Saturday, December 13, 2008

And the US admission that it's not all concrete

The top American commander in Iraq said that U.S. forces will remain in dozens of small bases inside Iraq's cities despite language in a recently-signed security pact which appears to require an American withdrawal from Iraqi urban areas by next summer.
Gen. Raymond Odierno told reporters here that the U.S. troops assigned to "joint security stations" inside Iraqi cities like Baghdad would remain in the outposts indefinitely. The bases, which are a key part of the U.S. counterinsurgency strategy, house thousands of American personnel across the country. There are well over a dozen such outposts in Baghdad alone.Gen. Odierno, who assumed command in September, explained that the withdrawal provision in the security pact applied only to combat personnel. The U.S. forces assigned to the joint security stations mentor and fight alongside Iraqi troops, so American commanders classify them as training personnel and don't consider them to be covered by the withdrawal language, he said.

The above is from Yochi J. Dreazen's "U.S. Troops May Stay in Iraqi Cities Beyond Deadline" (Wall St. Journal). And we're still supposed to mean the treaty means a damn thing? Maybe we're supposed to be insane like Patrick Cockburn and just ignore the above reality and all other bits? If so, we too can write crazy columns about how the White House got trumped by their puppet and title our pieces "Total Defeat for U.S. in Iraq." It doesn't resemble reality and the US has never come out on the losing end of any treaty, but, hey, when crazy talks Cockburn listens, right? And it's apaprently more important to publish revenge fantasies than reality. Translation, Cockburn wants so much for his rant to be true that he can't face the reality that it's not.

The treaty was never for the benefit of Iraq. The treaty was to extend the occupation. It is non-binding, it can be cancelled in 2010 or 2011. All it guarantees is that the US remains on Iraqi soil for one more year -- the way the UN Security Council mandate has each year.

This is from American Freedom Campaign:

The document parading around as the U.S.-Iraq agreement is not valid under the U.S. Constitution. Its legitimacy is based solely on the silence of lawmakers (and members of the media), who seem to be paralyzed by the fear of having an independent and intelligent opinion. Fortunately, one lawmaker has broken the silence and has acknowledged the truth before everyone's eyes.
It is now time for others, including you, to join their voices with hers.
A few weeks ago, I wrote about the pending U.S.-Iraq agreement, decrying the fact that the Iraqi Parliament was being given the opportunity to vote on whether to approve the agreement while Congress was being denied - and was refusing to fight for - the same opportunity.
Well, thanks to our efforts and the leadership of Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA), the U.S. House of Representatives may finally get to voice its opinion on President Bush's unconstitutional usurpation of Congress's legislative power.
Yesterday, Rep. Lee introduced a
resolution related to the U.S.-Iraq agreement, inspired in part by AFC's call for a "signing statement" resolution. The primary purpose of this resolution is to express the sense of the House that President Bush does not have the power under the Constitution to negotiate and sign such a far-reaching agreement with another nation without seeking congressional approval of the agreement.
Passage of this resolution -- most likely following re-introduction in January -- will send a message to the Bush administration, the incoming Obama administration, and the rest of the world that the agreement holds no legal weight under U.S. law and will be considered merely advisory by Congress.
In truth, even without passage of this resolution, Congress shall not be bound by its terms. No president can unilaterally commit $10 billion per month in U.S. treasure to keep our troops in another nation. The United States has never been a monarchy or a dictatorship and we are certainly not going to accept any similar kind of system today.
Putting aside the question over whether this agreement is currently binding or not, it is important that as many lawmakers as possible openly reject the constitutionality of the agreement. So please tell your U.S. representative to co-sponsor, support, and vote for Rep. Lee's signing statement resolution (H.Res. 1535) by
clicking on the following link
Once you have sent your message, please forward this email widely to friends and family. In the alternative, you can use the "Tell-A-Friend" option on the AFC Web site that will appear after you have sent your message.
Thank you so much for taking action.
Steve Fox

Campaign Director
American Freedom Campaign Action Fund

The following community sites have updated since yesterday morning:

Rebecca's Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude;
Betty's
Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man;
Cedric's
Cedric's Big Mix;
Kat's
Kat's Korner;
Mike's
Mikey Likes It!;
Elaine's
Like Maria Said Paz;
Wally's
The Daily Jot;
Trina's
Trina's Kitchen;
Ruth's
Ruth's Report;
Marcia's
SICKOFITRADLZ;
and Stan's
Oh Boy It Never Ends

And stealing this from Elaine to remind about tonight's concert online:

"Live Saturday: Aimee Mann's Christmas Concert" (NPR):
WXPN, December 12, 2008 - Aimee Mann doesn't seem like the type to gravitate toward Christmas music -- there's nothing Bing Crosby or Mannheim Steamroller about her. Yet for the third year in a row, she's about to perform material from her beautiful 2006 holiday album, One More Drifter in the Snow, and more at the Keswick Theater in Glenside, Penn. Hear the complete concert, webcast live by WXPN this Saturday, Dec. 13, starting at 8 p.m. ET. Nellie McKay and Grant-Lee Phillips will join Mann onstage for special duets.


The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.


iraq
yochi j. dreazen
the wall st. journal
aimee mann
npr



thomas friedman is a great man






oh boy it never ends

Here Comes The Denial

"What Dr. Ali al-Dabbagh said about Iraqi forces will need ten years to be ready was only his personal view and does not represent the Iraqi government," Xinhua quotes puppet of the occupation Nouri al-Maliki saying.

First off, al-Dabbagh spoke the truth. Secondly, here's your first tip-off: The denial is being reported more than the statement.

Reuters was the only non-Mid East outlet to report al-Dabbagh's statements Thursday at the Pentagon. At the Pentagon press conference. All the reporters and only Reuters covered it.

