Saturday, August 04, 2012

Dana Abul Razak holds the Iraqi record in the 100 meter dash

 Dania Hussein




KUNA notes that Tunisia's Oussam Mellouli (swimmer) and Iraq's Dana Abdul Razak (pictured above, competes in the 100 meter track event) were the only Arabs to make it through the heats and qualify for the first rounds in their competitions.  And from there?  Jim Caple (ESPN) reports,"Dana Abdul Razak lined up in Lane 2 at Olympic Stadium for Heat 5 in the first round of the women's 100-meter dash. Two lanes over, Allyson Felix planted her feet in the starting blocks. The starter's gun went off and the Iraqi runner burst down the track alongside America's most famous female sprinter. Abdul Razak finished last in the heat, losing to Felix by eight-tenths of a second, but that didn't matter much. Earlier in the day, the Iraqi had won her heat. She had raced with some of the world's best and she had advanced women's sports in her country."  John Canzano (Oregonian) observes, "It wasn't lost on me that many of the sprinters around Abdul Razak in the mixed zone didn't grow up in a nation where being able to compete would even be a question. Also, with Allyson Felix of the U.S. coming through moments later after winning the heat and wearing the finest track and field gear to go with the best training/nutrition to go with a USA Track and Field handler who escorted her, I wondered about the vast disparity in resources available to athletes here."  She now holds the record for Iraq in the 100-meter dash (11.91).

When Dana Abdul Razak first competed in the Summer Olympics it was 2008 and she was the only athlete from Iraq.  This year she was one of eight at the Summer Olympics.  She's part of a group of Iraqi athletes making steady progress.   The other seven Iraqis competing in London were Ahmed Abdulkareem, Adnan Taess Akkar, Noor Amer al-Ameri, Mohanad Ahmed Dheyaa al-Azzawi, Safaa al-Jumaili, Rand al-Mashhadani and Ali Nadhim Salman Salman.

Kevin Sullivan (Washington Post) notes something other than the violence in a lengthy article which contains some unintentionally hilarious passages.  Chief among them referring to Nouri al-Maliki as "Iraq's democratically elected leader."  Yes, indeed.  He was voted on by both DC and Tehran.

It's a long article and there's a great deal to praise but moments like that stick out.  (Nouri al-Maliki caused an 8 month political stalemate after his State of Law came in second to Iraqiya in the 2010 elections.  With the support of DC and Tehran, he was able to stomp his feet like a surly little child until the US-brokered Erbil Agreement got him a second term as prime minister.  And if Sullivan means 'democratically elected' to his first term, Nouri wasn't who the Parliament voted as their first choice.  That was Ibrahim al-Jaafari and the US government wouldn't allow him to have that second term so Nouri became the compromise candidate.)

Saturday morning Al Mada published a story where Deputy Prime Minister Saleh al-Mutlaq sounded like a complete idiot (because he apparently is one).  He and Nouri had kissed and made up and all was well.  al-Mutlaq hopes they never have a cross word again.  Things are now perfect.

The Happy Idiot learned otherwise before day's end.  AFP reports that one bodyguard died in a bombing attempt on MP Hamed al-Mutlaq's life.  Hamed is the brother of Saleh.  Things still looking perfect, Saleh al-Mutlaq?  Or are you now remembering what you told CNN back in December?

Alsumaria reports an attack on a Mosul military checkpoint left 1 soldier dead and two more injured.  In addition, they report that two men and two women kidnapped a nine-year-old boy in Kirkuk. 

Meanwhile Al Mada reports that the Iraqi Communist Party is upset with violations of the Constitution.  Maybe they should have remembered that before they embraced Nouri.  Al Mada notes Nouri appears to think he can use Saleh al-Mutlaq to repair the burned bridge between himself an Iraqiya leader Ayad Allawi.  Setting aside al-Mutlaq looking like a fool publicly and repeatedly over the last few days, there's also the fact that Iraqiya doesn't trust Saleh the way they once did.  That's what all the rumors have been about the last two months.  Saleh al-Mutlaq has explored taking over Iraqiya, Nouri has told him he would back him and Iraqiya members are aware of that.  Ayad Allawi is very aware of that.

The political blocs big disagreement today?  Whether Iraqis should be sent to the US to train to fly the F-16s and, if so, which pilots?  It appears they'll shortly be exploring a quota option a la -- 10 Shi'ites, 8 Sunnis, 6 Kurds, 2 Turkmen . . . 

Nouri's attacks on Turkey in recent days (over the Thursday visit to Kirkuk by Turkey's Foreign Minister) means the Iraqi press is full of Turkish 'scandals.'  The best one?  Turkish actress Nebahat Cehre wore a sheer black dress that, with dozens of flashbulbs going off, allows you to see the outline of her nipples.  The article notes she was a model and a Miss Turkey and that she married Yilmaz Guney whom she saw as her mentor (they were married for 15 months).  Yilmaz Guney was a Turkish artist who, prior to fame as a director, was often arrested and after his sixties fame was again often arrested.  He would flee Turkey for France where he became even more celebrated as a director.  Nebahat Cehre has remained in Turkey and, at 66, is still acting  [she is part of the Turkish prime time soap opera Muhtesem Yuzyil which is set during the rule of Suleiman (1520 to 1556)].  For many she is Turkey in the way that Sophia Loren is Italy, Catherine Deneuve is France, Vanessa Redgrave is England and Jane Fonda is the United States.  And that can translate as, those usually shocked by something one of those women do will be shocked by the photo and the larger group that usually embraces what one of those women do will just think, "For 66, she looks really good."  (And she does.)

The following community sites -- plus On The Wilder Side, ACLU, Antiwar.com, Chocolate City and Jody Watley --  updated Friday night and Saturday:



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









I Hate The War

Pravda becomes the latest to carry Felicity Arbuthnot's "Iraq: Britian's War Against Truth" calling out the refusal of the government to release the contents of the conversation then-Prime Minister Tony blair had with Bully Boy Bush on the eve of the Iraq War.  Excerpt:


The refusal by the current Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition government to disclose documents integral to the decision to join the US in invading, occupying, destroying and dismantling the entire civil authority and infrastructure of the very State of Iraq, follows their Labour predecessors, the invasion's co-architects.

