Thursday, January 19, 2012

I Hate The War

Bradley Manning. Josh Gerstein (POLITICO) reports, "Another military officer has formally recommended that Army Pfc. Bradley Manning face a full-scale court martial for allegedly leaking thousands of military reports and diplomatic cables to the online transparency site WikiLeaks."
Monday April 5th, WikiLeaks released US military video of a July 12, 2007 assault in Iraq. 12 people were killed in the assault including two Reuters journalists Namie Noor-Eldeen and Saeed Chmagh. Monday June 7, 2010, the US military announced that they had arrested Bradley Manning and he stood accused of being the leaker of the video. Leila Fadel (Washington Post) reported in August 2010 that Manning had been charged -- "two charges under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The first encompasses four counts of violating Army regulations by transferring classified information to his personal computer between November and May and adding unauthorized software to a classified computer system. The second comprises eight counts of violating federal laws governing the handling of classified information." In March, David S. Cloud (Los Angeles Times) reported that the military has added 22 additional counts to the charges including one that could be seen as "aiding the enemy" which could result in the death penalty if convicted.

The Article 32 hearing was last month.

The biggest disappointment?

For some it was the trans-issues the defense raised. That didn't bother me.

What bothered me was that it appeared either Bradley doesn't know how he wants to plead or his attorneys don't know what they're doing. (David E. Coombs is Bradley's civilian attorney. He also has a military attorney.)

Why do I say there's confusion somewhere?

Bradley should have had a position presented in the Article 32 hearing.

For months here, I've had to be the bitch online pointing out that people need to stop saying, "Bradley did a brave thing . . ." or whatever else. I've had to point out that Bradley's innocent until proven guilty and that he'd entered no plea.

The Article 32 cleared up nothing in terms of Bradley's position.

The Article 32 is a rubber stamp. That's the way it goes.

Bradley was always going to face a court-martial (barring massive protests to Barack).

To win at a court-martial, he needs to be able to rally people.

That means pick a damn side already.

Either he's saying he was the WikiLeaker or he's saying he wasn't.

Whatever position he goes with, he'll find tons of support. That includes those who've been calling him the WikiLeaker all along. They'll support him still and tailor their new arguments if he goes for innocent.

But a decision needed to be made and none was.

The Article 32 is a rubber stamp. The most important element of the court martial is for the White House, the Pentagon, the entire federal government to realize Americans are watching. Especially during an election year.

If he's going to plead guilty (or "I did it but . . .") the forces in support of him need to know so they can rally support. If he's going to plead innocent, same thing.

Ehren Watada is the successful war resister in terms of the legal system. They put him on trial. And Judge Toilet (John Head) was so eager to help the prosecution that he gave them a 'do over' -- which legally translates as double jeporady -- which is against the law, forbidden in the Constitution. That could have been swept under the rug, pushed aside. But people were paying attention to that court-martial. And paying attention to how the higher courts were going to rule on the double jeporady issue. When the judge ruled, there was no more appeal, even the Justice Dept had to walk away and that's because veryone had been watching.

Bradley needs that kind of support. He's not going to get it until people know which side they need to be arguing.

Myself, I believe innocenct until proven guilty unless the defendant admits to the actions. But I'm done calling people out for it. This is beyond crazy. Well meaning people -- even Ray McGovern has good intentions -- shouldn't be expected to wait and wait and wait. The Article 32 should have resolved at least that issue. It didn't.

So if Ray McGovern wants to scream that Bradley did it 24-7 and that we need to support him because of his bravery, then so be it.

I'm not going to say another word on that issue in termsof calling people out or correcting them regarding the presumption of innocence. I will offer a bit of advice that I offered a friend who didn't listen and now his 'man' talk looks extremely silly (in light of the gender issues that came to light in the Article 32), think before you speak. If you're trying to raise attention and awareness, probably not a good thing to go on and on about how 'manly' Bradley is and what a man and blah, blah, blah. That message (wrong in my opinion to begin with -- equating strength with gender) went right down the drain when the gender confusion was raised by Bradley's attorneys.

