So what's going on with the mainstream press? Did one too many of their 'heroes' get charged (rightly) with rape? Does rape describe too many of their own sexual encounters? Or are they just too damn immature to discuss a serious issue?
The New York Times which has historically done a shameful job covering rape passes on the story that emerged yesterday. Borzou Daragahi and Ruaa Al-Zarary's "New rape allegation jolts Iraq: A Sunni woman alleges she was assaulted by Shiite soldiers" isn't much better than silence. First, they discount the woman who came forward earlier this week. Why? They have no reason. In fact, dropping back to yesterday's snapshot:
Richard Mauer (McClatchy Newspapers) reports that rape experts who have looked at the page say it "didn't disprove the woman's allegations, . . . and it indicated that the woman suffered extensive injuries, including at least eight bruises on the front of her thighs consistent with a sexual assualt." [. . .] Among the experts Mauer cites are Dr. Karen Simmons of the Rape Treatment Center in Miami ("They did a CT scan of the head, the pelvis, and the neck. These tests would not have shown if someone was sexually assaulted, so there had to have been some kind of other trauma that they found.") and Josuah Weintraub ("It shows that she was brought into a trauma unit in bad shape.").
Are they even aware of that because apparently the only "expert" they know is Willie Caldwell. But they're not interested in exploring her claims and, despite the headline, they aren't interested in the second rape. If they were, they'd tell you that the accused confessed. But that's not even in the article which plays it as the second woman says this happened and maybe it did or maybe it didn't . . .
This benefit of the doubt for the "confessed"? It's not even the accused, the rapists confessed. What the hell is that?
The LAT two-some then wants to give you some sort of look at what Saddam Hussein did. Why? Did they miss it? He had a show execution. He's dead. He's been out of power for nearly four years now. What the hell does Hussein have to do with rapes going on in Iraq today? They can yack on and on about those rapes and find a human rights expert to talk to about those rapes, but they're not interested in either woman that came forward this week.
Martha notes an exception, Ernesto Londono's "Rape of Second Sunni Woman by Iraqi Security Forces Alleged" (Washington Post):
An Iraqi police official in the northwestern city of Tall Afar said Thursday that a military officer and three soldiers had admitted to raping a Sunni woman and recording the act with a cellphone camera.
The four soldiers told an investigative committee convened by the Iraqi army that they sexually assaulted the woman nearly two weeks ago, according to Gen. Najem Abdullah, a police spokesman in Tall Afar.
The soldiers' statement follows another Sunni woman's assertion this week that she had been raped in Baghdad by members of Iraq's predominantly Shiite security forces. Iraq's Kurdish president and its Sunni vice president said Thursday that a judge should investigate her case, which the Shiite-led government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has dismissed as groundless.
This is from Yifat Susskind's "Iraqi Police Commit Rape--Armed, Trained, and Funded by the US" (Common Dreams):
The international news media is flooded with images of a woman in a pink headscarf recounting a shattering experience of rape by members of the Iraqi National Police. Most of the coverage has focused on her taboo-breaking decision to speak publicly about the assault, but has ignored the context for understanding--and combating--sexual violence by Iraqi security forces.
As Iraqi women's organizations have documented, sexualized torture is a routine horror in Iraqi jails. While this woman may be the first Iraqi rape survivor to appear on television, she is hardly the first to accuse the Iraqi National Police of sexual assault. At least nine Iraqi organizations (including Women's Will, Occupation Watch, the Women’s Rights Association , the Iraqi League, the Iraqi National Association of Human Rights, the Human Rights' Voice of Freedom, the Association of Muslim Scholars, the Iraqi Islamic Party and the Iraqi National Media and Culture Organization) as well as Amnesty International, the UN Assistance Mission in Iraq, and the Brussels Tribunal have documented the sexualized torture of Iraqi women while in police custody. And as this case attests, sexual violence is woven into the fabric of the civil war now raging across Iraq. According to Iraqi human rights advocate and writer Haifa Zangana, the first question asked of female detainees in Iraq is, "Are you Sunni or Shia?" The second is, "Are you a virgin?"
Next week, MADRE, an international women’s human rights organization, will release a report that documents the widespread use of rape and other forms of torture against women detainees in Iraq by US and Iraqi forces.* The report includes testimonies of numerous rape survivors, collected by the Organization of Women’s Freedom in Iraq (OWFI). Since November 2005, OWFI has conducted a Women’s Prison Watch project and has found that, "Torture and rape are common procedure of investigation in police stations run by the militias affiliated with the government, mostly the Mahdi and Badr militias," according to their summer 2006 report.
These are the same sectarian Shiite militias that are prosecuting Iraq's civil war, the same militias that stepped into the power vacuum created by the US overthrow of Saddam Hussein, and the same militias that have been systematically attacking women in their bid to establish an Islamist theocracy. Since 2003, the political leadership of these militias has been handed control of the Iraqi state by the US, while the militants themselves have waged a campaign of assassinations, rapes, abductions, beheadings, acid attacks, and public beatings targeting women--particularly women who pose a challenge to the project of turning Iraq into a theocracy. As the occupying power in Iraq, the US was obligated under the Hague and Geneva Conventions to provide security to Iraqi civilians, including protection from gender-based violence. But the US military, preoccupied with battling the Iraqi insurgency, simply ignored the reign of terror that Islamist militias have imposed on women.
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com and there will be another entry this morning but I'm too angry to write it currently.
borzou daragahi
ernesto londono
yifat susskind
Friday, February 23, 2007
Thursday, February 22, 2007
And the war drags on . . .
Senator John McCain: "We are paying a very heavy price for the mismanagement - that's the kindest word I can give you - of Donald Rumsfeld, of this war. The price is very, very heavy and I regret it enormously."
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton: "I take responsibility for my vote. It was a sincere vote based on the facts and assurances we had at the time. Obviously I would not vote that way again if we knew then what we know now."
Imagine a 2008 presidential race with the above two as our major candidates. One who is a supporter of the invasion/occupation of Iraq who thinks it has been "mismanaged" and one who is a supporter of the invasion/occupation of Iraq who was fooled by the crafty, super-genius George Bush.
Imagine a grieving mother whose son or daughter has been killed in Iraq hearing a Pentagon report that calls the manipulated Doug Feith (famous PNAC supporter and former Deputy War Minister) intelligence that led to her child's death, not a crime, but "inappropriate." Imagine this same grieving mother having to hear these two candidates for their political party's nomination play politics with their child's life that was cut tragically short by unrepentant murderers.
John McCain "regrets" that Donald Rumsfeld mismanaged the war and notes that he will go down in history as the worst War Minister of the ages, but doesn't regret his former support of the same man, or his support of George Bush who will go down as the worst "war preznit" in history and who defamed, lied, libeled, and slandered John McCain in 2000.
Hillary Clinton thinks she is doing her campaign a favor by saying her vote to give George Bush authority to invade Iraq was a mistake, but she won't apologize for it. Imagine a grieving mother who lies awake at night longing for her "mistakenly" killed child who would be alive if instead of cheerleading for a tail-wagging-dog foray into Iraq that could have been avoided if only Ms. Clinton had taken the lead in the Senate denouncing the Bush Regimes lies instead of pretending to believe them.
MoveOn.org, which I recently learned was the American "anti-war" movement, is not calling for an immediate withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq, but favors a "slow bleed" strategy. MoveOn will not call for de-funding the war because they don't want to be perceived as "anti-troop" when we all know that the Reich-wing has never supported our troops. The 21,500 troops who are going to be surged into Baghdad will not even have body armor until this summer. Hopefully, they can dodge the bullets and shrapnel until summer, or until MoveOn wakes up and realizes that the only way to support our troops in the field is to bring them back to the States so they don't have to worry about body armor, clean water, or edible food.Imagine a mother in Iraq who cannot go to the marketplace to buy groceries, which are becoming scarcer by the day, because she is worried about being blown up. Imagine a mother in Iraq who cannot send her children to school or out to play for fear of the same fate befalling them. Imagine a mother in Iraq who feels helpless because the U.S. Congress is having meetings with MoveOn, who wants her country to slowly bleed to death and is not listening to the true U.S. anti-war movement, such as Military Families Speak Out, Veterans for Peace, Iraq Veterans Against the War, or Gold Star Families for Peace that have been calling for an immediate withdrawal of troops for almost four years now.