AP, present at that briefing but playing dumb for days, but now rushes to 'report' on al-Maliki's statement. Rush? They're in such a hurry that they assert, "Al-Dabbagh told reporters Friday in Washington that U.S. troops may need to stay in Iraq for another 10 years because Iraqi security forces would not be ready to face security challenges on their own." Friday?

From Thursday's snapshot:

And if you doubt it, check this from Reuters: "Ali al-Dabbagh, spokesman for the government of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, said some U.S. forces could be needed for 10 years but told reporters that the terms of any extended presence would be negotiated between the next Iraqi and U.S. governments."

And that was David Morgan and Anthony Boadle's Reuters report. AP must have been in some hurry to launch their spin campaign.

Again, the denial gets more press coverage than the actual statements and outlets like AP -- late to the party -- really don't inform what the statements were.

Here's Reuters' Missy Reid and Michael Christie providing the back story today what many of their peers won't:

Dabbagh, on a visit to Washington this week, raised the possibility of some of the 149,000 U.S. troops in Iraq remaining for longer than the date defined by the security pact.
"We do understand that the Iraqi military is not going to get built out in the three years. We do need many more years. It might be 10 years," Dabbagh said at a Pentagon press briefing.
He said that future Iraqi leaders would decide what kind of U.S. presence might be required after 2011.
Iraq's parliament approved the bilateral security agreement setting the end-2011 deadline after fierce and protracted debate. It is scheduled to be put to a referendum next year.
Opponents of the pact, including supporters of anti-American Shi'ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, have argued the pact gives legitimacy to a destructive foreign occupation and say they do not believe the United States will honour the withdrawal date.
Maliki, a Shi'ite who heads a coalition government, was seen as benefiting the most from the pact.

And with provincial electiions scheduled to take place January 31st, al-Maliki would prefer this news not get out and risk the chance of his installing friendlies. He's having a real problem with the provinces that the press has largely ignored except in the Kudristan region. The Kurds are economically well off and, therefore, can garner Western attention easily. But the conflicts going on there -- which do involve attempted land and power grabs -- are echoed throughout the rest of Iraq. Anbar Province -- in these Post-"Awakening"- Days -- is a region that is becoming increasingly hostile to al-Maliki.

The puppet was installed and he was no one's first choice -- not even the first choice of the US. In DC, al-Maliki is a joke (despite State Dept attempts to spin him as a success) and many who have lost their initial enthusiasm for the illegal war cite al-Maliki as among the White House's worst mistakes. The press (doing their stenography so well) has been on yet another push for al-Maliki. But the reality is there is still no oil law (allowing for the theft of Iraqi-oil), provincial elections have still not taken place, and there's no benchmark that can be pointed to with pride and called an "accomplishment." (In fact, they are such failures that no one makes a point to address the for-show de-de-Baathification anymore.) al-Maliki was installed in the spring of 2006 and only after he gave repeated assurances he could pull off what the White House wanted. He failed repeatedly and has, in fact, never succeeded in any way other than the Parliament vote Thanksgiving Day (and that was largely a success due to the US paying off MPs).

In the time after that vote, two narratives took hold. Remember -- as with Barack and Hillary -- narratives requires the hero and the nemesis. They require the up and the down. Without both, they are revealed for the unnatural spin they are. With both, they seem to be less fairy tales and more life lessons.


So after the vote, the White House wanted al-Maliki to get favorable press and you can't 'create' a hero without inventing the villain. So al-Maliki's 'rise' was charted widely by outlets (even though it had not taken place) and Moqtada al-Sadr's 'fall' was charted widely by outlets (even though it had not taken place). Nearly half the MPs in Parliament elected to skip the vote on the treaty. But this was a 'victory' for al-Maliki?

No, not by any reasonable standards of evaluation. It was a huge failure for him since it was set to go down in flames until two weeks prior to the vote when the US really started opening the wallets. The State Dept bought that vote. Before it went down -- when it was still iffy according to press reports -- we talked about how the vote would go with me citing friends in the State Dept. We talked about how they said it was going to go (passing the treaty) and why (buying off MPs). That's not an unknown event to any US reporters stationed in Iraq -- and, in fact, the Arabic press has been carrying multiple quotes from MPs since the election on how the vote was purchased -- so you really have to wonder how those Up-with-Maliki pieces came to run?

al-Maliki's a non-star making the cover of Van Fair in the 90s with everyone working overtime to make him come off interesting in the copy and air brushing the photos so no one notes that he's cross-eyed and has a bad tooth that sticks out. Like all those covers did, the press can insist al-Maliki's 'powerful' and on the way 'up' but it's not reality.

Reality is that he's the puppet who has consistently promised the White House he could deliver and has consistently failed. It was that way from the start when he was repeatedly missing deadlines to staff his cabinet.

al-Maliki's 'statements' are being carried today.

But al-Maliki didn't declare them. No one heard him say them. It's a written statement sent out by his office. For those not fail to pay attention to the illegal war, al-Maliki now has a long pattern of later denying statements in his name issued by his office. He gets to have it both ways and has many times.

Related note, a vistor e-mails to say ____ has spoken about the UK withdrawl from Iraq. ____ is not Gordon Brown. We pay attention and are fully aware of the woman (we'll be kind and not name) with the British government who made all these statements from Iraq. And the UK government never followed up on any of them. When Brown, the Prime Minister, speaks on it, we'll follow it. Until then, it may or may not be true. It may be a trial ballon being floated to guage reactions. But a plan has not been presented publicly. Brown would have to do that.

The New York Times takes the day off from Iraq. Not surprising. It strives so hard to be the official record of offical-dom and no one's sure yet where al-Maliki's statments and the earlier ones -- declared at the Pentagon -- fall.