The Iraq Inquiry findings under Sir John Chilcot's Chairmanship will now be delayed for over another year.

Sir John and his distinguished team will at least have learned one thing that lesser mortals ascertained long ago: When it comes to dodging, diving, weaving and circumventing the truth, no one does it better than top British politicians of all political hues.

On Friday (the 27th of July 2012) the Guardian noted, "The Foreign Office (FCO) is appealing against a Judge's ruling that extracts of a conversation between Tony Blair and George W. Bush days before the invasion of Iraq must be disclosed," adding "The FCO has now sought leave to appeal against the decision with an "Upper Tribunal" made up of more senior Judges ..." (i)

This related to the vital papers of the Cabinet discussions under Tony Blair's Premiership, between March 13th-17th, 2003. The Iraq invasion began on the 19th-20th of March (depending on geographic region).

The documents had been ordered released under the Freedom of Information Act (FOI) due to the dogged persistence, through legal channels, of Stephen Plowdon of The Nonviolent Radical Party, an NGO with Consultative Status at the UN Economic and Social Council (UN ECOSOC) since 1995.


March 12, 2003, Blair and Bush spoke on the phone.  A transcript of the conversation exists.  Supposedly the topic is how then-President of France Jacques Chirac was refusing to support a second UN resolution.  (There was no UN resolution for the Iraq War, only for inspections.  Months after the illegal war started, there would be a resolution governing the occupation.)   Rajeev Syal (Guardian) explained, "Blair and Bush are believed to have talked on 12 March 2003 about the possibility of military action in Iraq without a promised second UN security council resolution backing such action. Blair has since repeatedly blamed Chirac for the failure to get a second resolution."


 As noted in the "About the Inquiry" at the Iraq Inquiry website, the inquiry was announced by then-Prime Minister Gordon Brown and the goal was to "identify lessons that can be learned from the Iraq conflict."  Committee Chair John Chilcot is quoted stating:




Our terms of reference are very broad, but the essential points, as set out by the Prime Minister and agreed by the House of Commons, are that this is an Inquiry by a committee of Privy Counsellors. It will consider the period from the summer of 2001 to the end of July 2009, embracing the run-up to the conflict in Iraq, the military action and its aftermath. We will therefore be considering the UK's involvement in Iraq, including the way decisions were made and actions taken, to establish, as accurately as possible, what happened and to identify the lessons that can be learned. Those lessons will help ensure that, if we face similar situations in future, the government of the day is best equipped to respond to those situations in the most effective manner in the best interests of the country.
The Inquiry and the British government are both now jokes.  The Inquiry will likely never overcome this decision to censor the government -- a decision that they didn't support but that will still be attached to them.  And the government's a joke and an embarrassment -- especially the Liberal Democrats.

Tony Blair (and Gordon Brown) represented the Labour Party (actually "New Labour" which, in the US, is a lot like the DLC).  When Gordon Brown couldn't shake the shame of Blair and Labour lost the prime minister post, the Conservative Party emerged as leaders as they formed a coalition with the Liberal Democrats.  So the UK is now ruled by a combination of Conservatives and Liberal Democrats.  The Conservative Party's David Cameron is Prime Minister (has been since May 2010) and the Deputy Prime Minister is Liberal Democrat Nick Clegg.

As Deputy Prime Minister, Clegg has backed the decision not to release the transcript.

This is a far cry from November 2009 when Nick Clegg was just an MP and leader of the Liberal Democrats.  Back then, as the BBC reported in real time, Nick Clegg was concerned about information getting out, advocating for it being released.


How on earth are we, and is the whole country, going to hear about the full truth of the decisions leading up to the invasion of Iraq if the inquiry is being suffocated on day one by his government's shameful culture of secrecy?

That's Clegg speaking in November 2009.   Back then, he insisted that Chilcot's Inquiry must be "able to reveal the full truth about the decisions leading up to the invasion of Iraq. "

Pravda, for years a joke in the West, is now able to laugh -- and encourage its readers to laugh -- at the state of transparency in the British government.  That alone is worth remarking on.

However, the larger lesson is that politicians -- in every country (including the US) -- rarely mean a damn thing they say.  They don't speak truth as a rule.  They open their mouths solely to advance whatever the day's rhetoric is that will make them look better and their opponent look petty.  So if they're out of power when a war starts, they're against that war.  But if they get into power, they'll go along with that war.  Gladly.  They'll even help cover up the crimes.

England's the one caught with their pants down today but that paragraphs describes the US government as well.  (It's true of all governments.)

And that's why war never ends.  People use it as a political football and toss it around and play with it.  The ones elected, the bulk of them, are never really opposed to war, to starting them or continuing them.  Why would they be, so far removed as the bulk of them are from the battlefield.

There's a great deal of talk about bringing back the draft in the US which I don't support.  The draft didn't end the war in Vietnam or Korea.  That's a fallacy and it's what the impotent grab onto when they can deal with reality ("We bring back the draft and the streets will be flooded with protests!" No.  Didn't happen that way at all.)  But if that day ever come where conscription is reintroduced in the US, someone should ensure that the Senate and the House have to send a percentage of their members to that ongoing war.  They want a war, then fine, send 30% of the members of the House and the Senate off to battle in this war they support.  Not cushy jobs, not safe ones.  The kind where they're exposed to the roadside bombings, where they're out on patrol.

And maybe when the Congress realizes their own asses will be on the line, they'll beging to take the issue of war a lot more serioulsy than they have in the last few decades.




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!)


The number of US service members the Dept of Defense states died in the Iraq War is [PDF format warning] 4488.



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












Friday, August 03, 2012

Iraq snapshot

Friday, August 3, 2012.  Chaos and violence continue,  Nouri goes nuts over Turkey, his backup singers shimmy behind him and ooh and ahh about suicide, arrests and all things 'evil' about Turkey, depleted uranium gets some press attention, the VA's interesting contract practices are discussed in Congress, and more.
 
