Saturday, March 16, 2013

Talking Iraq

C.I.: This is an Iraq roundtable.  From time to time, over the years, we've done these on Iraq and on Afghanistan.  This roundtable will go up at all the sites of the people participating.  It was last minute.  Here's who is participating:  The Third Estate Sunday Review's Jim and Ava;  Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude; Betty of Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man; C.I. of The Common Ills and The Third Estate Sunday Review; Kat of Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills); Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix; Elaine of Like Maria Said Paz); Ruth of Ruth's Report; Trina of Trina's Kitchen; Wally of The Daily Jot; Marcia of SICKOFITRDLZ; Stan of Oh Boy It Never Ends; Isaiah of The World Today Just Nuts; Ann of Ann's Mega Dub. and
I'm C.I. of The Common Ills and The Third Estate Sunday Review.  A few basics.  Ava is taking notes.  When I'm not speaking, I'll be helping her there.  We thank her for the note taking.  Her stipulation for participation was she didn't want to speak.  That's more than fine.


 From Samarra من سامراء

C.I. (Con't): We're using as an illustration a photograph of brave Iraqis in Samarra holding a message for the world -- and this photo belongs to Iraqi Spring MC. They are the official voice for the Iraqi Spring.  The message is four sentences: "Obama, If you Cannot Hear Us Can you Not See Us? Wake Up, this is an IRAQI REVOLUTION Not a Sectarian One! Iraqis Did not Vote for an Iranian Dictatorship Women Rights in Democratic Iraq Are NON-EXISTENT!"

Marcia: What I found interesting was that the sign was in English -- and I was briefly puzzled, but then Ava told me --

Ava: To get the message out in the US, you pretty much have to put it in English.  We're not France or Germany in that we can claim to speak multiple languages in large numbers.

Marcia: And of everyone participating in this, C.I.'s the only one who reads and speaks Arabic.  Let me clear that up, we don't read it and we don't speak it.  Rebecca, Elaine, Ann, Ruth, Ava and Wally speak more than one language.  And for a group our size, that may be out of the norm -- we should probably, to be fully representative of America, have fewer who speak more than just English.  But that was smart of the protesters to realize that and I really love that we'll all be reposting this roundtable at our sites and the thing that even the casual observer will see is this massive protest in Samarra and the sign they're holding.

Ann: I think it was also smart to put Barack Obama into the sign.  It's smart because he does have a responsibility but it's also smart because it grabs Americans and plays on the reality that we are responsible -- along with England and Australia -- for the illegal war.  I think it's smart and great that it gets Barack's name up there right at the start.

C.I.: You're saying, Ann, that there is guilt to be shared in America and that it plays to that guilt.

Ann: Right.  It pulls you in.  As an American, I read it and know my country started this continuing crime against the Iraqi people and by bringing in the American leader and basically saying, "What are you going to do?" -- it kicks the responsibility over to where it belongs. 


 Ruth: I agree and I am also impressed with the size of the turnout.  This has been going on for months now, correct?

C.I.: Yes, since December 21st.  Prior to that, in December, Moqtada al-Sadr, cleric and movement leader, had been insulted by Nouri al-Maliki, thug and prime minister.  This had led his followers to take to the streets in large numbers.  But in terms of ongoing protests, it's December 21st.

Ruth: And they have grown.  They are sizable and this despite the fact that these protesters are targeted by Nouri's forces.

Cedric:  January 25th, they were assaulted in Falluja and nine were killed.  March 8th, 3 were killed in the attack in Mosul. And they were attacked by Nouri's forces.  It's really amazing that we're sending Nouri weapons, we're spending billions of US dollars to prop up his government and he's attacking his own people.

Kat: It really is pathetic.  And we were forewarned.  What did Joe Biden say?

C.I.: When he was still in the Senate?

Kat: Uh-huh.

C.I.: April 10, 2008 he noted that the US was being asked "to take sides in Iraq's civil war" and, among other things, "We want to normalize a government that really doesn't exist."

Kat: And now he's vice president.  And I'd just love an interviewer to read those comments back to him and ask him what the hell he thinks the US is doing in Iraq today?  And I'm sick of liars like R. Jeffrey Smith -- in fact, since 2008, the so-called Center for Public Integrity has been one big joke.

Jim: I agree with you about the laughable Center for Public Integrity.  What did Smith do?

Kat: Wrote an idiotic article.  To believe his garbage and others, you have to be monumentally stupid and believe the US stopped spending money in Iraq under Bush.  It didn't stop spending in 2011.  It still spends.  And we've got no real oversight of that money so you'd think a real reporter would be noting that.  R. Jeffrey Smith is just another partisan whore, he's not a reporter.

Trina: Like Kat, I'm sick of all that crud.  I'm sick of these jerks and asses who think they can write their anti-Bush rhetoric and pretend like they did something.

Ava: Jumping in again even though I said I wouldn't.  Trina, you're not saying you're pro-Bush, clarify that because some reader will misunderstand.

Trina: Thank you.  No, I'm not pro-Bush.  But I'm sick of these writer who write their partisan whoring.  There's a lot to blame Barack on -- and not just voting on all the funding as a senator.  There's a lot to blame him on as president.  It's when he's president that Nouri loses the vote but Barack forces him off on Iraqis -- via The Erbil Agreement -- as a prime minister for another term.  It is under Barack, not Bully Boy Bush, that Iraq's Emo youth and LGBT community is targeted with death in such ghastly and public ways that it actually gets serious media attention.  And the White House response?  Never to speak of it.

Marcia: I see something like that and just wonder how anyone can get away with that.  Barack has been so awful for human rights around the world.  And with Iraq wanting those F-16s next year -- over 30 in all -- I'd say the White House could do a lot to improve human rights in Iraq by setting serious conditions before the delivery of even one jet.

C.I.: Last week, Ruth wrote "Brett McGurk spits in Iraqi women's faces,"  Rebecca, any thoughts?


Rebecca: Brett McGurk was Barack's third nominee to be US Ambassador to Iraq in Barack's first term.  He didn't become the ambassador.  Turned out, he had an inappropriate relationship with a reporter, Gina Chon, while he was in Iraq during the Bush years.  In Iraq, there is such a thing as 'honor' killings.  That's where someone thinks I've brought disgrace to our family so a family member kills me.  Brett McGurk is now known in Iraq as the adulterer.  As the American who came to Iraq and didn't respect the sanctity of marriage.  To be clear, I've divorced multiple times.  I'm not talking here about my own values.  I'm talking about Iraq.  Which would have been the host country if McGurk had been confirmed as ambassador.  Now it's being reported that Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Iraq and Iran will be McGurk.  As you've pointed out, there's no way he goes to Iraq and women are comfortable around him.  They have a private meeting with him and it's "Slut! You've disgraced the family!"  And the woman could be killed just for meeting -- or being thought to have met -- with Brett McGurk.  Why would you want to select anyone for a post if you knew that half the country would be unable to interact with the person?

Isaiah: What McGurk has going for him in Barack's mind is that McGurk and Nouri are tight.  Iraqiya lodged a complaint when the administration first announced McGurk was the nominee for US Ambassador to Iraq.  This time around, I think if they were to launch a campaign like, "Keep Iraqi women safe, Keep Brett McGurk out of Iraq," it would be enough to kill his chances of being the Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Iraq and Iran.

C.I.: Isaiah, why do you feel that Barack sees the close relationship McGurk and Nouri have as a good thing?

Isaiah: Because Barack's primary goal is to preserve Nouri as prime minister.

Wally: Right, they're not even -- the administration -- saying anything about Nouri's decision to run for a third term.  That's not announced but it's known by the fact that the law Parliament just passed limiting the prime minister to two terms is one Nouri keeps appealing to the federal court.


Stan: And as Wally knows, it also -- that law -- covers the president of Iraq and the Speaker of Parliment.  All three are limited to two terms.  The Constitution already limited the president.


Wally: Right.  What we see under Barack is a disregard for the safety and comfort of the Iraqi people.  He just wants to keep the puppet installed and he will -- and he has -- overlook anything in order to keep Nouri in power.

Stan: I feel very sorry for the Iraqi people.

Wally: Support.

Stan: They went to the polls in 2010 and their voters were tossed aside because Barack had to have Nouri get a second term.  Can you imagine that? Some pushy foreigners invade your country, tear it apart and tell you, 'hey, we brought you democracy!'  Then you go to vote in the elections, you risk violence, and what happens is that your vote gets tossed aside because those same damn foreigners who invaded now refuse to let your country's voice be heard.  How could you even use the term democracy after that except as a punch line to a bad joke?

C.I.: Strong points all.  Stan, last week you wrote about counter-insurgency in  "What the US government did in Iraq," Did you want to talk about that?

Stan: Well you and Ava covered the documentary  James Steele: America's Myster Man In Iraq   in "TV: The War Crimes Documentary" and I think that really captures it.  My point in writing that post was really just to be on record calling out counter-insurgency.  And I think if people really gave a damn about political prisoner and whistle blower Bradley Manning, they would talk about the realities of counter-insurgency.  That doesn't happen and so I wanted to be on record and I also wanted to back up you and Elaine who have covered this topic for years.

C.I.: I agree with you, Stan, it is important to be on the record opposing counter-insurgency.  It amazes me that we think a 'debate' is on whether it's effective or not and not on how outrageous war on a native people itself is.  Mike, Elaine and Betty haven't spoken yet.  So, as we wind down, I want to toss to them.  What is the story that stands out most to you with regards to the Iraq War?  Betty, would you like to go first?

Betty: I certainly would.  I'll go with  the March 12, 2006, gang-rape and murder of Abeer Qassim Hamza al-Janabi.  To me that really was one of the biggest stories.  Also one of the most telling.  For any who don't know, Abeer was a young teenager.  14-years-old.  And American soldiers, with Steven D. Green as ringleader, plotted to rape her.  They entered her family home, the gang-rape began with two soldiers -- one holding Abeer down while the other had his turn at rape -- and Green went into the other room with the parents and Abeer's five-year-old sister.  Abeer was being raped and could hear the gun shots -- and probably the screams -- of her parents and her baby sister as she was being raped.  And how awful that she's being gang-raped but she also knows that she's going to die.  At that moment, she knows.  "I must get out of this"?  That line from Tori Amos' "Me and A Gun."  Where the woman is getting raped and she's thinking about bisquits and anything else to try to leave her body during this horrific crime and she's telling herself "I must get out of this."  But before the gang-rape was over, Abeer knew she wouldn't.  She heard the gun shots and I'm sure there were screams and cries and that she heard those as well. 

Mike: Right.  She hears all of that, like Betty said.  And I agree, there were screams and cries.  Steven D. Green is shooting the little five-year-old girl, the mother and the father.  I would assume that the father being the strongest that he shoots him first.  And that has the mother and daughter screaming and crying.  And Abeer hears that gun shot and the cries and screams.  Then another gun shot.  Then a third.  And nothing.  And then Steven D. Green's in the room and the other two US soldiers step away and Green begins raping Abeer.  And she knows this man raping her is the man who just killed her parents and her kid sister.  And she knows he's going to kill her.  And he does.  Then, to try to hide their War Crimes, they set her body on fire.  It's just disgusting.  And it's really like the story of the illegal war.  America was going to 'help.' And Green was stationed in the corner of Abeer's block to provide security, to 'help.'  And instead, he starts lusting after this 14-year-old girl, staring at her, he can't keep his hands to himself and she complains to her parents and they get a relative who'll take Abeer in.  But the night before she leaves, Green and company break into her house and that's that.