Adam Ashton reported on the statements yesterday and their reaction in Iraq in "Iraqi Official Says U.S. Troops May Be Needed For A Decade" (McClatchy Newspapers):

That assertion makes sense to many Iraqi leaders, though they rarely say it in public. Iraq doesn't have a navy or an air force to protect itself. Many view it as America's obligation to improve the country's defense.
"It is the responsibility of the United States that we should not be left to be attacked," Maki said.
However, Dabbagh's statement reopened the primary attack on the security agreement, that it would justify the U.S. presence in Iraq and lead to an extended occupation.
"This statement comes to appease the Americans," charged Sheikh Ali Hatem, a tribal leader from Anbar province, west of Baghdad. "It is true the Americans have a moral obligation to straighten out Bush's mess, but 10 years of American troops is too much.
"We already have an agreement, and if the government thought that the three years mentioned in it were not adequate, why didn't it fix 10 years instead? Was it simply to get the agreement approved and then to go ahead with other plans?"
Some viewed Dabbagh's statement as inopportune at best, even if it could be justified as a realistic assessment of Iraq's defense needs.
"We haven't even begun implementing the agreement," said Mahmoud Othman, a Kurdish member of parliament who voted for the pact. "We just approved it. For us to think about extending the U.S. presence by planning another (security agreement) is premature."


The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.

iraq
david morgan
anthony boadle
mcclatchy newspapers
adam ashton

Friday, December 12, 2008

Iraq snapshot

Friday, December 12, 2008. The British military announces a death (and it's strange how closely it resembles their most recent Basra death), a US outlet reports on the remarks by al-Maliki's spokesperson (that the US military may be needed in Iraq for at least 10 more years), Donald Rumsfeld and many others are implicated in the Senate Armed Services Committe report, and more.
 
Starting with Alsumaria's  "Iraq: US Forces could be needed for 10 years:"
 
In the first statements that point out to Iraq's need for US Forces in the country since the declaration of the US-Iraqi security pact, Cabinet spokesman Ali Al Dabbagh said Iraq will need US troop presence to help build up its military forces past the newly agreed three-year deadline for the withdrawal of US troops.
Al Dabbagh, representing Prime Minister Nuri Al Maliki in Washington, said some U.S. forces could be needed for 10 years stressing that the terms of any extended presence would be negotiated between the next Iraqi and US governments in 2011 since the security pact has not tackled this issue. He added that until that time, the number of troops needed and the level of cooperation and support required would be clearer.   
Al Dabbagh statements came at a time when the International Security Council is getting ready to adopt during a meeting scheduled next week a resolution to end multinational forces mission in Iraq upon the request of Baghdad. Iraqi Ambassador to the UN Hamed Al Bayati affirmed in a statement to the Kuwaiti News Agency (Kuna) that Iraq has sent a similar letter to the Security Council Chief. He added that the letter has been distributed to members and will be official early next week. Al Bayati affirmed that Al Maliki has noted in a letter to the Security Council that the extension of multinational forces mission has been done for the last time and while their mission will end late this month.
 
 Yesterday's snapshot noted David Morgan and Anthony Boadle's (Reuters) report and they noted that "Dabbagh's comments appeared to be the first to address the potential need for a residual U.S. presence since the pact was announced."  (This topic was covered at length here.)  Adam Ashton (McClatchy Newspapers) becomes the first reporter at a US outlet to report on it, noting today:
 
Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki last month sold the Iraqi people on a security pact with the U.S. that he called a "withdrawal agreement" to end the presence of American forces in his country by the beginning of 2012.   
His top government spokesman, Ali al Dabbagh, undercut that claim this week, however, when he said in Washington that the U.S. might be needed in Iraq for another 10 years, a statement that reverberated with political leaders in Baghdad, renewing criticism of the deal.
 
 
 On the treaty,   American Freedom Campaign:         

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you so much for taking action.            

Steve Fox                
Campaign Director        
American Freedom Campaign Action Fund

 

Joby Warrick and Karen DeYoung (Washington Post) cover yesterday's report from the Senate Armed Services Committee on which "accuses [former Secretary of Defense Donald] Rumsfeld and his deputies of being the authors and chief promoters of harsh interrogation policies that disgraced the nation and underminded U.S. security.  The report, released by Sens. Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.) and John McCian (R-Ariz.), contends that Pentagon officials later tried to create a false impression that the policies were unrelated to acts of detainee abuse committed by members of the military."   The 19 page report [warning, PDF format] is entitled "Senate Armed Services Committee Inquiry Into The Treatment Of Detainees In U.S. Custody."  In a statement released by his office, Levin notes:
 
The abuse of detainees in U.S. custody compromised our moral authority and damaged both our ability to attract allies to our side in the fight against terrorism and to win the support of people around the world for that effort.  In May 2004, just after the pictures from Abu Ghraib became public, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz said that the abuses depicted were simply the result of a few "bad apples" and that those responsible for abuse would be held accountable.  More than seven months later, then-White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee.  Asked about accountability for detainee abuses, Gonzales said "we care very much about finding out what happened and holding people accountable."  Neither of those two statements was true.   
Department of Defense investigations into detainee abuse failed to adequately assign accountability to those senior military and civilian officials who authorized abusive interrogation techniques.   
As we began to dig into what happened, the influence of SERE (Survival Evasion Resistance and Escape) resistance training techniques on our interrogation policies and practices became more and more obvious and became the focus of our investigation.  SERE training is intended to be used to teach our soldiers how to resist interrogation by enemies that refuse to follow the Geneva Conventions and international law.  In SERE school, our troops who are at risk of capture are exposed -- in a controlled environment with great protections and caution -- to techniques adapated from abusive tactics used against American soldiers by enemies such as the Communist Chinese during the Korean War.  SERE training techniques include stress positions, forced nudity, use of fear, sleep deprivation and, until recently, the Navy SERE school used the waterboard.  These techniques were designed to give our students a taste of what they might be subjected to if captured by a ruthless, lawless enemy so that they would be better prepared to resist.  The techniques were never intended to be used against detainees in U.S. custody.  As one JPRA instructor explained, SERE training is "based on illegal exploitation (under the rules listed in teh 1949 Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War) of prisoners over the last 50 years."  
So, how did it come about that American military personnel stripped detainees naked, put them in stress position, used dogs to scare them, put leashes around their necks to humiliate them, hooded them, deprived them of sleep, and blasted music at them. 
 