The above is from Cindy Sheehan's "Mistakes, Mismanagement and MoveOn Slowly Bleeding to Death" (BuzzFlash). If you check the permalinks on the left (always on the left), you'll see that Walk On, Walk On.org is no longer a functioning one. I'm sick of this. We don't plug them. For newer members, when Danny Schechter's WMD came out on DVD the organization's attitude could be summed up as "too bad, so sad." It was post 2004-election and MoveOn had MovedOn from the illegal war. Or as a friend, who stopped donating to the organization at the same time I did, put it, "WalkOn, WalkOn.org." When they treated Danny like that it wasn't just about one film, it was about their entire attitude towards the war which is apparently a clutch bag that they can carry when it fits the season but toss to the back of the closet when it might make things just a bit uncomfortable.
Joshua Frank at CounterPunch in January of last year:
It's a good thing for MoveOn.org that George W. Bush was reelected. If he hadn't been, the liberal troupe would have nothing to contest. Even if the bloody occupation had continued under a John Kerry presidency (it most certainly would have), the cowering office-chair activists would have ducked behind their computer screens awaiting the return of another brutal Republican administration. Activism should never be partisan, but MoveOn.org isn't about to hold the Democrats' accountable for supporting Bush's war agenda.
I'm not even all that sure MoveOn opposes the Iraq war. Sure, they rallied opposition during the lead-up to the invasion a few years back, but since then they've done little if anything that should garner the respect of the antiwar movement. Despite Kerry's grotesque position on the Iraq war in 2004, MoveOn implored their members to donate cash to his campaign, but said nary a word about his pro-war posturing. You can't support a candidate without putting demands on their candidacy, and MoveOn's breakdown has made them all but irrelevant as an antiwar club.
Case in point. Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York has continued to support Bush's war in Iraq as well as his greater war on terror, yet MoveOn refuses to voice frustration. Instead, they support the war-hungry senator and admit they won't stand up to her during an election year. "The case I would make is that 2006 needs to be a year of reckoning for Republicans on Iraq," Tom Matzzie, the Washington director for MoveOn recently told the New York Times. "If the antiwar candidate is creamed by Hillary Clinton, it's a distraction."
A distraction from what? If I remember correctly, it wasn't just the Republican Party that got us into this dreadful mess. The Democrats voted for it, helped sell the damn thing, and even bombed the hell out of Iraq during the 1990s, all the while supporting deadly UN sanctions. And as Americans begin to turn on this war, including prominent elected officials from both parties, Hillary still won't retract her defense of the war, let alone meet with genuine antiwar activists here in New York. All of this, and the feckless MoveOn.org still won't call Hillary out for her warmongering.
Norman Solomon at Common Dreams in August of 2005:
The day after Wednesday night's nationwide vigils, the big headline at the top of the MoveOn.org home page said: "Support Cindy Sheehan." But MoveOn does not support Cindy Sheehan's call for swift withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq.
Many groups were important to the success of the Aug. 17 vigils, but the online powerhouse MoveOn was the largest and most prominent. After a long stretch of virtual absence from Iraq war issues, the organization deserves credit for getting re-involved in recent months. But the disconnects between MoveOn and much of the grassroots antiwar movement are disturbing.
Part of the problem is MoveOn's routine fuzziness about the war -- and the way that the group is inclined to water down the messages of antiwar activism, much of which is not connected to the organization.
Consider how the MoveOn website summarized the vigils: "Last night, tens of thousands of supporters gathered at 1,625 vigils to acknowledge the sacrifices made by Cindy Sheehan, her son Casey and the more than 1,800 brave American men and women who have given their lives in Iraq -- and their moms and families." Such a gloss excludes a key reason why many people participated in the vigils: They wanted to express clear opposition to any further U.S. involvement in the war.
Despite its high-profile role in the vigils this week, MoveOn is still not giving a high priority to addressing the Iraq war in its ongoing work. When I went to the MoveOn website today and looked at its roster of "Current Campaigns," just a single item on the list was focused on Iraq -- and that one, from June, involved "demanding that Bush address the evidence in the 'Downing Street Memo.'"
Norman Solomon at GNN in March of 2005:
Sadly, it has come to this. Two years after the invasion of Iraq, the online powerhouse MoveOn.org -- which built most of its member base with a strong antiwar message -- is not pushing for withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq.
With a network of more than three million "online activists," the MoveOn leadership has decided against opposing the American occupation of Iraq. During the recent bloody months, none of MoveOn's action alerts have addressed what Americans can do to help get the U.S. military out of that country. Likewise, the MoveOn.org website has continued to bypass the issue--even after Rep. Lynn Woolsey and two dozen cosponsors in the House of Representatives introduced a resolution in late January calling for swift removal of all U.S. troops from Iraq.
That resolution would seem to be a natural peg for the kind of kinetic activism that established MoveOn’s reputation. A movement serious about ending U.S. military activities in Iraq could use the resolution as a way to cut through political tap dances and pressure members of Congress to take a stand. Down the road, generating grassroots support for a get-out-of-Iraq resolution has potential to clear a congressional pathway for measures cutting off funds for the war.
But, tragically, MoveOn's leadership is having none of it. Over a period of recent weeks, the word "Iraq" appeared on the MoveOn.org home page only in a plug for a documentary released last year. Inches away, a blurb has been telling the website’s visitors: "Support Our Troops: Contribute your frequent-flyer miles so that American troops can get home." (But not stay home.) Many soldiers are returning to the killing grounds of Iraq, while a growing number are vocally opposed to this war.
Why won't MoveOn "support our troops" by supporting a pullout of our troops from Iraq? "We believe that there are no good options in Iraq," MoveOn.org's executive director, Eli Pariser, told me. "We're seeing a broad difference of opinion among our members on how quickly the U.S. should get out of Iraq. As a grassroots-directed organization, we won't be taking any position which a large portion of our members disagree with."
In sharp contrast, early in the 2004 primary campaign, MoveOn committed itself to endorsing any Democratic presidential candidate receiving more than 50 percent of the Internet ballots cast by its activists. (Howard Dean fell shy of a majority, so there was no MoveOn endorsement.) But now, evidently, a majority of MoveOn members in favor of swift withdrawal from Iraq would be insufficient if a "large portion" disagreed.
When I asked Eli for clarification, he replied: "We've been talking with our members continuously on this issue. We've surveyed slices of our membership in January and in December, and surveyed our whole membership last spring. That's how we know there's a breadth of opinion out there."
But last spring was a year ago. And any surveying of "slices of our membership in January and in December" came before the Woolsey resolution offered an opportunity to find out how the MoveOn base views the measure. In any event, there will always be "a breadth of opinion" about this war--a fact that does not trump the crucial need for clarity of purpose.
If MoveOn leaders were willing to submit the House get-out-of-Iraq resolution to MoveOn's rank-and-file in an up-or-down vote, the chances of a substantial majority would be excellent. Too bad the leadership of MoveOn.org is currently unwilling to find out.
So is this what we're left with? The WalkOns have to be prodded publicly to take even the weakest form of action? I'm tired of all the little babies who can't do anything unless someone takes them by the arm and escorts them. Where are the grown ups?
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, AP's number for the US troops killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war was 3132. Tonight? 3150 is the AP count. That should include this announced death by the US military: "One 13th Sustainment Command (Expeditionary) Soldier was killed and three were wounded in an improvised explosive device attack on their M-1114 HMMWV near Ad Diwaniyah at approximately 2 a.m. Feb 22." Wounded? Whether it's Iraqis, Americans, Europeans, etc., it doesn't mean a scratch that goes away after the band aid comes off. The death toll continues to climb. The refugee crisis continues worsen. Rapes are the big theme in the press this week. Mark Wilkerson just got sentenced to seven months of military prison time. Agustin Aguayo faces his court-martial March 6th. So sitting on your ass and ignoring the war isn't doing anyone a favor. Where are the grown ups? There are a lot of physically mature people but where are the adults? This was will continue to drag on year after year until people grasp that their bits of nonsense, fluffery and finding time for every topic in the world except Iraq prolongs the illegal war.
