SHE WAS SUPPOSED TO BE A FRONT RUNNER BUT
CRANKY CLINTON IS NOW FADING IN VIRGINIA WHERE THE RESIDENTS OF THE STATE SEEM TO WANT ANYONE BUT HER.
REACHED FOR COMMENT, CRANKY DECLARED, "YEAH, WELL, I'M LIKE BROCCOLI AND THEY CAN JUST EAT ME!"
FROM THE TCI WIRE:
Wednesday, former US Senator Joe Lieberman declared, "I will just say
briefly that the very fact of this hearing is important today because
the greatest because the greatest enemy of the people in Camp Liberty is
invisibility."
What was he talking about?
The Ashraf community.
Background: As of September 2013, Camp Ashraf in Iraq is empty. All remaining members of the
community have been moved to Camp Hurriya (also known as Camp Liberty).
Camp Ashraf housed a group of Iranian dissidents who were welcomed to
Iraq by Saddam Hussein in 1986 and he gave them Camp
Ashraf and six other parcels that they could utilize. In 2003, the US
invaded Iraq.The US government had the US military lead negotiations
with the residents of Camp Ashraf. The US government wanted the
residents to disarm and the US promised protections to the point that
US actions turned the residents of Camp Ashraf into protected person
under the Geneva Conventions. This is key and demands the US defend the
Ashraf community in Iraq from attacks. The Bully Boy Bush
administration grasped that -- they were ignorant of every other law on
the books but they grasped that one. As 2008 drew to a close, the Bush
administration was given assurances from the Iraqi government that they
would protect the residents. Yet Nouri al-Maliki ordered the camp
repeatedly attacked after Barack Obama was sworn in as US President.
July 28, 2009
Nouri launched an attack (while then-US Secretary of Defense Robert
Gates was on the ground in Iraq). In a report released this summer
entitled "
Iraqi government must respect and protect rights of Camp Ashraf residents,"
Amnesty International described this assault, "Barely a month later,
on 28-29 July 2009, Iraqi security forces stormed into the camp; at
least nine residents were killed and many more were injured. Thirty-six
residents who were detained were allegedly tortured and beaten. They
were eventually released on 7 October 2009; by then they were in poor
health after going on hunger strike."
April 8, 2011,
Nouri again ordered an assault on Camp Ashraf (then-US Secretary of
Defense Robert Gates was again on the ground in Iraq when the assault
took place).
Amnesty International described the assault this way,
"Earlier this year, on 8 April, Iraqi troops took up positions within
the camp using excessive, including lethal, force against residents who
tried to resist them. Troops used live ammunition and by the end of
the operation some 36 residents, including eight women, were dead and
more than 300 others had been wounded. Following international and
other protests, the Iraqi government announced that it had appointed a
committee to investigate the attack and the killings; however, as on
other occasions when the government has announced investigations into
allegations of serious human rights violations by its forces, the
authorities have yet to disclose the outcome, prompting questions
whether any investigation was, in fact, carried out." Those weren't
the last attacks. They were the last attacks while the residents were
labeled as terrorists by the US State Dept. (
September 28, 2012, the designation was changed.) In spite of this labeling,
Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) observed that "since 2004, the United States has considered the residents of
Camp Ashraf 'noncombatants' and 'protected persons' under the Geneva
Conventions." So the US has an obligation to protect the residents.
3,300 are no longer at Camp Ashraf. They have moved to Camp Hurriyah
for the most part. A tiny number has received asylum in other
countries. Approximately 100 were still at Camp Ashraf when it was
attacked Sunday. That was the second attack this year alone.
February 9th of 2013, the Ashraf residents were again attacked, this time the ones who had been relocated to Camp Hurriyah.
Trend News Agency counted 10 dead and over one hundred injured.
Prensa Latina reported, " A rain of self-propelled Katyusha missiles hit a provisional camp of
Iraqi opposition Mujahedin-e Khalk, an organization Tehran calls
terrorists, causing seven fatalities plus 50 wounded, according to an
Iraqi official release." They were attacked again
September 1, 2013 -- two years ago.
Adam Schreck (AP) reported back then that the United Nations was able to confirm the deaths of 52 Ashraf residents.
Those in Iraq remain persecuted.