I'm tired of screaming "Innocent until proven guilty!" but I've been tired of that since last spring. The reason I'm not even raising that issue anymore is because support needs to be building now. If Bradley's tied his attorneys' hands on this issue or if his attorneys are failing him on this issue, then the public can't go AWOL. There is no reason to go into a court-martial without having decided what you're going to do. There is no reason to keep your supporters guessing.

If I'm in the mood for the case and Ray McGovern writes a piece this week or next calling Bradley a hero for leaking the cables, we'll excerpt it here. Someone needs to be rallying the public ahead of the court-martial. It was one thing to go into an Article 32 with supporters blind. (Because, again, it's a rubber stamp.) It's very different to go into a court-martial with your supporters unclear what position is going to be taken.

The court of public opinion is very important. This is the period where you want the groundswell to begin. You want it to build and build so that, on the first day of the court-martial, everyone's talking about it. (So, for example, now would be the time to release a song about Bradley. Not during the lead up to the Article 32.)

These are serious charges that Bradley's facing that carry serious consequences if he's convicted. I understand that. I understand that he needs to decide what position to take. But what someone's missing -- either his attorneys or him -- is that if he goes into that court-martial without letting supporters know whether he's going to say he is the WikiLeaker or he isn't the WikiLeaker, he's undercut himself.

The drumbeat needs to start and it can't be hedged with, "If he did it . . ." No. That's not fair to supporters who are giving their own time on this issue (that includes Ray McGovern). And it's not fair to would-be supporters.

There are people who are going to say, "Okay, if he did it, I can support that. So did he do it?"

But when the answer is, "We don't know," some people's response will be impatience, others will be anger. And if the anger builds, Bradley loses because then no one gives a damn, not enough people to make a difference. I have no idea why the legal team is not using the only force that would be on their side. If you've followed war resistance court-martials in the last years, you know the judge is rarely on the side of the accused. You know that if the jury appears to be, they usually get several dressings down from the judge.

The public is independent of the judiciary. It's independent of the military. It's a powerful force and a large number are willing to be part of this resource for Bradley. But they're standing there, fidgeting on their starter marks, waiting and waiting for the race to start.

So Ray and Daniel Ellsberg and all the others should go with the message wanted to run with which is: Bradley did a brave thing and is a hero.

It may not be correct. Or it may be correct but doesn't fit with the defense's presentation. But right now the defense is squandering their most important asset.

It's not doing Bradley any favors. The court's going to want to convict him.

And while I'mnot going to call out Ray McGovern or anyone else from this point forward for arguing that Bradley's actions are heroic (thereby implying that he did it), I will continue to call out the chickens. What's a chicken?

Let's see, remember when Barack declared that Bradley was guilty? That was offensive. It was offensive since he takes an oath to the Constitution and since we have a presumption of innocence built into our legal system. It was offensive since he's the commander in chief and his pronouncements are supposed to have impact on those serving.

So if you're a chicken, you might write a piece on Bradley in which you slam Robert Gates, Hillary Clinton and Harold Kol and others. But, if you're full of s**t like Chase Madar, you never call out Barack. Not for that statement, not for the fact that all the people you're trashing take their orders from Barack, serve at his pleasure. But you don't call out Barack because being adult's real hard and it might mean you couldn't have a crush on Barack and if you couldn't have a crush, who would you think of at night as you furiously rubbed your groin against the mattress 'till you made happy juice?

I can understand the need for supporters to get the ball rolling ahead of the court-martial and making a decision the defense refused to make. I can even respect that. But I have no respect for the cowards who go out of their way to call out everyone under Barack but are too chicken s**t to call out Barack.


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 week, ICCC's number of US troops killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war was 4487. Tonight it's [PDF format warning] 4487. Here's the screen snap:

11912



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




Posted by at

Iraq snapshot

Thursday, January 19, 2012.  Chaos and violence continue, Ayad Allawi talks to Jane Arraf about the political crisis, another pre-national conference meeting gets scheduled, US Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta accomplishes a first (to his great credit), the network TV media ignore the first and send a message, US citizens work on starting a citizens burn pit registry, and more.
 
