Friday, January 29, 2010

The US military announces another death

AP reports 1 US service member has died in Iraq. The announcement brings to 4375 the number of US service members killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war. (ICCC hasn't updated to 4375 yet, they should later in the day.)

Now to the topic of accountability. Sometimes Barack's nominees are blocked because they're just bad. Or even hideous. Take Joseph Taluto.

http://www.dmna.state.ny.us/pressroom/images/Major%20General%20Joseph%20Taluto.jpg


The general was nominated in May 2009, by Barry O, for both the director of Army National Guard and for three-star Lieutenant General. Yesterday, New York Governor David Paterson's office released a statement that the still unconfirmed nominee had decided to retire.

What's going on? The answer is in Siobhan Esposito's "Fragging Widow Applauds General's Withdrawal to Serve as Director of the Army National Guard" (Siobhan Esposito's Blog):

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Friday, January 29th, 2010

Alexandria, VA -- Siobhan Esposito, the widow of Army Captain Phillip Esposito who was murdered alongside 1st Lieutenant Louis Allen in Iraq in 2005 applauds Major General Joseph Taluto's unprecedented decision yesterday to ask for the withdrawal of his nomination to serve as Director of the National Guard. Taluto's withdrawal is due to an investigation Mrs. Esposito instigated examining Taluto's failed leadership as commander of the 42nd Infantry Division of the New York National Guard -- a failure Esposito believes directly contributed to the murder of her late husband and the acquittal of his killer.

"Gen. Taluto's withdrawal and retirement," says Esposito, "made before the special Army report investigating his role in my late husband's death was publicly released is vindication of my call for the Army to properly address the unforgivable lack of military discipline that led to my husband's murder."

"Two American heroes like my husband and Louis Allen cannot be murdered in cold blood without those responsible being held to account for it," says Esposito. "I believe Alberto Martinez murdered my husband, but it was the Army's lax standards that gave him license to do it and then get away with his crime."

"The Army must learn from these needless and preventable deaths, punish those responsible for them and reform its standards or there will be more deaths like my husband's and Lt. Allen's in the future," says Esposito. "Had the Army learned from its mistakes surrounding my husband's murder, I hold that its leaders could have prevented further tragedies such as the horrific massacre of soldiers at Fort Hood."

"I am deeply indebted to Senator Jim Webb for his leadership in support of my quest," says Esposito. "His willingness to support my call for an investigation of General Taluto's conduct helped me and my young daughter secure the first iota of accountability since my husband was murdered in 2005."

"No soldier should ever fear his comrades -- least of all when there are clear warning signs that demand action," says Esposito. "My act of justice to the memory of my husband will be to fight for reform until the mistakes that lead to the preventable deaths of our soldiers are corrected."

We've noted the murders before, the last time on February 21, 2009:

December 4, 2008, Alberto B. Martinez was aquitted in the murders of Lou Allen and Phillip Esposito causing widow Barbara Allen to exclaim as the verdict was announced, "He slaughtered our husbands, and that's it? You murdered my husband!" Today Paul von Zielbauer reports on the April 3, 2006 confession Martinez signed as part of a plea agreement: "This offer to plea orginated with me. No person has made any attempt to force or coerce me into making this offer." The agreement was also signed by the same two attorneys who represented Martinez. Barbara Allen is quoted by von Zielbauer stating, "They had a conviction handed to them and chose not to take it." The plea would have meant life in prison. Georgetown law professor and former Marine judge Gary D. Solis tells von Zielbauer, "The only reason you should turn this down is if you have an absolutely bulletproof case. I can't imagine why they didn't take it. You've got life in prison in hand."

So how did Taluto get nominated? Who's doing the vetting? He never should have been nominated. Even allowing for his having done his job and done it well with no cover up, the White House should have known there were two grieving families and they would not just be sitting by passively. If the White House has problems getting nominees confirmed -- and they do -- a lot of that is on them because they do not do a proper job of vetting their nominees (which is how you get the tax cheats and someone like Van Jones who is a nightmare for an administration falsely called Communist and Socialist). Dennis Yusko (Albany Times Union) reports on the news here.

While we're on the subject of appointees, Ray Mabus, Jr.



Who is he? He's who a number are e-mailing about. From yesterday's snapshot:

Ranking Member Richard Burr: Today as we sit here getting ready for this markup, even though under US Code 42, statutorily the Secretary of the Navy is obligated to pay for the studies required to understand the health and mortality effects of this exposure, the Secretary of the Navy refuses to fund the CDC's arm at ASTDR that is obligated entity to go out and share with the country their scientific conclusion. Let me say that again: The Secretary of the Navy has refused to fund -- even though the law says he has to. So for me in good conscience to turn this over to the Dept of Defense to determine the scope of coverage for these individuals is insane. If the outcome of this vote is pre-determined, then so be it. I would hate for members to leave the markup today and believe that they will not revisit this issue. It will be revisited time and time and time again until the Congress recognizes that maybe the Dept of Defense, maybe the Secretary of the Navy can hide but the Congress can't hide from these people. These are people we represent. These are people that have asked us to come here and represent their interests, their health concerns, their future and I can't hide from them.