Elaine: I'm going to agree with Betty and Mike.  I think it was telling.  I think Mike's right about how it is basically a metaphor for the US actions in Iraq.   I agree with Betty's logical conclusion that Abeer heard screams and cries while she was being raped -- and gun shots.  But what I'd point out was that we saw the reaction to Abeer.

C.I.: Which was?

Elaine: Silence.  Jane Fonda gave a great speech about her.  But Women's Media Center, which Fonda's a part of, could have amplified the speech, could have given the story life.  They ignored it.  So many other outlets did as well.  There were several military trials of the soldiers involved.  Steven D. Green, the ringleader, had a civilian trial because he'd already left the military.  There was no rush to cover it.  This is after the others have confessed their crimes.  Green is the last one tried.  The Nation wasn't interested, Democracy Now! didn't give a damn.  That's just to name a few.  My point being that the War Crimes -- and that's what was done to Abeer and her family, War Crimes -- were ignored by the bulk of the media.  This let us know how unimportant Iraq was to so many in the press -- no matter how often they used it during a pledge cycle to beg for more money.

C.I.: Okay.  If I missed anyone, now's your chance to say so?  No one.  Okay, I promised Jim he could wrap it up.

Jim: The big takeaway for me with Iraq isn't that the US screwed things up in 2003.  It's that the US continues to screw things up.  The US government has prevented the 2010 election results from being honored, to give one example.  And there's been too much appeasing Nouri.  I want everyone reading this to get that we have called out the appeasement of Nouri al-Maliki. If he gets a third term, as he wants, he's in for life.  He moves from Little Saddam to Big Saddam.  I want people to realize that and realize that it was called out in real time.  The US puppets don't turn into tyrants over time.  They're selected to be installed because they already are tyrants.  And 20 years from now when President Lady GaGa is saying we have to invade Iraq to save the Iraqis from Nouri al-Maliki, I want people to remember that everyone didn't stick their heads in the sand and play dumb in real time.

C.I.: Alright.  Thank you, Jim.  This is a rush transcript and we thank everyone who participated.  Most of all, we thank the Iraqi people for their courage and strength to go on day after day, even after repeatedly facing the wrath of the US government.






Here's C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"

 
Friday, March 15, 2013.  Chaos and violence continue, even Thug Nouri can't stop the ongoing protests in Iraq, Iraqis continue to suffer, Victoria Nuland is not an uninterested party in the Iraq War, John Stauber returns to tell truth, Iraq Veterans Against the War organizes an event, and more.


From yesterday's State Dept press briefing:


QUESTION: Yes, can we go to Iraq?

MS. NULAND: We can.
QUESTION: Yes, of course there was a lot of explosions today (inaudible), but on the eve of the war, the Costs of War project by Watson Institute of International Studies at Brown University issued an assessment that the war cost $2 trillion – quite staggering – and could conceivably cost $6 billion, with, like, 123,000 civilian Iraqis dead and many, many others.
So I wanted to ask you what – on the 10th anniversary, what are the lessons learned for U.S. foreign policy and indeed, the implications?
MS. NULAND: I think we’ll have more to say as we get closer to the 10th anniversary. But the path to the relationship that the U.S. and Iraq have today has obviously been challenging, but through our sustained efforts, we’ve now forged a strategically important bilateral relationship, one that continues to be a top priority for us, a top priority for Iraq. The challenges are complex. They remain.
But as compared to where we were in the Saddam era, we now have a bilateral security agreement, we have deep economic interests and ties, we have a security relationship, we have a political relationship. Both countries have made enormous sacrifices to get us where we are and to start this new chapter, but we’re committed to Iraq for the long term and we’re committed to its prosperity, its unity and integrity, and to its ability to be a strong democracy in the region.
QUESTION: The Syrian-Iraqi border is becoming a lawless frontier, and in fact, the U.S. is probably aiding the government in trying to control some of the al-Qaida elements that control actually both sides of this frontier. And at the same time, there is a possible breakaway by the KRG, they’re threatening, and so on. I wonder what you’re doing, or if you could share with us some of the things that you are doing, one, to convince the KRG to remain confederated with Iraq, and second, to help the Iraqis control their border?
MS. NULAND: First, with regard to our contacts with the KRG, you know that we maintain a broad and deep relationship with them. We are in constant contact with them, as we are with all of the major leaders and groups in Iraq. And our message to all of them is the same, that the Iraqi constitution calls for a unified country where the groups can coexist, can make political compromises with each other, that there’s a lot of work undone. And we are encouraging all sides to continue the dialogue about how Iraq can move forward, and particularly in the area of completing its work on energy, et cetera, so that all Iraqis can benefit from that.
QUESTION: Thank you.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MS. NULAND: Thank you very much.

UPI turns the above into Iraq being called "better off" by "a U.S. State Department spokeswoman said."


But that's not accurate.  As we noted back in November 2004 when explaining why NPR shouldn't have brought Robert Kagan on to 'analyze' then-Senator John Kerry's run for president on the Democratic Party's ticket:


What is Kagan's conflict of interest appearance? (An issue NPR has still not addressed.) It's not that he writes an op-ed for The Washington Post. Dvorkin does toss out the "hawk" issue but without ever addressing it. But he also doesn't address a very important fact: who is Robert Kagan married to?

He's married to Victoria Nuland. For all I know, she's a wonderful person. But that's not the issue. The issue is who Ms. Nuland works for. Want to take a guess on that?

Did you guess Dick Cheney? If you did, you may be more informed than Dvorkin or Montagne because possibly they are unaware of that fact. Possibly, they haven't done the basic work required -- Montagne to know about the "guest" she is introducing; Dvorkin to address the issue of Kagan as a commentator/interpreter of John Kerry's remarks.

Michele Norris' husband worked for the Kerry campaign. (Warning: we're going down a very basic road here. But apparently, it's not one that NPR can navigate by themselves so let's move slowly to allow them to keep up.) Since Norris' husband is involved with attempting to get what we will call "team A" into the White House, Norris has the appearance of a conflict of interest and her reporting duties can not include commenting or covering the campaigns. That's a simple path to follow whether you agree with it or not.

But with Kagan, the path has a huge u-turn and veers off to God knows where. Kagan's wife works as Cheney's deputy national security adviser. That's Ms. Nuland' s title. So in effect, Ms. Nuland's employed by "team B" -- she's apparently not working on team B's campaign, but she works for team B. Potentially, Kagan has a vested interest in the outcome of the 2004 election.



Robert Kagan is a neocon.  He's the husband of the woman who was Dick Cheney's deputy national security adviser.   Victoria Nuland is a neocon. While she's a State Dept spokesperson -- proving that failure is the only thing DC rewards -- Nuland also was part of the team plotting the Iraq War.  So when UPI bills her just as State Dept spokesperson, that's really not accurate.  Many years ago, Jebediah Reed did an article for Radar about who made money by supporting the Iraq War and The Nation's Jonathan Schell pointed out, "There doesn't seem to be a rush to find the people who were right about Iraq and install them in the mainstream media."  It's really telling how welcoming the 'peace' candidate of 2008 has been to neocons (Robert Kagan's an adviser and his language often pops up in Barack's speeches, such as his 2012 State of the Union speech).


Here we've noted that we could have really become something in the '00s on the left.  Instead, we became the photographic negative image of all we loathed about the right in the nineties.  (We most recently pointed that out here.)  John Stauber, one of the real truth tellers, returns today with a piece at CounterPunch that should shame so many of the faux left:


Think hard.  Think about fundamental, radical, democratic, social and economic change, who might bring it about and how.  Ask yourself if the the rich elite, the 1%, are going to fund that.   Leave The Nation and Mother Jones on the shelf;  turn off Ed Schultz, Rachel Madow and Chris Hayes;  don’t open that barrage of email missives from Alternet, Media Matters, MoveOn, and the other think tanks;  and get your head out of the liberal blogosphere for a couple days.  Clear your mind and consider this:
The self-labeled Progressive Movement that has arisen over the past decade is primarily one big propaganda campaign serving the political interests of the the Democratic Party’s richest one-percent who created it.  The funders and owners of the Progressive Movement get richer and richer off Wall Street and the corporate system.  But they happen to be Democrats, cultural and social liberals who can’t stomach Republican policies, and so after bruising electoral defeats a decade ago they decided to buy a movement, one just like the Republicans, a copy.

His analysis of Occupy will have many crying -- and a few names (especially two attorneys who host a radio show and whored for Occupy) on the left cr**ping their pants.    We'll note the section on the Iraq War:


After the 2004 flop of the Kerry/Edwards campaign, luck shone on the Democrats.  The over-reach of the neoconservatives, the failure to find those weapons of mass deception (sic),  the endless wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, turned American public opinion,  especially among the young, against the Republicans.  Growing anti-war sentiment, which had little to do with the organized anti-war movement, delivered to the Democrats what Governor Mario Cuomo called “The Gift.”  The horrific Iraq war, he explained to a Democracy Alliance gathering, was the gift that allowed the Democrats to take control of the US Congress.
It was at this point in early 2007 that the truly dark and cynical agenda of the professional Progressive Movement and the Democratic Party revealed itself.  Under Pelosi the Democrats could have cut off funding for Bush’s unpopular wars and foreign policy.  Instead,  with PR cover provided by MoveOn and their lobbyist Tom Matzzie, the Democratic Congress gave George Bush all the money he wanted to continue his wars.  For the previous five years MoveOn had branded itself as the leader of the anti-war movement, building lists of millions of liberals, raising millions of dollars, and establishing itself in the eyes of the corporate media as leaders of the US peace movement.  Now they helped the Democrats fund the war,  both betting that the same public opposition to the wars that helped them win control of the House in 2006 could win the Presidency in 2008.

We didn't get change because change was never defined.  They offered a ink blot that people could project onto. Change means end the war to you?  Oh, sure then, that's what it means?  Strengthening labor unions?  Oh, sure that's exactly what it means!  And to go with the ink blot campaign, a cypher candidate. 

One who has no appreciation for democracy.  The Iraqi people went to the polls in March 2010 and Nouri and his State of Law came in second to Ayad Allawi's Iraqiya.  Instead of urging Nouri to step down, Barack Obama backed him for a second term he hadn't earned.  For eight months, the political system was paralyzed because Nouri would not step aside.  Then Barack had officials work on the US-brokered Erbil Agreement which circumvented the Constitution and the will of the people to award Nouri a second term.

Yasmine Bahrani (McClatchy Newspapers) offers a take on the illegal war:
The most common excuse given is that there was bad intelligence. Recently on a documentary called "Hubris: The Selling of the Iraq War" was shown on MSNBC, a major planner of the war, Colin Powell's chief of staff Lawrence Wilkerson, said there had been a hoax Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. We wonder whether his "stuff happens" explanation is acceptable.
Personally I was opposed to the war not because I had any inside information but because I worried about my relatives in Iraq. Most of them told me they were glad to be rid of Saddam Hussein, and soon after the invasion, I tried to give the new Iraq a chance. However 10 years on, those same relatives, who were comfortable before the war, still don't have electricity, water or security. Car bombs explode fairly regularly and kill innocents at markets, schools and other civilian locations. Human Rights Watch charges that the regime is violating the rights of vulnerable citizens, especially women and Christians.
They agree life under Saddam Hussein was difficult, but it has become more difficult under Nouri al-Maliki. On the anniversary, the Iraqi people I know are asking why their choice must be limited to the two evils of tyranny and chaos.

