Saturday, November 26, 2011

US troops, Iraqi women, Badr Organization breaks with the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq

W.G. Dunlop (AFP) reports, "Iraqi forces need an American troop presence or at least US training forces, President Jalal Talabani has said, according to a Saturday statement on the Iraqi presidency's website." As noted earlier this week, negotiations between the US and Iraq are ongoing, the Kurds are pressing for US troops, and the numbers that political blocs are throwing around currently: 8,000 to 15,000.


Dan Zak (Washington Post) has been working on a piece about Iraqi youth for some time. It's now published and we'll note this from it: "They view their government as a pseudo-regime that deprives them of basic rights, and they worry that their peers are being lured into the ethnic, sectarian and partisan traps of their elders. They think the world is fixating on revolutions in other Arab countries while ignoring a rotting democracy in Baghdad and their generation’s struggle to live the freedom that was promised to them 81 / 2 years ago." Charlotte Ashton (BBC's The World Tonight) spoke with Iraqi women this month to determine how they see their lives since the start of the war. Here's an excerpt:


Mariam, who is 38, has six children and has lived in Sadr City all her life. We find the family watching cartoons on a massive TV screen in the corner of their spacious living room. She says their lives have changed for the better since the US-led invasion.
"We have democracy now, freedom of expression. People can breathe and the economy has improved, so it's good for us."
But Mariam has one big worry. Her 19-year-old daughter got married last year but divorced shortly afterwards.
"My daughter used to be a star in the neighbourhood but now people look down on her. They never blame the man. Only the woman. They say she must have done something wrong."
For most women in Baghdad the democracy the US and her allies delivered has not brought more freedom. In fact, Lubna says women's rights have deteriorated.
"Women used to behave in a more liberal way under Saddam. And I hate to say that, because I hate Saddam so much, but women were freer under Saddam."

They were. And since 2006, they've lived under the puppet and thug Nouri. For nearly six years, he's done nothing to help Iraqi women. But today, Aswat al-Iraq reports, he wanted to grand stand and pretend otherwise:

"We need laws to be activated , as well as education, enlighten and reform to prevent violence against women", he confirmed.
He praised Iraqi women role in the society, particularly in scientific, cultural, media and security spheres.Italic

And he pointed out that 100 women were currently in the police academy. He failed to point out that when building his cabinet -- November to December 2010 -- he managed to ignore women. Not one minister was a woman. It took extreme pressure on Nouri to even get a woman in the post of the Minister of State for Women's Rights. Mohammed Sawaf (AFP) quotes that minister, Ibtihal al-Zaidi, declaring today, "One-fifth of Iraqi women are subjected to two types of violence, physical and psychological, constituting a very serious danger to the family and society. The most dangerous violence against woman is family violence, from the father, the brother, the husband or even the son."

Meanwhile Aswat al-Iraq reports, "Southern Iraq's Wassit Doctors Syndicate has decided on Friday to close all the private clinics and cease work in them till further notice, in protest to tribal threats against the doctors, according to a Syndicate source on Saturday." Staying with threats, Al Mada reports that Iraq's Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebair has warned against economic sanctions on Syria both because it is Iraq's neighbor and because there are "thousands" of Iraqis living there.

Al Sabaah notes Iraqi President Jalal Talabani gave an interview to Iraqi Satellite TV in which he bemoaned the state of Iraq but insisted that the answer was not a vote to withdraw confidence in Nouri al-Maliki because, he claims, there is no alternative to Nouri. Really? There are 26 million Iraqis living in Iraq and Nouri's the best that can be found? Jalal wants to be president of Iraq. It's apparently all he's ever wanted. It's a ceremonial position that has no real power -- and what little power it does have, he refuses to exercise (one example: he could stop the executions if he was truly opposed to them as he repeatedly maintains he is) -- but it does allow him to zip in and out of the US -- at a cost of over a million US dollars billed to Iraq -- and get his arteries cleaned. Heaven forbid that the man under doctors orders to drop seventy-five pounds ever do so. Not everyone is as focused on themselves (and their next meal) as Jalal. Aswat al-Iraq reports:

A Legislature of al-Iraqiya Alliance, led by former Prime Minister Iyad Allawi, has said on Saturday that Iraq's current problem lies in the political programing, followed by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, to steer the State.
"The current problem in Iraq is not linked to the Presidency or the Legislative authorities, but to the political programs of the Prime Minister, especially as regards to the security dossier, being the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces," Legislature, Haider al-Mulla told Aswat al-Iraq news agency.


And Nouri is so divisive that the Badr Organization (headed by Hadi al-Amiri) is breaking with the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq (headed by Ammar al-Hakim). Al Rafidyan reports that move is yet another sign of the crisis facing the National Alliance -- a loose grouping of Shi'ites including State of Law, the Sadr bloc and others -- which backed Nouri for prime minister. By backing Nouri, Hadi al-Amiri was given the portfolio for the Ministry of Transport and the Ministry of Communication.

The Badr Organization was previously the Badr Brigade which came to be in 1982 in Iran and was the armed wing and they spread into Iraq in April 2003. Hadi al-Amiri has gone public with his issues with the Islamic Supreme Council including that Ammar al-Hakim was selected to fill the post created when Ammar's father passed away. al-Amiri has called that moment when the seeds of division began to take root and decried the leaders who voted Ammar al-Hakim in for, in his opinion, choosing a successor not based on wisdom but to keep the control within the al-Hakim family.

While the Badr Organization is thought to be the militia de-armed, Moqtada al-Sadr's militia remains armed -- as demonstrated by their heavily covered march (heavily covered by the press) which was falsely presented as citizens taking to the streets last April. The National Newspaper reports, "But some Iraqis say the Shiite militia will remain intact in some form and continue to wield considerable influence in the country. Also, many of the militiamen are joining the government's security services under a secret deal between the government and the Sadrist movement, media reports say. Critics say the militants are getting preferential treatment when they apply for admission."