Ray Mabus is the Secretary of Navy and took office June 18, 2009. He is the one Burr was referring to and, as Wally noted last night filling in for Rebecca, after Burr's remarks quoted above (long after, end of the hearing) it was noted by other senators on the Veterans Affairs Committee that Mabus' non-compliance should be referred to Carl Levin and John McCain who are the Chair and the Ranking Member of the Armed Services Committee.

The following community websites updated last night:


If you're e-mailing to have something highlighted, it may or may not be. I'm following Blair's testimony right now -- see next entry -- while juggling three cell phones (friends following the Inquiry). And that's my focus this morning.

We'll close with this from Sherwood Ross' "HISTORIAN ZINN SAID 'LARGEST LIE'
WAS U.S. 'WAR ON TERRORISM'" (Public Record):

The “largest lie,” wrote hisorian Howard Zinn who died yesterday at age 87, is that “everything the United States does is to be pardoned because we are engaged in a ‘war on terrorism.’”
“This ignores the fact that war is itself terrorism, that the barging into people’s homes and taking away family members and subjecting them to torture, that is terrorism, that invading and bombing other countries does not give us more security but less security.”
In an article published previously in “The Long Term View” magazine of the Massachusetts School of Law, Zinn said that in the Fallujah area of Iraq Knight Ridder reporters found there was no Ba’athist or Sunni conspiracy against the U.S., “only people ready to fight because their relatives had been hurt or killed, or they themselves had been humiliated by home searches and road stops.”
Zinn, popularly known as the people’s historian, pointed out that the U.S. may have liberated Iraq from the tyranny of Saddam Hussein but afterwards it became Iraq’s occupier. He noted this is the same fate that befell Cuba after the U.S. liberated it from Spain in 1898. In both nations, the U.S. established military bases and U.S. corporations moved in to profit from the upheaval.

And I lied, I just saw Pru had e-mailed to note this from Great Britian's Socialist Worker:

Blair and Brown have blood on their hands

The real legacy of the war in Iraq has been exposed this week.

This, together with the appearance of Tony Blair in front of the Chilcot inquiry, has reignited anger over the Iraq war.

Many people are rightly sceptical about the outcome of Blair’s hearing—it will not be the grilling the majority wants. But the lies and horror of the war continue to seep out.

An official Iraqi study found more than 40 sites across the country were contaminated with high levels of radiation and toxins.

These are the result of the use of depleted uranium shells by US and British forces in Iraq.

Iraq’s energy resources continue to be sold off. The Iraqi government has signed a deal with oil giants Exxon Mobil and Royal Dutch Shell PLC to develop a major oil field in the south of the country.

This gives ownership of the oil fields to the companies for 20 years. There are an estimated 8.6 billion barrels of oil in West Qurna.

The oil giants will pay the Iraqi government $1.90 for each barrel of oil they extract. But when this is refined and sold on the world market it will fetch $78 a barrel at present prices.

George Bush and Blair’s war has left a trail of destruction. There are 4.5 million Iraqi refugees inside and outside the country. Electricity supplies have dropped dramatically in Baghdad.

In 2008, 61 percent of Iraqis said that they believed that the US military presence made the security situation worse. Many want the occupiers out of their country as soon as possible.

The price for the Iraq war has been paid by the one million killed—the estimate of the most credible surveys. Blair is responsible for this—and Gordon Brown signed the cheques.

On Monday at least 36 people died in coordinated suicide bomb attacks in Baghdad and in shoot-outs between security forces.

The police threat to impose a ring of steel around the Chilcot inquiry on Friday when Blair appears is another attempt to protect the guilty.

Undaunted the Stop the War Coalition organised a whole day of events outside the inquiry. They include a protest in the morning, then speeches, performances and music throughout the day.

A naming of some of the many war dead was also to be held. Those reading the names included members of Military Families Against the War, who have lost loved ones in Blair’s wars.

The Iraqi people deserve a voice in this inquiry, to tell their side of the story.

As they have been deprived of this right, it is the role of the anti-war movement to make Blair’s appearance a nightmare.

The following should be read alongside this article:
» Tony Blair is guilty of mass murder
» Afghanistan: London conference will not stabilise the 'good war' gone bad
» Chilcot whitewash brings out the dirt
» Attempt to ban protest outside Tony Blair’s appearance at Iraq inquiry
» Protesters greet warmongers’ London Afghanistan conference
» Army drops several major charges against Joe Glenton
» Tony Blair’s judgement day starts at Chilcot inquiry


© Socialist Worker (unless otherwise stated). You may republish if you include an active link to the original.

Share this story on:

Delicious | Digg | reddit | Facebook | StumbleUpon

If you found this article useful please help us maintain SW by » making a donation.

» comment on article | » email article | » printable version



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







the socialist worker



thomas friedman is a great man






oh boy it never ends
Posted by at

Thursday, January 28, 2010

I Hate The War

We're hours away from War Criminal Tony Blair facing the Iraq Inquiry in London. What will he say? What will it mean?

The Inquiry, for those paying attention, has provided a wealth of resources. And something's get missed. Or get set aside in order to cover other issues.

Peter Goldsmith appeared before the Inquiry on Wednesday. His testimony should have received a lot more scrutiny.

Not only did he screw up the timeline repeatedly (2003 is not 2002) but he also attempted to avoid answering questions. What he would do, when given a direct question he didn't want to answer, was to take it in another direction. In doing so, he often made statements he may not have intended to make.