How?  The report makes clear, in the section entitled "Presidential Order Opens the Door to Considering Aggressive Techniques," how:
 
On February 7, 2002, President Bush signed a memorandum stating that the Third Geneva Convention did not apply to the conflict with al Qaeda and concluding that Taliban detainees were not entitled to prisoner of war status or the legal protections afforded by the Third Geneva Convention.  The President's order closed off application of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, which would have afforded minimum standards for humane treatment, to al Qaeda or Taliban detainees.  While the President's order stated that, as "a matter of policy, the United States Armed Forces shall continue to treat detainees humanely and, to the extent appropriate and consistent with military necessity, in a manner consistent with the principles of the Geneva Conventions," the decision to replace well established military doctrine, i.e. legal compliance with the Geneva Conventions, with a policy subject to interpretation, impacted the treatment of detainees in U.S. custody.  
In December 2001, more than a month before the President signed his memorandum, the Department of Defense (DoD) General Counsel's Office had already solicted information on detainee "exploitation" from the Joint Personnel Recovery Agency (JPRA), an agency whose expertise was in training American personnel to withstand interrogation techniques considered illegal under the Geneva Conventions. 
 
What follows is multiple meetings with then-National Security Advisor Condi Rice being brought in, with her requesting then-CIA Director George Tenet provide briefings to the NSC and for then-Attorney General John Ashcroft to "personally . . . review and confirm the legal advice prepared by the Office of Legal Council."  Rice "also said that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld participated in the NSC review of CIA's program."  In other words, the bulk of the administration in 2002 was involved.  The Dept of Justice issued two legal opinions August 1, 2002:
 
One opinion, commonly known as the first Bybee memo, was addressed to Judge Gonzales and provided OLC [Office of Legal Counsel]'s opinion on standards of conduct in interrogation required under the federal torture statute.  That memo concluded:
 
[F]or an act to constitute torture as defined in [the federal torture statue], it must inflict pain that is difficult to endure.  Physical pain amounting to torture must be equivalent in intensity to pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death.  For purely mental pain or suffering to amount to torture under [the federal torture statue], it must result in significant psychological harm of significant duration, e.g., lasting for months or even years. 
 
[ . . .]
 
The other OLC opinion issued on August 1, 2002 is known commonly as the Second Bybee memo.  That opinion, which responded to a request from the CIA, addressed the legality of specific interrogation tactics.  While the full list of techiniques remains classified, a publicly released CIA document indicates that waterboarding was among those analyzed and approved.  CIA Director General Michael Hayden stated in public testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee on February 5, 2008 that waterboarding was used by the CIA.  And Steven Bradury, the current Assistant Attorney General of the OLC, testified before the House Judiciary Committee on February 14, 2008 that the CIA's use of waterboarding was "adapted from the  SERE training program."
Before drafting the opinions, Mr. Yoo, the Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the OLC, had met with Alberto Gonzales, Counsel to the President, and David Addington, Counsel to the Vice President, to discuss the subjects he intended to address in the opinions.  In testimony before the House Judiciary Committee, Mr. Yoo refused to say whether or not he ever discussed or received information about SERE techniques as the memos were being drafted.  When asked whether he had discussed SERE techniques with Judge Gonzales, Mr. Addington, Mr. Yoo, Mr. Rizzo or other senior administration lawyers, DoD General Counsel Jim Haynes testified that he "did discuss SERE techniques with other people in the administration."  NSC Legal Advisor John Bellinger said that "some of the legal analyses of proposed interrogation techniques that were prepared by the Department of Justice. . .  did refer to the psychological effects of resistance training." 
In fact, Jay Bybee the Assistant Attorney General who signed the two OLC legal opinions said that he saw an assessment of the psychological effects of military resistance training in July 2002 in meetings in his office with John Yoo and two other OLC attorneys.  Judge Bybee said that he used that assessment to inform the August 1, 2002 OLC legal opinion that has yet to be publicly released.  Judge Bybee also recalled discussing detainne interrogations in a meeting with Attorney General John Ashcroft and John Yoo in late July 2002, prior to signing the OLC opinions.  Mr. Bellinger, the NSC Legal Advisor, siad that "the NSC's Principals reviewed CIA's proposed program on several occasions in 2002 and 2003" and that he "expressed concern that the proposed CIA interrogation techniques comply with applicable U.S. law, including our international obligations." 
 
As Carl Levin has pointed out the myth is of a "few bad apples" at the bottom being responsible for torture used in Afghanistan and Iraq.  That is not correct.  Equally true is that the report does not pin all blame on Donald Rumsfeld.  There are "many bad apples" at the top and all need to share in the blame and in the shame. 
 
By November 2002, alarms were being sounded by the Air Force ("serious concerns regarding the legality of many of the proposed techniques"), the DoD's Criminal Investigation Task Force stated some techniques could leave US military personnel open "to punitive articles of the [Uniform Code of Military Justice]," the Army's International and Operational Law Division objected (noting some of the techniques "crosses the line of 'humane' treatment"), the Navy asked for further "legal and policy review," and the Marine Corps wanted "a more thorough legal and policy review" (and expressed concerns about violations of federal laws). All of this was ignored even when the Legal Counsel to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Rear Adm. Jane Dalton and her staff brought these issues to the Defense Dept (specifically the General Counsel's Office). 
 