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/03/15/185964/iraq-war-anniversary-and-shades.html#storylink=cpy

Iraqi's have suffered under Little Saddam and, these days, they're beginning to ask questions of Barack.





Obama, If you Cannot Hear Us Can you Not See Us?

Wake Up, this is an IRAQI REVOLUTION Not a Sectarian One!

Iraqis Did not Vote for an Iranian Dictatorship

Women Rights in Democratic Iraq Are NON-EXISTENT!



The above is what was written on a large sign protesters in Samarra carried in today's demonstration.

When will Barack hear the voices of the Iraqis, crying out for freedom?  As he continues to arm Little Saddam (Nouri al-Maliki), as plans continue to provide Nouri with F-16s, it's really past time Americans said "NO!" to supporting authoritarian regimes.  Protesters have been shot dead for the 'crime' of protesting.  But still the protests continue.  At what point does the US President recognize the suffering and stop playing footsie with Nouri al-Maliki?

Who knows but the protesters got a little more support today with photographic evidence of Abu Ghraib -- now back under Iraqi management.  In this photo, is that guard carrying an actual rubber hose?  That's what it appears.  There are several photos Iraq Revolution has posted of Abu Ghraib.  Is that supposed to pass for morning prayers?  The US Gulag at Guantanamo Bay doesn't even (publicly) allow the prisoners to be forced into that mockery and desecration of morning prayers as evidenced by this Reuters photo by Deborah Gembara.  Why do they protest?  Maybe one answer is found in Mustafa al-Kadhimi's report for Al Monitor:


It was not easy for Bashir Ali, 55, to recall what he lived through when he was in the prisons of Saddam Hussein’s regime during the 1980s. He could not hold back his tears when he recalled being raped to force him to confess for plotting against the regime and for belonging to the Islamic Dawa party. But when he compares Iraq back then to what it is today, what he says is surprising: “Ten years after Saddam Hussein’s regime has ended, what we have is not better.”
Ali, a Shiite from southern Iraq, is an unusual witness because he does not look at things from the perspective of his personal tragedy. He said, “Today, there are no public services, no security, and Iraq is on the brink of civil war. We are almost at an impasse. Yes Saddam was unjust, but his reign provided security and public services. The regime that succeeded him has betrayed our dream in having security and stability.”





Today's protests were noted on Twitter:



WOW. Massive protests in #Samara, #Iraq, against Maliki's regime and corruption. Dozens thousands of protesters! http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?feature=share&v=TNDTWvDhmqY …

Expand
 
In Baghdad efforts were once again made  to stop the citizens from exercising their rights to protest -- and, as Ayad Allawi (leader of Iraqiya) has previously pointed out -- to stop them from exercising their rights to worship.  Alsumaria notes efforts to prevent worshippers from reaching mosques.  Sameer N. Yacoub (AP) adds that federal police "used batons and water hoses" in an attempt to prevent Sunnis "from reaching a prominent mosque in northern Baghdad."   Iraqi Spring MC notes that worshipers were prevented from utilizing Ramadan Bridge to enter Adhamiya.  AP notes at least five protesters wounded on the bridge and quotes Abdul-Rahman al-Azzawi stating, "We were showed with water and the policemen started to beat us.  I do not know the reason behind this savage attack.  We were only going to a mosque, not to al-Maliki's office in the Green Zone."  Al Jazeera adds:




Iraqi security forces had prevented worshippers from holding Friday prayers at the mosque last week as well, a development that reflects heightened sectarian tensions nearly a decade after the US invasion of Iraq.
Abdul-Rahman al-Azzawi was among of a group of people who tried to cross the 14th of Ramadan bridge when they were met by security forces.
"We were showered with water and the policemen started to beat us,'' he said.
"I do not know the reason behind this savage attack. We were only going to a mosque, not to al-Maliki's office in the Green Zone,'' referring to the heavily secured quarter in the center of Baghdad where many officials have their offices.


Despite these efforts, National Iraqi News Agency reports Speaker of Parliament Osama al-Nujaifi and Iraqiya MPs Salman Jumaili and Dhafi al-Aani took part in worship at Abu Hanifa Mosque in Adhamiya. Mohammad Sabah (Al Mada) reports that Speaker of Parliament Osama al-Nujaifi demanded that federal forces open a road to allow the protesters to enter.   Iraqi Spring MC offers a photo of others who made it to the mosque in Adhmiya.

National Iraqi News Agency reports the Ramadi protesters today arrested a man who was attempting to burn protesters cars and they "handed him over to Aljazeerah police station in Ramadi."  They note that, unlike some of the federal forces, they did not torture the man, simply placed him under arrest.  Roy Gutman (McClatchy Newspapers) reports from Ramadi:


Along both shoulders of the road, the tribal leaders have erected more than 100 canvas tents, where they display posters with their 17 demands, all couched as fitting within current legal order. There s a threat, however, of other means: A hand-painted banner at a political rally that followed a recent religious servicesummed up the mood best: “Beware the patient man, if he gets angry.”

Read more here: http://www.sanluisobispo.com/2013/03/15/2431310/10-years-after-iraq-invasion-sunnis.html#storylink=cpy


Protests also took place in Jalawlaa, Baquba, Falluja, Samarra, Baiji and Kirkuk.  On Kirkuk, Sunday, National Iraqi News Agency reported  "the General Coordinator of the popular committees overseeing the sit-ins of Kirkuk Bunyyan Sabbar al-Obeidi was killed today."  Of Sunday's assassination of Bunyan-Obeidi, Alsumaria noted the activist was killed by unknown assailants in a civilian car who began shooting as they passed.  AFP added, "Obeidi’s death comes two days after activists said security forces fired on a demonstration in Mosul, another north Iraq city" --  3 protesters died in Mosul assault last Friday.  At the demonstration in Kirkuk today, protesters held a symbolic funeral for Bunyan-Obeidi and you can see them carrying a coffin in this Iraqi Spring MC video.  Earlier this week, Ghaith Abdul-Ahad (Guardian) reflected on the protests:


Every Friday, thousands of peaceful demonstrators have poured into the streets of Ramadi, Mosul and Falluja mimicking the Arab spring protests elsewhere in the region.
In Mosul and Falluja, tent cities have sprung up in public squares. Some have even demonstrated in Sunni areas of Baghdad, braving the draconian Friday security measures imposed on them.
But perhaps more remarkable is the scene inside the tent. Among the tribal sheikhs and activists around Abu Saleh are former enemies and victims, men who feared him and men who hunted him on behalf of the Americans. Sensing an opportunity, Sunni factions have put aside their differences to mount a common front against Baghdad.


Moving over to violence, Yang Yi (Xinhua) reports, "A female Iraqi candidate for the upcoming provincial elections and her husband have been killed in the northern part of the country, police said Friday. Unidentified gunmen killed Kamisa Ahmed Al-Bachari and her husband late Thursday evening when they were returning from a wedding party in Al Arish village, south of Mosul, about 400 km north of Iraq's capital Baghdad, a local police source told Xinhua."  National Iraq News Agency adds that an armed attack on a Tal Afar checkpoint resulted in the deaths of 2 police officers. Alsumaria notes three police officers were injured in a Baghdad mortar attack, 1 police officer shot dead on the streets of Mosul (gun had a silencer on it),  and, dropping back to last night, an attack on a mosque to the south of Falluja left Iman Jbeil Majid al-Issawi deadMu Xuequan (Xinhua) reports an armed attack in Al Rayash in which 8 Iraqi soldiers were killed.  AFP notes a home invasion outside Baquba which claimed the lives of Khalil al-Anjili and 1 son with 2 more killed outside the home -- resulting of 17 Sahwa killed so far this month.  Through yesterday, Iraq Body Count counts 158 violent deaths in Iraq so far this month.

Yesterday saw an attack on the Ministry of Justice.  Adam Schreck (AP) notes Speaker of Parliament Osama al-Nujaifi is calling for an investigation into the attack and stating, "This blatant security violation targeting an important government building in the middle of the capital only shows the weakness of the security forces (and) their limited capabilities,"

Alsumaria reports that Dhi Qar Province announced yesterday their figures for 2012 marriages which included 360 underage marriage.  And when Iraq talks underage marriage, they're referring, as in this article, to girls as young as ten-years-old.

Do not mistakenly picture two little ten-year-olds holding hands, looking like the "Love is . . ." comic strip.  While the  wife may be as young as ten, the husband is generally in his fifties.

These are the figures for one province only.  It's appalling.  It's not a joke, it's not a meet-cute story to be shared years from now.  It is abuse plain and simple.  That's why the United Nations Population Fund has their End Child Marriage initiative.  They note:

Child marriage is a grave threat to the lives and prospects of young girls. It violates their rights, denies them of their childhood, disrupts their education, jeopardizes their health, and limits their opportunities.

The campaign, Too Young to Wed, which launches on the first International Day of the Girl Child, calls attention to this egregious human rights violation. Beyond providing new data and co-sponsoring a high-level panel on this issue, UNFPA is working with governments and partners at all levels of society to deliver comprehensive programmes addressing the needs of vulnerable and married girls.

Start here by getting the facts, watching the videos, viewing the multimedia exhibit and sharing what you know with friends and colleagues.


Child marriage is not cute.  Children need to be children, they don't need to be married off to adults. They don't need to have their learning and their lives stunted or taken away from them.  Extreme poverty is at the root of many child marriages in Iraq.  

And child marriage is only one of the many ways in which females suffer in Iraq.

The International Committee of the Red Cross notes:


ICRC assists female breadwinners who face severe hardship because their husbands have been killed, arrested, disabled by war injuries, or are missing. It helps them to register with the Iraq's welfare system and offers them grants to start small businesses and become financially independent. In 2012:
  • 810 female breadwinners, among them 202 with physical disabilities, representing more than 4,300 beneficiaries, received an ICRC grant;
  • with the support of local NGOs and the ICRC, almost 4,000 female breadwinners (with close to 16,000 dependents) were helped to apply for social assistance. They also received cash payments from the ICRC to offset costs.
The ICRC continued its dialogue with the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs and the authorities concerned to improve the living conditions of female breadwinners.


The Organisation of Women's Freedom in Iraq's Yanar Mohammed pointed out this month, "Iraqi women have witnessed all kinds of crimes and grievances which accompany all wars; first of which is the loss of 10% of the Iraqi female population’s husbands and fathers, leaving more than 3 million women and girls with no source of income or protection, thereby turning them into a helpless population which is deprived of all components of human dignity. In result, 3 million widows and female orphans of war are currently vulnerable to being exploited by the human beasts which were raised inside the green zone to enjoy the riches of Iraq, while depriving the 99% of resources and making sure to trample upon the human dignity of a female population who became victims of trafficking, sexual exploitation, polygamy, and religious pleasure marriages."