Mia notes Rose French's "Soldier Gets 100 Years for Rape, Killing" (AP via San Francisco Chronicle):
A U.S. soldier was sentenced to 100 years in prison Thursday for the gang rape and murder of an Iraqi girl and the killing of her family last year.
Sgt. Paul E. Cortez, 24, also was given a dishonorable discharge. He will be eligible for parole in 10 years under the terms of his plea agreement.
Cortez, of Barstow, Calif., pleaded guilty this week to four counts of felony murder, rape and conspiracy to rape in a case considered among the worst atrocities by U.S. military personnel in Iraq.
In his plea agreement, he said he conspired with three other soldiers from the Fort Campbell-based 101st Airborne Division to rape 14-year-old Abeer Qassim al-Janabi. The girl, her parents and a younger sister were all killed.
Mia wanted it noted that French also calls it correctly (gang rape) and mentions her name and wonders about the men who didn't? That's a good point but it needs to be noted that Ryan Lenz (also AP) covered the story earlier and never had a problem typing Abeer's name while, of course, Carolyn Marshall (New York Times) couldn't be bothered with mentioning Abeer's name. Overall, AP's done the best job of the mainstream covering this topic. (Independent media? I'd go with Off Our Backs which did several articles.)
We'll leave Iraq to note Naomi Klein's return, "A Trial for Thousands Denied Trial" (The Nation):
Something remarkable is going on in a Miami courtroom. The cruel methods US interrogators have used since September 11 to "break" prisoners are finally being put on trial.
This was not supposed to happen. The Bush Administration's plan was to put José Padilla on trial for allegedly being part of a network linked to international terrorists. But Padilla's lawyers are arguing that he is not fit to stand trial because he has been driven insane by the government.
Arrested in May 2002 at Chicago's O'Hare airport, Padilla, a Brooklyn-born former gang member, was classified as an "enemy combatant" and taken to a Navy prison in Charleston, South Carolina. He was kept in a 9-by-7-foot cell with no natural light, no clock and no calendar. Whenever Padilla left the cell, he was shackled and suited in heavy goggles and headphones. Padilla was kept under these conditions for 1,307 days. He was forbidden contact with anyone but his interrogators, who punctured the extreme sensory deprivation with sensory overload, blasting him with harsh lights and pounding sounds. Padilla also says he was injected with a "truth serum," a substance his lawyers believe was LSD or PCP.
If the above doesn't drive home how much Klein's been missed, listen to Thursday morning's Morning Edition at NPR for a laughable take (played for serious) on the above. (I had no choice, I was in a taxi. And the snapshot tomorrow may post late. Just FYI. Hopefully, that won't be the case but I've got two speaking things.) And, again, non-Iraq related, but needing to be noted:
West Coast Speaking Tour:
FIGHTING BACK!
No one shall be tortured, falsely imprisoned, or denied basic democratic rights - a benefit for the Lynne Stewart Defense Committee & the Mobilization to Free Mumia Abu-Jamal Presenting:
Lynne Stewart
New York attorney for political prisoners and the oppressed; falsely convicted of conspiracy to aid and abet terrorism
Michael Ratner
President, Center for Constitutional Rights; author; initiated landmark war crimes/torture lawsuit in Germany against Donald Rumsfeld & Alberto Gonzales
Jeff Mackler
Director, Mobilization to Free Mumia Abu-Jamal
Pam Africa
Chair, International Concerned Family and Friends of Mumia Abu-Jamal
Special guest:
Barbara Lubin, Dir., Middle East Children's Alliance
For general tour info:415-255-1085 or email: jmackler at locrian.com
Friday, February 23
10:45am Oakland Press Conference;
12:45pm, Boalt Law School;
3:00 KPFA radio;
5:30 San Francisco Reception;
7:L30 SF Mass Rally at Women's Building, 3542 18th Street.
Saturday, February 24
10am Prison Radio Reception;
2pm Marin Rally, College of Marin, Student Services Center;
5:30 Berkeley Reception, Midle East Children's Alliance, 901 Parker at 7th, Berkeley;
7:30 Berkeley Mass Rally, King Middle School, 1781 Rose
Sunday Februrary 25
1:00pm Palo Alto Reception, Fireside Room;
2:00 Mass Rally at Unitarian Universalist Church, 505 E. Charlesston Rd., Palo Alto - peaceandjustice.org
Monday, February 26
10:30am Gray Panther Reception,
12:30 University of San Francisco Law School, Fulton at Stanyon, Kendrick Hall;
5:30 Reception and 7:00 Rally
Tuesday, February 27
12:15pm New College of Law, San Francisco
Wednesday, February 28
12:00pm UC Davis School of Law, Moot Courtroom;
5:30 Sacramento Reception, 403 21st Street, Sacramento Tickets $20, no one turned away for lack of funds.
Tickets sold at the door and at select bookstores: Black Oak, Walden Pond, Pegasus/Solano, Pegasus/Shattuck, Marcus Books/MLK, Modern Times and City Lights, Marcus Books
---
Special wine and cheese receptions with Lynne Stewart & Michael Ratner, Please RSVP:
Berkeley Reception,
Saturday, February 24,
5:30 pm: Middle East Children's Alliance, 905 Parker, Berkeley), $25 reception only, includes signed poster.
San Francisco Reception, Friday, *February 24*, 5:30 pm, Women's Bldg., 3543 18th St. (between Valencia & Guerrero), $25 reception only - includes signed poster Sponsors: The Mobilization to Free Mumia Abu-Jamal, The Lynne Stewart Defense Committee, National Lawyers Guild, Middle East Children's Alliance, Peninsula Peace and Justice Center, Marin Peace and Justice Colaition, Vanguard Public Foundation, KPFA Lynne and Jeff will also be speaking at Boalt Law School (with Michael), at USF Law School, UC Davis Law School (co-sponsored by McGeorge Law School) and at New College of Law (co-sponsored by Golden Gate and Hastings Law Schools)
*February 24* should probably read February 23rd if it's Friday.
------
Following that Lynne will be in Portland, Oregon from March 5th - 7th and in Seattle from March 8th - 10th. Check with your local NLG chapters in Portland and Seattle for details on these events. Friday,
March 2
Whitewashing the Panthers: Can the Government Prosecute Black History? At 7:00 pmThe Community Church of Manhattan, 40 E. 35th St. (between Park and Madison) A program on the new (old) case against the Black Panther Party
FILMS: Legacy of Torture: The War Against the Black Liberation Movement and Melvin van Peebles interview of Herman Bell, political prisoner and defendant in this case (Starz in Black) SPEAKERS: Kathleen Cleaver, Soffiyah Elijah, Iyaluua Ferguson, and others
For more information click here!
April 29
WBAI Fundraiser - Click here for Flyer (PDF)
That should have gone up sooner, my apologies. I'm living on Sucrets and prescription throat spray. Back to Iraq. Brendan notes Amy Goodman's "Clinton draws a line in the sand over Iraq" (Seattle Post-Intelligencer):
Hillary Clinton is a once and future warrior. Campaign events in New Hampshire suggest the majority anti-war electorate has problems with her vote for the Iraq war and with her position on Iran.
On Feb. 10, New Hampshire resident Roger Tilton asked Clinton at a town-hall meeting: "I want to know if right here, right now, once and for all and without nuance, you can say that war authorization was a mistake."
Clinton responded: "Well, I have said, and I will repeat it, that knowing what I know now, I never would have voted for it. ... The mistakes were made by this president, who misled this country and this Congress into a war that should not have been waged."
A week later, in Dover, N.H., she dug in:
"If the most important thing to any of you is choosing someone who did not cast that vote or said his vote was a mistake, then there are others to choose from. But for me, the most important thing now is trying to end this war."
Her tough talk to anti-war voters is reminiscent of President Bush's taunt to the Iraqi insurgents: "Bring it on."
People's concerns about Clinton's Iraq war vote is of more than historical interest. History has a frightening way of repeating itself. Drop the "q," add an "n." Iran.