In Iraq, Political Stalemate II continues.  Richard Weitz (World Politics Review) offers a strong overview:
 
 
A power-sharing agreement brokered in November 2010 at Erbil among Iraq's key political actors was meant to establish a balanced coalition government, in which key executive branch posts were to be distributed among the main parties in rough proportion to their electoral strength. A newly created National Council for Strategic Policy was also meant to broaden representation in policymaking beyond the cabinet. The resulting checks and balances, it was thought, would prevent the government from adopting extreme positions by requiring compromise policies acceptable to all the major stakeholders. 
Since then, however, Maliki's critics claim he has ignored the Erbil agreement, instead accruing excessive power, bypassing the Iraqi constitution and bringing under his personal control the country's other political institutions, including the judiciary, federal agencies and the nominally independent election and integrity commissions and central bank.
He has also placed many key national security posts in the hands of his supporters, appointing many senior police, military and intelligence officers without parliament's approval, while seeming to exercise undue influence on their activities. The judgments of the supposedly neutral Constitutional Court also consistently favor the government.
Furthermore, Maliki and his allies have blocked the creation of the aforementioned strategic council in parliament and refused to hold referenda in governorates whose provincial councils were seeking to become federal regions to increase their autonomy from Baghdad.
 
Again, it's a very strong overview.  (My own personal favorite observation?  "Finally, to reassure his critics, he has sometimes stated that he may not run for a third term in national elections scheduled for 2014.")  The thing about Nouri is that once he unleashes the crazy, he can't reel it back in, he can't bottle it up.  Which explains the latest development in the Baghdad-based government's attempt to be a 'good neighbor.'  Barry Malone (Reuters) reports, "Iraq made a formal protest to Turkey's envoy in Baghdad on Firday after the Turkish foreign minister made a surprise visit to an oil-rich Iraqi city claimed by both the central government and the country's autonomous Kurdistan region."
 
Huh?  Who knew Iraq had it's own Area 51, off-limits to all.  But, wait, it's Kirkuk. A city in the province of Kirkuk, where an estimated 388,000 people live.  And it's not a gated community.  People travel in and out of Kirkuk freely.  But let a Turkish official touring northern Iraq visit the city and Nouri's uncapping the crazy. 
 
 
The backstory: Turkey's Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu arrived in Erbil on Wednesday and continued his visit on Thursday by visiting various parts of the KRG and, most 'controversially' for Baghdad, Kirkuk.  Kirkuk is a disputed region with both the KRG and Baghdad claiming it.  (How to solve the issue?  Article 140 of the Constitution explains it.  But that census and referendum was supposed to be instituted by the end of 2007, per the Constitution, and Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki refused to do so and continues to refuse to do so.) 
 
And since it's been months since Nouri created the May 24th international incident -- where 4 Russian bikers were arrested and tortured by Nouri's forces -- he was apparently fearful that someone might mistake him for rational or even competent.  Nouri need not worry.  Kitabat noted this morning that Nouri's Baghdad government continues to complain and carp about the visit.  Marwan Ibrahim (Middle East Online) reports:


Davutolgu visited leaders of Kirkuk's Turkmen community, with which Ankara has long had close ties, as well as religious and historical sites including the city's Ottoman cemetery.
Turkmen Front head Arshad al-Salehi said: "Turkmen should work to enhance relations with Turkey, and Shiites with Iran, and Sunnis with Gulf countries."
The front's deputy leader, Ali Hashem Mukhtar Oglu, said Davutoglu was the highest-ranking Turkish official to visit the city in decades.
Ties between Iraq and Turkey have been marred by a flurry of disputes this year.
In July, Iraq warned Ankara against "any violations" of its territory and airspace, and instructed the foreign ministry to register a complaint at the UN Security Council, after Turkish jets bombed Kurdish rebels in Kurdistan.
A few days earlier, Iraq called on Turkey to stop accepting "illegal" transfers of crude oil from Kurdistan, which an official from the region said had begun earlier in the month.
 
Sapa-AFP note that in the meeting between the Turkish ambassador to Iraq and the Iraqi government, it was conveyed to Iraq that "Turkey has no secret agenda."  Nouri's paranoia being what it is, that reassurance most likely meant very little. 
 
Nouri unleashed the dogs.  Al Mada reports that today the Ministry of Health announced that there have been seven suicides -- all under 16-years-old -- as a result of a Turkish soap opera.   Also today State of Law's Abdul Salam al-Maliki is stomping his feet.  All Iraq News reports that he is demanding that the Arab League condemn the visit by the Turkish Foreign Minister and that the Arab League call the visit a breach of Iraq's sovereignty.  The KRG should actually pay Nouri al-Maliki's State of Law political slate a monthly fee.  These little tantrums by State of Law are like a mini-advertisement: "Come to the Kurdistan where adults are in charge."  You have to wonder if Nouri gets how stupid his slate makes Iraq look?  On the world stage, State of Law is a joke.  al-Monitor notes, "According to Rudaw News Agency, parliamentarian Abdulhadi el Hassan from Maliki's party said: 'Turkey is blatantly interfering in Iraq's internal affairs. The Turkish embassy should be closed down. We have the right to detain Davutoglu'."
 
KUNA reports, "Turkey's foreign ministry Friday summoned Iraqi Ambassador in Ankara to protest against Iraqi criticism over Turkish foreign minister Ahmet Davutoglu's visit to Kirkuk."   Alsumaria notes that Iraqiya (the political slate that came in first in the March 2010 elections) has called on Nouri's government to lower the rhetoric and stop escalating the situation.  Hurriyet Daily News reports Davutoglu met today with Ayad Allawi (head of Iraqiya).
 
 
Is it any wonder that the KRG is so much more attractive to the international business community?  After all, they don't have to deal with Crazy Nouri in the KRG.  Daniel Graeber (Oil Price) reviews recent deals with the KRG that irk Baghdad:
 
Iraq, more than seven years after the first post-Saddam government was voted in, still lacks effective legislation to govern the oil sector. The central government in Baghdad considers unilateral oil contracts with the Kurdistan Regional Government illegal. U.S. supermajors Chevron [CVX  111.12    1.87  (+1.71%)   ] and Exxon Mobil [XOM  87.55    1.67  (+1.94%)   ] were blacklisted by Baghdad for making deals with Kurdish authorities. In April, the Kurdish government retaliated by blocking oil exports but has since sent some shipments over the border to Turkey. Despite the political infighting, French majors Total and Marathon Oil locked step in the Kurdish north. Total, in a statement, said it was looking for "new opportunities" in Iraq. (More: Investing Lessons in One of the World's Most Volatile Sectors)
That move brought additional fire from Baghdad. A spokesman for the energy ministry said the central government would "punish" companies that made deals without Baghdad's consent, warning Total it could face "severe consequences" for its actions.
 