You can't talk about the Iraq War without acknowledging what was done to Iraqi women.  As Sami Ramadani (Guardian) observed yesterday, "Women and children pay the highest price.  Women's rights, and human rights in general, are daily suppressed."  The link there goes to Haifa Zangana (Guardian) column from last month about the state of Iraqi women:

The plight of women detainees was the starting point for the mass protests that have spread through many Iraqi provinces since 25 December 2012. Their treatment by the security forces has been a bleeding wound – and one shrouded in secrecy, especially since 2003. Women have been routinely detained as hostages – a tactic to force their male loved ones to surrender to security forces, or confess to crimes ascribed to them. Banners and placards carried by hundreds of thousands of protesters portray images of women behind bars pleading for justice.

[. . .]

No wonder, ten years after the invasion, the Iraqi authorities are accused by US-based Human Rights Watch of "violating with impunity the rights of Iraq's most vulnerable citizens, especially women and detainees". HRW's account is echoed by a report by the Iraqi parliament's own human rights and women, family and children's committees, which found that there are 1,030 women detainees suffering from widespread abuse, including threats of rape.
Responding to these findings, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki threatened to "arrest those members of parliament who had discussed the violence against women detainees". Meanwhile, Deputy Prime Minister Hussain al-Shahristani has acknowledged that there are 13,000 prisoners in custody accused of terror offences, but he only mentioned women detainees in passing:

"We transferred all women prisoners to prisons in their home provinces."
Al-Shahristani's statement is one in a long list of contradictory and misleading statements by the regime's most senior officials – from al-Maliki speaking of "not more than a handful of women terrorists", to his contradictory promise that he will pardon all "women detainees who have been arrested without a judicial order or in lieu of a crime committed by some of their male relatives". That assurance was followed by parading nine women, cloaked in black from head to toe, on the official state TV channel, al-Iraqiya, as a gesture of the regime's "good will".
Protesters and Iraqi human rights organizations estimate that there are as many as 5,000 female detainees. The truth is leaking out, drip by drip. A few weeks ago, 168 women detainees were released and there were promises of another 32 waiting to be released. No one accused of torture, rape or abuse has yet been brought to justice.

Peter Beaumont (Guardian) reports on the Iraqi women who end up imprisoned:

Sabah Hassan Hussein is still not certain which powerful person or interest she offended. An Iraqi journalist and human rights activist, she says she had been investigating the serious abuse of female prisoners in Tikrit. Although she had not published her allegations she did raise them with Iraqi ministries.
Last year, in events she believes may be connected, Hussein found herself incarcerated in the same jail and suffering similar abuse to the other women.
Tricked into visiting an army barracks in Baghdad, she was arrested and transferred to Tikrit on a trumped-up charge involving the murder of the brother of an Iraqi MP and one of her colleagues who had been kidnapped and killed.The 12-month ordeal that followed, by her account, involved physical and psychological abuse, and included sexual assault.
She says she finally cracked when she was told her 20-year-old daughter, who was brought to speak to her in Tikrit, would be raped if she did not "confess".



On this week's Making Contact, Iraq is explored.  Excerpt.

Yanar Mohammed:  We have turned in the last ten years into a new police state. [. . .]  [W]hat happened in Iraq is that the US administration wanted to empower only those who are on the right [wing] side of the political formula.  And on the right side, it was mostly the Islamists.  And when they dealt with the political groups who are on the ground, they dealt with them in what is understood as the rule of the jungle: Whoever has the biggest militias, whoever has the better ability to kill, those were the ones who are in the Parliament now.  You do not see the political parties that are progressive in Iraq that have a history, have a big membership, you don't see them having any seats.  If we were to go back to 2003 and if there was a political will to allow the times to happen in Iraq all of the political groups should have been empowered in the same way -- and especially the working class groups and the women.  To cut a long story short, they did not want Iraq to become a modern state.  They wanted to become another Saudi Arabia in the region.  Saudi Arabia which is lying on top of a big field of oil which where the state has one function to pull the tabs of oil and to open them in full to the foreign companies.



Of course, Iraqi women have had some 'success' under Nouri's leadership.    Let's drop back to the November 12th snapshot:

Staying with violence, as noted in the October 15th snapshot, Iraq had already executed 119 people in 2012.  Time to add more to that total.  Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) reported last night that 10 more people were executed on Sunday ("nine Iraqis and one Egyptian").  Tawfeeq notes the Ministry of Justice's statement on the executions includes, "The Iraqi Justice Ministry carried out the executions by hanging 10 inmates after it was approved by the presidential council."  And, not noted in the report, that number's only going to climb.  A number of Saudi prisoners have been moved into Baghdad over the last weeks in anticipation of the prisoners being executed.  Hou Qiang (Xinhua) observes, "Increasing executions in Iraq sparked calls by the UN mission in the country, the European Union and human rights groups on Baghdad to abolish the capital punishment, criticizing the lack of transparency in the proceedings of the country's courts."


Yes, in Nouri's Iraq, women are executed and put on death row.  Other rights may have withered but Nouri -- like most misogynsts -- will always support the right to proclaim a woman guilty of some crime or 'crime.'

From Amnesty International's new report  [PDF format warning] "Iraq: A Decade of Abuses:"


Men comprise the great majority of prisoners sentenced to death and executed in Iraq but at least 14 women have been executed since executions resumed.  The authorities have reported carrying out 129 executions in 2012, including five executions of women.
The number of women currently on death row is unknown to Amnesty International.  In October 2012, the HHRO reported that at least 18 women were on death row there when they visited the Women's Prison in Baghdad.
Some women prisoners have been on death row for several years, including Wassan Talib, who was sentenced to death in August 2006 after the Central Criminal Court convicted her of murdering members of the security forces, and Samar Sa'ad 'Abdullah, sentenced in August 2005 after she was convicted of murdering several relatives despite her allegations that she was forced to confess under torture in pre-trial detention.

They're represented in mulitples on death row but there's only one woman in Nouri's Cabinet -- and he only named a woman to the post after women publicly rebuked him in January 2011 -- including women in Iraqi President Jalal Talabani's family.


In the United States, next week will see a major event from Iraq Veterans Against the War:


















 

Friday, March 15, 2013

He hungers for Iran



BULLY BOY PRESS &   CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL-AID TABLE

 KILLER BARRY O, A DRONE MASSAGING HIS PROSTATE, DECLARED IN AN INTERVIEW YESTERDAY THAT NEITHER SECRETARY OF STATE JOHN KERRY NOR SECRETARY OF DEFENSE CHUCK HAGEL WILL BE ABLE TO PREVENT HIM FROM GOING TO WAR WITH IRAN.

"ONE OF THE THINGS YOU LEARN," KILLER BARRY O SAID AS HE SET THE DRONE ON VIBRATE, "WHEN YOU'RE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES IS YOU GET A LOT OF ADVICE, BUT ULTIMATELY IT'S YOUR DECISION."

WHICH IS A CANDY ASS WAY OF SAYING "I'M THE DECIDER."

OH, FOR THE DAYS WHEN THE BULLY LET LOOSE ON THE WORLD WALKED WITH HIS KNUCKLES DRAGGING AGAINST THE GROUND AND SPOKE SO POORLY -- IT WAS A LOT MORE EASY FOR PEOPLE TO RECOGNIZE THE FACE OF EVIL THEN.


 FROM THE TCI WIRE:

 
Chair Mike Coffman: Dr. Coughlin, on October 23rd, this Subcommittee asked VA how many veterans have self-identified as suicidal and later committed suicide in the follow up study of the national cohort of Gulf War and Gulf Era veterans? On February 19th, VA responded stating, "VA has no evidence to date that any veteran in the study has committed suicide."  Are these the same results you saw in your study?

Dr. Steven Coughlin: Yes, fortunately we did not lose any of the research participants.  As I mentioned in my testimony, my efforts to identify mental health professionals, get involved with the study as co-investigators, place these call backs to vulnerable research participants were initially blocked by my supervisors and that's why I contacted the IRB in writing and also the VA Office of Inspector General.  After a delay of two or three months, we were able to start the call back process and a team of mental health professionals at the Washington DC VA Medical Center did a fantastic job of reaching out to the veteran.  We had vets who had been told by their local VA clinic or hospital that they were not eligible for free health care but, when they called the toll free number and reached somebody in VBA or the VA central office, they were told the opposite.  So the social workers, they were able to sort this out and get them into health care.  These were vulnerable veterans, men and women who major depression or other medical and psychiatric conditions and they needed assistance to get into health care to save their lives.


Yesterday afternoon, the House Veterans Affairs Committee held a hearing on Gulf War Illness and other issues.  US House Rep Mike Coffman is the Subcommittee Chair,  US House Rep Ann Kirkipatrick is the Ranking Member.  Dr. Steve Coughlin is a whistle blower.  His statements are beyond our scope or space -- in his opening statements, he was interrupted at one point by Coffman who noted he was now over ten minutes with his opening remarks (the limit is five minutes).  But strong coverage of Coughlin's remarks can be found in reports by Steve Vogel (Washington Post), Rebecca Ruiz (Forbes), Patricia Kime (Navy Times), Bryant Jordan (Military.com) and Kevin Freking (AP).

Some background on whistle blower Steven Coughlin.  Dr. Coughlin left the VA in December.  Prior to that, he was a senior epidemiologist with over 25 years of experience whose past also included a stint at the Center for Disease Control.  He resigned in December "because of serious ethical concerns."  His work was with the VA's Office of Public Health which conducts studies on veterans and what he found was "if the studies produce results that do not support the Office of Public Health's unwritten policy, they don't release them.  This applies to data regarding adverse health consequences of environmental exposures such as burn pits in Iraq and Afghanistan and toxic exposures in the Gulf War.  On the rare occasions when embarrassing study results are released, data are manipulated to make them unintelligible."

In other words, you shouldn't trust VA's past studies on burn pits.

Under the leadership of Senator Byron Dorgan, the  Democratic Policy Committee did important work via a series of public hearings on the burn pits that helped the country and the government understand what burn pits were and what they did to veterans.  Senator Evan Bayh was among those serving on that Committee and he was the first to introduce a bill for a national burn pit registry.  It did not make it through while Bayh and Dorgan were still in the Senate.  If was picked back up and with the help of many and leadership from Senate Veterans Affairs Committee Chair Patty Murray and Ranking Member Richard Burr and House Veterans Affairs Committee Chair Jeff Miller and Ranking Member Mike Michaud, it made it through in the final days of 2012.

At a November 12, 2010 DPC hearing, Chair Byron Dorgan went over the burn pit basics.

Chair Byron Dorgan:  Today we're going to have a discussion and have a hearing on how, as early as 2002, US military installations in Iraq and Afghanistan began relying on open-air burn pits -- disposing of waste materials in a very dangerous manner. And those burn pits included materials such as hazardous waste, medical waste, virtually all of the waste without segregation of the waste, put in burn pits. We'll hear how there were dire health warnings by Air Force officials about the dangers of burn pit smoke, the toxicity of that smoke, the danger for human health. We'll hear how the Department of Defense regulations in place said that burn pits should be used only in short-term emergency situations -- regulations that have now been codified. And we will hear how, despite all the warnings and all the regulations, the Army and the contractor in charge of this waste disposal, Kellogg Brown & Root, made frequent and unnecessary use of these burn pits and exposed thousands of US troops to toxic smoke.

None of the DoD regulations were followed.

Burn pits is one of the issues we follow.  Another is suicide.