New Hampshire Peace Action director Anne Miller asked Clinton about her recent comments to AIPAC, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. Clinton told AIPAC: "We cannot, we should not, we must not permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons. And in dealing with this threat ... no option can be taken off the table."
Mike may end up highlighting that tomorrow because it goes into what he was addressing Wednesday and tonight. Pru gets the last highlight (and she pulled her's Sunday, for those who've e-mailed, she was one of the ones thinking something was wrong -- it was no big deal):
This article should be read after: » Tony Blair - bloody liar
A new law to hand over Iraqi oil to the multinationals
by Anindya Bhattacharyya
The Iraqi parliament is on verge of passing new legislation to restructure the country's oil industry - effectively handing it over to foreign multinational control, according to a draft copy of the law leaked last weekend.
Iraq's oil industry was nationalised in the early 1970s. But the new law dismantles most of the functions of the Ministry of Oil and transfers them to a variety of "technical and commercial entities and institutions".
Private oil companies will bid for "exploration and production contracts" that grant them exclusive rights to search for and pump out oil in a specified area.
While the oil legally remains "the property of the nation", in practice the private firms will make the money.
The scheme gives a green light to foreign companies to plunder Iraq's oil wealth. No other country in the Middle East operates its oil industry in this manner.
The US has been pressing for such an arrangement since it invaded and occupied Iraq four years ago.
But the laws had been stalled by a combination of nationalist sentiment and in-fighting within the Iraqi elite.
Revenues from oil production will be deposited in a central bank account administered by "representatives from the federal government, regional governments, provinces and a number of independent consultants".
This move has sparked fears that the bulk of the revenues will be diverted to the regions, further destabilising the country.
Iraq's oil is concentrated in the northern Kurdish region and the south, rather than in the central area around Baghdad.
"Regions and provinces have the final say over oil policy, which provokes suspicions over intentions to divide Iraq," says Iraqi oil expert Dr Fouad Qasim al-Ameer. "What would ensue would be a destructive competition for oil production. Iraq's riches will be wasted in all this mayhem."
The following should be read alongside this article: » Tony Blair - bloody liar» Craig Murray elected as rector of University of Dundee» Court martial: there is 'no case to answer' over Baha Musa's death» British troop reductions announced - tell Blair to get all the troops out now
For translations of the draft oil law and Dr al-Ameer's commentary, go to www.raedinthemiddle.blogspot.com
© Copyright Socialist Worker (unless otherwise stated). You may republish if you include an active link to the original and leave this notice in place.
If you found this article useful please help us maintain SW by » making a donation.
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
mikey likes it
donovan
and the war drags on
cindy sheehan
naomi klein
iraq
norman solomon
danny schechter
joshua frank
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton: "I take responsibility for my vote. It was a sincere vote based on the facts and assurances we had at the time. Obviously I would not vote that way again if we knew then what we know now."
Imagine a 2008 presidential race with the above two as our major candidates. One who is a supporter of the invasion/occupation of Iraq who thinks it has been "mismanaged" and one who is a supporter of the invasion/occupation of Iraq who was fooled by the crafty, super-genius George Bush.
Imagine a grieving mother whose son or daughter has been killed in Iraq hearing a Pentagon report that calls the manipulated Doug Feith (famous PNAC supporter and former Deputy War Minister) intelligence that led to her child's death, not a crime, but "inappropriate." Imagine this same grieving mother having to hear these two candidates for their political party's nomination play politics with their child's life that was cut tragically short by unrepentant murderers.
John McCain "regrets" that Donald Rumsfeld mismanaged the war and notes that he will go down in history as the worst War Minister of the ages, but doesn't regret his former support of the same man, or his support of George Bush who will go down as the worst "war preznit" in history and who defamed, lied, libeled, and slandered John McCain in 2000.
Hillary Clinton thinks she is doing her campaign a favor by saying her vote to give George Bush authority to invade Iraq was a mistake, but she won't apologize for it. Imagine a grieving mother who lies awake at night longing for her "mistakenly" killed child who would be alive if instead of cheerleading for a tail-wagging-dog foray into Iraq that could have been avoided if only Ms. Clinton had taken the lead in the Senate denouncing the Bush Regimes lies instead of pretending to believe them.
MoveOn.org, which I recently learned was the American "anti-war" movement, is not calling for an immediate withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq, but favors a "slow bleed" strategy. MoveOn will not call for de-funding the war because they don't want to be perceived as "anti-troop" when we all know that the Reich-wing has never supported our troops. The 21,500 troops who are going to be surged into Baghdad will not even have body armor until this summer. Hopefully, they can dodge the bullets and shrapnel until summer, or until MoveOn wakes up and realizes that the only way to support our troops in the field is to bring them back to the States so they don't have to worry about body armor, clean water, or edible food.Imagine a mother in Iraq who cannot go to the marketplace to buy groceries, which are becoming scarcer by the day, because she is worried about being blown up. Imagine a mother in Iraq who cannot send her children to school or out to play for fear of the same fate befalling them. Imagine a mother in Iraq who feels helpless because the U.S. Congress is having meetings with MoveOn, who wants her country to slowly bleed to death and is not listening to the true U.S. anti-war movement, such as Military Families Speak Out, Veterans for Peace, Iraq Veterans Against the War, or Gold Star Families for Peace that have been calling for an immediate withdrawal of troops for almost four years now.
The above is from Cindy Sheehan's "Mistakes, Mismanagement and MoveOn Slowly Bleeding to Death" (BuzzFlash). If you check the permalinks on the left (always on the left), you'll see that Walk On, Walk On.org is no longer a functioning one. I'm sick of this. We don't plug them. For newer members, when Danny Schechter's WMD came out on DVD the organization's attitude could be summed up as "too bad, so sad." It was post 2004-election and MoveOn had MovedOn from the illegal war. Or as a friend, who stopped donating to the organization at the same time I did, put it, "WalkOn, WalkOn.org." When they treated Danny like that it wasn't just about one film, it was about their entire attitude towards the war which is apparently a clutch bag that they can carry when it fits the season but toss to the back of the closet when it might make things just a bit uncomfortable.
Joshua Frank at CounterPunch in January of last year:
It's a good thing for MoveOn.org that George W. Bush was reelected. If he hadn't been, the liberal troupe would have nothing to contest. Even if the bloody occupation had continued under a John Kerry presidency (it most certainly would have), the cowering office-chair activists would have ducked behind their computer screens awaiting the return of another brutal Republican administration. Activism should never be partisan, but MoveOn.org isn't about to hold the Democrats' accountable for supporting Bush's war agenda.
I'm not even all that sure MoveOn opposes the Iraq war. Sure, they rallied opposition during the lead-up to the invasion a few years back, but since then they've done little if anything that should garner the respect of the antiwar movement. Despite Kerry's grotesque position on the Iraq war in 2004, MoveOn implored their members to donate cash to his campaign, but said nary a word about his pro-war posturing. You can't support a candidate without putting demands on their candidacy, and MoveOn's breakdown has made them all but irrelevant as an antiwar club.
Case in point. Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York has continued to support Bush's war in Iraq as well as his greater war on terror, yet MoveOn refuses to voice frustration. Instead, they support the war-hungry senator and admit they won't stand up to her during an election year. "The case I would make is that 2006 needs to be a year of reckoning for Republicans on Iraq," Tom Matzzie, the Washington director for MoveOn recently told the New York Times. "If the antiwar candidate is creamed by Hillary Clinton, it's a distraction."
A distraction from what? If I remember correctly, it wasn't just the Republican Party that got us into this dreadful mess. The Democrats voted for it, helped sell the damn thing, and even bombed the hell out of Iraq during the 1990s, all the while supporting deadly UN sanctions. And as Americans begin to turn on this war, including prominent elected officials from both parties, Hillary still won't retract her defense of the war, let alone meet with genuine antiwar activists here in New York. All of this, and the feckless MoveOn.org still won't call Hillary out for her warmongering.
Norman Solomon at Common Dreams in August of 2005:
The day after Wednesday night's nationwide vigils, the big headline at the top of the MoveOn.org home page said: "Support Cindy Sheehan." But MoveOn does not support Cindy Sheehan's call for swift withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq.