We'll close with this from Sherwood Ross' "25 Million U.S. Unemployed And Underemployed Making No Effective Protest, Economist Says" (Grant Lawrence -- Bodhi Thunder):


Although America’s 25 million unemployed and underemployed could be a powerful force for social change, they aren’t combining in any effective way to protest, an eminent business authority writes.
“Activism has given way to acquiescence,” writes Louis Uchitelle, even though “unemployment is once again stubbornly high in the aftermath of a recession that has left the economy persistently weak.”
Worse for the jobless, unemployment is no longer seen as “a failure of the nation’s employers to generate enough demand for workers. That was and still is the reason, but it failed as an explanation and as a prod to action,” Uchitelle writes. Instead, “the unemployed are persistently blamed for their own unemployment, which eases pressure on government to help them.”
Uchitelle, who covers economics for The New York Times, writes that the commonly held belief about unsuccessful job-seekers today is “if only they acquired enough education and skill” they would be hired.
Writing in the November 28th issue of The Nation, Uchitelle recalled that in Sept., 1981, 260,000 people marched on Washington to protest President Ronald Reagan’s mass dismissal of the nation’s air traffic controllers the previous month because they failed to heed his order to end a strike. Today, he says, the unemployed don’t think in terms of mass protests.
Edward Wolff, a labor economist at New York University, says, “It is remarkable how passive the American people are about unemployment.” Wolff and others blame this attitude on the decline of union power and the failure of the air traffic controllers’ strike “which undermined the sympathy toward organized labor that had been characteristic of Americans since the ‘30s.”





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
























Posted by at

Violence breaks out throughout Iraq

Al Mada reports Baghdad awoke to bombings today. Laith Hammoudi (Miami Herald, McClatchy Newspapers) explains, "Some analysts fear that this year will mark a return to that bloodshed after the last two months, when the Shiite-led Iraqi government has undertaken a nationwide crackdown on former members of Saddam Hussein's Baathist party, especially in the country's southern provinces, where Shiites are the majority. The arrests have been criticized by Sunni Muslim leaders as illegal, but the government has defended them, claiming those arrested have ties to terrorist activities and are based on warrants issued by courts."

Andrew E. Kramer (New York Times) reports the bombings "shattered the stillness of a crystalline autumn day in the desert". Zhang Xiang (Xinhua) provides the walk through, "In the morning, eight construction workers were killed and 13 others wounded when two roadside bombs went off almost simultaneously near their bus while travelling in the Abu Ghraib area, some 20 km west of Baghdad, a local police source told Xinhua on condition of anonymity. [. . .] Separately, up to seven people were killed and 28 wounded before midday when three bombs went off successively at the crowded commercial area of Bab al-Sharji, where dozens of stalls scatter at the popular open market, an Interior Ministry source anonymously told Xinhua." Press TV quotes an eye witness, "Three bombs exploded one after the other. I saw a woman serving tea to customers, lose a leg in one of the explosions." Of the construction workers, Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) quotes police officer Ahmed Salman, "The victims were traveling every day in a minibus from Abu Ghraib to Falluja to work in a number of reconstruction sites."


In addition, Reuters notes an attack on Mayor Othman Ahmed al-Douri's Dour farm in which the mayor was injured and 1 guard was killed and a Baquba roadside bombing claimed one life. Aswat al-Iraq adds, "An official working at the Premiership office was assassinated today, security sources said here [Baghdad]" and "An Iraqi traffic police officer has been injured and his daughter was killed in an armed attack by unknown gunmen south of Baghdad on Friday night, a police source reported on Saturday."

Today's Baghdad attacks follow Thursday's Basra ones and Andrew E. Kramer notes the death toll for the Basra attacks has now risen to 25. Al Mada notes State of Law has announced that a joint committee composed of the Ministries of Defense and Interior and headed by Nouri al-Maliki -- who heads both ministries having never managed to appoint people to head them -- will be investigation the Basra attacks. Al Mada also reports that Major General Qassim Atta, head of the Baghdad operations command, declared Saturday that they will be putting up cameras to monitor the streets of Baghdad. Well it's certainly better than a moat around Baghdad. Remember that one? Edward Wong reported on that with "Iraqis Plan to Ring Baghdad With Trenches" on September 16, 2006:

The Iraqi government plans to seal off Baghdad within weeks by ringing it with a series of trenches and setting up dozens of traffic checkpoints to control movement in and out of the violent city of seven million people, an Interior Ministry spokesman said Friday.
The effort is one of the most ambitious security projects this year, with cars expected to be funneled through 28 checkpoints along the main arteries snaking out from the capital. Smaller roads would be closed. The trenches would run across farmland or other open areas to prevent cars from evading checkpoints, said the ministry spokesman, Brig. Gen. Abdul Karim Khalaf.
"We're going to build a trench around Baghdad so we can control the exits and entrances so people will be searched properly," he said in a telephone interview. "The idea is to get the cars to go through the 28 checkpoints that we set up."


Well they never got the moat. But let's drop back to the May 4, 2010 snapshot:

Occupied Iraq, ruled over by a US puppet whose fighting like crazy to hold on to the position. If US service members leave the Green Zone, Nouri falls. He knows that. The US military knows it, the US government knows it. So he's proposed madcap schemes to ensure his reign since he became prime minister in April of 2006. Two Circles Net reports, "Iraqi authorities have started the construction of a security wall around the capital Baghdad, reports the country's Al-Iraqiya TV citing a Baghdad security spokesperson. The concrete wall with eight checkpoints is to be completed in mid-2011." Once upon a time, Nouri proposed building a moat around Baghdad. A moat. Stagnant water. Just what Baghdad needs more of. Especially with all the cholera outbreaks. Nouri never got his moat but he will apparently get his walled-in-city.

But he didn't get that either. Yet he still hasn't give up on it. Dar Addustour quotes Atta from the same press conference today declaring that Nouri has ordered a security wall be constructed around Baghdad in early 2012. If there's anything sadder than having run out of ideas it would have to be repeatedly promising you're about to implement one of your tired ideas.

Walls can keep certain things out, they can also keep certain things in. It wasn't all that long ago that Nouri made a big-to-do out of taking down security walls within Baghdad. How telling that the US puppet has to resort to a wall to, grasp this, protect himself from the people of the country he supposedly represents.

The following community sites -- plus Jane Fonda, Watching America, the Guardian and Antiwar.com -- updated last night and this morning:






The Philadelphia Inquirer's Trudy Rubin has an important column ("An Iraqi regrets helping United States") and we'll note this from it:


Salam Hamrani is safe -- for now. My Iraqi fixer and friend endured two years in a Baghdad jail. His crime: helping American troops nab Shiite militants who were killing his Sunni neighbors. He was finally freed and escaped with his family to Greek Cyprus.
Our reunion in Larnaca, Cyprus, was emotional and full of laughter. But Salam's story is a sad tale of U.S. failures and betrayals in Iraq.
A Shiite whose uncle was hung by Saddam Hussein, Salam was thrilled when U.S. troops ousted the dictator. As Iraq collapsed into civil war, he was furious when the militant Shiite Mahdi army moved into his mixed neighborhood and started killing Sunnis. So he started tipping U.S. officers at a forward operating base in his district about the worst of these killers.
When U.S. troops withdrew, family members of one of these thugs got friends in the Iraqi army to arrest him, along with his two sons. A Shiite army general who was chummy with the killer's mother and sister made sure Salam stayed in prison.



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
























Posted by at

Friday, November 25, 2011

Iraq snapshot

Friday, November 25, 2011.  Chaos and violence continue, Basra sacks its top security commanders, the Turkish government offers an apology to Kurds, Iraq's Parliament postpones a vote on US withdrawal, the latest round of negotiations involve thousands of US military, and more.
 
AFP reports that an emergency session was held today by Basra's provincial council which "took the decision to fire three security commanders" as a result of yesterday's violence.  Yesterday, Basra was slammed with multiple bombings. Nabil al-Jurani (AP) explained, "Three bombs went off in a popular open-air market in Basra, police officials said." BBC News quoted shop owner Noufal Hassan, "I immediately went out of my shop and saw the blood. The nearest shops were shattered and the cars were burned."  Xinhua (link has text and video) added, "Among the dead and wounded were several policemen and Iraqi army soldiers."  W.G. Dunlop (AFP) counted over 65 injured and they have 19 killed and they're able to back that up with figures from the Basra health directorate, Riyadh Abdelamir.  Hossam Acommok (Al Mada) reports that an MP said the Basra council's vote was necessary because the security command had failed and is, therefore, responsible for the bombings and that their failure indicates they don't care "about the blood of Iraqis" as evidenced by the fact that a pervious series of bombings in Basra did not result in additional security measures.  Today the United Nations issued the following statement on the bombings:
 
The top United Nations official in Iraq today strongly condemned the series of bomb attacks in the country's southern city of Basra that has killed dozens of people and injured many more.
Media reports indicate at least 19 people died yesterday as a rsult of the apparently coordinated bombings at a market in the city, with the last of three explosions causing most of the injuries.
In a statement, the Secretary-General's Special Representative to Iraq Martin Kobler offered his condolences to the families of the victims and to the people and authorities of Basra and Iraq.

In other violence reported yesterday, Reuters notes 1 police officer and his son were kidnapped in Ramadi, a Ramadi market bombing left five people injured, the Jalawla village mayor was shot dead in a market, an attack on a Mosul military checkpoint claimed the life of 1 Iraqi solider, 1 employee of the Ministry of Electricity was shot dead in Shura, an armed clash in Baaj left one Iraqi soldier dead and an Iraqi military officer injured and a Mussayab home bombing targeted a Sahwa leaving two people injured.  Today's violence, Reuters notes, included 1 police officer and his son kidnapped in Qaim, a JBela bombing injured one person and that the death toll in the Basra bombings yesterday has now reached 21.  Aswat al-Iraq reports the death toll has climbed to 50 in the Basra bombing with fifty injured.  In addition, they note an attack on an Amiriya military check point which resulted in the death of 1 soldier and three more injured.
 
In other news of violence, the Telegraph of London notes Iraq executed 16 people yesterday.  They were all, of course, guilty because Iraq has the most fair and disciplined legal system in the world.  Oh, wait, it doesn't.  Which is why the fact that one of those executed, Firas Fleih al-Jaburi, was "a human rights activist who fought to improve prison condtions" should be especially alarming.  Yesterday the Sunni Endowment Office in Baghdad was bombed leaving three people injured.
 
On the political scene in Iraq, Aswat al-Iraq notes that although the Parliament was scheduled to vote on US withdrawal yesterday, they have postponed it. Alsumaria TV quotes MP Mohamed Al Khalidi stating, "Iraqi parliament voted during its third session of the second legislative quarter in the second legislative year presided by Parliament Speaker Osama Al Nujaifi, and in the presence of 236 MPs, to postpone voting over the legal committee's resolution regarding US withdrawal from Iraq. The voting would be carried out after hosting Iraqi Armed Forces General Commander Nuri Al Maliki. 142 MPs out of the present 236 voted for the postponement," Khalidi revealed noting that "Sader movement for its part abstained from voting."  Al Mada reports that the Kurds are lobbying Nouri to keep US troops in disputed areas and to secure Iraqi air space. Reportedly a consensus is building for keeping 8,000 to 12,000 US troops and this is among the details Nouri will discuss on his DC visit next month. Al Rafidayn adds that it is after this meeting that immunity will be further explored and states, pay attention because the US press never did, that MP Sami al-Asakri explained that Nouri has the power in his role as commander in chief of the military to determine the number of US troops needed (I'm adding: If any) and that the blocs gave their input but that was just input. It's Nouri's role. Yes, we did note that well over a month ago. Yes, it is rather basic and, yes, it is legally sound.

What's pushing these considerations? Could be (may not be, just could) that Nouri's in a bit of panic because while he can terrorize -- as he demonstrated repeatedly since 2006 -- the people, he can't do everything. Add to the mix efforts by provinces -- fully legal efforts -- to go semi-autonomous and with a still unresolved oil law (meaning who might or might not have claims on the money) and Nouri's desired response (which, based on pattern, will most likely be heavy-handed) and suddenly he's at risk of not only his continued war with the people he usually demonizes but potentially whole sections of a province or multiple provinces. That's what could possibly be motivating Nouri. And never forget, he's demonstrated for five years now that his sole goal is to ensure his own personal survival, it's not about the Iraqi people, it's not about the country's potential -- for Nouri, it's all about Nouri.  And internal conflicts keep popping up.  Salah Nasrawi (Al-Ahram Weekly) observes:
 
A bitter row over the control of a military base in the disputed northern Iraqi province of Kirkuk is heightening tensions between the Iraqi government and the Kurds as US troops prepare to leave Iraq next month.
Last Thursday, local Kurdish police blocked the transit of Iraqi military and government officials who had traveled to Kirkuk in order to enter the Al-Hurriya military base for a handover ceremony for departing US troops.
Kurdish officials had earlier warned the government in the capital Baghdad from sending Iraqi army forces to take over the military facility, which they said they wanted to turn into a civilian airport instead.

 
 
Still on internal conflicts, Thursday Dar Addustour reported on Dujail, in Salahuddin Province, and how residents took to the streets to show their approval of the possibility of Dujail leaving Salahuddin and becoming a part of Baghdad Province. Most interesting is that the same voices who screamed about Salahuddin wanting to become semi-autonomous and they want to argue that this can be done by a process . . . similar to what the Constitution's Article 119 says -- you know, what they ignored when they insisted Salahuddin Province couldn't go semi-autonomous.  Today Aswat al-Iraq notes that 1500 poured into the streets to oppose merging with Baghdad Province.  And today Alsumaria TV reports Ayad Allawi, head of Iraqiya, weighed in on the issue stating, "Iraqi constitution stipulated the right to establish federal regions. We are aware though that if federal regions were formed Iraq would be subject to clashes over administrative borders, wealth as well as oil and gas [. . ..] This is not the right time to call for regions' formation,"
 
While it's good that Allawi recognized the Constitution in his remarks, exactly when would be the right time to call for a formation?  When an oil law is finally passed?  It's nearly nine years since the start of the Iraq War.  It's almost five years since Nouri agreed to work with Parliament to pass one -- as part of the White House benchmarks.  There are all different ways you can measure the lack of progress.  So when would be a good time?  80 years from now?  180?  At what point do Iraqis get to determine their own fate?  And it's really sad to hear Allawi echo Paul Bremer and countless other Americans by telling Iraqis to wait because it's "not the right time" just yet. 

Again, he did recognize the Constitution.  That does put him ahead of Nouri al-Maliki.  Ali Hussein (Al Mada) notes that State of Law (Nouri's political slate) also gives lip service to the Constitution -- "night and day," they brag -- but most repeatedly ignore and/or violate the Constitution.   Hussein notes that all of Nouri and State of Law's attacks on independent bodies, freedom of expression and the powers of the Parliament were likely a test balloon for them to determine how much power Nouri can seize.  Hussein notes State of Law MP Khalid al-Attiyah attempting to argue this week that the Constitution is just one document and ignoring the fact that political blocs wrote the Constitution (and passed it) and did so after "a great deal of wrangling."  It would appear there is the Constitution of Iraq and there is the forever altering and changing Constitution as understood by State of Law.
 

Blue Coat Systems is back in the news. From the October 31st snapshot:

Mvelase Peppetta (Memeburn) reports alarm that the government of Syria has "internaet censorship equipment." It's illegal, according to US law, for it to have this Blue Coat Systems 'filter.' How did it get it? Apparently from Iraq. The US government okayed the sale of web censorship equipment to Iraq. Did the US government bother to run that past either the Iraqi people or the American people? No. Nor did it publicize the sale.


Today Khaled Waleed (Niqash) reports on the issue:

The US government says it is investigating how the devices got to Syria and Blue Coat Systems of Sunnyvale, the California-based company responsible for manufacturing the equipment, says it is cooperating fully. If the firm deliberately violated the sanctions -- which say special permission is required to import this kind of equipment into Syria -- then it could be liable for a fine of up to US$1 million.
Although the 14 web monitoring devices were shipped to Dubai late in 2010 from where they were supposed to be sent to Iraq, Iraq itself has denied any involvement in the transaction.
Nonetheless in Iraq, the issue is also causing concern. Since 2004, when the US put into effect the Syria Accountability Act, for what the US sees as Syria's support of "terrorism, involvement in Lebanon, weapons of mass destruction programs and the destabilizing role it is playing in Iraq", goods that contain more than 10 per cent componentry that is manufactured in the US have been prohibited from being exported there. However it is quite possible that Syria has been able to obtain embargoed goods through third parties. The question now is what Iraq had to do with the 13 Blue Coat web surveillance devices.

Now the US government is worried about supplying freedom suppressing techonology?  Now that Syria has the technology and might use it to harm the people of Syria. But the US allowed despot Nouri to have the technology even though he has a long record of suppressing freedom.  Alsumaria TV reports, "State of Law Coalition didn't take long to explain Iraqi government's abstinence from voting over Arab League's resolution regarding Syria's incidents. Some leaders in the coalition expressed, in a press conference, their support to Syrian people's rights and affirmed that they are taken by surprise by the shift in some Iraqi parties' positions towards Damascus, a source told Alsumaria. "  It might be easier to argue you support the rights of the Syrian people if you hadn't given them technology -- as Nouri did -- to spy on their own people.   Meanwhile Waleed Ibrahim (Reuters) notes that Iraqi President Jalal Talabani announced today that Iraq "opposes any Wester or Turkish military intervention" in Syira and that "Talabani also said Iraqi military commanders favoured a continued U.S. troop presence in Iraq due to weaknesses in air and navel defences."
 

Last week, Iraq and it's northern neighbor Turkey were involved in claims and counter-claims.  Turkey claims Iraq owes it a ton of money and stopped Iraqi commercial flights from landing at Turkish airports.  Iraq announced that they would do the same to Turkey and, on Sunday, Iraq did.  Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) reports Turkish flights began   landing in Iraq in Thursday and Iraqi flights landing in Turkey today.  The ban is off.  No word on what was agreed to in order to call the ban off and since there's no announcement that Iraq has paid millions to Turkey, the issue could flare up again.
 
Staying on the topic of Turkey for a moment, the Daily Star reports:
 
Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan issued the first official apology Wednesday for a bloody military campaign that killed thousands of Kurds in southeast Turkey at the end of the 1930s.
"If it is necessary to apologize on behalf of the state ... I am apologizing,"
Erdogan told his Justice and Development Party (AKP) members in Ankara in televised remarks.
Erdogan said the airstrikes and ground operations in the city of Dersim -- now named Tunceli -- killed 13,800 people between 1936 and 1939, according to an official document of the time he cited in his speech.

There are a lot of cute little games the press plays.  For example, the increased Iraqi violence in the last 18 months is erased with the decision to repeatedly invoke the ethnic cleansing of 2006 and 2007.  That little lie allows them to address that violence is on the incrase since 2009 and 2010.  Another distortion they like to sell is that the PKK, a Kurdish rebel group, pops up in 1984 for no apparent reason.  They ignore the historical discrimination and targeting of Kurds in Turkey by the Turkish government.  Hopefully, this was the first in a series of steps Erdogan intends to take that does not involve violence or the continued bombing of northern Iraq. For 27 years now, violence has not stopped the PKK.  It's unlikely to suddenly work this year.
Yesterday the Associated Press noted that the European Union is calling for members of the EU to take in the residents of the Camp Ashraf. The camp houses a group of Iranian dissidents (approximately 3,500 people). Iranian dissidents were welcomed to Iraq by Saddam Hussein in 1986 and he gave them Camp Ashraf and six other parcels that they could utilize. In 2003, the US invaded Iraq.The US government had the US military lead negotiations with the residents of Camp Ashraf. The US government wanted the residents to disarm and the US promised protections to the point that US actions turned the residents of Camp Ashraf into protected person under the Geneva Conventions. As 2008 drew to a close, the Bush administration was given assurances from the Iraqi government that they would protect the residents. Yet Nouri al-Maliki ordered the camp attacked twice. July 28, 2009 Nouri launched an attack (while then-US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates was on the ground in Iraq). In a report released this summer entitled "Iraqi government must respect and protect rights of Camp Ashraf residents," Amnesty International described this assault, "Barely a month later, on 28-29 July 2009, Iraqi security forces stormed into the camp; at least nine residents were killed and many more were injured. Thirty-six residents who were detained were allegedly tortured and beaten. They were eventually released on 7 October 2009; by then they were in poor health after going on hunger strike." April 8th of this year Nouri again ordered an assault on Camp Ashraf (then-US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates was again on the ground in Iraq when the assault took place). Amnesty International described the assault this way, "Earlier this year, on 8 April, Iraqi troops took up positions within the camp using excessive, including lethal, force against residents who tried to resist them. Troops used live ammunition and by the end of the operation some 36 residents, including eight women, were dead and more than 300 others had been wounded. Following international and other protests, the Iraqi government announced that it had appointed a committee to investigate the attack and the killings; however, as on other occasions when the government has announced investigations into allegations of serious human rights violations by its forces, the authorities have yet to disclose the outcome, prompting questions whether any investigation was, in fact, carried out." Nouri al-Maliki is seen as close to the government in Tehran. They have made it clear that they want the dissidents out of Iraq and returned to Iran -- where they would face trial at best, torture most likely. Nouri has announced he will be closing Camp Ashraf at the end of this year. UK MP Brian Binley (Huffington Post) writes, "As things are evolving and if Maliki gets away with his plan to impose the deadline, just as the Christmas and New Year holidays are in full swing, the prospect is that the world will sit and watch while men and women are killed in cold blood or mutilated, crushed by US-supplied armoured personal carriers."
Zohreh Shafaei (Scoop News) notes the concerns over what may happen to the residents of Camp Ashraf:


I wrote about the story of my life in an article on August 2nd (American Chronicle) where I asked for help to save the life of my brother who resides in the camp Ashraf. He is the only member of family that I have left. Today, my brother and many others like him live in Camp Ashraf and are in a great danger.

The situation is highly critical now as the Iraqi government has stated that it is going to close the camp by the end of the year 2011. This ultimatum is a decision to carry out a massacre of the inhabitants of the camp, where 3400 Iranian civilians, including 1000 women live. The inhabitants have already experienced two similar attacks in July 2009 and April 2011, where 47 persons were killed and hundreds were wounded.

As for myself, I have already had six members of my family killed by the rule of the mullahs' dictatorship in Iran. I now have only one brother left who happens to live in the camp Ashraf now. Many of the 3400 civilians in the camp have experienced similar situation as myself, and their lives are at danger now.

President Obama: The U.S. is responsible for securing the safety of the 3400 inhabitants of the camp, as the U.S. army accepted to protect their lives when they handed over their arms to the U.S. army. The fact is that by keeping the name of the MEK in the F.T.O. list, you are authorizing the Maleki government to carry out the massacre of innocent civilians

 
Cindy Sheehan has recently returned from Cuba.  She notes the day in a new post:
 
 
Corporate profit is indeed a huge problem in our society, but so is this ravenous consumerism that 99% of the 99% revel in. If we could break the cycle of exploitation that not only builds the crap, but also makes us believe that we can't live without it, no profound change will occur.
I guess this is what we call, "Preaching to the choir," because I believe that just about everyone who reads this is in solidarity with this message -- but, really, take a quick look around, like I do occasionally, and ask yourself if you are living the "American Dream," or the 'Nightmare."
 
Posted by at

NYT finally finds Iraqi widows . . . who were better off when the paper ignored them

Andrew E. Kramer of the New York Times probably really cares about the topic of Iraqi women. It's a shame he doesn't know more or have any real perspective.

He does admit "across Iraq women now outnumber men." And that's probably got many Times readers falling out of their chairs in shock since the paper's ignored Iraqi women for the last two years (after doing so for the first year and a half of the war).

And while it's great that the factoid made it into the paper and that an article -- even a bad one -- finally acknowledged that women exist in Iraq, this is the sort of garbage we would have suffered through in the 1950s.

It plays like the 'sensitivity training' film Women in the Workplace 1956 that Peter watches in the Family Guy episode "I Am Peter, Hear Me Roar."

And then there are the 'facts':

And the numbers of widows in Iraq, or as American aid programs prefer to call them, "female heads of households," increased substantially after the invasion in 2003 and in the years of violence that followed.

I called friends with aid programs and asked if that's correct. No. Of course not. In addition to widows, "female heads of households" also includes women who have divorced (an issue that the paper has consistently ignored) as well as women whose husbands have made it out of Iraq and are working on getting their families out of Iraq. And it includes working women whose husbands are unable to work (due to Iraq's high employment, wounds or age).

If you leave bits like that out and the nauseating tone that reads like a pat on the head (first paragraphs and last), the articles not a total waste but what a shame that Iraqi women finally get noted and it's widows who get portrayed as giggly girls spending their days dreaming about a man. The reality is that most Iraqi widows don't have the luxury of day dreaming, they're far too busy trying to provide for their families and keep their families together.



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


























Posted by at

Finding news . . . weeks and weeks later

To be sure we're all on the same page, long after we were explaining (near daily) that negotiations were ongoing for US troops in Iraq, Antiwar.com's John Glaser did one article on that fact.

And then they began rewriting history and distorting. And to be clear, that refers to John Glaser, Jason Ditz and Scott Horton.


Scott Horton who never seems to get that the definition of a pig is someone who hates the policies of the current White House yet spends all his time blaming . . . Hillary Clinton. It's sexism. He doesn't even notice that whole discussions -- especially when he pairs up with fellow pigs -- revolved around the Secretary of State while they ignore Barack. Had Hillary gotten the nomination, I was aware that she'd be held accountable (if she'd gotten the nomination, she would have won the presidency -- 2008 was a Democratic year as a result of 8 years of Bush). Fine. We'd all have to live with that criticism which would include sexism. But she didn't get the nomination and it's really disgusting to hear the unhidden glee in Horton's twangy voice as he attacks Hillary over and over and over.

Barack's president. If you are unhappy with what the White House is doing, your criticism would go to him. You would name him, you would attack him with the same zest and vigor that you do Hillary. Last time I checked, Hillary didn't order the death of American citizen. That alone should have outraged Horton enough to drop his sexist attacks on Hillary. It didn't.

Worse than the attacks on Hillary are when Scotty wants to knock cocks with Gareth Porter and they tug on each others limp members while telling you how wonderful Barack is. Yes, Antiwar Radio can't stop f**king over the world in its zest to portray the Great Savior Barack as peace and love.

The last time we noted that show -- "Welcome back, ya'll" -- was that disgusting interview with Gareth where Horton couldn't shut up about 2002 or 2004 and Gareth was allowed to maintain Barack was a person of peace. Remember that? Poor little Barry, person of peace, pressured but overcoming, delivering on campaign promises?

You expect that garbage from the now thankfully defunct Air America Radio -- now scaring more people on TV because TV has "pictures" -- but from Antiwar Radio?

That was garbage. Setting aside the worship of Barack going on, they couldn't even get their other facts right.

It's no surprise that convicted pedophile Pig Scott Ritter was a regular on Antiwar Radio. He had nothing to offer, no facts of value, nothing about the Iraq War after it started, but he was a repeat guests over and over. Guess now that he lost his appeal, he'll have to call in from a prison phone for future segments. It really is amazing the silence on Pig Ritter from all who pimped him. It truly is amazing. But telling.

John Glaser? We were very kind to him when we called out his awful 'report.' If that had appeared in the New York Times, we would have nailed him to the wall. But we did call it out.


And now that bad report is 'source material' at Antiwar.com. Here's the opening to Jason Ditz's bad, bad 'report:'

Iraqi officials say that an agreement has been reached to keep 740 US trainers inside Iraq after December, even after weeks of making a fuss about how no agreement could ever be reached that would keep US troops in the nation.


Where does that link go? The 'fact' backing up the claim? It's Glaser's article about the Senate Armed Services Committee hearing, his awful piece of trash article.

Ditz de Jason apparently means "ever after weeks of" the US government "making a fuss about how no agreement could ever be reached that would keep US troops in the nation" since no Iraqi testified at the hearing.

In this community, we covered that hearing in great detail and we covered it accurately. Antiwar.com can not claim to have covered it either in great detail or accurately. Here, you can refer to "Iraq snapshot," "Iraq snapshot," "Iraq snapshot," "Scott Brown questions Panetta and Dempsey (Ava)," "The costs (Wally)" and Kat's "Who wanted what?" -- and as we pointed out in the first snapshot, the Committee heard that negotiations with Iraq were ongoing.

Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta: Senator, as I pointed out in my testimony, what we seek with Iraq is a normal relationship now and that does involve continuing negotiations with them as to what their needs are. Uh, and I believe there will be continuing negotations. We're in negotiations now with regards to the size of the security office that will be there and so there will be -- There aren't zero troops that are going to be there. We'll have, you know, hundreds that will be present by virtue of that office assuming we can work out an agreement there. But I think that once we've completed the implementation of the security agreement that there will begin a series of negotiations about what exactly are additional areas where we can be of assistance? What level of trainers do they need? What can we do with regards to CT [Counter-Terrorism] operations? What will we do on exercises -- joint-exercises -- that work together?

It's a detail Antiwar.com ignored. John Glaser's article was a mismash of bad reporting in the MSM and I really don't think Antiwar.com is supposed to just regurgitate what the MSM (mis)reports. This was not a closed hearing. It was open to the public. I have no idea how much Glaser and Ditz are paid by Antiwar.com but they are paid. They should have been able to attend the hearings as we did or at the very least streamed it online or caught it on CSpan [CSpan broadcasts all Senate (full) Committee hearings -- sadly it doesn't do the same with the House]. But apparently that was too much work. Better to ignore the hearing and glom on bad reporting, or at least that's the impression Glaser's work left and Ditz's work now does.

Ditz can't get his facts right today.

As usual, he builds around the reporting of others. A foreign newspaper whose report includes:

A US military official had said about 700 civilian trainers were expected to remain, along with 157 military personnel attached to the US Embassy's Office of Security Cooperation and a contingent of about 20 to 25 Marine guards.

That's not really accurate. Nor is it new. That foreign newspaper article is really a rip-off of W.G. Dunlop's AFP article published Wednesday -- an article that Reuters had already ripped off and that Press TV had wrongly passed off as an article by The Daily Star.

If Ditz had bothered to attend (watch or stream) the Senate Armed Services Committee hearing, he'd know that (a) "Office of Security Cooperation" is a bit more complex than portrayed in the paragraph above, (b) that OSC will have ten "enduring bases" (Gen Martin Dempsey offered that testimony in the hearing in response to questions from Senator Kay Hagan) and that US troops stationed on them are not being included in that count as the paragraph reads and (c) the only thing worse than being day-old news, is being month-old news.

It's a real shame they can't bother to find even one staff member who can read Arabic.

It leads to embarrassing 'reports' like Jason Ditz' report today.

Negotiations continue and what Ditz has reported is not new or recent. Dunlop made it 'new' by speaking to a military official. But what Ditz emphasizes is what was already known to anyone who was paying attention.


And, in fact, those paying attention know a great deal more. (Including that Iraqi officials are stating negotiations right now are exploring "partial immunity" and that the numbers being discussed are in the thousands.)


Antiwar.com should have re-reported the hearing. They didn't. They didn't even correct the article.

Marcia and Mike posted last night:






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


























Posted by at

Thursday, November 24, 2011

I Hate The War

Today we included a piece on OWS (NYC) by Joan Wile and that's got the public e-mail account rattling. Ava and my opinion can be found in "TV: Scandals and bumper stickers." I've also included my thoughts on it here. I have no problem with including Joan Wile's commentaries on it here. I may disagree with some points, with all points or with no points but I don't doubt her sincerity on OWS. As I've noted here before usually without naming her, I'm not interested in her thoughts on Barack Obama. Barack is a War Monger. We have taken that position and I will not undercut it by including hearts and flowers to Barry O by anyone. With that exception, or with her urging you to vote for someone (if I'm not telling you who to vote for why would I waste the space letting anyone tell you who to vote for -- you're able to read, presumably able to think, you can decide who to vote for all by yourself), I don't have any problem with the founder of Grandmothers Against the War having her say and then some.

I don't care for OWS because I think it was indulgent. You had everyone from Panhandle Media working overtime to make it into something. You don't start the Civil Rights Movement without some concrete goals. The idea that this free-floating, vague gathering was going to be treated as an important movement. I think we were again handing out awards when gold stars and pats on the back weren't even warranted. I think we were overly indulging a group of people that should have been asked, "What are you doing? What do you want?"

They weren't asked that. And they didn't form around anything. A factoid, okay they formed around a factoid. At some point left magazines and left radio is going to have to offer something other than today's indulgent parent.

Now their non-stop, superficial coverage did do something, it eventually attracted real media. That is what happens. The right-wing fringe media and the left-wing fringe media can glom on something (due to their own political interests) and once they do it will bubble up into Big Media. But you need to know that your subject's ready for that kind of attention.

Big Media was very clear that they were not going to cover a camp out for days and days. They needed something that qualified as news. Nothing happened. Sameness, repeat behavior, that's not what drives the news cycle.

When smart people were heard (over the airwaves) treating OWS as if it were the Civil Rights Movement or the women's movement or the gay liberation movement or the peace movement, that was offensive. When they would then hear this national camp out referred to as the most significant moment politically in the US since "the sixties" (early seventies), that was even more offensive. Not just ahistorical, mind you, offensive.

People are bored. A publicity stunt is all OWS is currently. Ava and I pointed out in our piece that it can now peter out or spring back to life. I have no idea which it will do. I'm not part of it and I'm largely unimpressed with certain elements of it. (I don't applaud, for example, the exploitation of the homeless which I saw with my own eyes when I visited Occupy DC.)

****************

And I'm doing a jump cut here because the paragraph that was here will instead get filed away for year-in-review.

I don't doubt Joan Wile's sincerity and don't believe she's lying. (And I have friends taking part in OWS NYC, Oakland and Los Angeles.) I'm fine with sharing her reporting here.

But by having no goals and with some of the people involved from the start (and in the shadows), what's going on now is no surprise.

Click here for Kevin Zeese's piece at Dissident Voice where he decries the ongoing effort to co-opt/takeover OWS:

The Occupy Movement is not part of either corporate-dominated party and Van Jones is not our leader. It is corporate rule we oppose. The Obama administration and the Democrats as well as the Republicans maintain the rule of Wall Street. Occupiers have organized an independent movement that challenges the rule of the 1% and their Republican and Democratic lackeys. Bought and paid for with millions of dollars from Wall Street, the health insurance industry and big energy interests, Obama and the Democrats are part of the problem, not the solution.


Really, Kevin? Then you might need to grow the hell up.

Kevin Zeese could be one of the most amazing people in the world. He has all the capabilities to do that. Instead, he's stuck in a rut of his own making.

How did he spend 2008?

Did you forget? I never will. He trashed Hillary and gave Barack a pass. Then, as the general election started, it was trash McCain and give Barack a pass. He'll argue -- and has -- that he did call out Barack. Yes, there was a sentence here and a sentence there. Never focused on him the way he did Hillary or McCain. Never made the case for his friend Ralph who was running for president. Nor was he a vocal voice behind Cynthia McKinney.

And Kevin would argue that's ancient history or he wasn't into electoral politics. If he wasn't into them, why did he obsess over them in 2008, in one piece after another.

I'm not the mood for this s**t.

Kevin Zeese is pissed because Van Jones is trying to co-opt whatever life is left in OWS.

You know what pisses me off?

Who the hell is Van Jones?

He'd already burned his bridges in San Francisco before the administration was stupid enough to bring him in. He was known as a sell-out who repeatedly took a stand only to run from it, he changed like the weather. And then he went into the administration as some sort of green jobs czar but he never did anything and he never advocated for anything.

He was building his own nest. Then Glenn Beck and others realized that you had a man who had self-defined (publicly) as a Communist at one point and they went to town. And they should have. Barack Obama was being called a Socialist and a Communist since the campaign. The White House never should have brought anyone in with that hidden in their background. They're the ones who were fighting the false labels during the campaign. Now they're going to bring that in? It was a stupid move. It not only appeared to give credence to (false) rumors, it was amateur time. Who doesn't properly vet at the White House? (Van Jones was Valerie Jarret's pet, for those who don't know.) But the White House doesn't properly vet anything which is how one tax evader after another had to announce that 'for family reasons' they were stepping back from the nomination Barack had made.

Van Jones was the White House mistake. Van Jones became the Kevin Zeese mistake when people like Zeese began going around lamenting Van getting fired. Of course, he would be fired. He was brought into the administration as an 'activist' and now America's being told that he was a Communist. (If you're not reading clearly, I do believe that this administration could have brought in a current or former Communist or Socialist. That's not the problem and wasn't the problem with Van Jones. The problem was the hidden aspect of it all.)

Suddenly it became "poor Van Jones" -- wall to wall. Scew Van Jones. He didn't belong in government -- nor does anyone with a pattern of hiding things. The public did not meet, vet and elect Van Jones. They trusted the administration to nominate capable people. Van Jones was not capable as evidenced by the fact that he had his scandal emerge. This wasn't Van Jones going on American Idol and, woops, same-sex sex tape turns up. This was someone going to work for the White House and they've got a potential scandal that opponents to the White House can run with.

Van Jones' problems were of his own making.

But instead of letting him stew in his own juices, the Zeese contingent were screaming that this was awful and poor Van and Van was heroic and Van was that.

Van Jones is a cheap hustler. That's all he'll ever be.

There was no reason to defend him.

There were actual issues -- from the ongoing wars to the need to demand single-payer universal health care -- but we couldn't focus on them, could we? Instead it was Democracy Now!, The Nation, The Progressive, In These Times, Pacifica Radio and so much more blathering on about the 'victim' Van Jones.

Van Jones was no victim. Hustlers are victims only if they're killed. Otherwise, they are the victimizers. They go through life victimizing others.

Currently, Kevin Zeese correctly sees Van Jones trying to suck the life out of OWS.

How about taking a look at who put Van Jones in the position to do that? Kevin writes about the Center for American Progress. If left voices hadn't portrayed Van (wrongly) as the ultimate victim, then he wouldn't be in the position to sap whatever life and independence is in OWS.

A whole cottage industry was built around defending Van Jones. That time would have been better spent on real issues. Now the cottage industry gets bit on its cottage cheese ass. At least, Kevin Zeese, have the honesty to admit your own role in this. At least.




It's over, I'm done writing songs about love
There's a war going on
So I'm holding my gun with a strap and a glove
And I'm writing a song about war
And it goes
Na na na na na na na
I hate the war
Na na na na na na na
I hate the war
Na na na na na na na
I hate the war
Oh oh oh oh
-- "I Hate The War" (written by Greg Goldberg, on The Ballet's Mattachine!)

Last Thursday, ICCC's number of US troops killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war was 4486. Tonight it's [PDF format warning] 4486. Here's the screen snap:

11-24-11



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




Posted by at

Continued negotiations on US troops

Al Mada reports that the Kurds are lobbying Nouri to keep US troops in disputed areas and to secure Iraqi air space. Reportedly a consensus is building for keeping 8,000 to 12,000 US troops and this is among the details Nouri will discuss on his DC visit next month. Al Rafidayn reports that it is after this meeting that immunity will be further explored and states, pay attention because the US press never did, that MP Sami al-Asakri explained that Nouri has the power in his role as commander in chief of the military to determine the number of US troops needed (I'm adding: If any) and that the blocs gave their input but that was just input. It's Nouri's role. Yes, we did note that well over a month ago. Yes, it is rather basic and, yes, it is legally sound.

What's pushing these considerations? Could be (may not be, just could) that Nouri's in a bit of panic because while he can terrorize -- as he demonstrated repeatedly since 2006 -- the people, he can't do everything. Add to the mix efforts by provinces -- fully legal efforts -- to go semi-autonomous and with a still unresolved oil law (meaning who might or might not have claims on the money) and Nouri's desired response (which, based on pattern, will most likely be heavy-handed) and suddenly he's at risk of not only his continued war with the people he usually demonizes but potentially whole sections of a province or multiple provinces. That's what could possibly be motivating Nouri. And never forget, he's demonstrated for five years now that his sole goal is to ensure his own personal survival, it's not about the Iraqi people, it's not about the country's potential -- for Nouri, it's all about Nouri.

Dar Addustour reports on Dujail, in Salahuddin Province, and how residents took to the streets to show their approval of the possibility of Dujail leaving Salahuddin and becoming a part of Baghdad Province. Most interesting is that the same voices who screamed about Salahuddin wanting to become semi-autonomous and they want to argue that this can be done by a process . . . similar to what the Constitution's Article 119 says -- you know, what they ignored when they insisted Salahuddin Province couldn't go semi-autonomous.

The Associated Press notes that the European Union is calling for members of the EU to take in the residents of the Camp Ashraf. The camp houses a group of Iranian dissidents (approximately 3,500 people). Iranian dissidents were welcomed to Iraq by Saddam Hussein in 1986 and he gave them Camp Ashraf and six other parcels that they could utilize. In 2003, the US invaded Iraq.The US government had the US military lead negotiations with the residents of Camp Ashraf. The US government wanted the residents to disarm and the US promised protections to the point that US actions turned the residents of Camp Ashraf into protected person under the Geneva Conventions. As 2008 drew to a close, the Bush administration was given assurances from the Iraqi government that they would protect the residents. Yet Nouri al-Maliki ordered the camp attacked twice. July 28, 2009 Nouri launched an attack (while then-US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates was on the ground in Iraq). In a report released this summer entitled "Iraqi government must respect and protect rights of Camp Ashraf residents," Amnesty International described this assault, "Barely a month later, on 28-29 July 2009, Iraqi security forces stormed into the camp; at least nine residents were killed and many more were injured. Thirty-six residents who were detained were allegedly tortured and beaten. They were eventually released on 7 October 2009; by then they were in poor health after going on hunger strike." April 8th of this year Nouri again ordered an assault on Camp Ashraf (then-US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates was again on the ground in Iraq when the assault took place). Amnesty International described the assault this way, "Earlier this year, on 8 April, Iraqi troops took up positions within the camp using excessive, including lethal, force against residents who tried to resist them. Troops used live ammunition and by the end of the operation some 36 residents, including eight women, were dead and more than 300 others had been wounded. Following international and other protests, the Iraqi government announced that it had appointed a committee to investigate the attack and the killings; however, as on other occasions when the government has announced investigations into allegations of serious human rights violations by its forces, the authorities have yet to disclose the outcome, prompting questions whether any investigation was, in fact, carried out." Nouri al-Maliki is seen as close to the government in Tehran. They have made it clear that they want the dissidents out of Iraq and returned to Iran -- where they would face trial at best, torture most likely. Nouri has announced he will be closing Camp Ashraf at the end of this year. UK MP Brian Binley (Huffington Post) writes, "As things are evolving and if Maliki gets away with his plan to impose the deadline, just as the Christmas and New Year holidays are in full swing, the prospect is that the world will sit and watch while men and women are killed in cold blood or mutilated, crushed by US-supplied armoured personal carriers."
Zohreh Shafaei (Scoop News) notes the concerns over what may happen to the residents of Camp Ashraf:


I wrote about the story of my life in an article on August 2nd (American Chronicle) where I asked for help to save the life of my brother who resides in the camp Ashraf. He is the only member of family that I have left. Today, my brother and many others like him live in Camp Ashraf and are in a great danger.

The situation is highly critical now as the Iraqi government has stated that it is going to close the camp by the end of the year 2011. This ultimatum is a decision to carry out a massacre of the inhabitants of the camp, where 3400 Iranian civilians, including 1000 women live. The inhabitants have already experienced two similar attacks in July 2009 and April 2011, where 47 persons were killed and hundreds were wounded.

As for myself, I have already had six members of my family killed by the rule of the mullahs’ dictatorship in Iran. I now have only one brother left who happens to live in the camp Ashraf now. Many of the 3400 civilians in the camp have experienced similar situation as myself, and their lives are at danger now.

President Obama: The U.S. is responsible for securing the safety of the 3400 inhabitants of the camp, as the U.S. army accepted to protect their lives when they handed over their arms to the U.S. army. The fact is that by keeping the name of the MEK in the F.T.O. list, you are authorizing the Maleki government to carry out the massacre of innocent civilians

David Bacon's latest book is Illegal People -- How Globalization Creates Migration and Criminalizes Immigrants (Beacon Press) which won the CLR James Award. He continues to be one of the country's last national labor reporters. His latest report is "Union Supporters Still Fired With Impunity" (Truthout):




When a private employer, like the Los Angeles Film School (LAFS), decides to fight the efforts of its workers to form a union, there is very little holding it back, despite the rights written into US labor law almost three quarters of a century ago.

The National Labor Relations Act says workers not only have the right to form unions, but that the government encourages them to do so, to level the power imbalance with their employers. The law sets up an election process, in which workers supposedly can freely choose a union. And it says that it's illegal for an employer to fire or punish any worker who uses these rights.
Then there's the reality, as practiced by the LAFS.

That company, set up in 1999 by the former lawyer for Occidental Petroleum, was bought by Florida-based Full Sail Film School in 2003. The film and recording business in Los Angeles has strong, well-respected unions. The studios that are the hoped-for employers for film school graduates negotiate with unions all the time. But the LAFS and Full Sail are not ordinary film schools. They are diploma mills that feed off federal loans taken out by students.

A lawsuit filed last year against LAFS says that students, who pay $18,000 to $23,000 per year tuition for a two-year AS degree, receive much less than promised. The school hands out gift cards to Target and Best Buy, the suit says, to students who list jobs at Apple and Guitar Center stores as "creative positions" on forms submitted to get the college accreditation. That allows the schools to enroll its students in federal loan programs.




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
























Posted by at
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)