Dr. Steven Coughlin:  I wish to close with a subject of particular importance to me.  Almost 2,000 research participants from a National Health Study of a New Generation of US Veterans self-reported that they had thoughts in the previous two weeks that they would be better off dead.  However, only a small percentage of those veterans, roughly 5%, ever received a callback from a studied clinician.  Some of those veterans are now homeless or deceased.  I was unsuccessful in getting senior Office of Public Health officials to address this problem in the New Generation study.  I was successful in incorporating these callbacks in the Gulf War survey and they have saved lives. but only after my supervisors threatened to remove me from the study and attempted disciplinary action against me when I appealed the refusal for callbacks to a higher authority.


The VA has many issues and many problems.  It's biggest crisis is the number of suicides.  VA hasn't wanted to track that.  Senator Patty Murray led the effort to get them to do so.  The VA, please understand what the doctor testified too, conducted a survey of veterans of today's wars (Afghanistan and Iraq) and one of the questions clearly was about suicide.  In response to that question -- either by checking off a provided choice or via their own words in an open response -- 5% of the study group stated "that they would be better off dead."  This wasn't a, "Have you ever in your life felt you'd be better off dead?"  Instead, the time frame of the last two weeks was inserted. 

When military and veterans suicides are at a crisis level, the idea that the VA would get these responses but refuse to follow up by calling the 5% back is not just appalling, it's negligence.  And, in fact, this is a medical survey and its overseen by doctors.  That makes it even worse, that makes it medical malpractice.  In order to help the veterans, a callback should always be done.

But if help is just too 'noble' a reason for you, the VA better damn well grasp that any veteran participating in such a survey who did not receive a callback has a group of loved ones who can sue and would most likely win in a court of law.  The law is on their side.  Even more importantly, public opinion would be on their side. 

While it is the right thing, the needed thing to do, a callback is also a cover-your-ass move to prevent a lawsuit.  Who's in charge at the VA?  Is anyone in management doing their job?

"We must recognize and be prepared to address the consequences of that service and bring to bear our best efforts to ensure that they are thoroughly prepared to serve and when they return home we commit to making them whole again."  I'd love to say that was a statement from the VA officials attending the hearing.  However, that's more common sense than all the officials combined had.  Those are the words of Ranking Member Ann Kirkpatrick and the VA needs to take those words to heart.


The first panel was Dr. Lea Steele (Baylor University), Dr. Coughlin, Gulf War veteran Anthony Hardie, and the Chair of the Board of Directors of Huntington Hospital Dr. Bernard Rosof.  The second panel was VA officials: Dr. Victoria Davey, Dr. Maureen McCarthy, Dr. Stephen Hunt, Dr. Gavin West and Tom Murphy.


Chair Mike Coffman:  Dr. Coughlan, your written testimony stated that "On the rare occasions when embarrassing study results are released, data are manipulated to make them unintelligible."  Please explain and cite an example.

Dr. Steven Coughlin:  [. . .  microphone not on] examples can be cited.  The best example that comes to mind is we set out to analyze data from the National Health Study for a new generation of veterans looking at self-reported exposure to burn pits, oil well fire smoke, other inhalation hazards in relation to physician diagnosed asthma and bronchitis.  The initial exposure analyses which were produced by the writing group and statistician showed that a sizable percentage of the deployed veterans had been exposed to burn pit smoke and burn pit fumes were associated with asthma and chronic bronchitis.  Then in a later iteration of the tabulated results, those results were set aside or discarded and the focus was instead on deployment -- deployment status in relation to asthma and bronchitis.  Well those 30,000 deployed vets and those 30,000 non-deployed vets included veterans who served on ships in the Indian Ocean or Philippines or in Germany in hospitals.  In other words, people who were deployed OAF and OIF and served in the war on terror but were never in Iraq or Afghanistan on the ground and had no potential exposure to burn pits.  So the way that the refined results were tabulated, it obscured rather than highlighted the associations of interest.  And I could elaborate if you would like.


Chair Mike Coffman: Okay,   Mr. Hardie, can you explain in your opinion why the research advisory committee believes that -- why the research advisory committee in their latest Institute of Medicine report is flawed?


Anthony Hardie: Yes, thank you for that question.  First, I want to recognize that I believe the researchers -- distinguished researchers like the gentleman sitting next to me were well intentioned.  However, VA staff issued a scope of work and committee charts that radically diverged from the law that effectively prevented -- and also effectively prevented what the committee could consider.  I believe that these helped to prevent the IOM Committee from meeting the expectations of the law.  VA staff directed the panel to do a literature review rather than, as the law directed, focusing on physicians experienced in treating Gulf War Illness.  VA staff knew little such literature exists because of VA's two decades of failures to develop treatments have helped to ensure that fact.  Additionally, most of the presenters to the panel focused on psychosomatic issues, stress as cause and things like relaxation therapies as treatments.  Ill Gulf War veterans who called in to listen to that meeting were naturally outraged.  VA staff were among the presenters to that committee including at least one sitting here today.  VA staff muddied the waters by instructing IOM to include not 91 Gulf War veterans as the law directs but many others.  And, finally, all of this involvement by VA staff is a far cry from the previous claims that these panels operate independent of bias and influence from the contracting agency.

Chair Mike Coffman:  Thank you, Mr. Hardie.  Dr. Rosof, the law requires that VA's agreement with the Institute of Medicine was to "Convene a group of medical professionals who are experienced in treating individuals who served.  in the southwest Asia theater of operations of the Persian Gulf War during 1990 or 1991 and who have been diagnosed with Chronic Multiple System illness or another health condition related to service."  Of the members of your committee, how many have experience in medically treating Gulf War veterans?

Dr. Bernard Rosof: [. . . mike not on] members of my committee who had experience but all of the members of the committee had experience in dealing with Chronic Multiple System illness -- some directly with the veterans who served in those theaters of war.  In addition there are members of the Committee including myself that have been on other IOM committees that have dealt with the issues of Gulf War chronic multi-system illness or illnesses of that sort.  So there were -- There was considerable expertise sitting around the table in addition to methodological expertise to evaluate the literature on best treatments.




We're not interested in the second panel.  The lies weren't even believable.  Five speakers at one VA conference on Gulf War Illness and they all say that it's a psychiatric disorder, even though for the last eleven years the VA has (in writing) recognized that Gulf War Illness is a physical condition?  And Stephen Hunt thinks he can spin and eat up the time pretending a slide shown at that conference stating that Gulf War Illness was all in the head was somehow to provide people with a sense of how things have changed?  I don't like liars.  The VA has played cheaply with people's lives and that's offensive.  Let's stay with burn pits.  Over the weekend, Jeff Glor (CBS Evening News -- link is video and text) reported on burn pits.  Excerpt.

Jeff Glor:  LeRoy Torres was a Texas state trooper and a captain in the Army Reserves when he deployed for a year-long combat tour to Iraq in 2007.

Rosie Lopez-Torres:  The minute he got back, he was hospitalized.  Right when he got back, it was like, "Okay, it's the Iraqi crud."  That's what he kept hearing.  After a few weeks, he started having these breathing attacks and it was the scariest moment ever for us.

Jeff Glor:  LeRoy's wife Rosie says her husband's health issues resulted from exposure to open-air burn pits which the US military used in Iraq and Afghanistan to torch everything from batteries to body parts.  The Dept of Veterans Affairs acknowledged Balad, where Torres was based, disposed of "several hundred tons per day" 

LeRoy Torres: It was very close to the burn pits -- where I was housed at.  But we didn't think nothing of it.

Jeff Glor:  Today, at age 40, LeRoy is barely able to leave bed most days.  His doctors have diagnosed him with a lung disease, constrictive bronchiolitis.  He has a lesion on his brain and cysts in his spleen and groin.

LeRoy Torres:  Sometimes the headaches will last three hours. Sometimes I've had  it where I've had a headache for eight days -- eight days straight.  It's unexplainable. 

Rosie Lopez-Torres:  I remember one night thinking, "Who am I holding?  Like what happened to the man that I married?"  It was at that moment that I thought, "This is it.  I'm going to have to be his advocate."

Jeff Glor:  Rosie launched a website where those exposed to burn pits can register.  She also lobbied Congress to take action.  In January, President Obama signed a law giving the Secretary of Veterans Affairs one year to create a national registry to track potential burn pit victims.

Jeff Glor:  If it wasn't for Rosie Torres, would this law be in existence?

Dr. Anthony Szema: I don't think so?


Rosie Lopez-Torres has shared her family's story many times in an attempt to get the word out and raise awareness.  In January of last year, she wrote about the experience:

For thousands of reservists the story goes like this, the soldier returns from war and immediately the effects of toxic exposure surface like the invisible wounds that they are. The soldier begins seeking treatment at various healthcare facilities only to discover that neither DOD nor VA is acknowledging toxic exposure from particulate matter or burn pits. The only option left if you happen to be blessed with the luxury of private insurance is to seek specialized healthcare in the private sector. Desperately seeking answers to the question of why this once active and healthy soldier can no longer function at the capacity that he/she once did. Why the once healthy father/mother, husband, wife, daughter, son can no longer breathe, why the diagnosis of cancer, why the white matter and the lesions in the brain, the fertility issues, the fatigue, the parasitic infections, the list goes on and on. The family spends their life savings traveling to access specialized healthcare from the physicians they call their heroes. The only healthcare providers brave enough to stand behind the truth of how toxic chemicals affect the body.

The family exhausts all of their finances to gain answers, the soldier can no longer work due to multiple diagnosis and symptoms immediately forcing the once successful career person to give up their life-long dreams. The reservists files an LOD which can take up to two years, the veteran files a claim with the VA which will never grant a rating compensation because there is no category for toxic exposures. All of this forces the family into an abyss of darkness, mental stress, financial stress, and denial of acceptance to their new way of life. The once productive, healthy, and functioning military family is suddenly falling apart at the seams. The gap between VA and DOD for the reservist component of the military service members wounded must be bridged by identifying the needs of those affected immediately. Too many people are losing their homes, their life savings, and their hope, hope in a system that once promised to care for them once they returned.


A friend covered a Senate Veterans Affairs hearing that took place yesterday and was full of praise for Allison Hickey.  I don't like liars.  Hickey's damn lucky that people are so uninformed (that includes my friend) and that I wasn't present so I can't cover it.  If I were, I'd go into her little lie to the Committee that Agent Orange has caused backlogs.  I'd point out her lie to the committee in the previous Congress that the VA had no Agent Orange backlog.  Hickey can be very impressive . . . if you're new to her.  If you've seen her lie once though . . .  I wasn't at that hearing, yesterday morning I was at the Senate Armed Services Subcommittee on Personnel and we covered the first two panels in yesterday's snapshotKat covered the third panel in last night's "Senate hearing on assault and rape"



RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
"Tribal sheikh kidnapped as part of the targeting o..."
"Baghdad slammed by bombings"
"Bossip disappoints"
"The economy"
"that's calorie reduction?"
"But picture the car chase"
"Senate hearing on assault and rape"
"Look who was right -- again!"
"It just gets Whiter"
"Smash"
"Pope Francis"
"He readies for the swimsuit competition"
"THIS JUST IN! TIME TO DIET!"