Many groups were important to the success of the Aug. 17 vigils, but the online powerhouse MoveOn was the largest and most prominent. After a long stretch of virtual absence from Iraq war issues, the organization deserves credit for getting re-involved in recent months. But the disconnects between MoveOn and much of the grassroots antiwar movement are disturbing.
Part of the problem is MoveOn's routine fuzziness about the war -- and the way that the group is inclined to water down the messages of antiwar activism, much of which is not connected to the organization.
Consider how the MoveOn website summarized the vigils: "Last night, tens of thousands of supporters gathered at 1,625 vigils to acknowledge the sacrifices made by Cindy Sheehan, her son Casey and the more than 1,800 brave American men and women who have given their lives in Iraq -- and their moms and families." Such a gloss excludes a key reason why many people participated in the vigils: They wanted to express clear opposition to any further U.S. involvement in the war.
Despite its high-profile role in the vigils this week, MoveOn is still not giving a high priority to addressing the Iraq war in its ongoing work. When I went to the MoveOn website today and looked at its roster of "Current Campaigns," just a single item on the list was focused on Iraq -- and that one, from June, involved "demanding that Bush address the evidence in the 'Downing Street Memo.'"
Norman Solomon at GNN in March of 2005:
Sadly, it has come to this. Two years after the invasion of Iraq, the online powerhouse MoveOn.org -- which built most of its member base with a strong antiwar message -- is not pushing for withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq.
With a network of more than three million "online activists," the MoveOn leadership has decided against opposing the American occupation of Iraq. During the recent bloody months, none of MoveOn's action alerts have addressed what Americans can do to help get the U.S. military out of that country. Likewise, the MoveOn.org website has continued to bypass the issue--even after Rep. Lynn Woolsey and two dozen cosponsors in the House of Representatives introduced a resolution in late January calling for swift removal of all U.S. troops from Iraq.
That resolution would seem to be a natural peg for the kind of kinetic activism that established MoveOn’s reputation. A movement serious about ending U.S. military activities in Iraq could use the resolution as a way to cut through political tap dances and pressure members of Congress to take a stand. Down the road, generating grassroots support for a get-out-of-Iraq resolution has potential to clear a congressional pathway for measures cutting off funds for the war.
But, tragically, MoveOn's leadership is having none of it. Over a period of recent weeks, the word "Iraq" appeared on the MoveOn.org home page only in a plug for a documentary released last year. Inches away, a blurb has been telling the website’s visitors: "Support Our Troops: Contribute your frequent-flyer miles so that American troops can get home." (But not stay home.) Many soldiers are returning to the killing grounds of Iraq, while a growing number are vocally opposed to this war.
Why won't MoveOn "support our troops" by supporting a pullout of our troops from Iraq? "We believe that there are no good options in Iraq," MoveOn.org's executive director, Eli Pariser, told me. "We're seeing a broad difference of opinion among our members on how quickly the U.S. should get out of Iraq. As a grassroots-directed organization, we won't be taking any position which a large portion of our members disagree with."
In sharp contrast, early in the 2004 primary campaign, MoveOn committed itself to endorsing any Democratic presidential candidate receiving more than 50 percent of the Internet ballots cast by its activists. (Howard Dean fell shy of a majority, so there was no MoveOn endorsement.) But now, evidently, a majority of MoveOn members in favor of swift withdrawal from Iraq would be insufficient if a "large portion" disagreed.
When I asked Eli for clarification, he replied: "We've been talking with our members continuously on this issue. We've surveyed slices of our membership in January and in December, and surveyed our whole membership last spring. That's how we know there's a breadth of opinion out there."
But last spring was a year ago. And any surveying of "slices of our membership in January and in December" came before the Woolsey resolution offered an opportunity to find out how the MoveOn base views the measure. In any event, there will always be "a breadth of opinion" about this war--a fact that does not trump the crucial need for clarity of purpose.
If MoveOn leaders were willing to submit the House get-out-of-Iraq resolution to MoveOn's rank-and-file in an up-or-down vote, the chances of a substantial majority would be excellent. Too bad the leadership of MoveOn.org is currently unwilling to find out.
So is this what we're left with? The WalkOns have to be prodded publicly to take even the weakest form of action? I'm tired of all the little babies who can't do anything unless someone takes them by the arm and escorts them. Where are the grown ups?
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, AP's number for the US troops killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war was 3132. Tonight? 3150 is the AP count. That should include this announced death by the US military: "One 13th Sustainment Command (Expeditionary) Soldier was killed and three were wounded in an improvised explosive device attack on their M-1114 HMMWV near Ad Diwaniyah at approximately 2 a.m. Feb 22." Wounded? Whether it's Iraqis, Americans, Europeans, etc., it doesn't mean a scratch that goes away after the band aid comes off. The death toll continues to climb. The refugee crisis continues worsen. Rapes are the big theme in the press this week. Mark Wilkerson just got sentenced to seven months of military prison time. Agustin Aguayo faces his court-martial March 6th. So sitting on your ass and ignoring the war isn't doing anyone a favor. Where are the grown ups? There are a lot of physically mature people but where are the adults? This was will continue to drag on year after year until people grasp that their bits of nonsense, fluffery and finding time for every topic in the world except Iraq prolongs the illegal war.
Mia notes Rose French's "Soldier Gets 100 Years for Rape, Killing" (AP via San Francisco Chronicle):
A U.S. soldier was sentenced to 100 years in prison Thursday for the gang rape and murder of an Iraqi girl and the killing of her family last year.
Sgt. Paul E. Cortez, 24, also was given a dishonorable discharge. He will be eligible for parole in 10 years under the terms of his plea agreement.
Cortez, of Barstow, Calif., pleaded guilty this week to four counts of felony murder, rape and conspiracy to rape in a case considered among the worst atrocities by U.S. military personnel in Iraq.
In his plea agreement, he said he conspired with three other soldiers from the Fort Campbell-based 101st Airborne Division to rape 14-year-old Abeer Qassim al-Janabi. The girl, her parents and a younger sister were all killed.
Mia wanted it noted that French also calls it correctly (gang rape) and mentions her name and wonders about the men who didn't? That's a good point but it needs to be noted that Ryan Lenz (also AP) covered the story earlier and never had a problem typing Abeer's name while, of course, Carolyn Marshall (New York Times) couldn't be bothered with mentioning Abeer's name. Overall, AP's done the best job of the mainstream covering this topic. (Independent media? I'd go with Off Our Backs which did several articles.)
We'll leave Iraq to note Naomi Klein's return, "A Trial for Thousands Denied Trial" (The Nation):
Something remarkable is going on in a Miami courtroom. The cruel methods US interrogators have used since September 11 to "break" prisoners are finally being put on trial.
This was not supposed to happen. The Bush Administration's plan was to put José Padilla on trial for allegedly being part of a network linked to international terrorists. But Padilla's lawyers are arguing that he is not fit to stand trial because he has been driven insane by the government.
Arrested in May 2002 at Chicago's O'Hare airport, Padilla, a Brooklyn-born former gang member, was classified as an "enemy combatant" and taken to a Navy prison in Charleston, South Carolina. He was kept in a 9-by-7-foot cell with no natural light, no clock and no calendar. Whenever Padilla left the cell, he was shackled and suited in heavy goggles and headphones. Padilla was kept under these conditions for 1,307 days. He was forbidden contact with anyone but his interrogators, who punctured the extreme sensory deprivation with sensory overload, blasting him with harsh lights and pounding sounds. Padilla also says he was injected with a "truth serum," a substance his lawyers believe was LSD or PCP.
If the above doesn't drive home how much Klein's been missed, listen to Thursday morning's Morning Edition at NPR for a laughable take (played for serious) on the above. (I had no choice, I was in a taxi. And the snapshot tomorrow may post late. Just FYI. Hopefully, that won't be the case but I've got two speaking things.) And, again, non-Iraq related, but needing to be noted:
West Coast Speaking Tour:
FIGHTING BACK!
