The foot was balanced on a shopping bag after being scooped up off the dirty street by a man in a track suit. There was no person to go with the limb. Nearby a charred body was still smoldering, smoke coming off the black corpse 45 minutes after the attack.
For 50 yards, the dead were scattered about, some in pieces, some whole but badly burned.
This violence on Thursday involved two bombs timed to go off one after another in the formerly upscale neighborhood of Mansour, which continues to be ripped apart by sectarian violence. Thirteen people were killed and 22 wounded, just a small fraction of the civilians killed across the country this week.
The first device went off at 10:15 a.m., probably a roadside bomb set on a timer, officials said.
The attack was apparently aimed at a gasoline station. Cars were lined up around the block waiting for fuel, and dozens of people, grasping large plastic jugs, hoped to buy heating fuel.
Just moments after the first explosion, a second, larger, car bomb detonated.
The above is from Marc Santora and Johan Spanner's "Deadly Blasts in Baghdad Leave Gruesome Traces" in this morning's New York Times. The paper kind-of, sort-of leaves the show funeral to note a bit of the violence in Iraq. Not all, not even all reported (47 corpses discovered in Baghdad on Thursday, one US soldier killed in Baghdad on Thursday -- both fall through the cracks).
Already this morning, Reuters reports two Iraqi translators and one civilian contractor (US) have been kidnapped in Basra and at least six Iraqis have been killed and three corpses have been discovered in Iskandariya.
Several e-mails about yesterday's Democracy Now! (which I didn't listen to yesterday but just caught this morning.) and I think Marcia's the most vocal. Marc Sandalow was allowed to present theories as fact and no one questioned him. Sandalow can claim whatever he wants provided he presents it as a claim. There is no excuse for Democracy Now! to allow that nonsense to air without being challenged. The thrust of his theory (presented as fact) is that George McGovern's calling for an end to the war resulted in a massive electoral loss. He then goes on to say that Dems are scared of that happening again.
Again?
It never happened as presented. McGovern did campaign on the issue of Vietnam. So did Nixon. Nixon campaigned on a 'secrect peace plan.' Repeatedly. Those too young to remember it are not excused from allowing nonsense to air -- for example, that only McGovern/Democrats made peace noises in 1972.
Are Dems scared today? They may be if their own knowledge of history is as revisionist or ignorant as what was presented on Democracy Now! yesterday without challenge. But after Ford was presented (without question or clarification) as 'the one' who gave amnesty to war resisters during Vietnam, it's really not surprising that the lie (and that's what it is -- whether the person repeating it intends to lie or not) that McGovern lost because he presented himself as a "peace candidate" got aired as well.
And Lucy notes Rebecca Solnit's "Good News We're Not Hearing About" (OpEd News):
Another grassroots groundswell that mattered was the immigrants' rights marches of last spring, which were launched with the surprising turnout in Los Angeles -- not the easiest city for walking and marching -- of more than a million Latinos and others defiant of crackdowns against immigrants. Similarly huge and passionate demonstrations, many organized by text messaging, Spanish-language radio, and other means, swept the nation. They demonstrated that immigrants were not going to be so easy to bully; the force of their numbers and passion left Republican plans to repress and to demonize immigrants, undocumented and otherwise, in disarray. The marches were jubilant and powerful, one of those no-going-back moments when a group decides never to be a silent victim again. The culminating marches on May Day were the first time in many decades that the U.S. had adequately joined the rest of the world in commemorating this worker's holiday that commemorates the anniversary of the Chicago labor march and rally in 1886.
Mexicans rose up in 2006, and the country seems to be on the brink of revolution, if citizen discontent is any measure. The city of Oaxaca was seized by its citizens and for many months functioned as an autonomous zone akin to the Paris Commune of 1871, until violent repression in November. After the stolen presidential election in the summer, millions of Mexicans took up residence in the streets of the capital to protest the corruption and model an alternative -- the huge occupation of the central zocalo (or plaza) and surrounding area experimented with mass democracy meetings in the open air, while Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, the Mexico-City mayor who probably actually won the election, set up a shadow government. The Zapatistas, a dozen years after their appearance on the world stage, continued to play a role in Mexican politics.
The Bush Administration continued its slide into ignominy as even the craven politicians who had waved flags and followed orders during the long patriotic nightmare after 9/11 found it safe and useful to attack the administration. Many Republican candidates declined to appear with the president, and Cheney made his mark this year largely by shooting a major campaign contributor in the face while attempting to shoot birds just released from cages for the purpose -- perhaps an allegory for the voting public. Though some good candidates won election and Congress and the Senate went to the Democrats, the Democrats as a whole will at best endorse victories won elsewhere, which is why the grassroots matter so much.
It was a lousy year to be a Republican president, though not nearly as bad as being a U.S. soldier or an Iraqi citizen. A number of highly visible defections from the war in Iraq made a difference in 2006, notably that of Lieutenant Ehren Watada, a Japanese-American officer from Hawaii who refused to serve in what he called "an illegal and immoral war." Recruiting kids to serve in the military became harder than ever, and recruiters fought back with ever-lowering standards, ballooning bonuses and, according to many sources, packs of lies.
Finally, remember that Dahr Jamail was the guest for the full hour on KPFA's Flashpoints yesterday. Rebecca's "nora barrows-friedman interviewed dahr jamail on flashpoints" offers an overview of the interview conducted by Nora Barrows-Friedman and the program is archived for those interested in listening to it (go to KPFA or Flashpoints).
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
the new york times
marc santora
johan spanner
rebecca solnit
dahr jamail
flashpoints
nora barrows-friedman
sex and politics and screeds and attitude
Friday, January 05, 2007
And justice for none?
At a hearing Thursday at Fort Lewis, there was little dispute about the action taken by 1st Lt. Ehren Watada, who last June refused to deploy with his brigade to Iraq. But defense and prosecutors sparred much of the afternoon about whether Watada's motives for opting out of the war should affect the outcome of a February court-martial trial that could result in a six-year prison term.
Watada says he believes the war is illegal and he was duty-bound not to fight. The defense seeks to introduce evidence to prove that belief.
[. . .]
Within the next week, military Judge Lt. Col. John Head is expected to issue a written decision on whether to hold a special hearing on evidence about the U.S. conduct of the war. At Thursday's hearing, he appeared troubled by the prospect of putting the war on trial in his courtroom.
"Where do I have the authority, and where is the case law that gives me the authority to discuss -- to consider -- whether the war in Iraq, or any war for that matter, is lawful?" Head asked.
The above is from Hal Bernton's "Lawyers: Does Watada's motive matter?" (Seattle Times) which Molly labels as "the fix is in." She's referring to the prospect of holding a trial without ever examining the defendant's motive. Now there are courts that do that, they're called kangroo courts and no one makes the mistake of assuming justice can be found in any of them.
Joan notes "Watada Supporters Vocal at Today's Hearing" from Hawaii's KMGB:
Ehren Watada didn't say much after the hearing.
"I'm sorry at this time I am not going to make any comments", he said.
But his supporters here at home had a lot to say.
"This is an illegal and an immoral war", said Watada Supporter Carolyn Hadfield. "And it's a just and courageous thing to refuse to go.".
But that's an argument Watada may never be able to make in his court martial proceedings. That's because when his attorney asked permission to submit evidence at trial that the war is illegal and the judge's response was less than favorable.
Eric Seitz, Watada's attorney, said, "He indicated to us that he is not very persuaded and that it is unlikely he is going to allow us to pursue those defenses at trial."
And Martha notes Linton Weeks' "A Mother Fights for a Soldier Who Said No to War" (Washington Post -- this ran Thursday):
Carolyn Ho is a mother on a mission.
She came to Washington in mid-December to build support for her son, Army 1st Lt. Ehren Watada, the first commissioned officer to refuse deployment to Iraq.
Barring some kind of miracle, he will be court-martialed on Feb. 5 at Fort Lewis, about 45 miles south of Seattle. If convicted, he could be sent to military prison for six years. There's going to be a pretrial hearing today.
Like many Americans, she believed she could come to the capital city and change the world. Or at least her small part of it.
She was acting purely on instinct, wanting to do everything in a mother's power to protect her son. "I'm here to get what I can," said Ho, who is from Honolulu. Dark hair pulled back. Dark eyes that moisten when she speaks of her son. Soft voice. "I'm going to put it out there."
At the very least, she hoped for some kind of letter of support before today's hearing. Late yesterday afternoon, a letter arrived. After a lot of worry and work.
Lobbying Congress is no day at the spa.
During her Capitol Hill quest, she was accompanied by several seasoned lobbyists, but they let her do the talking. She moved along the halls, sitting down with staffers in the offices of Sens. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) and Daniel Akaka (D-Hawaii) and aides from the offices of Reps. Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.), John Conyers (D-Mich.) and Maxine Waters (D-Calif.).
In closed-door meetings, Ho told the same story. She sees her efforts as part of a larger, multifaceted wave that is challenging the Bush administration from every angle. At the same time the president is advocating an increase in the number of soldiers in Iraq, there is on the home front an increase in the number of vocal opponents of the war. "I believe my son is part of this movement," Ho said.
Phoebe Jones of Global Women's Strike, an international antiwar network that supports Ho and Watada, was at Ho's side on Capitol Hill. "The work of mothers is protecting life, beginning with their children," Jones explained. "And that is really the opposite of the obscenity of war."
For updates on Watada, you can check Ehren Watada and Courage to Resist.
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
iraq
ehren watada
carolyn ho
linton weeks
the washington post
Thursday, January 04, 2007
And the war drags on . . .
Noor Ibrahim lay shivering underneath two blankets on a bed at al-Jarrah Hospital. Steps away was a red plastic bassinet. It was empty.
A few doors down, her recently born son lay wrapped in a pink blanket. He was a chubby boy of nearly nine pounds with a big patch of black hair. His eyes were closed, his head cocked to the left, his mouth slightly open, his skin soft and pale.
The boy was not in a bassinet. He was in a cardboard box. He was not heading to his mother's room. He was heading to the morgue.
"Fresh death," Ibrahim's obstetrician said as she reached into the box and lifted the boy's limp right arm, still covered in blood and amniotic fluid.
Giving birth is painful enough as it is. In war-torn Iraq, it's also becoming more dangerous.
Spontaneous road closures, curfews and gun battles make even getting to the hospital a challenge for expectant mothers. Once they arrive, the women have no guarantee that they will receive adequate health care from a qualified physician.
"It's spiraling downward. It's getting worse each day," said Annees Sadik, an anesthesiologist at al-Jarrah.
The above, noted by Martha, is from Nancy Trejos' "Iraq's Woes Are Adding Major Risks To Childbirth" in today's Washington Post. If you missed it, I did but I'll be listening shortly, Dahr Jamail was the guest for the full hour on KPFA's Flashpoints. Rebecca has a summary of Nora Barrows-Friedman's interview with Dahr: "nora barrows-friedman interviewed dahr jamail on flashpoints." If you're unable to listen to the interview (due to computers or hearing), Rebecca's got a pretty indepth summary. But to tie Barrows-Friedman's interview in with the above highlight, Dahr noted that the health care system was already under (prolonged) attack before the war due to the sanctions.
Tonight, we'll be focusing on the pretrial because I'm not sure how much time I'll have tomorrow morning. (I've got to speak fairly early.) But before we get to that, Keesha found a highlight that she felt offered "perspective often missing in a lot of the coverage. This is from
Robert Fantina's "Atrocities and Accountability in American Wars" (Political Affairs Magazine):
The parallels between the Iraqi war and the Vietnam war are evident: no clear mission, escalating casualties and no exit strategy. Another parallel is the growing number of veterans who are speaking out against this war after having fought in it, as many Vietnam veterans did after serving in that tragic war. Some of these brave men and women are deserting.
Several soldiers who deserted after a tour of duty in Iraq have stated that cruelty towards Iraqi citizens was a factor in their desertions. One of them, Lance Corporal Ivan Brobeck, witnessed the abuse of Iraqi detainees and the killing of Iraqi civilians. Another, Sgt. Ricky Clousing, had similar experiences. His allegations of systematic abuse of Iraqi detainees are now being investigated by the military.
Sadly, what these soldiers and others like them witnessed in Iraq is not unique in American history. While most Americans were shocked when the abuses at Abu Ghraib were first exposed, and at the charges filed against some American soldiers for the murder of Iraqi civilians, these behaviors are only ‘business as usual’ when the U.S. embarks on one of its imperial adventures. A look at just a few of America’s past wars is instructive.
In 1846 America declared war on Mexico. During this war, General Winfield Scott’s troops engaged in unspeakable crimes against civilians, including assaults against women, and the bombing and looting of churches. Prior to invading Veracruz, Scott bombed the city for six days, sending over 1,300 shells onto the city each day. Foreign consuls and the bishop begged for a short reprieve so that women and children could flee to safety; Scott ignored these pleas. As a result, of the 1,100 Mexicans killed, nearly half of them were civilians. Scott, the author of this atrocity, is considered by many to be a hero.
At the close of the nineteenth century the U.S. was at war with the Philippines. At the start of the Samar campaign, Brigadier General Jacob Smith gave his troops these instructions: “Kill and burn, kill and burn, the more you kill and the more you burn the more you please me.” His instructions included sparing no one over the age of 10. One soldier reported orders of “Kill all we could find.”
Another soldier fought in the village of Maypaja, which had a population of about 5,000. He reported that after the battle, “not one stone remain[ed] upon top of another. You can only faintly imagine this terrible scene of desolation. War is worse than hell.”
Although Smith was eventually court-martialed and convicted, his sentenced was reduced by Theodore Roosevelt. His assistant was charged with murder, but acquitted.
If the above gets you motivated, wonderful. If it depresses you (Keesha thought it might be too much of a downer -- we're all for reality here so no such thing), take a moment to note that the illegal war hits the four year mark in two months and the peace movement is larger than it was during the same time frame of the Vietnam era.
They're just there to try and make the people free,
But the way that they're doing it, it don't seem like that to me.
Just more blood-letting and misery and tears
That this poor country's known for the last twenty years,
And the war drags on.
-- words and lyrics by Mick Softly (available on Donovan's Fairytale)
Last Thursday, the number of US troops killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war was 2991. Tonight? 3006. Today, the US military announced: "A Multi-National Division - Baghdad patrol was attacked by small arms fire, killing one Soldier in the western part of the Iraqi capital today." If you're remembering that the 3,000 mark was hit on Sunday and thinking that six US troops have died in Iraq in 2007, that's incorrect. Two have died. What's happened is the usual slow trickle of announcements from the US military. Though it probably won't get noted by the media (and watch them refer to 109 or some other figure as the 'total' for December 2006 months down the line), 115 is currently the final number for US troop fatalities in Iraq for the month of December.
Also slow to trickle out is the news of life on the ground in Iraq. When all you do is jawbone over the show death, you don't have much space or time to note what happened to Iraqis who weren't leaders. Since the snapshot went up, Reuters has noted that 47 corpses were discovered in Baghdad today and mortar attacks in Baghdad killed five people and left seven wounded. But remember, the Giddiest Gabor in the Green Zone, Willie Caldwell, wants people to believe that things have calmed down in Iraq.
On The KPFA Evening News, Sandra Lupien just noted that activists protested outside Pelosi's office in the Federal Building (San Francisco) -- protesting the 3,000+ US troops killed and the over 655,000 Iraqis killed in the illegal war and demanding action on the war.
Now we're going to turn to the topic of Ehren Watada's pretrial that began today. Mark Taylor Canfield reported (for Free Speech Radio News and The KPFA Evening News) on the pretrial and spoke with Carolyn Ho, Ehren's mother, who stated "The issue of the illegality and immorality of the war needs to be raised. For him to be tried fairly" the issue of the war needs to be brought in. The US military is attempting to keep that issue from being addressed in the hearing. To shut out that issue strips Watada of his argument for refusing to deploy to Iraq and the military wants that because (a) it makes it easier for them to make a case and (b) it prevents questions about the legality of the war.
Now we're going to do like Brad suggested last Friday in the gina & krista round-robin, note who has covered the issue today. This is in addition to the others already noted today. Mia notes Melanthia Mitchell's "Judge hears motions during officer's pretrial hearing" (Associated Press):
Seeking to reduce charges against 1st Lt. Ehren Watada, his attorney Eric Seitz of Honolulu said the soldier should not be penalized for statements he made explaining why he was challenging the Bush administration's reason for going to war and refusing to deploy to Iraq.
Watada is charged with missing movement after refusing to deploy with his unit, the 3rd Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division. The Army also proceeded with charges of conduct unbecoming an officer for statements he made to journalists and at a veterans convention.
Seitz argued to drop the latter charges.
"He should not face another four years of penalties because he chose to explain his reasons for opposing the war," Seitz told Lt. Col. John Head, the military judge overseeing Watada's case at this post south of Tacoma.
Army prosecutors argued that Watada's statements are offensive to the military and must be looked at in the context they were made and the effects they could as well as the danger they present to the military's mission.
Mitchell's covered war resisters before for AP. On the topic of peace activists being sought to give testimony (for the prosecution) in the court-martial (starts February 5th), Tori notes
Michael Gilbert's "Army versus activism: Scope of Watada trial to be argued" (The News Tribune):
Phan Nguyen, an Olympia activist who moderated the May news conference in Tacoma where Watada announced his decision to refuse the deployment order, said Army prosecutors served him with a subpoena last week.
He and others said they believe the move is an attempt to intimidate them by calling them to testify about their activities in support of Watada.
"It puts us in the position of helping the Army put this man in prison," said Liz Rivera Goldstein, an organizer with the Watada campaign. "Being put in that position harkens back to the McCarthy era -- it seems like the wrong direction for our country to be going in."
Another name that should be familiar is Christian Hill. Portland notes this from Hill's "Iraq War resister's court-martial turns on pretrial hearing today" (The Olympian):
On June 22, Watada, 28, a native of Hawaii, refused to board a plane headed to the Middle East with members of his unit, the 3rd Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division. He publicly announced his intention to refuse two weeks earlier.
Fort Lewis announced Nov. 9 that Watada would be tried for missing movement and four specifications - or counts - of conduct unbecoming an officer for statements against the war during speeches and interviews.
If convicted, Watada could serve up to six years in prison and be dismissed from the military.
That provides the background for anyone who slept through the summer and also tells you what Watada's facing if found guilty. The charges? Jonah notes this from an AP story:
Watada is charged with missing movement after refusing to deploy with his unit, the 3rd Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division. The Army also proceeded with charges of conduct unbecoming an officer for statements he made to journalists and at a veterans convention.
Seitz argued to drop the latter charges.
"He should not face another four years of penalties because he chose to explain his reasons for opposing the war," Seitz told Lt. Col. John Head, the military judge overseeing Watada's case at this post south of Tacoma.
In addition to the pretrial hearing, demonstartions of support for Watada took place today and Zach notes this report from KTVU:
San Francisco police arrested a number of antiwar protesters who were blocking the doors of the federal building during a rally Thursday afternoon.
The protesters were participants in a rally that began at 1 p.m. and was sponsored by the Declaration of Peace Campaign, First Unitarian Universalist Society of San Francisco and Watada Support Committee.
The Watada committee is supporting Army 1st Lt. Ehren Watada, who is currently undergoing a pretrial hearing at Fort Lewis, Wash., in preparation for a Feb. 5 court martial on charges of refusing to go to Iraq and of conduct unbecoming to an officer.
Emily and Keelan, in seperate e-mails, wanted it noted that Democracy Now! did not even mention that the pretrial hearing started today though, Elaine, "they had time to again note Gerry Ford" and though, Keelan, "Headlines included a lengthy critique of CNN." Information on Ehren Watada can be found by using the link. In addition, you can check Courage to Resist for updates.
And we'll go out with Kendrick's highlight, this interview with Ehren Watada from Kevin Sites' "Conscientious Rejector?" (Kevin Sites In The Hotzone):
KEVIN SITES: Now, you joined the Army right after the US was invading Iraq and now you're refusing to go. Some critics might look at this as somewhat disingenuous. You've taken an oath, received training but now you won't fight. Can you explain your rationale behind this?
EHREN WATADA: Sure. I think that in March of 2003 when I joined up, I, like many Americans, believed the administration when they said the threat from Iraq was imminent -- that there were weapons of mass destruction all throughout Iraq; that there were stockpiles of it; and because of
Saddam Hussein's ties to al-Qaeda and the 9/11 terrorist acts, the threat was imminent and we needed to invade that country immediately in order to neutralize that threat.
Since then I think I, as many, many Americans are realizing, that those justifications were intentionally falsified in order to fit a policy established long before 9/11 of just toppling the Saddam Hussein regime and setting up an American presence in Iraq.
SITES: Tell me how those views evolved. How did you come to that conclusion?
WATADA: I think the facts are out there, they're not difficult to find, they just take a little bit of willingness and interest on behalf of anyone who is willing to seek out the truth and find the facts. All of it is in the mainstream media. But it is quickly buried and it is quickly hidden by other events that come and go. And all it takes is a little bit of logical reasoning. The Iraq Survey Group came out and said there were no weapons of mass destruction after 1991 and during 2003. The 9/11 Commission came out and said there were no ties with Iraq to 9/11 or al-Qaeda. The president himself came out and said that nobody in his administration ever suggested that there was a link.
And yet those ties to al-Qaeda and the weapons of mass destruction were strongly suggested. They said there was no doubt there were weapons of mass destruction all throughout 2002, 2003 and even 2004. So, they came out and they say this, and yet they say it was bad intelligence, not manipulated intelligence, that was the problem. And then you have veteran members of the CIA that come out and say, "No. It was manipulated intelligence. We told them there was no WMD. We told them there were no ties to al-Qaeda. And they said that that's not what they wanted to hear."
SITES: Do you think that you could have determined some of this information prior to joining the military -- if a lot of it, as you say, was out there? There were questions going into the war whether WMD existed or not, and you seemingly accepted the administration's explanation for that. Why did you do that at that point?
WATADA: Certainly yeah, there was other information out there that I could have sought out. But I put my trust in our leaders in government.
SITES: Was there a turning point for you when you actually decided that this was definitely an illegal war?
WATADA: Certainly. I think that when we take an oath we, as soldiers and officers, swear to protect the constitution -- with our lives as necessary -- and those constitutional values and laws that make us free and make us a democracy. And when we have one branch of government that intentionally deceives another branch of government in order to authorize war, and intentionally deceives the people in order to gain that public support, that is a grave breach of our constitutional values, our laws, our checks and balances, and separation of power.
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
iraq
and the war drags on
donovan
ehren watada
the washington post
nancy trejos
robert fantina
christian hill
michael gilbert
melanthia mitchell
dahr jamail
flashpoints
nora barrows-friedman
the kpfa evening news
sex and politics and screeds and attitude
A few doors down, her recently born son lay wrapped in a pink blanket. He was a chubby boy of nearly nine pounds with a big patch of black hair. His eyes were closed, his head cocked to the left, his mouth slightly open, his skin soft and pale.
The boy was not in a bassinet. He was in a cardboard box. He was not heading to his mother's room. He was heading to the morgue.
"Fresh death," Ibrahim's obstetrician said as she reached into the box and lifted the boy's limp right arm, still covered in blood and amniotic fluid.
Giving birth is painful enough as it is. In war-torn Iraq, it's also becoming more dangerous.
Spontaneous road closures, curfews and gun battles make even getting to the hospital a challenge for expectant mothers. Once they arrive, the women have no guarantee that they will receive adequate health care from a qualified physician.
"It's spiraling downward. It's getting worse each day," said Annees Sadik, an anesthesiologist at al-Jarrah.
The above, noted by Martha, is from Nancy Trejos' "Iraq's Woes Are Adding Major Risks To Childbirth" in today's Washington Post. If you missed it, I did but I'll be listening shortly, Dahr Jamail was the guest for the full hour on KPFA's Flashpoints. Rebecca has a summary of Nora Barrows-Friedman's interview with Dahr: "nora barrows-friedman interviewed dahr jamail on flashpoints." If you're unable to listen to the interview (due to computers or hearing), Rebecca's got a pretty indepth summary. But to tie Barrows-Friedman's interview in with the above highlight, Dahr noted that the health care system was already under (prolonged) attack before the war due to the sanctions.
Tonight, we'll be focusing on the pretrial because I'm not sure how much time I'll have tomorrow morning. (I've got to speak fairly early.) But before we get to that, Keesha found a highlight that she felt offered "perspective often missing in a lot of the coverage. This is from
Robert Fantina's "Atrocities and Accountability in American Wars" (Political Affairs Magazine):
The parallels between the Iraqi war and the Vietnam war are evident: no clear mission, escalating casualties and no exit strategy. Another parallel is the growing number of veterans who are speaking out against this war after having fought in it, as many Vietnam veterans did after serving in that tragic war. Some of these brave men and women are deserting.
Several soldiers who deserted after a tour of duty in Iraq have stated that cruelty towards Iraqi citizens was a factor in their desertions. One of them, Lance Corporal Ivan Brobeck, witnessed the abuse of Iraqi detainees and the killing of Iraqi civilians. Another, Sgt. Ricky Clousing, had similar experiences. His allegations of systematic abuse of Iraqi detainees are now being investigated by the military.
Sadly, what these soldiers and others like them witnessed in Iraq is not unique in American history. While most Americans were shocked when the abuses at Abu Ghraib were first exposed, and at the charges filed against some American soldiers for the murder of Iraqi civilians, these behaviors are only ‘business as usual’ when the U.S. embarks on one of its imperial adventures. A look at just a few of America’s past wars is instructive.
In 1846 America declared war on Mexico. During this war, General Winfield Scott’s troops engaged in unspeakable crimes against civilians, including assaults against women, and the bombing and looting of churches. Prior to invading Veracruz, Scott bombed the city for six days, sending over 1,300 shells onto the city each day. Foreign consuls and the bishop begged for a short reprieve so that women and children could flee to safety; Scott ignored these pleas. As a result, of the 1,100 Mexicans killed, nearly half of them were civilians. Scott, the author of this atrocity, is considered by many to be a hero.
At the close of the nineteenth century the U.S. was at war with the Philippines. At the start of the Samar campaign, Brigadier General Jacob Smith gave his troops these instructions: “Kill and burn, kill and burn, the more you kill and the more you burn the more you please me.” His instructions included sparing no one over the age of 10. One soldier reported orders of “Kill all we could find.”
Another soldier fought in the village of Maypaja, which had a population of about 5,000. He reported that after the battle, “not one stone remain[ed] upon top of another. You can only faintly imagine this terrible scene of desolation. War is worse than hell.”
Although Smith was eventually court-martialed and convicted, his sentenced was reduced by Theodore Roosevelt. His assistant was charged with murder, but acquitted.
If the above gets you motivated, wonderful. If it depresses you (Keesha thought it might be too much of a downer -- we're all for reality here so no such thing), take a moment to note that the illegal war hits the four year mark in two months and the peace movement is larger than it was during the same time frame of the Vietnam era.
They're just there to try and make the people free,
But the way that they're doing it, it don't seem like that to me.
Just more blood-letting and misery and tears
That this poor country's known for the last twenty years,
And the war drags on.
-- words and lyrics by Mick Softly (available on Donovan's Fairytale)
Last Thursday, the number of US troops killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war was 2991. Tonight? 3006. Today, the US military announced: "A Multi-National Division - Baghdad patrol was attacked by small arms fire, killing one Soldier in the western part of the Iraqi capital today." If you're remembering that the 3,000 mark was hit on Sunday and thinking that six US troops have died in Iraq in 2007, that's incorrect. Two have died. What's happened is the usual slow trickle of announcements from the US military. Though it probably won't get noted by the media (and watch them refer to 109 or some other figure as the 'total' for December 2006 months down the line), 115 is currently the final number for US troop fatalities in Iraq for the month of December.
Also slow to trickle out is the news of life on the ground in Iraq. When all you do is jawbone over the show death, you don't have much space or time to note what happened to Iraqis who weren't leaders. Since the snapshot went up, Reuters has noted that 47 corpses were discovered in Baghdad today and mortar attacks in Baghdad killed five people and left seven wounded. But remember, the Giddiest Gabor in the Green Zone, Willie Caldwell, wants people to believe that things have calmed down in Iraq.
On The KPFA Evening News, Sandra Lupien just noted that activists protested outside Pelosi's office in the Federal Building (San Francisco) -- protesting the 3,000+ US troops killed and the over 655,000 Iraqis killed in the illegal war and demanding action on the war.
Now we're going to turn to the topic of Ehren Watada's pretrial that began today. Mark Taylor Canfield reported (for Free Speech Radio News and The KPFA Evening News) on the pretrial and spoke with Carolyn Ho, Ehren's mother, who stated "The issue of the illegality and immorality of the war needs to be raised. For him to be tried fairly" the issue of the war needs to be brought in. The US military is attempting to keep that issue from being addressed in the hearing. To shut out that issue strips Watada of his argument for refusing to deploy to Iraq and the military wants that because (a) it makes it easier for them to make a case and (b) it prevents questions about the legality of the war.
Now we're going to do like Brad suggested last Friday in the gina & krista round-robin, note who has covered the issue today. This is in addition to the others already noted today. Mia notes Melanthia Mitchell's "Judge hears motions during officer's pretrial hearing" (Associated Press):
Seeking to reduce charges against 1st Lt. Ehren Watada, his attorney Eric Seitz of Honolulu said the soldier should not be penalized for statements he made explaining why he was challenging the Bush administration's reason for going to war and refusing to deploy to Iraq.
Watada is charged with missing movement after refusing to deploy with his unit, the 3rd Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division. The Army also proceeded with charges of conduct unbecoming an officer for statements he made to journalists and at a veterans convention.
Seitz argued to drop the latter charges.
"He should not face another four years of penalties because he chose to explain his reasons for opposing the war," Seitz told Lt. Col. John Head, the military judge overseeing Watada's case at this post south of Tacoma.
Army prosecutors argued that Watada's statements are offensive to the military and must be looked at in the context they were made and the effects they could as well as the danger they present to the military's mission.
Mitchell's covered war resisters before for AP. On the topic of peace activists being sought to give testimony (for the prosecution) in the court-martial (starts February 5th), Tori notes
Michael Gilbert's "Army versus activism: Scope of Watada trial to be argued" (The News Tribune):
Phan Nguyen, an Olympia activist who moderated the May news conference in Tacoma where Watada announced his decision to refuse the deployment order, said Army prosecutors served him with a subpoena last week.
He and others said they believe the move is an attempt to intimidate them by calling them to testify about their activities in support of Watada.
"It puts us in the position of helping the Army put this man in prison," said Liz Rivera Goldstein, an organizer with the Watada campaign. "Being put in that position harkens back to the McCarthy era -- it seems like the wrong direction for our country to be going in."
Another name that should be familiar is Christian Hill. Portland notes this from Hill's "Iraq War resister's court-martial turns on pretrial hearing today" (The Olympian):
On June 22, Watada, 28, a native of Hawaii, refused to board a plane headed to the Middle East with members of his unit, the 3rd Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division. He publicly announced his intention to refuse two weeks earlier.
Fort Lewis announced Nov. 9 that Watada would be tried for missing movement and four specifications - or counts - of conduct unbecoming an officer for statements against the war during speeches and interviews.
If convicted, Watada could serve up to six years in prison and be dismissed from the military.