Thursday, March 14, 2013

He readies for the swimsuit competition


BULLY BOY PRESS &   CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL-AID TABLE


 KILLER BARRY O AND HIS DRONES WILL HEAD TO ISRAEL SHORTLY AS PART OF HIS FAUX CHARM OFFENSIVE.  OF CHIEF CONCERN ON THE VISIT?

KILLER BARRY MAINTAINING A VERY STRICT DIET.

WHY IS THIS SO IMPORTANT?

IT'S BEEN ARRANGED FOR MISS ISRAEL TO ATTEND ONE OF THE STATE DINNERS AND KILLER BARRY IS INSISTING THAT HE MUST REMAIN "THE LOVELIEST OF ALL."


AND IF HE DOESN'T?

WHY DO YOU THINK HE'S TRAVELING WITH HIS DRONES.


FROM THE TCI WIRE:

 
Senator Kristen Gillibrand:  Too often women and men have found themselves in the fight of their lives -- not in the theater of war but in their own ranks, among their own brothers and sisters and ranking officers in an environment that enables sexual assault.  And after an assault occurs -- an estimated 19,000 sexual assaults happened in 2011 alone according to the Defense Dept's own estimates -- some of these victims have to fight all over again with every ounce of their being just to have their voice heard, their assailant brought to any measure of justice and then to fight for the disability claims they deserve to be fulfilled.



This morning in DC, the Senate Armed Services Subcommittee on Personnel held a hearing on rape and assault in the military.  Gillibrand is the Subcommittee Chair, Lindsey Graham is the Ranking Member.  Chair Gillibrand observed, "The issue of sexual violence in the military is not new and it has been allowed to go on in the shadows for far too long."  Ranking Member Graham noted that  ". . . clearly the message that we're sending to our female members of the military is that we're too indifferent and that your complaints are falling on deaf ears."


Senator Barbara Boxer doesn't serve on the Subcommittee (or the Senate Armed Service Committee period) but felt the need to testify before them.  She babbled on about being "heartened that Secretary Hagel is taking immediate action to review the facts of this troubling case . . ."  Save your babbles, Boxer.  What a bunch of crap.  The case in question is a public relations nightmare.  In November, Lt Col James Wilkerson was found guilty by a military court of assaulting a woman.  At the end of last month, Lt Gen Craig A. Franklin gave an order releasing Wilkerson from prison and Franklin tossed aside the conviction.

Boxer can babble all she wants and some groups will be stupid enough to pretend the babbles help anyone.  First off, Boxer voted to confirm Hagel.  She and her cohorts didn't give a damn about whether or not Hagel could do the job.  For the record, the job isn't hating Israel (as far as I know, Hagel doesn't hate Israel) or giving speeches against the Iraq War.  These were the 'reasons' so many idiots backed Hagel.  We pointed out repeatedly, before his name was even floated and after he was nominated, that the Secretary of Defense had two major problems to address: the rate of suicide and the rate or rape and assault in the military. 

The Senate didn't consider these problems to matter as evidenced by what passed for questioning.  Big surprise, one of the two issues blows immediately after someone who isn't qualified is voted into the position.

Will Hagel rise to the occasion? 


So far?  No.

Hagel hasn't done a damn thing except answered the questions of members of Congress.  Congress has pushed this not Hagel.


It shouldn't have come to this.  Hagel should have handled it all by himself and should have.


Rape and assault are serious crimes.  If we're not going to take them seriously then allow Hagel to muddle along, allow Barbara Boxer to give lip service to caring, but at the end of the day please drop the pretense that anybody really gave a damn.

What Lt Gen Craig A. Franklin did was outrageous.  Any other crime overturned by whim would be dealt with swiftly.  Don't give me the nonsense about, "Well it's in the code that the senior officer in someone's chain of command can overturn a court-martial."  There's nothing that can be done for this issue now with regards to Wilkerson, a sexual predator -- a convicted sexual predator, being allowed to walk.

But here's what Hagel can do -- what he damn well should have done immediately -- move to bust Lt Gen Craig A. Franklin down in rank.

Instead of acting like the chicken with his head cut off -- exactly why so many of us said Hagel didn't have the experience needed for the position -- Hagel should have immediately started the process to bust Franklin in rank. 

Instead it's been pity party, it's been "Congress you should have written something stopping this."  No, this is a flagrant assault on justice.  And guess what?  That makes is conduct unbecoming an officer.  When you add in that the offense is something out of control that the chain of command above Franklin has made clear must be dealt with, it's all the more unbecoming conduct. 

How do you address it, how do you prevent from happening again?  You bust the officer down in rank.  Not only does it ensure that Franklin won't have the power to do it in the immediate future, it also sends a message to everyone else in the ranks that this is unacceptable.  That in today's military, rape and assault will be treated as serious charges.


The member of the Senate that has addressed this the best, in my opinion, is Senator Claire McCaskill.  She's not posturing, she's demanding answers, she's demanding change, she's expressing justifiable outrage over what happened.  She also spoke in Congress last week about this.  Did a great job, I thought, and I'm not fan of Claire McCaskill's.  She didn't show up at today's hearing empty-handed, she's already got a bill that would end this type of jury nullification.  She wrote an amazing column on the issue and, in it, she points out of Franklin's nullification of the verdict, "This violates every sense of justice and fairness that we expect in America."  It does.  And -- pay attention, Chuck Hagel -- when an action "violates every sense of justice and fairness that we expect in America," that's conduct unbecoming an officer.

Hagel's refused to do what he immediately should have, move to bust Franklin down in rank -- a move US President Barack Obama should sign off on.


"Now what is it going to take to convince the military that sexual assault is a violent and vicious crime [. . .]" Boxer babbled on.  It's not a mystery.  The answer is very simple and it sends a message, "We better start taking this crime seriously." 

Boxer is part of the problem.  She's so hell bent on pontificating that she never realizes the answer already exists.  She's too busy praising Hagel to insist that he do his job. Article 133 of the UCMJ is very clear on this and you damn well better believe if you can be convicted of unbecoming conduct for being drunk in public or associating with a prostitute, your decision to set a sexual offender free and to expunge his record -- thereby allowing him not to even have to register as a sex offender -- is outrageous and, most importantly, dangerous to society.  Franklin has disgraced his rank.


After Boxer finished babbling, a second panel spoke.  Service Women's Action Network's Anu Bhagwati, former Army member BriGette McCoy, former Army member Rebekah Havrilla and former Navy Brian K. Lewis. 

Anu Bhagwati: Sexually assault is widely understood by military personnel who have been overexposed to a culture of victim blaming and rape mythology.  So let's be clear: Rape and assault are violent, traumatic crimes -- not mistakes, not lapses of professional judgment, not leadership failures and not oversights in character.  Rape is about power, control and intimidation.  Thanks to a surge of pressure over the last few years by advocates, the media and Congress, military force has finally been forced to reckon with the issue of military sexual violence.


Senator Kelly Ayotte is a former prosecutor and she noted that her home state (New Hampshire) has a Victims Bill of Rights and felt that the military would benefit from adoption one.  Senator Mazie Hirono spoke about removing the chain of command from these issues and having an independent body pursue the charges as well as the need for victims reporting attacks to be able to be reassigned to different units.  Senator Jeanne Shaheen noted  she was "amazed to see in your statistics that SWAN brought forward that 1 in 3 convicted sex offenders remain in the military and that the only branch of the service that says they discharge all sex offenders if the Navy."   Like Senator Kelly Ayotte, Senator Clair McCaskill is a former prosecutor.


Senator Clair McCaskill:  Rape is the crime of a coward.  Rapists in the ranks are masquerading as real members of our military because our military is not about cowards.  Now our military does an amazing job of training.  I am so proud of our military.  But, unfortunately, I believe that this is not a crime that we're going to train our way out of because the crime of rape has nothing to do with sexual gratification, it has nothing to do with dirty jokes, and frankly there are a lot of studies that say it's not even connected necessarily with people who like to look at bad or dirty pictures.  It's a crime of assault, power, domination.  And I believe, based on my years of experience, that the only way that victims of sexual assault are going to feel empowered in the military is when they finally believe that the focus on the military is to get these guys and put them in prison.  So I believe that the focus of our efforts should be on effective prosecution and what do we need to do to make sure that these investigations are done promptly and professionally, that the victims are wrapped in good information, solid support and legal advice.  That the prosecutors have the wherewithal and the resources to go forward in a timely and aggressive way; and you don't have the ability of some general somewhere who's never heard the testimony of factual witnesses in a consent case can wipe it out with a stroke of a pen.  And so what I would like from you all -- your cases, they're all compelling, they're all moving -- I, like Senator Graham, am infuriated at that chaplain, I'm infuriated with the notion that some of the men who put up with what happened to you or even perpetrated what happened to you are still serving in our military.   I would like to hear from you -- especially those whose cases were more recent -- what happened when you reported in terms of getting good legal information about what your rights were and what to expect?

Rebekah Havrilla: Thank you, Senator McCaskill.  As mentioned, I had none.  When my friend notified me that he had found the pictures of my rape online, again, it was kind of a -- it was kind of a spur of the moment decision of, "Okay, this is enough.  This has gone on long enough.  I'm going to do an investigation.  Like this is ridiculous."

Senator Clair McCaskill:  If I could go back to your initial decision --

Rebekah Havrilla:  Mmm-hmm.

Senator Clair McCaskill: -- because we know that there is a huge number of these cases, that there's never a restricted or an unrestricted report.  Just so we make the record clear, a restricted report is kept for five years and an unrestricted report is kept for 20 years.

Rebekah Havrilla:  I believe those have now changed.  I believe that restricted reports are to be kept for fifty but previously there was a much lower cap on that correct.

Senator Clair McCaskill:  Okay.  Well whatever the amount is, the difference between a restricted report and an unrestricted report is how timely we can get after it because, if it's a restricted report, it's not going to be investigated.

Rebekah Havrilla:  Correct.  You basically just become a statistic. 

Senator Clair McCaskill:  So if in fact one of the reasons you may your report restricted was the unique nature of the victim being embedded with her perpetrator in a work environment that is intense and depends on working together, what would have happened when you went in if you were told that if there is probably cause found in the next thirty days that this crime was committed, your perpetrator would be removed from the unit, what would your response have been?


Rebekah Havrilla:  It probably would have been worth considering. At that point, you have a timeline, a light at the end of the tunnel so to speak, with set standards and guidelines of 'okay, this will happen in the event that this and this are found.'  Again, everybody -- When you're in the middle of it, you look back -- I look back on it with kind of 20/20 or Monday morning quarter back style and you're like, "Oh, I can look back on this and I might have done it differently," but when you're in the middle of it, it's extremely difficult to be able to think clearly.  I mean, it's-it's a huge trauma, it effects your mental health, it effects how you see the world, how you see yourself.  But, had I had more information, had there been some kind of recourse of saying, you know, this isn't about me, this is about him, and had there been probable cause for some kind of prosecution, and I was actually asked later, when I did my full investigation, they said, "If they find enough are you willing to take this to court-martial?"  And I said, "Yes, absolutely."  But, in the beginning, that wasn't even an option for me, that wasn't something given to me and, again, we can do the what-ifs all we want and looking forward, I'm a different person than I was.  And I were to be in the same situation and have that happen to me, I would say, "Yes, absolutely.  I'm willing to take that as far.  This perpetrator is going to be done in 30 days or at least the potential for that thereof, let's move forward with this."