Lieberman was testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee on Wednesday (we covered part of the hearing in the
Wednesday's Iraq snapshot).
Senator John McCain is the Chair of the Committee, Senator Jack Reed
is the Ranking Member. Lieberman was one of three witnesses appearing
before the Committee. The other two were retired US Gen James Jones
and retired US Colonel Wesley Martin.
The topic was the Ashraf community still trapped in Iraq at Camp Liberty.
Senator Jeanne Shaheen: [. . . ] and to our witnesses for testifying
to what I also believe is a travesty and that we have not lived up to
the commitments that we have made to the people who are now at Camp
Liberty. I was in Iraq back in 2009 and we heard about this issue. And
I've had a chance to see the video -- a video of one of the attacks on
Camp Liberty and the people being murdered. So I think it's an area
where we need to do much more to address what has happened there. And I
don't understand why people who have relatives here are not able to
come and join their relatives and be resettled in America. So I guess I
appreciate that I'm asking you all for a subjective analysis of why the
resettlement has been so slow. But is it just beauractric foot
dragging? Is it because it has not risen to the level of some of the
people at State who can make it happen to put pressure on Iraq to
release the residents of Camp Liberty? Or is there something else going
on? And General Jones or Senator Lieberman, I don't know if either of
you have a perspective on that?
General James Jones: Senator, I don't know the answer to that. All I
know is that for the last several years, things that look like they're
finally going to move are replaced by another obstacle. The-the
delisting of the MEK [a decision then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton
made under pressure from the US courts] would be the end of it but it
was replaced by another listing [a designation by the Dept of Homeland
Security classifying the MEK as "third tier" -- a listing that is in
violation of the court order served on then Secretary of State Clinton]
-- that was, somewhat, in my view arbitrary. But it has served to delay
the process even more. I don't think the Iraqi government has been
particularly helpful. They-they play cat and mouse with the residents.
Sometimes they deny food, they deny protection, they turn off the
water, they don't take out the trash or garbage for days on end. It's
just a constant problem. But I really think that the real answer is for
someone in authority to just make a decision, "Enough, we're going to
do the right thing. We made a commitment to these people. We didn't
live up to it. It's time to finish it." And I think it's that simple.
It's a humanitarian gesture. I frankly don't care what the Iranians
think about this. I think it's the right thing to do.
Senator Jeanne Shaheen: Senator Lieberman, one of the things I have
heard from relatives of people at Camp Liberty that they're very
concerned about is this requirement that they renounce MEK and concerned
about what that might mean in the future and if somebody could use that
and come back to address their ability to come back and live in the
United States? I've not had anybody explain that to me adequately why
that is something people are being requested to do. Have you had
anybody explain to you why that's so important?
Senator Joe Lieberman: I have not. First, Senator Shaheen, let me
thank you for the leadership that you've shown on this matter. You've
been a real great advocate for the people in Camp Liberty and I know
their families and friends appreciate it a lot. This requirement of
renouncing membership in an organization that is no longer considered a
threat or a terrorist organization by any means -- and really there are
questions of whether it should ever have been on the list of terrorist
organizations seems to me to be very unAmerican. It's like a -- it's a
belief test. It seems contrary to the First Amendment. And the truth is
that there are a lot of people there in Camp Liberty who've had a long
history with the MEK. As I mentioned, they're-they're freedom fighters.
I mean, they were against the Shah [of Iran] for part of the
revolution and then they turned against the Ayatollah because they
replaced one dictatorship with a worse dictatorship. So I have never --
to what extent members of Congress can to push the State Dept to
explain that or really to rescind that because it's an unfair obstacle
and you've made a good point: It's going to raise insecurity in the
minds of people coming into the country that somehow this is going to
come back three, four, five years from now and they may be subject to
deportation. I-I would say to you, Senator King, the State Dept if they
were here now would not question the promises made to the residents of
Camp Ashraf and then Camp Liberty.
Senator King?
Lieberman was referring to an earlier and lengthy exchange that took
place which included King noting that no one from the administration was
present to testify.
Senator Angus King: Several times you gentlemen used the term "the US
made assurances," the term "solemn promise,""guarantee," and Col
Martin, you mentioned a card. What did that card say? I'd like to know
specifically: what assurances were delivered, by whom and when?