Let's go back to before the Iraq War started.

When we look back now, we know that the US didn't want a second resolution. We pretty much knew that in real time. But we know it and we know that England (at least publicly) would prefer one.

Great Britain and the US were allies. They would invade Iraq together (Australia and other countries participated as well).

What you had between the two countries was a difference of opinion.

So England pursued a second resolution or at least seriously looked into it and the US, against the resolution, used the time to plan (such as it was).

That's the popular narrative.

That narrative got exploded when Goldsmith testified.

A number of people don't seem to grasp what Goldsmith said.

Popular narrative: US didn't want a second resolution, wasn't going to fight for one.

But what Goldsmith said takes it in another direction.

The popular narrative allows the British government to do as they indicated they were doing: Pursue a second resolution.

But Goldsmith testified Wednesday that it wasn't just that the US didn't want it. The US government based their legal approach (set aside whether it was legal or not) on the 'legal' opinion that UN Resolution 1441 (granting the power for inspectors to go back into Iraq) was all that was necessary for the start of war on Iraq. In addition, Goldsmith testified that the US didn't want a second resolution, couldn't accept one, because of their legal opinion. Going back to the UN for a second resolution risked hemming in the US legal opinion.

If they went and got a resolution with conditions, that could hem the US in. If they went and were shot down (as most believed they would be), then the US government's assertion that a second resolution wasn't needed to start a war would have been exposed as the lie it was.

The US didn't just not want a second resolution, they couldn't afford one. If there was one -- one passed or one rejected -- it revealed the legal opinion wasn't sound and opened up a whole set of issues that the Bush administration didn't want to deal with.

What does this mean?

It means Tony Blair was never serious about a second resolution -- despite his claims otherwise.

If the US just didn't want to get one, Tony could work to get one. Fine and dandy. US doesn't want anchovies on the pizza but Tony does so he can order his own pizza and we're all well and good.

But the US was basing its entire legal strategy on the premise that the first resolution was all that was needed.

It is known and accepted that Bush was determined to go to war with Iraq in 2002 and was not going to be stopped short of death putting him in the ground.

If you grasp that and you grasp that the legal argument was that 1441 allows the US to go to war, then you should be able to grasp that the US government did not want Tony Blair pursuing a second resolution. There's no way. Tony cannot go for it. He knows it, the US knows it.

And Goldsmith may very well know it. He didn't speak to France why? He had a number of excuses and lies but the most plausible reason is because the US didn't want him to. (Which is the subtext of his testimony.) They don't want note comparisons with the French government, they don't want anything that will undermine their legal position. So Goldsmith doesn't speak to the French. That's the best possible explanation. (And his reasons for refusing to speak to the French, remember, was greeted with disbelief by the Chair John Chilcot and Committee Member Roderic Lyne. Goldsmith wouldn't even allow anyone to communicate through diplomatic channels. It made no sense unless you factor in that Blair's cabinet grasped they couldn't risk the US legal position.)

Goldsmith agreed with other lawyers originally: Without a second resolution, the Iraq War would be illegal.

In his testimony, he made very clear that Tony Blair, Jack Straw and others didn't want to hear it.

Best possible reason why that was? Because they already knew that a second resolution would weaken the US legal position and they weren't going to risk that.

Instead, they pressured the British legal advisors to go along with the American logic.

And eventually, Goldsmith did.

And there's even confusion about why he did that.

He spoke to the Americans!

Uh, he did speak to the Americans but that's not why he changed his mind according to his testimony on Wednesday.

Well, can I answer this way, and I know I'm moving forward, but at that point that I took the view -- and I'll explain why -- that I had actually to come down on one side of the argument or other, I used a test which I quite frequently use when I'm having to advise on difficult matters, which is to say "Which side of the argument would you prefer to be on?" and I took the view I would prefer to be on the side of the argument that said a second resolution wasn't necessary.

He made his decision based on "which side of the argument would you prefer to be on?"

That's telling as well and it's being ignored.

Goldsmith's testimony has multiple nuggets of gold in it. Let's hope the Committee Members grasped that because very few other people appear to have grasped it.

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

Last Thursday, ICCC's number of US troops killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war was 4373. Tonight? 4374.


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




Posted by at

Iraq snapshot

Thursday, January 28, 2010.  Chaos and violence continue,  a former US Staff Sgt admits to money laundering (for plastic surgery and other 'needed' items) while serving in Iraq, the US Senate continues to ignore a bill proposed to assist veterans exposed to toxic hazards, Iraq cracks down on the media again, and more. 
 
Today the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee held a hearing to vote on a nomination and proposed legislation. Starting with the nomination, November 9th, US President Barack Obama nominated Raul Perea-Henze to be the Assistant Secretary of Policy and Planning, Department of Veterans Affairs.  Today the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee took a vote.  Excepting Ranking Member Richard Burr, Lindsey Graham and Johnny Isakson, all voted in favor of Perea-Henze (Graham was not present during the vote, Burr asked that the record reflect Graham and his own votes opposing the nomination). ("All voted in favor?  I would assume the entire committee.  Most of whom did not show -- eight of the fifteen committee members were present during the vote -- for the hearing but if Graham's vote in opposition is recorded despite him not being present, I would assume those not present could also vote in favor of the nomination.)
 