 

Maybe it was the Kurds announcing a few days ago that they had no problem with the US making efforts to assist Iraq with its ongoing political crisis but Nouri's government lately has made clear that they're not pleased with either the US or the KRG.  Al Mada reports that insiders in Nouri's Cabinet are stating that the rebuffing by the Interior Ministry on police training by the US is only the first step and that they are/will be making it clear that the government has little desire to work with or have a relationship with the US government.  A quote from the article: "Iraq is capable of moving forward without the United States and is no longer needs its assistance in either construction or development."  Apparently, yesterday's phone call with US Vice President Joe Biden did not go as well as Nouri would have liked.
 
 

Violence continues today in Iraq. AFP reports that a Dhuluiyah roadside bombing has claimed the lives of 4 Iraqi soldiers and left four more injured while a Baquba checkpoint was attacked resulting in the deaths of 4 police officers with two more left injured.  In addition to those two incidents today, KUNA reports that late last night there was an attack in al-Rutba in which 2 police officers were killed and two more injured by assailants (three of which were injured in the battle).  Sinan Salaheddin (AP) reports that "three drive-by shootings in Baghdad" today resulted in the deaths of 3 Iraqi soldiers and 2 police officers with five soldiers and six police officers left injured.   Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) observes, "The unrest coincides with an emerging political crisis, with Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish political blocs increasingly at odds in the fractious legislature. Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, who is Shiite, has struggled to forge a power-sharing agreement and has yet to fill key Cabinet positions, including the ministers of defense, interior and national security."
 
Violence includes what has been done to the country.  On Shihab Rattansi's Inside Story Americas (Al Jazeera), ex-US Marine Ross Caputi, weapons researcher Dai Williams and Raed Jarrar joined Rattansi for a roundtable on whether the United States caused the vast increase in birth defects in Falluja after the November 2004 assault on that city.
 
Raed Jarrar: The second attack on Falluja happened in 2004 and this was the years where the US actuallly used very heavy military weapons to attack the entire country.  I was in Iraq in 2003 and 2004 and went around the country before the attack on Falluja and after documenting the US use of depleted uranium.  I think Iraqis were not very familiar with the dangers of depleted uranium.  I documented many cases of kids playing inside tanks that were by DU bullets.
 
Shihab Rattansi: Now, of course, the US has denied using DU in the Iraq War -- in the second Iraq War at least.
 
Raed Jarrar: I mean, in many cases, it is very much documented. They denied it in the first war and then after that it was documented.  And in the second war, I think there are so much documentation --
 
Shihab Rattansi: Is the documentation of DU or simply elevated radiation?
 
Raed Jarrar:  Both. So I've found -- I've personally found documented many DU bullets and DU bullet entry points into tanks and [. . .] of course, elevated radiation.  The DU radiation is very limited so it's usually around a foot from where the DU bullet punctured the tank.  And the radiation there was between 2,000 and 10,000 percent
 
Shihab Rattansi:  We'll get back to that discussion in a moment because I think there might be a discussion about what's -- if there is uranium being used, if it is indeed depleted uranium.  And we'll get back to that later on.  But as far as that second assault on Falluja occurred, I mean just remind us what happened.  There was basically an evacuation order given.

Raed Jarrar: So there was another first attack on Falluja that failed [April 2004].  And there was another attempt to go in.  And they gave evacuation orders to many Iraqi civilians, many people, hundreds of thousands, left the city and everyone knew that the entire town would be destroyed.  Now, of course, the promise was at that time that the US will go get rid of all of the bad guys and rebuild the city.  Now, of course, that did not happen.  We saw a total destruction of Falluja and the use of so many unconventional weapons.  But then after that no reconstruction was --
 
Shihab Rattansi: How many people were behind during that assualt?
 
Raed Jarrar: No one knows the exact numbers because it wasn't documented.  But there were at least tens of thousands of left behind.
 
And there was some 'documentation.'  The New York Times' Dexter Filkins won a little prize for his 'documentation.'  I wasn't aware there was a See No Evil, Hear No Evil, Speak No Evil prize for journalism but then again the profession's in shambles these days.  So Dexy's prize winning feature took many, many days to appear in print.  Apparently the US military vetting Dexy's copy didn't feel any pressing deadline.  You know what might be worst than a Go-Go Boy in the Green Zone (whose antics ended there ended his marriage)?  The idiots like Tom Hayden and Terry Gross who fawn over the Look The Other Way When War Crimes Go Down Boy.  Click here to check out the photo of Falluja by Jahi Chikwendiu (Washington Post).  It kicks off a Falluja photo essay.
 
 
 
Still on violence, and consider it the laugh of the day, Kitabat reports that Ali Musa Daqduq being deported to the US (see yesterday's snapshot) was turned down by the Iraqi court because they were worried he might face capital punishment.  Iraq holds something of a record with 68 executions in 2011 and they're prepared to top that this year and, see the July 30th snapshot, have announced 196 more individuals they plan to execute.
Last week,  Amnesty International issued an alert on the latest announced executions:
 
 
Contact: Suzanne Trimel, strimel@aiusa.org, 212-633-4150, @strimel
(New York) – Amnesty International today urged Iraqi authorities to commute
all pending death sentences and impose a moratorium on executions with a
view to abolish the death penalty after the chief of police in the Iraqi
governorate of Anbar announced on Monday a Court of Cassation decision          to uphold 196 death sentences in the region.
It is unclear if the sentences have been ratified by the Iraqi presidency yet.
The announcement gave no timeline for carrying out the executions but expressed a hope that it would be soon.
"After this alarming announcement, Iraqi authorities must move quickly to commute all death sentences and declare a moratorium on executions
across the country," said Philip Luther, Middle East and North Africa Director
at Amnesty International.
"If the Iraqi authorities carry out these death sentences, they would nearly quadruple Iraq's already shocking execution record so far this year."
In the first half of 2012 alone, Iraq executed at least 70 people, which is
already more than the figure for all of last year.
According to Amnesty International's information, in 2011 a total of at least
68 people were executed in Iraq. Around the country, hundreds of others
are believed to remain on death row.
The death penalty was suspended in Iraq after the US-led invasion in 2003
but restored in August 2004. Since then, hundreds of people have been sentenced to death and many have been executed.
Amnesty International opposes the death penalty – the ultimate cruel,
inhuman and degrading punishment – in all cases without exception, as a violation of the right to life.
Amnesty International is a Nobel Peace Prize-winning grassroots activist
organization with more than 3 million supporters, activists and volunteers in more than 150 countries campaigning for human rights worldwide. The organization investigates and exposes abuses, educates and mobilizes the public, and works to protect people wherever
justice, freedom, truth and dignity are denied.
 