Colonel Wesley Martin: Yes, sir. This was the protected persons
status under the Geneva Convention. And I have a copy of it. If you
give me a second, I can find it real quick.
Senator Angus King: Well I'd like to know what is says.
Colonel Wesley Martin: Okay.
Senator Angus King: What I'm searching for here is what are the
assurances specifically and who delivered them and when. I think that's
a fair question given that seems to be the premise of this discussion.
Colonel Wesley Martin: "This card holder is protected person under
the agreement of the Fourth Geneva Convention. Should the assigned
person" uh, it's a little blurry "should an incident occur, we request
that the person contact the [US] military police brigade." And then it
goes on the agreement that they made: "You are being offered your
release from control and protection in exchange for your promise to
comply with certain regulations." And it clearly states they are
protected, they will not be -- they will not be arrested, they will not
be harmed.
Senator Angus King: What did they have to do?
Colonel Wesley Martin: And what they had to do, sir, is go ahead and sign an agreement --
Senator Angus King: That's when they were moved from Ashraf to Liberty?
Colonel Wesley Martin: No, sir. That was a whole set of different
promises. If I may, sir, Senator McCain, [holding clipped stack of
papers], if I could, I'd like to make this submitted for the record.
Senator Angus King: Well you can make it for the record but I want to know who made assurances --
Colonel Wesley Martin: Yes, sir.
Senator Angus King (Con't): -- and what those assurances were. And
saying they were protected person under the Geneva Convention isn't a
promise that the US will take you in. I just want to understand what
the promise is that we're being urged to honor.
Colonel Wesley Martin: Yes, sir. I understand. The first one is
they would be protected and they would remain at Camp Ashraf. That was
2004. That was with the US State Dept in agreement with the United
States Dept of Defense and [then-Secretary of Defense Donald] Rumsfeld
was the person that finally approved it -- but working with the State
Dept. The person that issued those cards, working with the Embassy, was
US Brigadier General David Phillips --
Senator Angus King: But it is your position that this Geneva
Convention of being a protected person constitutes a solemn promise of
the United States to look after these people indefinitely?
Senator Joe Lieberman: Part of this was -- correct me, Wes -- that
these people gave up their arms. They were disarmed. And that was part
of a post-Saddam [Hussein] policy in Iraq. Gen Odierno was actually
involved in some ways -- not at the higher level he ultimately reached
-- but he was on the ground in these negotiations. I'll tell you,
Senator King, to me one of the most compelling -- I've had it happen two
or three times -- most compelling moments in my own understanding -- or
getting more understanding of what happened here was to hear leaders of
the US military -- including Gen Phillips, but that includes people on
up who were Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff at the time standing
up and saying at a public meeting, 'We made a promise to these people
and we broke it.' I mean --
Senator Angus King: Well all I'm looking for was what was the
promise, when was it made and who made it? Perhaps you could submit
that for the record? That's what I'm interested in.
Colonel Wesley Martin: We can do that, sir.
Senator Angus King: I'd appreciate it.
Colonel Wesley Martin: And matter of fact, I just did.
Senator Angus King: The other -- the other piece that I want to
follow up on is that I'm a little uncomfortable with this hearing
because we don't have anyone here from the administration. I'm old
enough to realize that they're are always two sides to every story and
you've made a very strong case. In fact, the case is so strong, you
have to wonder why isn't this -- what wasn't this taken care of some
time ago? And there must be some reason and I would like to hear --
perhaps, Mr. Chairman, we could solicit the comments of the
administration, the State Dept or the Dept of Homeland Security to
determine why this hasn't been dealt with? I'm just -- Again, I'm not
taking any side here but I-I-I'm uncomfortable not hearing both sides of
the situation.
Colonel Wesley Martin: Yes, sir. If I may, Congressman Dana
Roehbacher offered them the chance of what you speak of. I would be at
the table along with Colonel Gary Marsh and a representative of the
State Dept. They refused. I would love to sit at a table in front of
you ladies and gentlemen and go through the issues with the US State
Dept. Every time we have made that offer, they've refused. Earlier
your question was the promises, the series of promises, especially in
2012 from [Secretary of State's Special Advisor on Camp Ashraf] Dan
Fried that these actions would be taken to get them out of harms way.