The report notes that Donald Rumsfeld received a recommendation from DoD General Counsel Jim Haynes that 15 of the 18 techniques be approved (November 27, 2002) and this recommendation "indicated that he [Haynes] had discussed the issue with Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Doug Feith, and General [Richard] Myers and that he believed they concurred in his recommendations."  Rumsfeld signed off on the recomendations (December 2, 2002) adding, "I stand for 8-10 hours a day.  Why is standing limited to 4 hours?"  Alarms continued to be sounded and nothing was done (Rice states she held regular meetings to express concerns).  
 
The report notes, "From Afghanistan, the techniques made their way to Iraq.  According to the Department of Defense (DoD) Inspector General (IG), at the beginning of the Iraq war, special mission unit forces in Iraq 'used a January 2003 Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) which had been developed for operations in Afghanistan'."   Col Steven Kleinman's testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committtee (September 2008) addresses abuses he personally saw.  September 14, 2003 finds Lt Gen Ricardo Sanchez providing the authorization for "stress positions, environmental manipulation, sleep management, and military working dogs in interrogations."  He withdrew that authority on October 12, 2003 but confusion (intended by Sanchez or not) remained as to what was and was not now authorized. 
 
The report finds the problems went well beyond Rumsfeld.  Conclusion One notes the White House's decision to toss aside Common Article 3 and Conclusion Two notes those particiapting in the process: "Members of the President's Cabinet and other senior officials . .  National Security Council Principals".  Conclusion 19 pertains specifically to Iraq so we'll note it in full:

 
The abuse of detainees at Abu Ghraib in late 2003 was not simply the result of a few soldiers acting on their own.  Interrogation techniques such as stripping detainees of their cloths, placing them in stress positions, and using military working dogs to intimidate them appeared in Iraq only after they had been approved for use in Afghanistant and at GITMO.  Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's December 2, 2002 authorization of aggressive interrogation techniques and subsequent interrogation policies and plans approved by senior military and civilian officials conveyed the message that physical pressures and degradation were appropriate treament for detainees in U.S. military custody.  What followed was an erosion in standards dictating that detainees be treated humanely.
 
On Wendesday, Senator Russ Feingold issued a call to the president-elect on "Concrete Steps" needed for the Rule of Law to be restored.  In terms of the topics noted above, these recommendations from Feingold are worth noting:
 
 
The new administration should express its unqualified commitment to enforcing the ban against torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, and should establish as a matter of policy a single, government-wide standard of humane detainee treatment. I have supported efforts in Congress to make the Army Field Manual on Human Intelligence Collector Operations that standard. The new administration should revoke all existing orders and legal opinions authorizing cruel interrogations, including Executive Order 13440 and any relevant opinions of the OLC.

The new administration should commit to providing timely notification of and access to the International Committee of the Red Cross for any and all detainees held in U.S. custody anywhere in the world.

The new administration should close the facility at Guantanamo Bay, as you have pledged to do. Closing Guantanamo raises a number of complex questions, many of which were addressed in the hearing submissions. I hope those submissions can serve as a resource to your administration in addressing these difficult issues. As you tackle the Guantanamo problem, however, I urge you not to establish an entirely new preventive detention regime based on concerns about a very small number of difficult cases.

The new administration should reject the flawed military commission trial system being used at Guantanamo Bay.

The new administration should develop effective means of enforcing the ban against rendering individuals to countries where they have a credible fear of being tortured.

 
The Senate Armed Service Committee was not the only governmental body issuing a report yesterday.  The Office of Inspector General at the Dept of Defense released a report yesterday.  Walter Pincus (Washington Post) reports, "The Pentagon's inspector general said yesterday that the Defense Department's public affairs office may have 'inappropriately' merged public affairs and propaganda operations in 2007 and 2008 when it contracted out $1 million in work for a strategic communication plan for use by the military in collaboration with the State Department."  And around 11:00 AM EST, the man who insulted Stephanie Tubbs Jones back in 2005 (longterm community members know whom I mean -- remember the Ohio 2004 vote didn't matter to him) rewrote Walter's article for a website.  No link to that trash.
 
It's Friday.  Violence is rarely reported.  Yesterday's bombing at Abdalla Kabab resulted in 57 deaths and over 120 wounded. We'll note some of this morning's reporting on that.  Tina Susman (Los Angeles Times) explains, "The Abdullah restaurant was the kind of place Iraqis took their families on special occasions.  It was the kind of place high-ranking officials in the northern city of Kirkuk chose for power lunches, where they dug in to plates on tables covered with white cloths as water burbled from a decorative fountain."  Sudarsan Raghavan (Washington Post) adds, "Hundreds of families were inside the Abdullah restaurant, an area landmark, celebrating the end of the Muslim holiday of Eid al-Adha, police and hospital officials said.  It was the deadliest attack in Iraq in six months."  Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) observes, "The room was a shambles.  On the flood was mass of tortured humanity -- those that lived.  Prams and pacifiers; ribbons and toys.  Purses thrown open with make up and perfume bottles strewn everywhere.  I can see them with my mind's eye.  They look much like what my daughter carries in her purse. . . . My daughter, your daughter . . . anyone's daughter."  Nico Hines (Times of London) offers, "The explosion may have been targeted at a group of Arab elders and Kurdish political officials who were holding discussions over lunch aimed at easing long-standing ethnic tensions in the northern Iraqi region."  Timothy Williams (New York Times) quotes Abdalla Kabab's supervisor Shirzad Mowfak Zangana explaining, "All of a sudden we heard a very loud explosion. Two of the walls collapsed, and then the next thing I remember is that I felt blood covering my face. People were screaming. Children were crying. Smoke filled all three dining rooms."  Williams also attempts to connect it to larger issues regarding Kirkuk.  Youssif Bassil and Jomana Karadsheh (CNN) do that much better -- for starters they note Kirkuk is disputed territory --  and they sketch out the current struggle taking place as follows: "The Kurds have been flexing their muscles lately by building up their substantial oil industry without conferring with the central government. They also want to incorporate towns with significant Kurdish populations outside the region into their sphere -- particularly the city of Kirkuk.  But Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's government has pushed back, criticizing some of the Kurdistan go-it-alone business efforts and criticizing the deployment of the Kurdish peshmerga security forces in towns under the control of the federal government."
 