Markup hearing?  If you're thinking they addressed S. 1779, you are wrong.  That bill addressed the need for a federal registry, similar to the one for Agent Orange exposure, for veterans exposed to contaminates while serving.  It was introduced by Senator Evan Bayh, has been held up by the Committee since October 21st. Bayh's bill is co-sponsored by Byron Dorgan (who has been also been a leader on this issue), Robert Byrd, Jeff Merkley, John Rockefeller, Ron Wyden and Richard Lugar.  That bill's still buried.  
 
If that surprises you, imagine being Senator Jay Rockefeller who had a statement on the bill all ready for delivery. In fact, it's posted at the Committee's website:
 
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for this mark up, following up on the powerful and emotional hearing of October 8th last year with military personnel and family members exposed to toxic materials in their combat service, and even from their military housing.
At that hearing, my remarks and questions focused on Russell Powell, a medic with the West Virginia Guard.  He and hundreds of other members of the Guard were exposed to toxic chemicals while on duty guarding the Qarmat Ali Water Treatment Facility in Basra, Iraq.  For years, they were kept in the dark -- not told about their exposure. And today, they are still struggling to get the health care they need.  
That is simply not acceptable. It must be fixed. And I believe today's mark represents the first important step forward. 
I greatly appreciate that Chairman Akaka has incorporated a vital provision from Senator Bayh's legislation -- which I have cosponsored -- to guarantee these guardsmen the quality VA health care coverage they have earned.                    
That guarantee is an important element of the Homeless Veterans and Health Care Act and I strongly support it.      
But at last fall's hearing, we also were moved by the heartbreaking testimony from military family members.              
In particular: families describing serious water problems at Camp Lejeune  and dangerous toxins in the air at Atsugi Naval Air base in Japan. 
There is no doubt, we all agreed: Military personnel and family members dealing with the painful consequences of toxic exposure deserve the best health care possible.
Chairman Akaka's new legislation provides the right kind of care to families from Camp Lejeune and Atsugi Naval Air base. 
But his bill goes beyond those two locations and their toxic exposure incidents. It creates a process between the VA and DoD to deal with thousands of potential exposures through a joint board. And, so future families don't have to wait for decades, the bill establishes a clear time frame for the board's decisions.          
I firmly believe we must be absolutely clear about our shared responsibility. The VA's responsibility is our veterans and their care. DoD has a longstanding policy of caring for their military dependents.                
DoD bears significant responsibility and has to take responsibility, today. The Pentagon has to acknowledge what happened and bear the financial costs. This matters.
The Akaka bill strikes the proper balance -- allowing the VA to provide coverage for veterans while DoD covers their families. The Chairman's legislation gets it right and I strongly support his efforts. This is our chance to do the right thing, honor our veterans' service and recognize their families' sacrifice, by ensuring they get the care they seek, they need, and they deserve.
 
It needed saying. Sadly, it went unsaid.  There was no time for the needed bill.
 
What did they discuss? We'll note Richard Burr's remarks.
 
Ranking Member Richard Burr: As you know one of my top priorities in the Congress has been to end homelessness among our country's veterans. And the Committee Print S. 1237, the Homeless Veterans and Other Health Care Authorities Act of 2010, furthers that goal and I applaud all the members for their commitment to homelessness. I'm concerned however that the Committee's marking up legislation without having the official views of the Dept of Veterans Affairs on S. 1547, one of the key measures in the Committee Print before us today. We've heard the President talk about el-eliminating duplicate programs. We have had a legislative hearing on 1547 in October at which time where officials views from the administration were promised but, three months later, we still don't have those views. Without those views, the Committee doesn't have a full scope of key questions such as how the creation of a new program or the expansion of an existing ones will be coordinated with other homeless programs administered by the VA and other federal agencies? Or how this legislation fits with the [VA] Secretary's overall plan to end homelessness in five years? As well: What is the cost of the legislation and how long will it take the VA to be able to be appropriately staffed to carry out the bill's mandates? Now I'm not suggesting by any stretch of the imagination that any administration's testimony should dictate how this Committee proceeds but it would be helpful to have information to make an informed judgment on what's best for veterans and addressing their specific needs. As for the second bill on the agenda, quite frankly I'm disappointed.  I'm disappointed at the approach used to provide health care for veterans and family members exposed to contaminated well water at Camp Lejeune. Not only might this bill be subject to Rule 25 Point Of Order because of subject matter, it's arguably in another Committee's jurisdiction, it also fails to appreciate the deep distrust that family members and veterans have for the Dept of Defense and, specifically, it's handling of these matters once these wells were found to be contaminated and, in the years since, on the scientific inquiries that have been ongoing. Frankly, to those effected by the contamination at Camp Lejeune, requiring DoD to be a key decision maker and provider of health care is absurd. Now. I'm disappointed personally that the majority has decided to take the tack that they have to put a different bill in.  Uh-uh. I don't think it's been the practice of the Committee in the past. And, uhm, I hope this is not an indication of how we proceed forward in this Committee. I understand the Chairman has the votes, I know what the outcome is.  It won't change my passion for this debate. It will not change  the degree of description of what I share with the members . It is the reason that and I other members have turned to this legislation and it is certainly indicative of why Democrats and Republicans in the House next week will introduce practically the same bill with VA responsibilities to provide health care to individuals and family members that have disease that could likely be tied to exposure to contaminants on a military installation.  Now I would only ask the members of this Committee -- likely included that group are some of your constituents -- and though you haven't had to fight the Dept of Defense day in and day out on behalf of this group, I have and members before me have -- without any conclusion, without any finality, without any help. Today as we sit here getting ready for this markup, even though under US Code 42, statutorily the Secretary of the Navy is obligated to pay for the studies required to understand the health and mortality effects of this exposure, the Secretary of the Navy refuses to fund the CDC's arm at ASTDR that is obligated entity to go out and share with the country their scientific conclusion. Let me say that again: The Secretary of the Navy has refused to fund -- even though the law says he has to. So for me in good conscience to turn this over to the Dept of Defense to determine the scope of coverage for these individuals is insane.  If the outcome of this vote is pre-determined, then so be it. I would hate for members to leave the markup today and believe that they will not revisit this issue. It will be revisited time and time and time again until the Congress recognizes that maybe the Dept of Defense, maybe the Secretary of the Navy can hide but the Congress can't hide from these people. These are people we represent. These are people that have asked us to come here and represent their interests, their health concerns, their future and I can't hide from them.
 