 

Back in December, he called for Deputy Prime Minister Saleh al-Mutlaq to be stripped of his post.  By May, he was making nice with al-Mutlaq and the push for a vote of no-confidence on al-Mutlaq in Parliament had been dropped by State of Law.  All these weeks later, Al Mada reports, nouri is finally asking Parliament to withdraw his request of a no-confidence vote on al-Mutlaq.  This comes as Dar Addustour notes he's also sent al-Mutlaq a letter asking him to, please, attend the Cabinet meetings. On the Parliament front, the proposed federal court law has been bottled up in Parliament for some time due to various disagreements.  Alsumaria reports that Parliament is planning to vote on the law next week and that they have agreed on the disputed point -- the number of members of the Court will be 17 (9 judges, 4 Islamic law scholars and 4 legal experts).
 
 
 
 
Turning to the United States . . .
 
 
Chair Bill Johnson:  And one final question and then we'll move on to my colleagues, in your analysis -- or your analysis shows that as of April 1, 2012, 60% of the firms listed as eligible in VetBiz had yet to be verified using this more thorough process, we just talked about that, and 134 of these firms received a total of 90 million in new VA SDVOSB contracts during a four month period.  So do you still feel that there is a vulnerability  here until all of the firms have been verified under the new process?
 
 
Richard Hillman: Yes, Mr. Chairman.  Consistent with the VA OIG study which found that for the level of review those that were using  the less rigorous process 70% of the time, upon more detailed review they were found to be ineligble for the program causes us significant pause and believe that we need to ensure that the rigorous process is being followed by all of those within the VetBiz program
 
Chair Bill Johnson:  And given the fact that  we're talking about tens of millions in this case, a total of 90 million in new contracts during a four month period,  there are millions of dollars --  of tax payer dollars -- at risk here of going to companies that are ineligible thereby diminishing the amount of contract awards that should be going to eligible veteran companies. Would you agree with that?
 
 
Richard Hillman:  The VA study, through it's work, determined that for a one year period of time there were potentially $500 million dollars going to ineligible firms.  And if actions weren't taken to address that problem, over a 5-year-period of time 2.5 billion dollars would be provided to ineligible firms.
 
Chair Bill Johnson:  And given the fact that according to your statement a few minutes ago that previous experiences that often times even after they're found ineligible they're allowed to complete those contracts, we're talking about millions, hundreds of millions of tax payer dollars, going to ineligible firms that walk away scott free.  Correct?
 
Richard Hillman:  Seems that's so.
 
US House Rep Jerry McNerny would observe after the exchange, "That was pretty sobering, Mr. Chairman."  And it was.  And distrubing to hear Richard Hillman, with the Government Accountability Office, explain that, in cases where the VA has determined that a firm is not a veterans small business and that the company may have been dishonest (even to the point of fraud), the VA has "allowed [these firms] to complete those contracts even though they had been found to be uneligible."
 
 
It was Thursday's joint-hearing of the House Veterans Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity and Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigation.  Yesterday's snapshot noted the issue of whether or not the VA was breaking the law and the VA's interesting concept of what ownership and control of a business was.  In the real world, if you have at least 51% of a business, you have control of it.  In the VA world, not really.  This is a very big issue because veterans who start small businesses and compete for contracts may find out that they're not a veterans small business . . . by the VA's definition.  The VA's Thomas Leney was the witness we focused on.  Today we look at the second panel made up of GAO's Hillman and the VA's Office of Inspector General's James O'Neill.   We're going to include two excerpts and they will not instill confidence in how the VA is handling its small business program.
 
 
US House Rep Jerry McNerney: I think our first panel showed the difficulty we face in terms of coming up with a non-subjective standard for awarding veteran statuses to businesses.  The 100% control?  Clearly, there was a lot of questions within the Committee.  But the fraud issue is another part of this that we haven't talked about too much.  Mr. Leney was saying that only 5% of applicants tend to be fraud.  But my fear, and I think that's something that you're showing in prior testiomny, is that that 5% can end up awarding a lot of contracts to people who are undeserving and should be prosecuted.  What -- How much of a problem do you think fraud is in the overall program, Mr. Hillman?
 
Richard Hillman:  The work that we have done looking at individual case studies is not something that we can extrapolate to the universe as a whole to give you the percent of fraud that we think may exist within the program.  The closest example of that would be a study done by the VA's OIG [Office of Inspector General] who, in 2011, did a study that was a statistically valid, random sample projecting the extent to which there may be fraud within the program.  What they found with their study was -- in a review of 42 firms -- they found that 32 of the 42 or 76% of those firms were not eligible for the program.  Now that study included a verification process that was the less rigorous process under the 2006 act as well as just a plain self-certification process that was implemented before the 2006 act.  If you look at only those firms that were included as part of the 2006 verification process, you see a similar percentage.  About ten of fourteen firms that were included in the VA's OIG sample was found not to be eligible.  Or 70% of those programs, a very comparable percentage. 
 
 
US House Rep Jerry McNerney: Well do you think this 100% control standard is contributing to fraud?  Is that a standard that's difficult to verify in some ways?  Is there some way that we can improve that standard in order to reduce the appeal of fraud to unscrupulous players?
 
Richard Hillman: Like Jim has said, in the cases we have examined as part of our work, there has been very little ambiguity as it relates to an ownership or control issue -- when we have gone out and conducted our own investigations.  For example, ownership issues are most often validated associated with the operating agreement -- operating plans -- that exist.  And you can document the extent to which on paper the individual is an owner of the business or not. Control on the other hand is a much more subjective determination and, uh -- For example, conversations this morning associated with the fact that if you own 51% of the company, you can decide to sell that company.  You not only own it but you control it.  Well there could be instances in the operating plan or other agreements with that firm that if the principal decides to sell that business there's an agreement that they must consult with the minority owners first to get their agreement.  Well that would be a provision where there was maybe 51% ownership but because of an operating agreement, not 100% control. 
 