Today the British Military announced: "It is with profound sadness that the Ministry of Defence must confirm the death in Basra yesterday, Thursday 11 December 2008, of a solider serving with 20 Armoured Brigade.  At approximately 2200hrs local time, a report was received of a soldier who had suffered a gunshot wound within the Contingency Operating Base.  Immediate medical assistance was provided but sadly the soldier died at the scene.  No enemy forces were involved and there is no evidence at this stage to suggest that any third party was involved in the incident.  An investigation by the Royal Military Police Special Investigations Branch is underway."  This is the second British military fatality in Iraq this month.  December 4th David Kenneth Wilson died in Basra from a gunshot wound and, note, "No enemy forces were involved and there is no evidence at this stage to suggest that anyone else was involved." Today's announcement brings the number of British service members killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war to 178 (ICCC currently is at 177 as I dictate this, it will be at 178 when they note this death).
 
 
When the day finally comes that Raul Flores loses his job, he will face a bitter search for another one.   "I've got a family to support, so I've got to do whatever it takes," he says.  "It's going to be hard.  The economic situation is not good, but I can't just wait for something to happen to me."         
That puts Flores in the same boat as millions of other U.S. workers.  Last month alone 533,000 workers lost their jobs, the highest figure in 34 years.  A week ago, the heads of the big three auto companies were in Washington DC, pleading for loans to keep their companies afloat.  As a price, lawmakers and pundits told them they had to become "leaner and meaner," and in response, General Motors announced it would close nine plants and put tens of thousands of workers in the street.  Ford and Chrysler described a similar job-elimination strategy.       
What makes Flores special?  He didn't just accept the elimination of his job.  Instead, he sat in at the Chicago plant where he worked for six days, together with 240 other union members at Republic Windows and Doors.         
Republic workers were not demanding the reopening of their closed factory.  They've been fighting for severance and benefits to help them survive the unemployment they know awaits them.  Yet their occupation can't help but raise deeper questions about the right of workers to their jobs.  Can a return to the militant tactics of direct action, that produced the greatest gains in union membership, wages and job security in U.S. history, overturn "the inescapable logic of the marketplace"?  Can employers, and the banks that hold their credit lines, be forced to keep plants open?    
 
Public broadcasting notes.  One of America's most gifted contemporary singer-songwriter, Aimee Mann, has a Christmas concert on NPR tomorrow.  Live from the Kewsick Theater in Pennsylvania, Aimee's concert will be webcast by WXPN beginning Saturday night at 8:00 PM EST.  This concert is part of a series of Christmas performances by Aimme that will next find her in Alexandria, VA (December 15 and 16), NYC (December 17 and 18th) and Tarrytown, NY (December 19th).  Can't make it to those concerts?  One more reason to catch Saturday's webcast.  For Saturday's concert, her guests will be Nellie McKay and Grant-Lee Phillips.  (In a year of sheep, Nellie McKay stood up for peace and did so proudly and publicly.  Very few can make that claim, let alone claim to have her courage.)  Aimee first came to national attention as a member of the band 'Til Tuesday whose songs and singing ("Voices Carry," "J for Jules," "No One Is Watching You Now," "Welcome Home," etc.) registered strongly and immediately.  On her own she's produced hits like "That's Just What You Are" while still trying to fit into the corporate label scheme before going off on her own and producing amazing work (and earning an Oscar nomination for "Save Me").  Her latest album is @#%&*! Smilers.  Kat's reviewed her latest CD as well as The Forgotten Arm.  And NPR's previous Aimee Mann coverage includes "Aimee Mann: Heartache And Hope" and "Aimee Mann: Bittersweet Holidays" (here for NPR's archive of Aimee stories).
 
PBS?  NOW on PBS  visits Kiribati as it examines the issue of displacement as a result of global warming.  Washington Week also begins airing tonight on some PBS stations (others tend to air it as a Sunday morning chat & chew) and joining Gwen will be Pete Williams (NBC News), Christi Parsons (Chicago Tribune), David E. Sanger (New York Times) and John Maggs (National Journal).  On broadcast TV (CBS) Sunday, 60 Minutes:

Barney Frank
Lesley Stahl talks to Rep. Barney Frank (D.-Mass.), whose position as House Financial Services Committee Chairman puts him right in the middle of the huge and controversial government bailouts, first for the financial industry and now for Detroit's automakers. | Watch Video
Where's The Bottom?
The mortgage mess that touched off the financial meltdown is far from over, with a second wave of expected defaults on the way that could deepen the bottom of this recession. Scott Pelley reports.
Coach Carroll
Byron Pitts profiles USC college football coach Pete Carroll, who, in addition to his success in making the Trojans a football dynasty, is making positive contributions toward decreasing gang violence in Los Angeles. | Watch Video
60 Minutes, this Sunday, Dec. 14, at 7 p.m. ET/PT.
 