To be clear, his objection to the second bill is that DoD is being put in charge when DoD is seen as the person who put people at risk to begin with and is seen as refusing to admit to the contamination after the public discovered it.  He is advocating for, among other things, the VA being over the issue the way that the House proposal will advocate (US House Rep Chet Edwards is introducing that measure). Burr proposed an amendment, 9 (Democrats plus Bernie Sanders -- Sanders was not present) voted to table the amendment, all five Republicans voted against tabling it.  (Again, only 8 of the 15 Committee members were present.)
 
On the first bill, his objection is one that is being whispered by Democrats and will probably come out in public in the next months: The administration promises to get back to Congress but never does.  Publicly, Ike Skelton and Carl Levin (chairs of the House and Armed Services Committee) have made statements in hearings regarding this issue but look for more serious statements to be made.  (Congress -- those two committees in fact -- have still not been provided with the so-called 'withdrawal' plan from Iraq by the administration despite repeated promises.)
 
Burr is stating that he is unsure of whether the bill is workable or what is needed because the VA has not provided the feedback that was promised.  He is stating that hearing from the VA wouldn't mean a yes or a no vote for him but it would mean that he and the Committee would have a stronger framework to judge the bill and the needs.  That is what he is saying.  But what Democrats are saying (Burr is a Republican) is that they're getting very tired of the administration promising testimonies and witnesses and reports that never arrive.  A Republican brought it up for the first time in a hearing this year but if the White House doesn't start living up to their promises to Congress, Democrats who are complaining privately are going to go public and they will not do it as nicely as US House Rep Skelton and US Senator Levin did last year.
 
For Jon Tester and you can read Kat tonight -- she'll cover his testy nature.  Wally filling in for Rebecca tonight intends to note one aspect of Burr's remarks.
 
Today the US Justice Dept announced that Theresa Russell (not the actress, this is a one-time US Army Staff Sgt) entered a guilty plea to money laundering while 'serving' in Iraq and that her ill gotten gain went on to fund her purchase of "a car, cosmetic surgery, and" more.  From the Justice Dept news release:
 
WASHINGTON -- A former staff sergeant in the U.S. Army pleaded guilty today to a one-count criminal information charging her with money laundering arising from a scheme involving the fraudulent awarding and administration of U.S. government contracts in Iraq, announced Assistant Attorney General Lanny A. Breuer of the Criminal Division.
Theresa Russell, 40, of Pleasanton, Texas, pleaded guilty in federal court in San Antonio. According to court documents, from January 2004 through October 2004, Russell was deployed to Logistical Support Area (LSA) Anaconda, a U.S. military installation near Balad, Iraq. As part of the plea, Russell admitted that from April 2004 to February 2005, she received more than $30,000 in cash from John Rivard, a former major in the U.S. Army Reserves. Russell admitted that she knew the money she received from Rivard was the proceeds of bribery.                   
In July 2007, Rivard pleaded guilty to bribery, among other offenses, in connection with his service as an Army contracting officer at LSA Anaconda. According to court documents, from April 2004 to August 2005, Rivard conspired with a government contractor to steer federally-funded contracts to the contractor's company in exchange for hundreds of thousands of dollars in illicit bribe payments.             
According to court documents, Rivard instructed Russell to divide the payments she received from him into several smaller monetary bank deposits, which she admitted she did, in an effort to avoid the detection of law enforcement authorities. Russell admitted that she subsequently used the criminal proceeds to purchase, among other things, a car, cosmetic surgery, and household furnishings and goods.                  
The maximum penalty for the money laundering charge is 10 years in prison, a $250,000 fine and three years of supervised release following the prison term. Sentencing is scheduled for May 21, 2010.         
This case is being prosecuted by Trial Attorneys Daniel A. Petalas and Justin V. Shur of the Criminal Division's Public Integrity Section, as well as Trial Attorney Ann C. Brickley. This case is being investigated by Army Criminal Investigation Command; Defense Criminal Investigative Service; the FBI; Internal Revenue Service-Criminal Investigation; Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction; and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.           
 