No one shall be tortured, falsely imprisoned, or denied basic democratic rights - a benefit for the Lynne Stewart Defense Committee & the Mobilization to Free Mumia Abu-Jamal Presenting:
Lynne Stewart
New York attorney for political prisoners and the oppressed; falsely convicted of conspiracy to aid and abet terrorism
Michael Ratner
President, Center for Constitutional Rights; author; initiated landmark war crimes/torture lawsuit in Germany against Donald Rumsfeld & Alberto Gonzales
Jeff Mackler
Director, Mobilization to Free Mumia Abu-Jamal
Pam Africa
Chair, International Concerned Family and Friends of Mumia Abu-Jamal
Special guest:
Barbara Lubin, Dir., Middle East Children's Alliance
For general tour info:415-255-1085 or email: jmackler at locrian.com
Friday, February 23
10:45am Oakland Press Conference;
12:45pm, Boalt Law School;
3:00 KPFA radio;
5:30 San Francisco Reception;
7:L30 SF Mass Rally at Women's Building, 3542 18th Street.
Saturday, February 24
10am Prison Radio Reception;
2pm Marin Rally, College of Marin, Student Services Center;
5:30 Berkeley Reception, Midle East Children's Alliance, 901 Parker at 7th, Berkeley;
7:30 Berkeley Mass Rally, King Middle School, 1781 Rose
Sunday Februrary 25
1:00pm Palo Alto Reception, Fireside Room;
2:00 Mass Rally at Unitarian Universalist Church, 505 E. Charlesston Rd., Palo Alto - peaceandjustice.org
Monday, February 26
10:30am Gray Panther Reception,
12:30 University of San Francisco Law School, Fulton at Stanyon, Kendrick Hall;
5:30 Reception and 7:00 Rally
Tuesday, February 27
12:15pm New College of Law, San Francisco
Wednesday, February 28
12:00pm UC Davis School of Law, Moot Courtroom;
5:30 Sacramento Reception, 403 21st Street, Sacramento Tickets $20, no one turned away for lack of funds.
Tickets sold at the door and at select bookstores: Black Oak, Walden Pond, Pegasus/Solano, Pegasus/Shattuck, Marcus Books/MLK, Modern Times and City Lights, Marcus Books
---
Special wine and cheese receptions with Lynne Stewart & Michael Ratner, Please RSVP:
Berkeley Reception,
Saturday, February 24,
5:30 pm: Middle East Children's Alliance, 905 Parker, Berkeley), $25 reception only, includes signed poster.
San Francisco Reception, Friday, *February 24*, 5:30 pm, Women's Bldg., 3543 18th St. (between Valencia & Guerrero), $25 reception only - includes signed poster Sponsors: The Mobilization to Free Mumia Abu-Jamal, The Lynne Stewart Defense Committee, National Lawyers Guild, Middle East Children's Alliance, Peninsula Peace and Justice Center, Marin Peace and Justice Colaition, Vanguard Public Foundation, KPFA Lynne and Jeff will also be speaking at Boalt Law School (with Michael), at USF Law School, UC Davis Law School (co-sponsored by McGeorge Law School) and at New College of Law (co-sponsored by Golden Gate and Hastings Law Schools)
*February 24* should probably read February 23rd if it's Friday.
------
Following that Lynne will be in Portland, Oregon from March 5th - 7th and in Seattle from March 8th - 10th. Check with your local NLG chapters in Portland and Seattle for details on these events. Friday,
March 2
Whitewashing the Panthers: Can the Government Prosecute Black History? At 7:00 pmThe Community Church of Manhattan, 40 E. 35th St. (between Park and Madison) A program on the new (old) case against the Black Panther Party
FILMS: Legacy of Torture: The War Against the Black Liberation Movement and Melvin van Peebles interview of Herman Bell, political prisoner and defendant in this case (Starz in Black) SPEAKERS: Kathleen Cleaver, Soffiyah Elijah, Iyaluua Ferguson, and others
For more information click here!
April 29
WBAI Fundraiser - Click here for Flyer (PDF)
That should have gone up sooner, my apologies. I'm living on Sucrets and prescription throat spray. Back to Iraq. Brendan notes Amy Goodman's "Clinton draws a line in the sand over Iraq" (Seattle Post-Intelligencer):
Hillary Clinton is a once and future warrior. Campaign events in New Hampshire suggest the majority anti-war electorate has problems with her vote for the Iraq war and with her position on Iran.
On Feb. 10, New Hampshire resident Roger Tilton asked Clinton at a town-hall meeting: "I want to know if right here, right now, once and for all and without nuance, you can say that war authorization was a mistake."
Clinton responded: "Well, I have said, and I will repeat it, that knowing what I know now, I never would have voted for it. ... The mistakes were made by this president, who misled this country and this Congress into a war that should not have been waged."
A week later, in Dover, N.H., she dug in:
"If the most important thing to any of you is choosing someone who did not cast that vote or said his vote was a mistake, then there are others to choose from. But for me, the most important thing now is trying to end this war."
Her tough talk to anti-war voters is reminiscent of President Bush's taunt to the Iraqi insurgents: "Bring it on."
People's concerns about Clinton's Iraq war vote is of more than historical interest. History has a frightening way of repeating itself. Drop the "q," add an "n." Iran.
New Hampshire Peace Action director Anne Miller asked Clinton about her recent comments to AIPAC, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. Clinton told AIPAC: "We cannot, we should not, we must not permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons. And in dealing with this threat ... no option can be taken off the table."
Mike may end up highlighting that tomorrow because it goes into what he was addressing Wednesday and tonight. Pru gets the last highlight (and she pulled her's Sunday, for those who've e-mailed, she was one of the ones thinking something was wrong -- it was no big deal):
This article should be read after: » Tony Blair - bloody liar
A new law to hand over Iraqi oil to the multinationals
by Anindya Bhattacharyya
The Iraqi parliament is on verge of passing new legislation to restructure the country's oil industry - effectively handing it over to foreign multinational control, according to a draft copy of the law leaked last weekend.
Iraq's oil industry was nationalised in the early 1970s. But the new law dismantles most of the functions of the Ministry of Oil and transfers them to a variety of "technical and commercial entities and institutions".
Private oil companies will bid for "exploration and production contracts" that grant them exclusive rights to search for and pump out oil in a specified area.
While the oil legally remains "the property of the nation", in practice the private firms will make the money.
The scheme gives a green light to foreign companies to plunder Iraq's oil wealth. No other country in the Middle East operates its oil industry in this manner.
The US has been pressing for such an arrangement since it invaded and occupied Iraq four years ago.
But the laws had been stalled by a combination of nationalist sentiment and in-fighting within the Iraqi elite.
Revenues from oil production will be deposited in a central bank account administered by "representatives from the federal government, regional governments, provinces and a number of independent consultants".
This move has sparked fears that the bulk of the revenues will be diverted to the regions, further destabilising the country.
Iraq's oil is concentrated in the northern Kurdish region and the south, rather than in the central area around Baghdad.
"Regions and provinces have the final say over oil policy, which provokes suspicions over intentions to divide Iraq," says Iraqi oil expert Dr Fouad Qasim al-Ameer. "What would ensue would be a destructive competition for oil production. Iraq's riches will be wasted in all this mayhem."
The following should be read alongside this article: » Tony Blair - bloody liar» Craig Murray elected as rector of University of Dundee» Court martial: there is 'no case to answer' over Baha Musa's death» British troop reductions announced - tell Blair to get all the troops out now
For translations of the draft oil law and Dr al-Ameer's commentary, go to www.raedinthemiddle.blogspot.com
© Copyright Socialist Worker (unless otherwise stated). You may republish if you include an active link to the original and leave this notice in place.
If you found this article useful please help us maintain SW by » making a donation.
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
mikey likes it
donovan
and the war drags on
cindy sheehan
naomi klein
iraq
norman solomon
danny schechter
joshua frank
Iraq snapshot
Thursday, February 22, 2007. Chaos and violence continue in Iraq, the media obsesses over royalty (Harry in Iraq in May! Or June! OMG), the puppet learns rape doesn't just go away, the military still hasn't refiled charges against Ehren Watada, Mark Wilkerson faces his court-martial at Fort Hood, and activism and calls for it abound.
Starting with the issue of rape. Riverbend (Baghdad Burning) offers a breakdown for those who still can't get it:
No Iraqi woman under the circumstances -- under any circumstances -- would publicly, falsely claim she was raped. There are just too many risks. There is the risk of being shunned socially. There is the risk of beginning an endless chain of retaliations and revenge killings between tribes. There is the shame of coming out publicly and talking about a subject so taboo, she and her husband are not only risking their reputations by telling this story, they are risking their lives.
No one would lie about something like this simply to undermine the Baghdad security operation. That can be done simply by calculating the dozens of dead this last week. Or by writing about the mass detentions of innocents, or how people are once again burying their valuables so that Iraqi and American troops don't steal them.
It was less than 14 hours between Sabrine's claims and Maliki's rewarding the people she accused. In 14 hours, Maliki not only established their innocence, but turned them into his own personal heroes. I wonder if Maliki would entrust the safety his own wife and daughter to these men.
Riverbend is writing of the 20-year-old woman who came forward Monday stating she had been raped. al-Maliki promised an investigation and . . . didn't follow through. What he did do was release something -- a second page of a three page report on someone -- that he said was proof that the woman wasn't raped.
It wasn't proof of anything. And it doesn't even prove that whatever woman the report is on wasn't raped. Richard Mauer (McClatchy Newspapers) reports that rape experts who have looked at the page say it "didn't disprove the woman's allegations, . . . and it indicated that the woman suffered extensive injuries, including at least eight bruises on the front of her thighs consistent with a sexual assualt." Christian Berthelsen (Los Angeles Times) offers a timeline of many of the generally known details; however, he leaves out the fact that the woman was taken to a US medical facility by US forces. That detail was left out of the official version by the Giddiest Gabor in the Green Zone, Willie Caldwell -- despite being previously reported. Among the experts Mauer cites are Dr. Karen Simmons of the Rape Treatment Center in Miami ("They did a CT scan of the head, the pelvis, and the neck. These tests would not have shown if someone was sexually assaulted, so there had to have been some kind of other trauma that they found.") and Josuah Weintraub ("It shows that she was brought into a trauma unit in bad shape.").
Marc Santora (New York Times) notes that news conferences were called by Sunni and Shi'ites "to condemn one aonther" with Abdul Nasir al-Janabi stating that "the government was covering up many rapes of Iraqi women by the security forces" and al-Maliki issuing a statement proclaiming: "We expected this fabricated propaganda. The purpose of this is to obstruct and distort the law enforcing plan."
Earlier Oren Dorell (USA Today) reported: "The U.S. military said Wednesday that it will launch its own investigation into an alleged rape that has created a furor among Iraq's Sunnis and bitterly split the country's government." However, Hamza Hendawi (AP) corrected that, "But [Willie] Caldwell clarified his remarks Thursday, saying the U.S. military was not conducting an independent probe. He said Petraeus has ordered that any evidence pertinent to the case be secured and preserved 'so that it may be provided to the appropriate Iraqi judicial official in accordance with U.S. policy'."
While the US military refuses to live up to its obligations as an occupying power, the reports have already had some impact. One response to the public charges "and the Iraqi government's dismissive response" was, CNN reports, to lead another rape victim to come forward -- a 45-year-old Sunni woman was raped and her daughters were almost raped in Tal Afar by four Iraqi soldiers. A fifth Iraqi soldier arrived in the midst of the crimes and ordered the four to leave but that was apparently to be 'justice' because nothing else was done until the woman came forward. AP is going with fifty-years-old for the woman but CNN notes where their confirmation for the details come from (mayor of Tal Afar). (BBC pins her age at 40.) The BBC quotes the woman stating: "They threatened me that if I did not co-operate they would . . . cause me a scandal. . . . Who do I complian to? No one allows us to complain."
In other rape news, the New York Times manages to run Andrea Hopkins (Reuters) report on Paul Cortez' confession to taking part in the gang rape of Abeer Qassim Hamza al-Janabi. Yet it's a selectively edited version of Hopkins report, one that somehow manages to leave out Abeer Qassim Hamza al-Janabi thereby continuing the not-so-proud tradition of the New York Times of rendering Abeer invisible. While this scrubbed version of a Reuters appears on A8 and never manages to mention the victim's name, flip to A14 and a story on a death sentence and you'll see both murder victims named. Some victims matter more to the paper than other victims and, as Carolyn Marshall and Robert F. Worth demonstrated early on, the paper's goal was to sell 'no crimes took place but, if anything did happen, it was just due to stress.' Credit to Kristin M. Hall of AP who reported it for what it was "gang rape."
You say it's so women in Iraq can vote
from the privacy of their graves.
-- Connie Wanek, "You Say," Poets Against The War, p. 245
Turning to the United States, war resister Mark Wilkerson's court-martial took place todayat Fort Hood in Texas. Shelton Green (Austin's KVUE) reports that Wilkerson spent his last night with his wife and family. Thursday, August 31st, Wilkerson spoke at Camp Casey III -- a press conference -- where he announced his intent to turn himself in after having self-checked out a year and a half ago. Angela K. Brown (AP) reported, "Wilkerson said his views of the war changed and he realized he could no longer stay in the military, so he applied for conscientious objector status. But his request was denied a month before his unit was to return to Iraq. He said he was told his appeal would not be considered until after he came back. So Wilkerson then decided not to return from the two weeks of approved leave before the January 2005 deployment."
Also on August 31st, As Mark Wilkerson was interviewed by Dennis Bernstein for KPFA's Flashpoints, discussing the expected charge of desertion, a charge that, if found guilty of, people have been executed for. Wilkerson discussed serving in Iraq and how his views changed from those he'd held at 17-years-old. He attempted to receive c.o. status but his was denied. He attempted to prepare for the rebuttal process but was informed he'd be redeploying to Iraq and any rebuttal would have to wait until his second deployment ended.
Wilkerson, in that interview, emphasized how difficult it could be to have access to news becuase not everyone has internet access and, for many, Stars & Stripes is basically it. Bernstein asked him if he regretted his decision to self-check out? Wilkerson responded, "I completely stand by my decision. For me, this was a time in my life when I decided I had to make a stand regardless of whether [it meant] prison or death".
Wilkerson wrote (last October): "Before I deployed to Iraq during OIF1, I was full of optimism for what we could do to help the people of Iraq. One of our missions, after all, was to 'win the hearts and the minds of the Iraqi people.' And in this reagard, we have failed miserably. In the year I was in Iraq, I saw kids waving American flags in the first month. Then they threw rocks. Then they planeted IEDs. Then they blew themselves and others up in city squares full of people. The only conclusion I can come up with as to why this has happened is the way the American troops have treated the Iraqi people as a whole. From random raids of whole city blocks, to checkpoints that interrupted the daily lives of the Iraqis, to incidents of torture and even massacres, a majority of Iraqis now feel as that the American soliders, once hailed as heroes and saviors, are now seen as conquerors. Civil was has erupted in the streets, and Americans are caught in the crossfire."
Earlier this month, Dick Foster (Rocky Mountain News) reported on the plea agreement that had been reached which would guarantee no "more than 10 months in prison. But he also faces a possible dishorable or bad conduct discharge and a felony conviction on his record."
Today, Wilkerson had to enter his plea and later face sentencing. Jim Bergramo (KVUE) reports: "The military judge, who is hearing the case, accepted Wilkerson's guilty plea. Wiklerson told the judge he quit the Army and made his decision with a clear mind. He also said he planned to leave his unit, and changed his address, phone number and email address so no one in his unit could find him." Angela K. Brown (AP) reports that the prosecution called no witnesses but Wilkerson's relatives "testified on his behalf . . . and more witnesses were expected later in the afternoon at the sentecing." Jim Bergamo (KVUE) quotes Iraq Veterans Against the War Kelly Dougherty stating: "For those in the military who see the war in Iraq as immoral and wrong, I think it takes a lot of courage . . . because this is not what they signed up for. The military stresses that when you're given an illegal order, it's your duty to refuse it, so I think they see it as their duty to refuse it." [Sentenced to 7 months. See last sentence in snapshot.]