He came to us. And General Jones was on the phone calls as well as
myself, [former FIB Director] Louis Freeh, [former Pennsylvania]
Governor [Tom] Ridge, [former Governor of Pennsylvania] Ed Rendall,
[former Governor of Vermont] Howard Dean and many others -- and [retired
General and former Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff] Hugh Shelton and
others actually. And 'we will do this, we will do this.' And even one
of the promises: "We're going to be out at that Camp on a continual
basis." And I have that one in writing in this packet.
Senator Angus King: Well I understand. And I understand that the
circumstances have changed because of Iran's influence in Iraq at this
moment and that that raises the level of, as you said, stress in this
situation and, perhaps, urgency. I fully understand that. I just want
to get some of the details and some of the background. And I want to
understand why -- if it's so obvious -- we should do this that it's not
being done.
King's time had run out. Committee Chair McCain attempted to clarify a point.
Chair John McCain: I will just mention, Senator, that we have been
trying for years to get the State Dept to react -- correspondence,
meetings -- every method that I know of besides a Congressional hearing
-- to try to get this issue resolved and these people who are now in
greater and greater danger what we promised them. And, I've got to say
Colonel Martin, you didn't exactly describe it. That was in return for
-- That guarantee was in return for their giving up their weapons and in
giving up their weapons we said we would guarantee their safety and
gave them, under the Geneva Conventions. But that doesn't mean anything
other than that the United States used that as a rationale for
guaranteeing their protection. And it's been going on now for years and
-- Go ahead, General, go ahead, please.
Gen James Jones: I just wanted to say that we have worked diligently
with the administration on a regular basis, on a daily basis. All of
Colonel Martin's reports have been sent both to the National Security
Council and the State Dept. And there are three of us at the table but
it's part of a larger group including six former Ambassadors, a former
Director of the FBI, a former Attorney General, 8 five-star generals,
one former Speaker of the House, four former governors, six members of
Congress, one White House Chief of Staff,
Some may have been bothered by McCain's clarification/lecture. But at
least it wasn't like his September 29th outburst during an Armed
Services Committee hearing when Director of National Intelligence James
Clapper was not prepared to get too outraged (publicly, anyway) over
cyber propaganda aimed at US (or 'US' -- most are offshore) companies
when the US is doing the exact same thing. This prompted a loud lecture
from McCain that "glass houses" is not an argument for doing nothing.
(Which, for the record, is not the point Clapper was making. He was
attempting to say both sides engage in corporate espionage and he wasn't
willing to grandstand on the topic as a result.)
One of the moments from the hearing that should especially be noted?
Colonel Wesley Martin: [Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-]Abadi, as I
mentioned before, is very weak. And this is a golden opportunity for
the United States to pressure him into allowing the residents to leave
and for us to bring all the residents here. As I mentioned, there are
enough families throughout the United States, we can absorb all of them.
And when you think of all the torment and all the horror they have had
to go through for the past three, four years especially -- well since
2009 -- and yet they still remain loyal hoping that we will be able to
do something to lift them out of that tyranny. It's time to bring them
out. And it's only a matter of time before the fight between [former
Iraqi prime minister and forever thug Nouri al-]Maliki and al-Abadi is
going to come to a head. And I fear Maliki has the strong support of
the militias, Abadi will be out.
RECOMMENDED: "
Can you avoid realities while talking the KRG?"
"
Hejira"
"
Iraq snapshot"
"
Outrage over ‘war crime’ as US bombs kill 22 peopl..."
"
Silence on Shi'ite militia violence, gossip when t..."
"
A twittering fool tries to rewrite Iraq"
"
Arrow"
"
The Originals returns White, White and more White BlackActorsMatter#"
"
heroes reborn and scandal"
"
Keystone Barack"
"
Hillary is disgusting"
"
Idiots of the week"
"
Janet debuts at number one"
"
John Feffer's still a punk ass"
"
She's so . . . unpopular"
"
Empire"
"
The attack on pensions"
"
THIS JUST IN! THE CRANKY HITS THE FAN!"
"
Hillary gets caught lying again"