US Forces could remain in Iraq for 10 more years

In the first statements that point out to Iraq’s need for US Forces in the country since the declaration of the US-Iraqi security pact, Cabinet spokesman Ali Al Dabbagh said Iraq will need US troop presence to help build up its military forces past the newly agreed three-year deadline for the withdrawal of US troops.
Al Dabbagh, representing Prime Minister Nuri Al Maliki in Washington, said some U.S. forces could be needed for 10 years stressing that the terms of any extended presence would be negotiated between the next Iraqi and US governments in 2011 since the security pact has not tackled this issue. He added that until that time, the number of troops needed and the level of cooperation and support required would be clearer.
Al Dabbagh statements came at a time when the International Security Council is getting ready to adopt during a meeting scheduled next week a resolution to end multinational forces mission in Iraq upon the request of Baghdad. Iraqi Ambassador to the UN Hamed Al Bayati affirmed in a statement to the Kuwaiti News Agency (Kuna) that Iraq has sent a similar letter to the Security Council Chief. He added that the letter has been distributed to members and will be official early next week. Al Bayati affirmed that Al Maliki has noted in a letter to the Security Council that the extension of multinational forces mission has been done for the last time and while their mission will end late this month.

The above is "Iraq: US Forces could be needed for 10 years" (Alsumaria) and that should be the headline on the front page of every US paper. It should result in the worthless beggars of Panhandle Media taking to public airwaves and their websites to explore what they refused to in real time (yes, Amy Goodman, you, the Queen of All Beggars, are included on that list).

They pimped the treaty. Amy Goodman and all the rest did exactly what they have spent years condemning Judith Miller for -- lack of skepticism and running with the official 'version' of the truth the White House was pimping. They have spent how many years ripping Judith Miller apart?

So watch as they all pretend yesterday's events didn't take place. Yesterday's snapshot noted Reuters' report on the remarks (report by David Morgan and Anthony Boadle) and let's revisit "Iraq may need US troops for decade - Iraqi official:"


Iraq will need a U.S. troop presence to help build up its military forces past the newly agreed three-year deadline for the withdrawal of American soldiers, a senior Iraqi official said on Thursday.
Ali al-Dabbagh, spokesman for the government of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, said some U.S. forces could be needed for 10 years but told reporters that the terms of any extended presence would be negotiated between the next Iraqi and U.S. governments.
[. . .]
"We do understand that the Iraqi military is not going to get built out in the three years. We do need many more years. It might be 10 years," Dabbagh said at a Pentagon press briefing.
Iraqi officials had spoken about the potential need for a lengthy U.S. troop presence before the new SOFA agreement. But Dabbagh's comments appeared to be the first to address the potential need for a residual U.S. presence since the pact was announced.



"Dabbagh's comments appeared to be the first to address the potential need for a residual U.S. presence since the pact was announced." For those who spent too long probing the esoterics of reporting in J-school, let's speak slowly: That's breaking news. And yet, see how they run like pigs from a gun, see how they fly, I'm crying. [Added: "see how . . ." is Lennon & McCartney's "I Am the Walrus."]

Campbell Robertson's "A Panel on Iraqi Detainees Meets" (New York Times) includes mentions of the Pentagon briefing but, curiously, Campbell (who has lied about the treaty repeatedly in print) can't make room to include that very important statement. He can tease and fluff military press releases into 'reporting,' he just can't cover actual news. Even worse is Julian E. Barnes of the Los Angeles Times who needs to be asked: "Is your desire for war with Iran so great that you somehow missed the actual news from the briefing?" He really needs to explain how Ali al-Dabbagh is worthy of quoting only when he backs up US claims (the same, tired claims we've heard for over three years now -- never proved, just tossed around).

On the topic of the treaty, Martha passes on this e-mail from American Freedom Campaign:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/2165/t/1027/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=26332

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

Thank you so much for taking action.

Steve Fox
Campaign Director
American Freedom Campaign Action Fund


Thursday Mike noted Zoltan Grossman's "Biden's Wars" (ZNet):


It was always a mistaken and shallow analysis to demonize Bush and Cheney as the root of all evil, implying that removing them from office would excise unilateral militarism from foreign policy. Personalizing the problem was especially misleading for Americans who had not yet come of political age during previous Democratic administrations. It was Jimmy Carter who declared an "Energy War," established the Central Command in the Middle East, accelerated the nuclear arms race, and revived draft registration. It was Bill Clinton who repeatedly bombed Iraq, enforced draconian sanctions on the Iraqi people, and bombed Serbia and a few other countries. The problem with Democratic politicians is not only that they rarely stand up to Republican wars, it is that they have initiated wars of their own.
If the peace movement relaxes for even one minute because of the Democratic victory, it could demobilize the millions of people -- particularly younger people -- who have joined the movement since the Iraq occupation began. Note that the new administration is proposing to withdraw "combat" troops from Iraq, but keeping other "residual" troops and mercenaries in the new military bases (and adjacent countries) that could continue intervening in Iraq -- perhaps curbing the "war" but not the occupation. The national security establishment wants Obama to extend his 16-month withdrawal timetable, and to send fresh forces (such as Stryker brigades) in 2009 for occupation duty.
The new administration plans to direct General Petraeus to initiate a new "surge" in Afghanistan, to transfer more occupation troops to that quagmire and escalate yet another disastrous war. It plans to continue or expand the dangerous attacks initiated by Bush against "insurgent refuges" in Pakistan and Somalia. And it could offer the precedent of so-called "humanitarian" interventions to justify meddling in Sudan, Georgia and possibly Syria and Iran. Below, I spell out some of these past, present and future "humanitarian" interventions -- which are anything but.

I'm limited in what I'll say here (Jim's claimed a topic for this week's editorial at Third) but you should be able to apply Grossman's commentary above to what came before it in the entry.

Let's turn to reports.


The Pentagon's inspector general said yesterday that the Defense Department's public affairs office may have "inappropriately" merged public affairs and propaganda operations in 2007 and 2008 when it contracted out $1 million in work for a strategic communications plan for use by the military in collaboration with the State Department.
"Without clearly defined strategic communications responsibilities, DoD may appear to merge inappropriately the public affairs and information operations functions," the inspector general said in a report released yesterday. Strategic communications programs, which have become a major part of the Pentagon's information operations carried out in the "war of ideas" in Iraq, Afghanistan and the Middle East, should be under the oversight of the undersecretary of defense for policy, the report added.