While we're on the legal system, we'll drop back to last week.  Danny Fitzsimons is a British citizen who stands accused of killing two 1 British citizen (Paul McGuigan) and 1 Australian citizen (Darren Hoare)  while wounding one Iraqi (Arkhan Madhi) in an August 9th Baghdad shooting.
 
"They gave me a gun" he said     
"They gave me a mission              
For the power and the glory --             
Propaganda -- piss on 'em           
There's a war zone inside me --              
I can feel things exploding --              
I can't even hear the f**king music playing            
For the beat of -- the beat of black wings."                 
[. . .]                        
"They want you -- they need you --                 
They train you to kill --                 
To be a pin on some map --             
Some vicarious thrill --             
The old hate the young                  
That's the whole heartless thing              
The old pick the wars             
We die in 'em                      
To the beat of -- the beat of  black wings"          
--  "The Beat of Black Wings," words and music by Joni Mitchell, first appears on her Chalk Mark In A Rainstorm. 
 

Iraq War veteran Danny Fitzimons joined the British military at the age of 16 and was deployed on his first mission at the age of 18. Before he was 28-years-old, he'd been diagnosed with PTSD.  Out of the military, he began working for the contractor AmrourGroup Inc in August 2009.  The shootings took place August 9th.  By August 10th, Martin Chulov and Steven Morris (Guardian) were reporting that British embassy staff was not allowed to speak with Danny and that the Iraqi government or 'government' was announcing Danny had been in court (the day after the incident) and given a full confession. To be clear, the reporters were not vouching for the confession.  Only an idiot -- or an American reporter -- would do that.  Iraq has a long history (even just post-invasion) of forcing 'confessions'. August 11th, Amnesty International issued the following:
 
Responding to reports that a British employee of a security company working in Iraq may face a death sentence, Amnesty International UK Media Director Mike Blakemore said:                     
'It's right that private military and security company employees like Danny Fitzsimons are not placed above the law when they're working in places like Iraq and it's right that the Iraqi authorities are set to investigate this very serious incident.                         
'However, as with all capital cases, Amnesty would strenuously oppose the application of the death penalty if applied to Mr Fitzsimons in this case.
'Iraq has a dreadful record of unfair capital trials and at least 34 people were hanged in the country last year alone.                       
'The important thing now is that if Danny Fitzsimons is put on trial he is allowed a fair trial process without resort to the cruelty of a death sentence.'               
Last year 34 criminals were hanged in Iraq. Private security guard Fitzsimons, employed by UK firm ArmorGroup, would be the first Westerner on trial since the invasion of Iraq in 2003.           
         
Kim Sengupta (Independent of London) reported last Thursday that Danny appeared in Iraqi court and "was sent for psychiatric evaluation minutes after the start of his trial". Oliver August (Times of London) adds, "Efforts to have Mr Fitzsimons tried in the UK have failed since Iraq and Britain do not have a prisoner transfer agreement. However, once he has been sentenced or is found to be mentally ill, London and Baghdad may discuss the possibility of bringing him back."  Adam Schreck (Time magazine) reports, "The trial has been adjourned until Feb. 18, according to Fitzsimons' attorney, Tariq Harb." There is a petition on Facebook calling for Danny to be tried in the United Kingdom and not in England.  Reprieve is raising funds for Danny's defense.
 
 
Yesterday's snapshot noted: "Vying for the title of Idiot of the Week, Hill has competition!, is Ali al-Lami who insists to Asharq Al-Awsat that he is not controlled by Iran.  The fresh from prison al-Lami heads the extra-legal Accountability and Justice Commission.  And certainly, if you were released from prison mere months ago, you too would be heading a government commission because that's what cronyism is all about, right, Ali?  Don't call him Ahmed Chalabi's lover because they insist they are just friends.  With no benefits.  Or none they admit to.  But Ali explains that he's cracked down on the media and they've figured out their place and 'calmed down' because he's threatened them with 'lawsuits'.  He's a little bully." Lawsuits are just one path to censorship in Iraq -- a path Nouri al-Maliki's sashayed down repeatedly.  Aseel Kami, Missy Ryan and Andrew Roche (Reuters) report today that Iraq's government or "government" is attempting to convince Syria, Lebanon and Egype to shut down various satellite channels originating from their countries. This will be presented as 'fair' but anyone in the world paying attention will say, "Hey, Iran's a neighbor.  Iran's got stations 'inflaming' tensions as much as anyone else."  But notice that Iran isn't a source of concern.  Notice that and then start looking at the media reports and noticing how many fail to raise that issue.
 
Let's turn to some of today's reported violence . . .
 
Bombings?
 
Reuters notes a Kirkuk roadside bombing injured seven police officers and a Kirkuk mortar attack left four people injured.
 
Shootings?
 
Reuters reports 1 Sunni Imam shot dead outside a Baghdad mosque and that 1 police officer was wounded in a Baghdad shooting.  
 
Monday, Baghdad was slammed with bombings and the death toll  is at least 41 with over seventy wounded. Yesterday Ann noted Martin Chulov of the Guardian appearing on KPFA's The Morning Show and explaining:
 
After that there was a lot of shooting very near our location. Some colleagues of my staff wanted to run to their families who lived inside the Hamra compound. We had to restrain them. We were very near and it became clear that a car was trying to get through -- to get inside the hotel. So we ran and the car did get inside and it detonated. During the explosion, most of my colleagues emerged unscathed. There were some walking wounded at the Washington Post who had a house inside the area and also in the hotel itself. And sadly, one of our collegues from the Times of London a longtime local employee was killed.
 