Senator Clair McCaskill:  Do you feel like your SARC, your Special Advocate that you talked to, do you feel like they were neutral, supportive, tried to talk you out of it, tried to talk you into it?

Rebekah Havrilla:  Uhm, most of them are very supportive and they wanted to be helpful but they all understood that their hands were tied as to what they could actually do for you as a victim.  They kind of -- When I -- When I went in to do my restricted reporting against my rapist, I had mentioned in passing the constant sexual harassment and sexual assault of my team leader and they said, "Oh, do you want to do a report against him too?"  And I was like, "I hadn't even thought of that but sure why not."  They weren't pressuring me anything, it was just kind of a you are -- you have the option also of making a restricted report against this individual, is that something that you're willing to do?  At that time, my end of the tunnel, my light at the end was that I had 60 days and I was out of the Army and that's all I wanted.  I wanted to be out, I wanted to be done.  I wanted to be away from the unit that I was in.

Senator Clair McCaskill:  Mr. Lewis, what about you?  Did you feel like the point and time you reported anywhere that there was any legal help or any kind of help at all that would have allowed you to move forward with some kind of effort too?  And is your perpetrator still in the Navy?

Brian K. Lewis:  I honestly don't know and, at this point, I hope that I've moved forward enough away from it that I don't care.  It has to be about me at this point not what my perpetrator did.

Senator Clair McCaskill:  I appreciate that but I care, just so you know.  I care.

Brian K. Lewis:  I appreciate that, Senator.  But honestly when -- when the situation came to light there was an eerie silence that emanated from the JAG office.

Senator Clair McCaskill:  And what year was this?


Brian K. Lewis:  2000.  And it was like a black hole had all the sudden surrounded the JAG office because the Judge Advocate General of that command is subordinate to the commanding officer. At some point it becomes about the preservation of their own career than about helping me and, no, there was no effective, legal situation that I could access, Senator.

Senator Clair McCaskill:  Well my time is out. I do want to say that I do -- I've spent a number of hours with amazing professional prosecutors in the area of sexual assault at the Pentagon on Monday -- decades of experience.  And I do feel that there is some progress being made in some branches -- some more than others -- recognizing that they have failed at getting after this and doing what our military usually does best and that is: Focus on a mission and make it happen.  And what you all are doing today allows us to focus on the mission to get the coward rapists out of the ranks.  And we're going to do everything we can to make that happen so thank you all very much for being here.


 

RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
"Iraq does not have a normal -- or functioning -- g..."
"Iraqi Christians continue to flee, Turkey and the ..."
"Curiosity's latest discovery"
"Yes, add Brooke!"
"Labor in 2013"
"the government gets really tacky"
"Praise for Secretary of State John Kerry"
"Here's who?"
"Deception"
"The tell"
"Mayor Poppins"
"Assassinations?"
"THIS JUST IN! CHARM CLUB!"
"Princess Charming"

Wednesday, March 13, 2013

Princess Charming


BULLY BOY PRESS &   CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL-AID TABLE

KILLER BARRY O IS ON A CHARM OFFENSIVE WITH THE PRESS, CONGRESS AND ESPECIALLY REPUBLICANS AT HIS POLL NUMBERS TUMBLE.

AS HIS AIDES CONTINUE WHINING TO THE PRESS, IT APPEARS THEY FORGOT:  THE FIRST RULE ABOUT CHARM SCHOOL, NO ONE TALKS ABOUT CHARM SCHOOL.


FROM THE TCI WIRE:


Reality is also Amnesty International's new report "Iraq: A Decade of Abuses."  Reality is that the report has been ignored by CBS Evening News with Scott Pelley, NBC Nightly News with Brian Williams, ABC World News with Diane Sawyer, PBS' The NewsHour, Democracy Now! and so many other so-called news outlets in the United States.  Reality is forced 'confessions' in Iraq that are treated as real ones -- even when the confessors 'recants' and says that


On 20 June 2012 Ramze Shihab Ahmad, 70, a dual Iraqi-UK national, was sentenced to 15 years of imprisonment by the Resafa Criminal Court [case number 1901 of 2012, First Branch] after it convicted him under the Anti-Terrorism Law.  He had already been held for over two years.  Arrested in December 2009 at Mosul, he was held at the secret al-Muthanna detention prison, where he said interrogators tortured him by his ankles, and threatened to rape his wife until he agreed to sign a statement admitting to links with al-Qa'aid in Iraq.  Prior to his conviction, he had been tried and acquitted of charges under the Anti-Terrorism Law on eight previous occasions.  The court that eventually convicted him based its guilty verdict on three pieces of oral testimony that it accepted as evidence against him -- the pre-trial confession that he had repudiated, the allegedly coerced testimony of a co-defendant in a previous trial, and information from a secret informant.
In 2009, Article 243 of the Penal Code was amended to increase the penalty for falsely accusing an innocent person due to the problems that had arisen from the use of secret informants.  At the same time, the Supreme Judicial Council issued a directive urging investigating judges to satisfy themselves as to the reliability of information provided by secret informants and not to consider it sufficient, in the absence of other evidence, to issue arrests warrants or detention orders.  Despite this, Ramze Shihab Ahmad's conviction was based on no more than two contested confessions and information provided by a secret informant.
Earlier, in May 2012, the Resafa Criminal Court imposed life imprisonment sentences on Ramze Shihab Ahmad's son, Omar Ramze Shihab, and another accused after convicting them under the Anti-Terrorism Law [case 760 of 10 May 2012, First Branch].  Omar Ramze Shihab had been arrested in September 2009 in Mosul.  Later, he was described as the leader of a group that had killed several Christians and detonated a bomb in a village, when he was presented at a press conference convened by the Ministry of Defence on 18 January 2010.  At this, officials played the video-recorded pre-trial confessions of Omar Ramze Shihab and eight other men.  The Resafa Criminal Court judgement notes that both men at trial retracted their earlier confessions to participating in bomb attacks in 2009 that killed civilians but makes no mention of the men's torture allegations.



If that doesn't disgust you, maybe the pain of a young Iraqi woman will make you feel something?  Hugh Sykes has returned to Iraq fora  multipart BBC radio documentary entitled After Saddam.  Excerpt.

Hugh Sykes:  Mahmoud's daughter Mais, doing the high five with her dad, is 21. She's a third year biology student at Basra University.  She's a Muslim.  She wears a smart head scarf and she's an independent woman -- of the the kind which was normal under Saddam Hussein but which is less so now.  She travels overseas alone.  She's been twice to the United States -- a liberating experience.  But when she returns home, Mais tells me  feels constricted by what she sees as the increasingly conservative Islamic environment of the new Iraq.  Here in Basra, if you suddenly feel, 'Uh, I've got to get out of the house, I want to be alone!'  Can you pop down to the Corniche, walk down to the Corniche on your own?



Mais: Never.  I get -- Here the men just look to the women as bodies.


Hugh Sykes:  What would the men do if you did walk along the Corniche on your own? How

Mais:    Oh.

Hugh Sykes:    How would they react?  Would it be very unpleasant?

Mais:   I can't imagine that.  Because maybe even they can touch the girl.

Hugh Sykes:  Touch you?

Mais:  Yes.   If I was alone.  Believe me, it's sad.  It's sad.

Hugh Sykes:  After several weeks in Boston, or Washington, DC, or Chicago and you come back to Basra, to the dust and the mud and the intense heat or the rain and the cold and the broken streets and the poverty, poverty, poverty - and you look out the window of the car when you're coming from the airport, what do you think?


Mais:  Sad.  Very sad.  Because why?  I'm asking myself all the time, why we are living here?   In this environment, in this bad situations, I can't describe my feeling because it's hard.  You came from outside and you are just here for guest and you -- you feel very sad.  So how I can feel about my community and my country? 

Hugh Sykes:  Guess I'm feeling sad now because it's -- it's emotionally overwhelming -- the deprivation and the poverty here and the contrast with the extraordinary cheerfulness of the eager, friendly children who rush towards us and ask me to take their pictures.  And then they ask, and this is pretty significant, they ask not for sweets or money or soft drinks.  They ask for pencils.

Mais [Crying]  I'm sorry.  Because I feel sad about my country.   I want to stay here to help my country because there is no one care about us.  I care about my people.  So I am never thinking to go out of my country because there is no one care about the children, the girls, the women, even the old men.  I know I am very filled with the sad.  Maybe there is very little hope in my heart.  But I am here because I love this country.  I love my Iraq.


Brits aren't the only ones getting coverage of Iraq.  Over the weekend, 60 Minutes (link is video) reported on Iraq.


Michael Usher:  It was a war based on a lie: That Saddam Hussein was stockpiling Weapons of Mass Destruction and it cost more than 100,000 deaths.  I just spent a week in Iraq asking that question.  And what I found was a country still at war.  Car bombings, kidnapping and assassinations are a daily threat.  [. . .]   It was all mean to be over in six months.   But a decade on, Iraq is now a battleground between religious fanatics. 350 people killed last month alone.  And car bombs are the weapon of choice



If the name of the program seems familiar but the name of the journalist doesn't, it is 60 Minutes but it's Australia's 60 Minutes.



The protests continue in Iraq.  Great Britain's Socialist Worker observes, "But despite the decade of misery, sectarianism and war, Iraq is now experiencing a revival in a popular movement. This began last month with anti-government demonstrations in Fallujah, and has jumped across the sectarian and ethnic boundaries."   Al Mada reports that there was a meet-up in Falluja on Sunday of various representatives for demonstrators from the western provinces.  The meeting follows Friday's "last chance" protest which saw Nouri's forces attack the protesters in Mosul.  National Iraqi News Agency reports protesters in Baaj and Tal Afar today are demanding that government officials reduce the "excessive deployment of military and security forces just near the government offices in the regions of western Mosul."  These are the forces that Nouri has sent in to intimidate the protesters.  Iraqi Spring MC posts this video of students in Tikrit protesting today.  And to be clear, that footage is Tuesday footage.  Nouri's forces shut them down yesterday.  They are protesting again today and showing solidarity with the protesters in Ramadi, Tikrit, Nineveh and Diyala.  You can also video of their protest today hereProtests continue in Falluja.



RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
"Protests, IDPs, third terms?"
"CIA ramps up what role in Iraq?"
"Rita Moreno"
"Ramen for the White House"
"Back in the day . . ."
"revenge"
"The Client List (spoilers)"
"Matt Lauer tries to do damage control"
"That embarrassing Jon Lee Anderson"
"The Good Wife"
"Oz"
"Oz"
"Is he going to get pinned?"
"THIS JUST IN! THE BIG DATE!"

Tuesday, March 12, 2013

Is he going to get pinned?




BULLY BOY PRESS &   CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL-AID TABLE

KILLER BARRY O IS TAKING TIME AWAY FROM HIS DRONE WAR AND THE JOY HE GETS FROM KILLING CHILDREN TO HAVE ANOTHER DATE NIGHT.

ONLY THIS ONE'S WITH PAUL RYAN!  HAVING SEEN SHE-HULK, WE CAN UNDERSTAND THE EXTRA-MARITAL DATING.