The above, noted by Lloyd, is from Walter Pincus' "Pentagon May Have Mixed Propaganda With PR" (Washington Post) and there's more than just the report on abuse that's been issued. On that report, Joby Warrick and Karen DeYoung's "Report on Detainee Abuse Blames Top Bush Officials" (Washington Post) opens:

A bipartisan panel of senators has concluded that former defense secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and other top Bush administration officials bear direct responsibility for the harsh treatment of detainees at Guantanamo Bay, and that their decisions led to more serious abuses in Iraq and elsewhere.
In the most comprehensive critique by Congress of the military's interrogation practices, the Senate Armed Services Committee issued a report yesterday that accuses Rumsfeld and his deputies of being the authors and chief promoters of harsh interrogation policies that disgraced the nation and undermined U.S. security. The report, released by Sens. Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.), contends that Pentagon officials later tried to create a false impression that the policies were unrelated to acts of detainee abuse committed by members of the military.

Public broadcasting notes. NOW on PBS starts airing tonight on most PBS stations (check local listings):

Just this week, a top UN official predicted that by the middle of this century, the world should expect six million people a year to be displaced by increasingly severe storms and floods caused by climate change. But for many island nations in the South Pacific, climate change is already more than just a theory—it is a pressing, menacing reality. These small, low-lying islands are frighteningly vulnerable to rising temperatures and sea levels that could cause flooding and contaminate their fresh water wells. Within 50 years, some of them could be under water.

This week, NOW travels to the nation of Kiribati to see up close how these changes affect residents' daily lives and how they are dealing with the reality that both their land and culture could disappear from the Earth. We also travel to New Zealand to visit an I-Kiribati community that has already left its home, and to the Pacific Island Forum in Niue to see how the rest of the region is coping with the here-and-now crisis of climate change.

Washington Week also begins airing tonight on some PBS stations (others tend to air it as a Sunday morning chat & chew) and joining Gwen will be Pete Williams (NBC News), Christi Parsons (Chicago Tribune), David E. Sanger (New York Times) and John Maggs (National Journal).

The incredibly talented Aimee Mann has an NPR special this weekend and this is noted by an NPR friend:

Live Saturday: Aimee Mann's Christmas Concert

Listen Online At 8 p.m. ET

**Remind Me With: Google Calendar, Outlook or iCal

Aimee Mann (300)
Courtesy of the artist

Aimee Man performs live at the Keswick Theater this Saturday, Dec. 13.

Concerts Calendar

See a list of upcoming concerts and add them to your calendar.

WXPN, December 11, 2008 - Aimee Mann doesn't seem like the type to gravitate toward Christmas music — there's nothing Bing Crosby or Mannheim Steamroller about her. Yet for the third year in a row, she's about to perform material from her beautiful 2006 holiday album, One More Drifter in the Snow, and more at the Keswick Theater in Glenside, Penn. Hear the complete concert, webcast live by WXPN this Saturday, Dec. 13, starting at 8 p.m. ET. Nellie McKay and Grant-Lee Phillips will join Mann onstage for special duets.

After Mann left the popular '80s band 'Til Tuesday, she became a more folk-tinged singer-songwriter on her 1993 debut solo album, Whatever. Throughout her solo career, she's built up a strong catalog of bewildering narratives, morally ambiguous characters and brutally honest lyrics. Her latest album, @#%&*! Smilers, moves away from the sprawling concepts of 2006's The Forgotten Arm and gets back to songwriting basics. It sounds more like a collection of songs that grow on you than a massive work taken in one dose.

When Mann originally came up with the idea for her Christmas album, she wanted to hearken back to the classic holiday music of the '40s and '50s.

"I wanted to do a Christmas record that reflected the whole range of emotions that people have around Christmas," Mann says. "I thought a lot about the feeling I had about Christmas as a kid, the almost spooky beauty and mystery that the holiday has, and wanted to do something that echoed that musically."

One More Drifter in the Snow features the intimate and sometimes carnival-esque arrangements fans know her for, but with a lighter and warmer feeling. Classics such as Jimmy Webb's "Whatever Happened to Christmas" and "You're a Mean One, Mr. Grinch" (featuring Grant-Lee Phillips as the narrator) sit alongside a Mann original, "Calling on Mary."

Related NPR Stories

That's currently buried at the NPR site. Supposedly it will be fixed. (It's not even a top article on the Music page. You have to click on the link at the bottom of the Music page under "Coming Soon" -- coming soon? Try tomorrow. Aimee Mann is one of the country's most gifted songwriters and Kat's reviewed her latest CD as well as The Forgotten Arm. (I know and like Aimee but, as already noted, that plug's at the request of an NPR friend.) The concert webcasts tomorrow night.

On broadcast TV (CBS) Sunday, 60 Minutes:

Barney Frank
Lesley Stahl talks to Rep. Barney Frank (D.-Mass.), whose position as House Financial Services Committee Chairman puts him right in the middle of the huge and controversial government bailouts, first for the financial industry and now for Detroit's automakers. | Watch Video
Where's The Bottom?
The mortgage mess that touched off the financial meltdown is far from over, with a second wave of expected defaults on the way that could deepen the bottom of this recession. Scott Pelley reports.
Coach Carroll
Byron Pitts profiles USC college football coach Pete Carroll, who, in addition to his success in making the Trojans a football dynasty, is making positive contributions toward decreasing gang violence in Los Angeles. | Watch Video
60 Minutes, this Sunday, Dec. 14, at 7 p.m. ET/PT.



Yesterday Stan's offered "Grab bag" (and also check out his "Films on sick-out day"). Other community posts from last night:



The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.





the los angeles times

the new york times

the washington post






 60 minutes
 cbs news
 washington week
 now on pbs
 pbs


thomas friedman is a great man





oh boy it never ends