US House Rep Jerry McNerney:  Well --
 
Richard Hillman:  So the devil is in the details.
 
US House Rep Jerry McNerney: -- that's informative.  That's informative because then ownership is easily -- it's subjective, it's easy to establish, it means something, everybody can understand it and if people are committing fraud, then they can be prosecuted.  Whereas control is a much more subjective standard that we're having to try and manage.
 
Richard Hillman:  In -- In all our cases we have looked at, we've seen instances and where individuals may be living and working in other practices 500 miles away.  We see instances where they may be receiving a salary of $12,000 where a minority owner may be receiving a salary of $80,000.  You see examples like these which suggest on paper ownership exists but control isn't being afforded that leave you to pause.  In those instances, we provide our cases and our case results to the enforcement organizations and they provide and adjuidcate over those issues. 
 
US House Rep Jerry McNerney:  So ownership has its own risks then with regards to somebody just using a veteran on paper and maybe skimming off some of the profits but not having control.  So this is -- this is still a difficult issue for us.
 
Richard Hillman:  And there is -- there is -- In addition to ownership issues, there's also this issue that you just referred to as a pass through where you do have a service disabled veteran as the owner of the business but that service disabled veteran may pass that contract through to an entity that is run by non-veterans or non-service disabled veterans to manage that activity and, in accordance with provisions of the program, if they don't handle 50% of that service contract or up to 15% of that contract or related contract then they're not fulfilling the provisions of the program as well.  So the details dictate whether or not the program is -- is elibable for the program and I think that's -- that is a source of confusion and something that the program has attempted to clarify.
 
[. . .]
 
 
Chair Marlin Stutzman:  Mr. O'Neal, in your testimony, all of the cases you cite involved companies that self-certified their status as veteran owned and controlled.  CVE has now installed a more rigorous verification program to determine whether a company is truly veteran owned and controlled. Can you tell us how many of your cases -- opened or closed -- involve companies certified under the more rigorous process and whether that process is meeting the goals of eliminating most of the cheaters?
 
James O'Neill:  No.  I can't tell you here.  I can give you a written response. I'd have to do some research but I know of one instance, for example, where the company had been certified under the more rigorous standards but it was at the beginning of the process and mistakes were made in CVE and we -- don't forget, we can execute search warrants, we can get e-mail, we can uncover evidence of fraud that even the most rigorous standard applied by CVE won't find.  So it's going to happen.  I think it's certainly far fewer cases -- I don't think the number would exceed 10, I'd be surprised -- I've actually -- our companies that have passed that level of scrutiny by CVE.  But I will respond to you in a written response.
 
Chair Marlin Stutzman: Okay.  Thank you.  Mr. Hillman, looking at the highlights, you start off the first paragraph saying that the CVE SDVOSB program remains vulnerable to fraud and abuse.  And you mention that several times.  And even with your recommendations, at the conclusion of the one paragraph, you say GAO made some changes to the report that you had made after the Veteran Affairs -- after they had challenged some of them or you guys discussed them but you continue to believe that the program remains vulnerable to fraud and abuse.  Do you feel that the VA is concerned about this particular program?  Are they -- What kind of response do you get from them when you discuss your concerns about fraud and abuse?  Is it as much of a concern to them as it is a concern to you? 
 
Richard Hillman:  When you review an organization such as the Veterans Administration or perhaps even the Small Business Administration, those entities have largely a role of advocacy and service to those constituent groups -- either veterans or small businesses.  The OSB function which Mr. Leney operates is also more of a service oriented function.  The idea of having a strong controls environment to help deter or detect fraud and abuse isn't necessarily part of that DNA.  So when we're going in and evaluating the extent to which a program has strong prevention controls or detection and monitoring controls or controls to ensure that the program is taking aggressive actions against bad actors, we seem to be looking at it with a lens the extent to which you can identify and address conditions offraud and abuse.  That type of influence -- I believe Mr. Lenny's organization is attempting to develop through additional training, through additional guidance.  But it really hasn't existed to this same degree that we would have hoped that it might to date.
 
Chair Marlin Stutsman: Why do you think that is?
 
Richard Hillman: I believe it has an awful lot to do with what the organization's mission as an advocate for those constituents groups -- in this case veterans -- uh-uh -- The -- uh -- interest in ensuring that there's strong oversight and protection over the fraud, waste and abuse angles isn't something that is really what they see as their primary function.
 
Chair Marlin Stutzman:  What's your opinion of the VA's process for debarring companies? Have they set the thresholds high enough?  Are more companies getting denied verification that should be also considered for debarment?  What is your opinion?
 
Richard Hillman: The statistics that we have seen show that, over time, the debarment committee within VA is making more debarment decisions and has more proposed debarment decisions than they have had in the past.  As of July 26, 2012, there are now 11 SDVOSB [Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business Program] cases that have been tried by the debarment committee, 5 debarments, 6 proposed debarments.  And these debarments when they occur, occur for a four to five year period of time.  They're taking aggressive action in that regard. However, you use numbers such as five debarments, six proposed and you're seeing many more being provided to them for their review.  The committee itself was established in September 2010 -- almost two years of activity.  I do believe that is sufficient time for someone to go in and take an evaluation of how well that Committee has been functioning over that two year period and what additional steps could possibly be taken with this.
 
Chair Marlin Stutsman: Okay. Last question.  Would you think -- Do you think self-certification was a mistake?  Does it open the door for more fraud and abuse?
 
Richard Hillman:  Absolutely.  The government-wide program which manages 7o percent of all SDVOSB contracts is largely a self-certification program and it is very suseptable to fraud and abuse.  The VA is the only agency that has a certification process for service disabled small veterans business and that has reduced the vulnerability of fraud.  We're hoping that Mr. Lenney will continue to make that level of fraud as low as possible, commiserate with the cost of establishing controls. And we're -- we're very concerned about the government-wide program being a self-certified program and, uh, that is not serving veterans well.
 