AS THE TWO-SOME GET READY TO COUPLE, ALL SORTS RUSH IN WITH ADVICE.  JOHN DICKERSON OFFERS THE COUPLING MIGHT BE A SIGN OF MATURITY WHILE ETERNAL VIRGIN MICHAEL TOMASKY INSISTS KILLER BARRY KEEP BOTH FEET ON THE FLOOR AT ALL TIMES AND NOT ALLOW ANY UNDER THE SWEATER ACTION.

REACHED FOR COMMENT, A BREATHLESS KILLER BARRY O GUSHED, "I STILL HAVEN'T DECIDED WHAT TO WEAR!  WHAT'S A BOY TO DO?"


FROM THE TCI WIRE

Of the Amnesty report, Patrick Cockburn (Independent) observes, "Forced confessions are at the heart of the present legal system with prisoners being given life and death sentences on the basis of false statements extracted by torture. In one case last year, cited by Amnesty, four men were arrested in Ramadi, held incommunicado and tortured by various means, including being hung up by the wrists and beatings, until they confessed."  Carsten Jugernsen is with Amnesty International Germany and he tells DPA of the report, "Neither the Iraqi government nor the former occupying power act according to basic standards of human rights, and the people of Iraq are paying the price for that."  Holly Yan (CNN) notes, "The report said government forces commit torture with impunity, targeting particularly those arrested on suspicion of carrying out terrorism acts." 

Olivia Ward (Canada's Spec) notes:

Early last September, Mundhir al-Bilawi and his father were stopped at a checkpoint in the Iraqi town of Ramadi and seized by security forces. Then, said the 13-year-old, they were tortured with electric shocks.
He told a lawyer he was pressured to denounce his father, a local pharmacist, as a terrorist — in the presence of an investigating judge. Mundhir’s father, 38-year-old Samir Naji Awda al-Bilawi, died in custody, and an autopsy confirmed that he had been tortured to death. But the family’s pleas to name the torturers and bring them and their superiors to justice have been ignored.


Tim Moynihan (Scotsman) notes the report  "highlights the case of Ramze Shihab Ahmed, a 70-year-old dual Iraqi-UK national who was given a 15-year jail sentence after a hearing that lasted only 15 minutes."  A really important report.  Maybe in a week or 17 more days, Media Matters can find it?  Probably not.  Despite having an hour to fill, Amy Goodman and Democracy Now! couldn't note the report -- not even in a headline.  See, it's easy to note what Media Matters notes because they present it as the distant past.  To address what is actually taking place in Iraq?  That might lead to criticism of President Barack Obama and they just will not tolerate that.  Writing about whistle blower and political prisoner Bradley Manning last week,  Naomi Spencer (WSWS) points out that these alleged lefties can't summon the nerve to call out Barack,  "Organizations that orbit the Obama administration-- including the International Socialist Organization, which has published a handful of articles about the case -- have likewise avoided uttering the name of Manning’s oppressor: the Democratic administration of Barack Obama. The most recent report in the Socialist Worker, the ISO’s publication, was a reprint of a February 22 Belfast Telegraph op-ed which made no mention of Obama."   The Voice of Russia (link is audio) explores what so many in the US are ignoring.  Excerpt.

Brendan Cole:  It may be a decade since the fall of Saddam [Hussein, former President of Iraq] but violation of human rights in Iraq are still rife.  That's according to Amnesty International whose report says that attacks on civilians, the torture of detainees and unfair trials are still prevalent.  It found government forces commit torture with impunity especially against those accused of carrying out acts of terrorism.  Methods of torture include electrical shocks, partial suffocation, beatings and the deprivation of food, water and sleep.  Carsten Jugernsen is the author of that Amnesty International report and he said torture has always been widespread in Iraq but now forced confessions were at the heart of the country's present legal system.

Carsten Jugernsen:  And we hear over and over again that this torture is done to coerce suspects to confess, to confess to all sorts of crimes, torture crimes, but also other crimes.  Then again, we hear confessions which are made under these circumstances and which are later withdrawn are yet used in the trials as evidence against people and people have been sentenced to very harsh sentences including to death.

Brendan Cole:  He said that thousands of Iraqis were detained without trial or serving prison sentences after unfair trials and now Iraq was one of the world's leading executioners.  Last year, 129 Iraqi prisoners were hanged.


It's really amazing that since the middle of December, certain posers have pretended to give a damn about torture but Amnesty International issues a report on torture late Sunday night and they're all silent.  That's because they didn't give a damn about torture.  It was about attacking a woman -- Kathryn Bigelow.  That's why the idiots at World Can't Wait announced their protest before anyone with the group had seen the film.  It was about attacking a woman.  Dexter Filkins and The New Yorker deliberately distorted the film ('reviewing' a scene not in the movie, not ever filmed, not ever written) and it launched a hundred and one attacks on Zero Dark Thirty.  Dexy Filkins, of course, when not whoring around in Iraq and destroying his marriage, was covering the second assault on Falluja, lying about it, letting the military vet his copy -- which is why events of November 15, 2004 made the front page of the November 21, 2004 New York Times. Dexy's a known liar but when he attacks a woman, watch the crowd rush to embrace him.  Zero Dark Thirty does not embrace torture (you can see Ava and my "Media: The never-ending sexism" for recent coverage on that, and for the opposite take, the only intelligent article written was this Z-Net piece by Tom Hayden).

It's strange how silent they are, these sudden obsessive types.  But then it's so much easier to attack a woman and to join in on Bash The Bitch, right?  A lot harder to call out torture.  Bad teethed Peter Maass is one of the ones who attacked Kathryn and her film.  Let's drop back to Maass' article for The New York Times Sunday Magazine (May 1, 2005):


The program we were watching was Adnan's brainchild, and in just a few months it had proved to be one of the most effective psychological operations of the war. It is reality TV of sorts, a show called ''Terrorism in the Grip of Justice.'' It features detainees confessing to various crimes. The show was first broadcast earlier this year and has quickly become a nationwide hit. It is on every day in prime time on Al Iraqiya, the American-financed national TV station, and when it is on, people across the country can be found gathered around their television sets.
[One paragraph deleted by me because we have not treated the videos as reality and I'm not going to include his mocking descriptions of people who were tortrued to get 'confessions.']
Before the show began that evening, Adnan's office was a hive of conversation, phone calls and tea-drinking. Along with a dozen commandos, there were several American advisers in the room, including James Steele, one of the United States military's top experts on counterinsurgency. Steele honed his tactics leading a Special Forces mission in El Salvador during that country's brutal civil war in the 1980's. Steele's presence was a sign not only of the commandos' crucial role in the American counterinsurgency strategy but also of his close relationship with Adnan. Steele admired the general. ''He's obviously a natural type of commander,'' Steele told me. ''He commands respect.''
Things quieted in the office once the episode of ''Terrorism in the Grip of Justice'' began. First, a detainee admitted [deleted by me for the same reason as before] and their confessions were taped, just hours before, in this very office. Adnan sat smoking Royals and watching the show like a proud producer.
''It has a good effect on civilians,'' he had told me, through an interpreter. ''Most civilians don't know who conducts the terrorist activities. Now they can see the quality of the insurgents.'' Earlier he said: ''Civilians must know that these people who call themselves resisters are thieves and looters. They are dirty. In every person there is good and bad, but in these people there is only bad.''
The episodes of the program I have seen depict an insurgency composed almost entirely of criminals and religious fanatics. The insurgency as understood by American intelligence officers, is a more complex web of interests and fighters. Most of the insurgency is composed of Sunnis, and it is generally believed that Baathists hold key positions. But the commandos, who are the stars of ''Terrorism in the Grip of Justice,'' are also led by Sunnis and have many former Baathists in their ranks, so the Sunni and Baathist aspect of the insurgency is carefully obscured.
Of course, propaganda need not be wholly accurate to be effective. The real problem with the program, according to its most vocal critics -- representatives of human rights groups -- is that it violates the Geneva Conventions. The detainees shown on ''Terrorism in the Grip of Justice'' have not been charged before judicial authorities, and they appear to be confessing under duress.


That's the real problem?  That no charges have been brought? Seems to me if Peter Maass wants to slam Kathryn Bigelow, he better have called out torture when he 'reported' on it.  (It's a first person, feature article, it's not reporting -- not even what passes for magazine reporting.  It reads like Are You There Saddam? It's Me Peter.)

We've called out torture from the start.  Not just because it's 'ineffective' but also because it's unethical.  It torments the victim and it dehumanizes the oppressor.  It destroys who we are as a people and leads us down a pathway that is hard to return from.  The breaking of laws is not the issue.  Breaking laws just go to the fact that it's criminal behavior.  The issue is why the laws were put in place, why these barriers were put in place.


Iraq didn't need to be introduced to torture by James Steele.  Steele is the subject of the new BBC Arabic and Guardian Newspaper documentary James Steele: America's Mystery Man In Iraq  which Ava and I reviewed Sunday at Third.  But what Steele and the American government did was betray the proclamation of 'a new Iraq,' 'of a free Iraq.'  There's no question that the US government broke the law with Steele and that War Crimes took place.  But it's the results of those crimes, the aftermath, that is why we have laws in place against torture.  In 'new Iraq,' the US sent James Steele in and allowed him to show the real face of counter-insurgency.  And these crimes became the norm in Iraq making clear that there would be no 'new Iraq.'  That's why the torture continues to this day.  The American occupation made it the norm and gave it the stamp of approval.  Amnesty's report notes:

The Ministry of Human Rights has gone some way towards acknowledging this reality, observing that detainees are "subjected in some instances to torture and ill-treatment in order to coerce them to confess or to obtain information."  Once they have "confessed" in this way, detainees are generally taken under guard to appear before an investigating judge, often under threat of further torture or other ill-treatment if they refuse to confirm their confession or complain of mistreatment.  In some cases, detainees are reported to have been threatened or assaulted by their guards in the presence of the investigating judge to force them to confess.  Investigating judges are supposed to ensure that any incriminatory statements have been freely given, without coercion or duress, yet cases continue to be reported where they appear to have preferred to "look the other way" and accept self- incriminating statements from detainees without question despite their allegations or other evidence of abuse.  This, when it occurs, may have profoundly damaging consequences for the detainee.  For example, the Central Criminal Court in Baghdad [case number 1479 of 2012, Branch 2] ruled on 3 December 2012 that it would accept as evidence a confession made in pre-trial detention by a defendant although that defendant "denied any relation with the accusation brought against him and stated that his previous confession in front of the investigating judge was not true as it had been obtained by pressure and coercion that he was subjected to by the investigator".  The court said it found the confession acceptable because it was "elaborate and detailed" [mufassal wa daqiq], then convicted the defendant under the Anti-Terrorism Law and sentenced him to life imprisonment.  As experienced Iraqi criminal lawyers have attested to Amnesty International, courts place great weight on "confessions" recorded by investigating judges and tend to accept them even though defendants withdraw and repudiate them at trial.


Torture destroys the lives of the victims.  It dehumanizes those who practice it.  And it destroys an open society.  If you torture to get a 'confession' and it's false but you convict, you not only put the innocent behind bars, you let the guilty walk.  More importantly, the lesson is absorbed in the society that truth and reality don't matter.  The people take the message, they understand what repression is and the open society dies as does every freedom.  That's what so many Iraqis taking to the streets to protest for the last months are fighting against, the death of an open society.  They are fighting for that "new Iraq" that they were promised but still haven't seen.


RECOMMENDED: