had Scahill and Brooks from opposite sides and you had Woodruff, a journalist who knows her trade and takes pride in practicing it.  Sadly . . .
 
 
The October 10, 2007 snapshot noted the worst 'discussion' and it was on PBS.  Yes,  Washington Week (or Washington Weak) where the gas bag and the fool shall roam -- freely! And without shame!  US News & World Reports' Linda Robinson and Gwen appeared to believe their job was to confuse the issue.  Linda wanted to "set the stage" but never in such a way that addressed the people of Iraq, the wounded or the dead.  Her idea of setting the stage was offering excuses and justifications for Blackwater's slaughter: "Very, very violent city.  You're driving around, bombs going off at any unpredicted time.  So what happens is these convoy drivers use tactics.  They throw things at people.  They sound their horns, their sirens.  If you don't get out of the way, they will shoot.  And so Iraqi drivers generally pull over as soon as they see a convoy."   Robinson considers all she stated normal so let's again ask: "So the question is, were Linda Robinson or Gwen to be walking to their cars at the start of the day and a car came zooming through with those in it throwing things at them, would they see that as a problem?  Should Jon Stewart attempt to find out for The Daily Show?  In fact, it shouldn't even be a surprise.  Gwen and Robinson should volunteer for it to prove what good sports they are.  After ten to fifteen minutes of drive-bys where water bottles are hurled at them (the mildest object usually cited in press reports) from speeding cars, let's see their smiling, bruised (possibly bloodied?) faces and find out whether they now think that 'the problem' includes a great deal more than being able to tell if a convoy is approaching?"
 
Here's Linda babbling on some more: "This is the situation right now.  With the U.S. military the size that it is, there is no way that uniformed military people could do the job of guarding all these civilians.  And it's our biggest embassy in the world and they're trying to get all of these developments people out.  I mean, that's part of the General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker thing is to get the civilians out to help people in the neighborhoods."
 
Linda will say that the "agreesive tactics do protect the people inside the vehicle.  What's the problem of course is that innocent Iraqi civilians have been killed.  Now, we do -- and this is why I introduced this topic with the violence of that environment."  During the entire discussion, only AP's Charles Babington seemed aware of the issues at stake.  He demonstrated that by asking, "And there's nothing the Iraqi government can do?  Can't take them to court, can't arrest them?"  Linda explained Paul Bremer exempted them in 2004 with a decree leading Gwen to qucikly jump in with, "Okay, thank you, Linda."  Yes, let's not focus on the Iraqis too much when discussing Iraq.
 
"At least 17" is the figure reported on the story in this news cycle.  At one point, the Interior Minsiter in Iraq was saying 20 Iraqis were shot dead (that count was being given in September of 2007).  AP's Matt Apuzzo and Lara Jakes Jordan report the five Blackwater employees indicted (a six is reportedly in the midst of a plea bargain) intend to turn themselves today in Utah and the reporters observe: "The case already is shaping up to be a series of contentious legal battles before the guards can even go to trial. By surrendering in Utah, the home state of one of the guards, the men could argue the case should be heard in a far more conservative, pro-gun venue than Washington, some 2,000 miles away."  Nadine Elsibai and Cary O'Reilly (Bloomberg News) add, "Government officials said at a news conference it intends to try them in Washington, where support for the war in Iraq isn't likely to be as strong as in the western state."  Del Quentin Wilber (Washington Post) notes "the Justice Department unsealed a 35-count indictment against them. . . . The indictment said all five were charged with volunatary manslaughter, attempt to commit manslaughter, and using and discharging a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence.  A sixth security guard, Jeremy P. Ridgeway, pleaded guilty Friday to charges of voluntary manslaughter and attempt to commit voluntary manslaughter, according to papers filed in court today." 
 
At the press conference at the Justice Dept today,  Assistant Attorney General Patrick Rowan noted, "We're here to announce that a 35-count indictment has been unsealed in the District of Colubmia.  As you are aware, an indictment is merely a formal charging document notifying a defendant of the charges against him or her.  All defendents are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty in a court of law.  The indctment unsealed charges five Blackwater security guards with voluntary manslaughter, attempt to commit manslaughter, and weapons violations, for their alleged roles in the September 16, 2007 shooting at Nisur Square in Baghdad, Iraq.  Specifically, the defendants are charged with killing 14 unarmed civilians and wounding 20 other indivuals in connection with this event.  In addition, we can report that a sixth Blackwater security guard had pleaded guilty to charges of voluntary manslaughter and attempt to commit manslaughter for his role in the same shooting."
 
US Attorney Jeffrey Taylor then spoke and we'll note this from his remarks:
 

As set forth in the indictment, the five defendants were all employed by the Armed Forces outside the United States.   Specifically, the defendants worked as independent contractors and employees of Blackwater Worldwide, a company contracted by the Department of State to provide personal security services related to supporting the Department of Defense in the Republic of Iraq, within the meaning of the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act, or MEJA.  

On September 16, 2007, the five defendants and 14 other Blackwater independent contractors were assigned to a convoy of four heavily armed trucks known as a Tactical Support Team, using the call sign Raven 23, whose function was to provide backup fire support for other Blackwater personal security guards operating in the city of Baghdad.

On September 16, 2007, at around noon, the Raven 23 convoy was responding to the detonation of a vehicle-borne improvised explosive device that had just exploded in the vicinity of a different Blackwater personal security detail located about a mile away from Nisur Square, and which was transporting a USAID protectee.   

The members of the Raven 23 convoy understood that their mission was defensive in nature.   They were not permitted to engage in offensive military actions, use the military tactic known as suppressive fire, or exercise police powers.   They also understood that they were only authorized to discharge their firearms in self-defense and as a last resort.

The four heavily-armed vehicles in the Raven 23 convoy entered Nisur Square and then positioned themselves in order to block any traffic from entering the circle.   Seconds after the Raven 23 convoy entered the traffic circle, it is alleged that at least six members of the Raven 23 convoy, including the five defendants named in the indictment, opened fire with automatic weapons and grenade launchers on unarmed civilians located in and around Nisur Square, killing, as Pat said, at least 14 persons, wounding at least 20 other individuals and assaulting but not injuring at least 18.  

The first victim was later identified as a second-year medical student named Ahmed Haithem Ahmed Al Rubia'y, who was driving a white Kia sedan that was approaching the traffic circle from the south.   The passenger of that vehicle was also shot and killed.   That victim was Dr. Al-Khazali, the mother of the driver of the vehicle.    

None of the victims of this shooting was armed.   None of them was an insurgent.   Many were shot while inside civilian vehicles that were attempting to flee from the convoy.   One victim was shot in the chest while standing in the street with his hands up.   Another was injured from a grenade fired into a nearby girls' school.   At least 18 civilian vehicles were damaged by gunfire from the convoy, some substantially.        

The indictment does not charge or implicate Blackwater Worldwide.   It charges only the actions of certain employees for their roles in the September 16 shooting.   They are Paul A. Slough, age 29, of Keller, Texas; Dustin L. Heard, 27, Maryville, Tennessee; Evan S. Liberty, 26, Rochester, New Hampshire; Nicholas A. Slatten, 23, of Sparta, Tennessee; and Donald W. Ball, 26, of West Valley City, Utah.            

All five defendants are each charged with 14 counts of voluntary manslaughter, 20 counts of attempt to commit manslaughter, and one count of using and discharging a firearm and destructive devices during and in relation to a crime of violence. The firearms included an SR-25 sniper rifle, M-4 assault rifles and M-240 machine guns. The destructive devices were M-203 grenade launchers and grenades.  

If convicted of the charges in the indictment, the defendants could face up to ten years in prison on each manslaughter count, seven years in prison on each attempted manslaughter count, and a mandatory minimum sentence of 30 years on the firearms charge.

 
Of the plea bargain, Taylor noted the man's name was Jeremy P. Ridgeway ("age 35, of California") and that it took place in DC last Friday "before Judge Ricardo Urina.  He pleaded to superseding information charging him with one count of voluntary manslaughter and one count of attempt to commit manslaughter."  There is no date scheduled for Ridgeway's sentencing at this point.
 

Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)