That provides the background for anyone who slept through the summer and also tells you what Watada's facing if found guilty. The charges? Jonah notes this from an AP story:
Watada is charged with missing movement after refusing to deploy with his unit, the 3rd Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division. The Army also proceeded with charges of conduct unbecoming an officer for statements he made to journalists and at a veterans convention.
Seitz argued to drop the latter charges.
"He should not face another four years of penalties because he chose to explain his reasons for opposing the war," Seitz told Lt. Col. John Head, the military judge overseeing Watada's case at this post south of Tacoma.
In addition to the pretrial hearing, demonstartions of support for Watada took place today and Zach notes this report from KTVU:
San Francisco police arrested a number of antiwar protesters who were blocking the doors of the federal building during a rally Thursday afternoon.
The protesters were participants in a rally that began at 1 p.m. and was sponsored by the Declaration of Peace Campaign, First Unitarian Universalist Society of San Francisco and Watada Support Committee.
The Watada committee is supporting Army 1st Lt. Ehren Watada, who is currently undergoing a pretrial hearing at Fort Lewis, Wash., in preparation for a Feb. 5 court martial on charges of refusing to go to Iraq and of conduct unbecoming to an officer.
Emily and Keelan, in seperate e-mails, wanted it noted that Democracy Now! did not even mention that the pretrial hearing started today though, Elaine, "they had time to again note Gerry Ford" and though, Keelan, "Headlines included a lengthy critique of CNN." Information on Ehren Watada can be found by using the link. In addition, you can check Courage to Resist for updates.
And we'll go out with Kendrick's highlight, this interview with Ehren Watada from Kevin Sites' "Conscientious Rejector?" (Kevin Sites In The Hotzone):
KEVIN SITES: Now, you joined the Army right after the US was invading Iraq and now you're refusing to go. Some critics might look at this as somewhat disingenuous. You've taken an oath, received training but now you won't fight. Can you explain your rationale behind this?
EHREN WATADA: Sure. I think that in March of 2003 when I joined up, I, like many Americans, believed the administration when they said the threat from Iraq was imminent -- that there were weapons of mass destruction all throughout Iraq; that there were stockpiles of it; and because of
Saddam Hussein's ties to al-Qaeda and the 9/11 terrorist acts, the threat was imminent and we needed to invade that country immediately in order to neutralize that threat.
Since then I think I, as many, many Americans are realizing, that those justifications were intentionally falsified in order to fit a policy established long before 9/11 of just toppling the Saddam Hussein regime and setting up an American presence in Iraq.
SITES: Tell me how those views evolved. How did you come to that conclusion?
WATADA: I think the facts are out there, they're not difficult to find, they just take a little bit of willingness and interest on behalf of anyone who is willing to seek out the truth and find the facts. All of it is in the mainstream media. But it is quickly buried and it is quickly hidden by other events that come and go. And all it takes is a little bit of logical reasoning. The Iraq Survey Group came out and said there were no weapons of mass destruction after 1991 and during 2003. The 9/11 Commission came out and said there were no ties with Iraq to 9/11 or al-Qaeda. The president himself came out and said that nobody in his administration ever suggested that there was a link.
And yet those ties to al-Qaeda and the weapons of mass destruction were strongly suggested. They said there was no doubt there were weapons of mass destruction all throughout 2002, 2003 and even 2004. So, they came out and they say this, and yet they say it was bad intelligence, not manipulated intelligence, that was the problem. And then you have veteran members of the CIA that come out and say, "No. It was manipulated intelligence. We told them there was no WMD. We told them there were no ties to al-Qaeda. And they said that that's not what they wanted to hear."
SITES: Do you think that you could have determined some of this information prior to joining the military -- if a lot of it, as you say, was out there? There were questions going into the war whether WMD existed or not, and you seemingly accepted the administration's explanation for that. Why did you do that at that point?
WATADA: Certainly yeah, there was other information out there that I could have sought out. But I put my trust in our leaders in government.
SITES: Was there a turning point for you when you actually decided that this was definitely an illegal war?
WATADA: Certainly. I think that when we take an oath we, as soldiers and officers, swear to protect the constitution -- with our lives as necessary -- and those constitutional values and laws that make us free and make us a democracy. And when we have one branch of government that intentionally deceives another branch of government in order to authorize war, and intentionally deceives the people in order to gain that public support, that is a grave breach of our constitutional values, our laws, our checks and balances, and separation of power.
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
iraq
and the war drags on
donovan
ehren watada
the washington post
nancy trejos
robert fantina
christian hill
michael gilbert
melanthia mitchell
dahr jamail
flashpoints
nora barrows-friedman
the kpfa evening news
sex and politics and screeds and attitude
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)