 
Yasser, the Times's driver killed on Monday in a bomb attack, was among the very best. He delivered daily accounts of the vicious sectarian street battles that erupted in Baghdad between 2005 and 2007. He knew better than anyone how the contest between Sunni gunmen and Shia militias was being played out because he and his family lived in one of the disputed areas.            
Driving through the city he would point out which roads were safe and which were dangerous. His intelligence assessment was far more valuable than anything I ever heard at security briefings in the American or British embassies.
 
The Economist notes today that their correspondent was wounded in the al-Hamra Hotel bombing.  The Economist also tackles the banning of political candidates in Iraq:
 
 
IN THE run-up to a general election due on March 7th, Iraq's authorities seem to be taking a page out of Iran's illiberal electoral rule book by barring candidates they dislike. One of the competing parties, the Iraqi National Congress, led by Ahmed Chalabi, a longtime Shia exile who helped persuade George Bush to invade Iraq in 2003, has persuaded the election's overseers to ban some 500 candidates deemed too close in the past to Saddam Hussein's Baath party. After the invasion the Americans put Mr Chalabi, then their closest Iraqi ally, in charge of "deBaathification", but he later fell out with them, so he turned for succour to Iran. Now, with a view to winning more votes for himself, he is using his long-dormant post to accuse his foes of having supported the deposed dictator. Though the list contains many Shias, Iraq's minority Sunnis, who ruled the roost under Mr Hussein, are outraged, seeing a plot to discriminate against them. The episode could badly tarnish the poll.
Many other Shia politicians have joined what looks like a witch hunt. Muhammad al-Haidari, a leader of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq (ISCI), a powerful Shia group, says that Baathists are worse than Nazis; all past members should, he says, be banned from public life. In the holy city of Najaf, ISCI's heartland, a new rule decrees that former Baathists must be purged from government and chased out of town. Never mind that Iraq's post-invasion constitution bars only senior Baathists from public office and that millions of ordinary Iraqis joined the party only out of necessity, not conviction. Ostracising them threatens once again to split Iraq down the middle and disfranchise many Sunnis, who used to dominate the Baath party.
 
 
Maliki has not only failed to condemn the commission's decision to bar 511 candidates, he has embraced it, piously invoking the law -- and surely reckoning that standing up for the Baath party in the name of reconciliation is political suicide, especially in an election year. Yet not many months ago, Maliki was negotiating with the Sunni leader Saleh al Mutlaq, one of the current campaign's main targets, to form a joint coalition.                
The crisis of today represents the consequences of yesterday's bad policies: both the Americans and the ruling parties have encouraged the selective use of de-Baathification -- whether to protect people with suspect records who were prepared to serve the new order, or those who proved useful in the campaign against insurgents. The US appears motivated primarily by the need to keep things relatively stable and solidly on track for a smooth troop withdrawal, regardless of what may come afterward. The Maliki government has used the threat of de-Baathification to bring people to its side and under its control, while getting rid of those who were unwilling to co-operate or whom it felt it could never trust.          
The Baath party, which is today a thoroughly discredited shadow of its former self, would seem to pose little threat even to Iraq's fragile political stability. But a small group of self-interested figures have seized the opportunity to use de-Baathification to advance their own electoral prospects, precipitating a far greater crisis in the process: the de-Baathification genie has escaped and gone on a rampage.
 
Turning to England where it's surely not Waiting For Lefty so maybe it's Waiting for Godot?
 
What is known is that Tony Blair is set to appear before the Iraq Inquiry in London -- the Inquiry did not hold a public hearing today. A major protest is expected to take place as War Criminal Tony attempts to wash the blood off his hands. From Stop The War Coalition's "Protest on Tony Blair's Judgement Day: 29 January from 8am:"
 

Queen Elizabeth Conference Centre, Broad
Sanctuary, Westminster, London SW1P 3EE

On Friday 29 January, Tony Blair will try to explain to the Iraq Inquiry the lies he used to take Britain into an illegal war.

Writers, musicians, relatives of the dead, Iraqi refugees, poets, human rights lawyers, comedians, actors, MPs and ordinary citizens will join a day of protest outside the Inquiry to demand that this should be Tony Blair's judgement day.

There will be naming the dead ceremonies for the hundreds of thousands slaughtered in Blair's war. Military families who lost loved ones in Iraq will read the names of the 179 British soldiers killed.

Join us from 8.0am onwards.
And protests are already ongoing.  Sian Ruddick (Great Britain's Socialist Worker) reports:
 

Three days of activity against the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq began with a 200-strong public meeting in central London tonight, Wednesday.

The meeting took place in on the eve of a meeting of Nato leaders to discuss sending more troops to kill and be killed in Afghanistan. This will be followed by Tony Blair's appearance before the Iraq inquiry on Friday.

Anti-war activists will protest at both of these events.

Andrew Murray, chair of the Stop the War Coalition (StWC), described the Afghan conference as an "admission of failure" of the war and occupation of the country.

Andrew said that protesters will defy any police ban and demonstrate outside both the conference and the Iraq inquiry.