 
And we'll close with the war on Syria.  Alex Lantier (WSWS) notes how a Democrat in the White House allows faux peace types to really go to town getting their War On:
 
Obama's reassurance that the US is providing only "non-lethal assistance" to anti-Assad forces is a cynical lie. The US is waging a brutal civil war by proxy that has already cost tens of thousands of lives and displaced hundreds of thousands of people.
Its goal is to install a US puppet regime in Damascus to isolate and prepare for war against Iran, remove a potential enemy of Israel, and advance a broader agenda of complete dominance of the Middle East by US imperialism. This agenda—pursued in the course of a decade of US wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and intensified after last year's mass uprisings in North Africa with wars in Libya and Syria—is deeply unpopular in the working class in the United States and internationally.
Washington's covert backing for the Syrian "rebels" lays bare the role of pro-imperialist pseudo-left groups—like the International Socialist Organization (ISO) in the US, the Socialist Workers Party (SWP) in Britain and the New Anti-capitalist Party (NPA) in France—which have promoted the war in Syria. Their "leftism" amounts to nothing more than giving "left" justifications for the crimes of American and European imperialism.
The ISO openly declares its support for intervention. In an article by Yusuf Khalil and Lee Sustar in its Socialist Worker publication, it writes: "The increasing role of the armed struggle raises the question whether to accept arms and support from the West … While many in the Syrian revolutionary movement are opposed to US and Western intervention, they will take whatever help they can get."
  
 
 
iraq
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Nouri continues attack on Turkey and rebuffs DC

Violence continues today in Iraq. AFP reports that a Dhuluiyah roadside bombing has claimed the lives of 4 Iraqi soldiers and left four more injured while a Baquba checkpoint was attacked resulting in the deaths of 4 police officers with two more left injured.  In addition to those two incidents today, KUNA reports that late last night there was an attack in al-Rutba in which 2 police officers were killed and two more injured by assailants (three of which were injured in the battle).

Turkey's Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu arrived in Erbil on Wednesday and continued his visit on Thursday by visiting various parts of the KRG and, most 'controversially' for Baghdad, Kirkuk.  Kirkuk is a disputed region with both the KRG and Baghdad claiming it.  (How to solve the issue?  Article 140 of the Constitution explains it.  But that census and referendum was supposed to be instituted by the end of 2007, per the Constitution, and Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki refused to do so and continues to refuse to do so.)  You sort of get the idea that if Davutoglu had been a Russian biker, Nouri would have already had him arrested and tortured.  Kitabat notes that Nouri's Baghdad government continues to complain and carp about the visit.  Maybe they need to build a privacy fence around Kirkuk if no one's allowed to visit it? Or maybe if they really want to prevent people from visiting they could declare the area a shrine to Nouri?  I'm sure that would dry up a lot of interest.

Marwan Ibrahim (Middle East Online) reports:


Davutolgu visited leaders of Kirkuk's Turkmen community, with which Ankara has long had close ties, as well as religious and historical sites including the city's Ottoman cemetery.
Turkmen Front head Arshad al-Salehi said: "Turkmen should work to enhance relations with Turkey, and Shiites with Iran, and Sunnis with Gulf countries."
The front's deputy leader, Ali Hashem Mukhtar Oglu, said Davutoglu was the highest-ranking Turkish official to visit the city in decades.
Ties between Iraq and Turkey have been marred by a flurry of disputes this year.
In July, Iraq warned Ankara against "any violations" of its territory and airspace, and instructed the foreign ministry to register a complaint at the UN Security Council, after Turkish jets bombed Kurdish rebels in Kurdistan.
A few days earlier, Iraq called on Turkey to stop accepting "illegal" transfers of crude oil from Kurdistan, which an official from the region said had begun earlier in the month.

Meanwhile State of Law's Abdul Salam al-Maliki is stomping his feet.  All Iraq News reports that he is demanding that the Arab League condemn the visit by the Turkish Foreign Minister and that the Arab League call the visit a breach of Iraq's sovereignty.  The KRG should actually pay Nouri al-Maliki's State of Law political slate a monthly fee.  These little tantrums by State of Law are like a mini-advertisement: "Come to the Kurdistan where adults are in charge."  You have to wonder if Nouri gets how stupid his slate makes Iraq look?  On the world stage, State of Law is a joke.  Alsumaria notes that Iraqiya (the political slate that came in first in the March 2010 elections) has called on Nouri's government to lower the rhetoric and stop escalating the situation.  If Nouri had a brain, he'd listen.  (Translation, expect more war of words from Nouri and his State of Law on this subject today.)

Maybe it was the Kurds announcing a few days ago that they had no problem with the US making efforts to assist Iraq with its ongoing political crisis but Nouri's government lately has made clear that they're not pleased with either the US or the KRG.  Al Mada reports that insiders in Nouri's Cabinet are stating that the rebuffing by the Interior Ministry on police training by the US is only the first step and that they are/will be making it clear that the government has little desire to work with or have a relationship with the US government.  A quote from the article: "Iraq is capable of moving forward without the United States and is no longer needs its assistance in either construction or development."

Don't claim Nouri never does anything.  Back in December, he called for Deputy Prime Minister Saleh al-Mutlaq to be stripped of his post.  By May, he was making nice with al-Mutlaq and the push for a vote of no-confidence on al-Mutlaq in Parliament had been dropped by State of Law.  All these weeks later, Al Mada reports, nouri is finally asking Parliament to withdraw his request of a no-confidence vote on al-Mutlaq.  This comes as Dar Addustour notes he's also sent al-Mutlaq a letter asking him to, please, attend the Cabinet meetings. On the Parliament front, the proposed federal court law has been bottled up in Parliament for some time due to various disagreements.  Alsumaria reports that Parliament is planning to vote on the law next week and that they have agreed on the disputed point -- the number of members of the Court will be 17 (9 judges, 4 Islamic law scholars and 4 legal experts).