War resister Agustin Aguayo faces a court-martail on March 6th in Germany. Ehren Watada is someone the US military would love to court-martial again; however, the double-jeopardy clause may prevent that. Iraq Veterans Against the War's Ryan Elsey writes (Foreign Policy in Focus) that "Lt. Watada's lawyer is hoping to invoke the principle of double jeopardy to argue that a second trial cannot lawfully take place. Just as many members of Iraq Veterans Against the War stood by Lt. Watada as he spoke before the Veterans for Peace convention, the organization stands by him now. Even though everyone in uniform is a volunteer, it is absurd to think that a contract can relinquish a human being
of the responsibility to act in a just way. It is equally abominable to claim that service members should lack the right to free speech. Those who give up so much--time, energy, blood, sweat, and even their lives--to serve deserve the right to free speech more than anyone; service members have clearly given the most to earn free speech. Service members of all ranks have the right to contribute to the public debate on any war and to provide a tempering voice when issues of war are discussed. They have perspectives that are vastly more valuable than armchair punditry. And when they are ordered to carry out unjust acts and fight in immoral wars, if they choose to resist, they at the very least have
the right to a fair defense. Yet, the Army is still attempting to prosecute Lt. Watada for speaking out about the Iraq War and for refusing orders. The silent majority of Americans opposed to the Iraq War must stand up and support Lt. Watada. Now is the time to praise the war's objectors as equally as we have praised the heroes who have fought and died. If we all had Lt. Watada's courage, we could finally facilitate an end to this war and steer our country toward a foreign policy based on cooperation, diplomacy, and a respect for international law."
Meanwhile, Gregg K. Kakesako (Honolulu Star-Bulletin) reports that Eric Seitz, Watada's civilian attorney, doesn't expect a court-martial to even be possible before summer due to scheduling issues and that the military hasn't even refiled the charges for the March 19th date that Judge Toilet (John Head) was tossing around when he declared a mistrial.
Wilkerson, Aguayo and Watada are a part of a movement of resistance with the military that includes others such as Kyle Snyder, Patrick Hart, Ivan Brobeck, Darrell Anderson, Ricky Clousing, Aidan Delgado, Joshua Key, Camilo Meija, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Jeremy Hinzman, Stephen Funk, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Corey Glass, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Katherine Jashinski, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell, Jimmy Massey, Tim Richard and Kevin Benderman. In total, thirty-eight US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum.
Information on war resistance within the military can be found at Center on Conscience & War, The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline, and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters.
Information on war resistance within the military can be found at Center on Conscience & War, The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline, and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters.
Turning to US politics, Kevin Zeese (CounterPunch) reports on Democratic presidential candidate Mike Gravel who didn't cower while serving in the Senate during the days of Tricky Dick and who has said "that anyone who voted for the use of force resolution that allowed President Bush to invade Iraq has shown they do not have the judgment to serve as prsident of the United States. Gravel, during the build-up to the war, publicly opposed the invasion. In an interview on MSNBC he insisted that intelligence showed there were indeed no weapons of mass destruction, Iraq posed no threat to the United States and that invading Iraq was against America's national interests."
Meanwhile, the Green Party (US), this week, reissued their call for Congress to "address the war as a criminal act of military aggression. Greens called on Democrats and Republicans in Congress who claim to oppose the war to interrupt President Bush's agenda in Iraq by cutting off funding for the U.S. occupation."
This as NOW asks that you "Surge for Peace": "It's time for Congress to excercise their oversight authority and pass BINDING legislation to deal with the costly and deadly situation in Iraq. After last week's pros-and-cons marathon in the House, they finally passed the "non-binding" resolution opposing the troops surge by a vote of 246 to 182. Now it's time to get serious. We must urge, no demand, that our Representatives cosponsor H.R. 508, introduced by Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif), a comprehensive plan to disengage from Iraq within 6 months after enactment and make reparations for the damages that our invasion and occupation have caused to Iraq's people and infrastructure. Take Action NOW"
The Illinois Students Against The War protested Democratic presidential candidate (and US senator) Barack Obama's speech two Sundays ago and explain why at CounterPunch: "Many have felt that we interrupted the rally one to many times. Our plan was to drop the banner and chant once during a pause to make our presence noticed -- which we did. But because we were being roughed up and 'escorted' out of the pavilion by security we felt it necessary to again make our point. It was then that we started a second chant; 'No justice, no peace -- U.S. out of the Middle East.' Later in his speech, Obama acknowledged our concerns. 'I'm glad they were there,' he told the crowd. 'They feel a sense of urgency about a war that should have never been authorized and a war that should have never been fought.' But Obama added that he doesn't want to cut funding for the war. 'We need to bring this war to an end,' he said, 'but we need to do it in a way that makes our troops safe.' In reality, the longer the troops stay in Iraq -- the more unsafe they are." In addition, it needs to be noted that evicting protestors is something Democrats act appalled by when Republicans do it. The whole thing has a shade of 'protest pens' that so disgraced the 2004 DNC convention in Boston.
Also taking action were four activists who staged a sit-in at US Rep Marcy Kaptur's office in Toledo, Ohio. AP reports 17 participated and 4 were arrested.
Meanwhile, while everyone obsessed over Mr. Tony's announcement, Free Speech Radio News reported yesterday that Denmark "will completely withdraw its troops from Iraq by August." On Mr. Tony's announcement, Patrick Cockburn (Independent of London) reports: "It is an admission of defeat. Iraq is turning into one of the world's bloodiest battlefields in which nobody is safe. Blind to this reality, Tony Blair said yesterday that Britain could safely cut its forces in Iraq because the apparatus of the Iraqi government is growing stronger. In fact the civil war is getting worse by the day. Food is short in parts of the country. A quarter of the population would starve without government rations. Many Iraqis are ill because their only drinking water comes from the highly polluted Tigris and Euphrates rivers. Nowhere in Mr Blair's statement was any admission of regret for reducing Iraq to a wasteland from which 2 million people have fled and 1.5 million are displaced internally."
Germany's Spiegel, high on something, offers: "The allies have had very different Iraq Wars since the invasion and overthrow of Saddam Hussein in 2003. While the British control the Shiite-dominated southern part of the country, which has been relatively calm, the United States has become bogged down in Sunni-dominated central Iraq, and in the capital Baghdad -- home to both Sunnis and Shiites. Blair acknowledged this difference during his speech, saying 'the situation in Basra is very different from Baghdad -- there is no Sunni insurgency, no al-Qaida base, little Sunni on Shia violence,' adding that it was nothing like the 'challenge of Baghdad'." Apparently, we're all supposed to pretend that sourthern Iraq is patrolled? We're supposed to pretend that the British didn't abandon one base in August -- with no notice -- that was stripped down by the resistance in a matter of hours? We're supposed to pretend that the Basra base wasn't under daily attack? In fact, let's pretend that Al Jazeera didn't just report: "The two British bases, located in central Basra and in the city's Shat al-Arab hotel, were bombed on Wednesday night and early Thursday morning".
In other violence in Iraq . . .
Bombings?
CBS and AP report a mortar attack in Baghdad that left 4 wounded. Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a woman was wounded by an IED in Baghdad, two other civilians were wounded by an IED earlier today (10:00 am), a mortar attack left one person dead and three wounded (this was two hours after the mortar attack CBS and AP note) and, in Slah ad Din, "A source in the Iraqi police said that two policemen were killed and other 9 were wounded in an attack launched by insurgents on Hay Al Tamim police station in Biji city north of Baghdad. The source added that Iraqi security forces imposed a curfew in the city after the incident. It's to be mentioned that the insurgents blew up a communication tower belonging to Asia Cell phone company which stopped the communication inside the city."
Shootings?
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports two Iraqi police officers were wounded in Baghdad.
Corpses?
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports ten corpses were discovered in Baghdad.
And AP is reporting that Mark Wilkerson was "sentenced to seven months in military prison . . . also given a bad conduct discharge".
No need to miss a message. Get email on-the-go
with Yahoo! Mail for Mobile. Get started.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)