Kate Hudson, chair of CND, spoke from the platform. She said, "Whatever these goverments agree, they will be at odds with the populations of their countries. Some 82 percent of French people oppose their government's involvement in the war. Meanwhile 71 percent of British and German people want the troops home."

The meeting heard messages of solidarity from across Europe.

Tony Benn, president of the StWC, told the meeting, "The war in Afghanistan has cost billions. The latest plan is to bribe the Taliban to comply with the occupation -- which will make the situation ever more bitter."

Anger at the lies world leaders have told us ran through the meeting. Lindsey German, convenor of the StWC, said, "We need a complete holding to account to all those in charge when we went to war. If we don't have this, how can we be sure it won't happen again?"

Guardian journalist Seamus Milne also spoke from the platform. "These two events show history catching up with those who unleashed this pain and suffering.

"Gordon Brown tries to tell us this is a war for democracy and freedom. Well tell that to the families of the hundreds of thousands of Afghans killed in air strikes."

Respect MP George Galloway said, "The life and blood of soldiers and Afghans is too precious for this war to continue."

People left the meeting determined to build the protests tomorrow and Friday.

Protest at the Afghanistan Conference

Blockade the conference, 8.30am, Thursday 28 January, Lancaster House, Stable Yard, Saint James's Palace, London SW1A 1BH

Blair's judgement day at the Iraq inquiry

Protest from 8am Friday 29 January, Queen Elizabeth Conference centre, SW1P 3EE. Nearest tube Westminster.
 
Will the War Criminal offer revelations to the Inquiry?  Will the press covering the team brought in Tuesday to provide constant coaching since Tuesday?  Will he wear sun glasses and a hat with veil for dramatic impact?  Ann Talbot (WSWS) observes, "But whether or not he faces awkward questions, he can do so without fear that he may be indicted for the war crimes of which he is so clearly guilty. The Chilcot inquiry was specifically set up in order to avoid the possibility of a war crimes trial. It has no remit to determine whether the war was legal or not. Its members have no legal training or experience and they sit without legal advice. Sir John Chilcot made it clear when the inquiry began that he did not see his task as one of determining guilt. Witnesses are not under oath and none of them are cross examined as they would be in a court of law. They have been allowed to give long, self-serving statements that have gone entirely unchallenged."  Chris Ames' Iraq Inquiry Digest notes multiple developments today.
 
 Lastly on Iraq, we'll note this from Dahr Jamail's "When Scholars Join the Slaughter" (MidEast Dispatches):

The two highest ethical principles of anthropology are protection of the interests of studied populations and their safety. All anthropological studies consequently are premised on the consent of the subject society. Clearly, the HTS anthropologists have thrown these ethical guidelines out the window. They are to anthropology what state stenographers like Judith Miller and John Burns are to journalism.
Truthout consulted David Price, author of "Anthropological Intelligence: The Deployment and Neglect of American Anthropology in the Second World War" and a contributor to the "Counter-Counterinsurgency Manual," a work of the Network of Concerned Anthropologists, of which he is a member.             
According to Price, "HTS presents real ethical problems for anthropologists, because the demands of the military in situations of occupation put anthropologists in positions undermining their fundamental ethical loyalties to those they study. Moreover, it presents political problems that link anthropology to a disciplinary past where anthropologists were complicit in assisting in colonial conquests. Those selling HTS to the military have misrepresented what culture is and have downplayed the difficulties of using culture to bring about change, much less conquest. There is a certain dishonesty in pretending that anthropologists possess some sort of magic beans of culture, and that if only occupiers had better cultural knowledge, or made the right pay-offs, then occupied people would fall in line and stop resisting foreign invaders. Culture is being presented as if it were a variable in a linear equation, and if only HTS teams could collect the right data variables and present troops with the right information conquest could be entered in the equation. Life and culture doesn't work that way; occupied people know they are occupied, and while cultural knowledge can ease an occupation, historically it has almost never led to conquest - but even if it could, anthropology would irreparably damage itself if it became nothing more than a tool of occupations and conquest."
 
TV notes. NOW on PBS begins airing Friday on most PBS stations (check local listings):

 
Haiti's catastrophic earthquake, in addition to leaving lives and
institutions in ruin, also exacerbated a much more common and lethal
emergency in Haiti: Dying during childbirth. Challenges in
transportation, education, and quality health care contribute to Haiti
having the highest maternal mortality rate in the Western Hemisphere, a
national crisis even before the earthquake struck.

While great strides are being made with global health issues like
HIV/AIDS, maternal mortality figures worldwide have seen virtually no
improvement in 20 years. Worldwide, over 500,000 women die each year
during pregnancy.

On Friday, January 29 at 8:30 pm (check local listings), a NOW team that
had been working in Haiti during the earthquake reports on this deadly
but correctable trend. They meet members of the Haitian Health
Foundation (HHF), which operates a network of health agents in more than
100 villages, engaging in pre-natal visits, education, and emergency
ambulance runs for pregnant women.
 
Those looking for commentary on the laughable State of the Union address (and the jokes is on all of us) can see Cedric's "That's presidential?" and Wally's "THIS JUST IN! HE'S A FUNNY BOY?"; Betty's "Congress disgraces themselves," Stan's "No, it wasn't presidential" and Isaiah's Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts 'Wheel of Misfortune'."
 

Posted by at
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)