In the US, among those running for president is the Green Party's Jill Stein.  Her running mate is Cheri Honkala.  Their campaign notes "Stein and Honkala arrested in protest of forecloser giant Fannie Mae:"

(PHILADELPHIA) Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein and her vice presidential running mate Cheri Honkala were arrested today during a protest at the offices of mortgage company Fannie Mae on Banker's Row in Philadelphia. Among those arrested along with Dr. Stein and Ms. Honkala were labor lawyer James Moran and Sister Margaret McKenna of the Medical Mission Sisters. An attorney who supports civil disobedience cases is providing legal assistance. All of those arrested are expected to come before a judge on Thursday afternoon. At that time bail will either be set or they will be released on their own recognizance.
The protest was originally called for by the Poor People's Economic Human Rights Campaign to demand that the giant mortgage company halt foreclosure proceedings against two Philadelphia residents in danger of losing their homes. Stein joined the protest after Cheri Honkala joined her as Stein's vice presidential running mate. Honkala, a former homeless single mother, has been confronting banks and mortgage companies for decades demanding that they adopt policies that will, "keep families in their homes."
Occupy-Fannie-Mae---prayer.pngAt 1pm today about 50 protestors gathered outside of Fannie Mae's Philadelphia headquarters. They heard from Miss Fran and Rhonda Lancaster, the heads of two families evicted by Fannie Mae in its refusal to negotiate an alternative to foreclosure. Fannie Mae executive Zach Oppenheimer had previously promised in writing to meet with the two women in order to discuss other options. Yet no followup meeting ever took place, and so protestors today entered the Fannie Mae building and vowed to stay until Mr. Oppenheimer's word was honored.
At about 2:30pm, an hour after entering the building and beginning a sitdown protest, lower level Fannie Mae officials agreed to meet with Miss Fran and Ms. Lancaster. These meetings proved inconclusive, ending only with promises of more meetings. With Philadelphia police on hand with six paddy wagons and plainclothesman, a smaller subset of protestors stayed inside the building and risked arrest. Five were arrested, including Dr. Stein and Ms. Honkala.
Miss-Fran.pngIn explaining why she joined the protest, Stein said that almost half of Americans now live in poverty or near poverty, eight million families face eviction from their homes due to foreclosures, and over a third of mortgage holders are "underwater" - meaning that they owe more to the lenders than their properties are worth on the market.

Said Stein, "The developers and financiers made trillions of dollars through the housing bubble and the imposition of crushing debt on homeowners. And when homeowners could no longer pay them what they demanded, they went to government and got trillions of dollars of bailouts. Every effort of the Obama Administration has been to prop this system up and keep it going at taxpayer expense. It's time for this game to end. It's time for the laws be written to protect the victims and not the perpetrators. It's time for a new deal for America, and a Green New Deal is what we will deliver on taking office. "

Jill-Stein-arrest-Honkala-next.png"The laws and the budgets and the procedures are designed to protect the lenders and to extract as much money as possible from the victims," Honkala explained. "This isn't the way it would be if we really had a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. The first goal of government should be to keep families in their homes, and to provide restitution for the deception and fraud that has robbed millions of Americans of financial security."

Stein laid out a number of steps that will be part of a new deal for homeowners when and where the Green Party wins power. First, as President, Dr. Stein would issue an executive order establishing a moratorium on foreclosures of occupied dwellings. Second, municipalities governed by Greens will get homeowners out of underwater mortgages by seizing mortgages through eminent domain and letting non-profit community development organizations - not Wall Street banks - reissue the mortgages.

Cheri-and-Guillermo.pngNoting that the Obama administration has only released 10% of the aid that Congress had promised to homeowners, Stein asserted that "There is much more interest in Washington in protecting the profits of banks than in getting this aid out to the families whose lives are falling apart.  President Obama held a big press conference to announce a program that would supposedly help 1.5 million homeowners and so far it has actually helped only 1 per cent of that number. Real help goes to the CEOs who play golf with the President and the people get lip service.  This will change only if the people stand up and say we're not going to put up with it anymore."

Statement from RHONDA LANCASTER (Excerpted from People’s Tribune) 
My family has lived in this home in Germantown for over 35 years. When my mother got ill and could not afford her health care, a reverse mortgage idea was presented to me. They made it look like it was a great thing. It was going to take care of my mother, and when my mother passed away it would be just fine.
The nightmare started after my mom died. I notified the bank she had passed away, and two days later I was getting ready for her funeral. Relatives and friends were coming in from all over the country. The bank told me to stop everything and let them come in and do an appraisal.
The bank refused to accept me as the executor of her estate, although the proper papers had been filed at City Hall. From that point on it was a complete nightmare. I could get through to no one and no one could help me. They denied me my legal US rights as heir to my mother’s property.
Statement from MISS FRAN (Excerpted from People’s Tribune):  
I have lived in Philadelphia all my life, and in this house since 1988. Once when I was forced to file for bankruptcy, my mortgage holder, Chase Bank, suddenly came to court and objected to my bankruptcy plan. Although the law requires them to notify me in advance, I had no warning of their action, so I had no lawyer and no time to prepare my evidence. The judge dismissed my file for bankruptcy and Chase began foreclosure proceedings.
I participated in Philadelphia’s Mortgage Foreclosure Diversion Program, so I was able to keep my home off the sheriff sale list. Then they claimed I missed a Conciliation Conference even though they had never notified me about it. When I complained, the court rescheduled the sheriff sale of my home from July 1, 2008, to September.  I attended that sale on July 1 and was shocked to hear them put my house up for sale anyway. I was in the back of the auditorium and ran to the front making so much noise the sheriff’s lawyer had to stop the sale. Finally they brought in a letter from the sheriff saying they had obtained a court order that same day to sell the house. They had gone to court without even notifying me. The same judge who postponed the sale in the first place had turned around and vacated his own order, all without telling me.
The sale of my home went through on July 1, but my battle was just beginning. Although Chase Bank foreclosed on my home, I found out the sheriff changed the name on the documents to Fannie Mae. There is no bill of sale from Chase to Fannie Mae and no record of any transfer. Fannie Mae has no legal standing to evict me. But that didn’t stop them from trying. They sued to evict me in April 2011. I filed an objection, it was overruled, I answered them, and we were supposed to go to trial in February 2012. Then they filed for a summary judgment against me, which is only supposed to be granted when there is no dispute in the matter. I told them we most definitely do have a dispute: a district court order was ignored and Fannie Mae has no standing. But the judge granted the summary judgment anyway. They obtained a writ of eviction and scheduled my eviction for June 12.
 

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