 
Yesterday at the Pentagon, something major happened (here for video, here for transcript), a sitting Secretary of Defense called a press conference to talk about sexual assault in the military.  That was Leon Panetta who noted, "Let me close bys peaking directly to the victims of sexual assault in this department.  I deeply regret that such crimes occur in the US military.  And I will do all I can to prevent these sexual assaults from occurring in the Department of Defense. I'm committed to providing you the support and resources you need and to taking whatever steps are necessary to keep what happened to you from happening to others.  The United States military has a zero-tolerance policy for sexual assault. And we will hold the perpetrators appropriately accountable. I expect everybody in this department to live up to the high standards that we have set and to treat each other with dignity and respect.  In a military force, where the promise is to help each other in battle and to leave nobody behind, that promise must begin by honoring the dignity of every person on or off the battlefield."
 
 
Donald Rumsfeld and Robert Gates preceded Panetta in the office.  The rate of sexual assault has been on the rise since the 90s.  Yet Rumsfeld and Gates never addressed it publicly.  If questioned by Congress in a hearing, they would offer some empty words.  The same at a press conference.  But they did not call press conferences to address the issue.  Prior to Panetta, the pattern has been ignore it and know damn well that the press will assist you in ignoring it.  Robert Gates spent several months in 2011 on a farewell tour with the press allegedly examining his performance but they never noted the military suicide rate and they never noted sexual assault.
 
So what the hell were they grading him on?  (The answer was, they graded him on if they really, really loved him or just loved him.  I was present for the "off the record" farewell photo ops between Gates and the press.)
 
 
Secretary Leon Panetta: When I was sworn into the office of Secretary of Defense, I said that I had no higher responsibility than to protect those who are protecting America.  Our men and women in uniform put their lives on the line every day to try to keep America safe.  We have a moral duty to keep them safe from those who would attack their dignity and their honor.  That's why I've been so concerned by the problem of sexual assault in the military.  Sexual assault has no place in this department.  It is an affront to the basic American values we defend and it is a stain on the good honor of the great majority of our troops and their -- and our -- families.  As leaders of this department, we're committed to doing everything we can to ensure the safety, dignity and well-being of our people.  These men and these women who are willing to fight and to die, if necessary, to protect and serve our country, they're entitled to much better protection.  Their families and their dependents also sacrifice and serve and so, for that reason, we have to spare no effort in order to protect them against this heinous crime.  The number of sexual assaults in the military is unacceptable.  Last year, 3,191 reports of sexual assault came in.  But I have to tell you that because we assume that this is a very underreported crime, the estimate is that the number actually is closer to 19,000.  One sexual assault is too many.  Since taking this office, I've made it a top priority to do everything we can to reduce and prevent sexual assault, to make victims of sexual assault feel secure enough to report this crime without fear of retribution or harm to their career and to hold the perpretrators appropriately accountable.
 
There's more but we'll stop there.  There was no Tailhook exposed this week.  There was no rush to defuse a just breaking scandal.  Panetta did what the last two serving as Secretary of Defense should have done, he showed that the Department took it seriously by making it a focus, not an aside.
 
Had Gates or Rumsfeld done the same at any point in their lengthy time in office (Panetta became Defense Secretary last July), they might not be the plantiffs in a law suit right now.  As Burke PLLC notes:
 
 
 
On Feb. 15, 2011, we filed a lawsuit in Virginia federal court on behalf of 16
active duty military and veteran victims of sexual trauma, including persons
who allege they were raped by their military colleagues.  The case is Cioca
et al v. Rumsfield and Gates, C.A. 11 cv 151 in the U.S. District Court of Eastern District of Virginia.  Our investigation in this case continues. 
Additionally, [Susan] Burke has been invited to speak on institutional failings
that have led to extensive rape and sexual assault in the military at the 2011 National Conference on Civil Actions for Criminal Acts hosted by The
National Crime Victims Bar Association and The National Center for Victims
of Crime. The conference will be held from June 20 to June 22, 2011 at the
Hyatt Regency Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C. Her presentation will discuss potential solutions for these issues.
If you are interested in potentially participating in this lawsuit, please contact Susan Sajadi.  Read more about military rape litigation.
 
 
 
As disclosed before, I know Susan Burke and I know Leon Panetta.  Knowing Leon is why I took a pass on this yesterday.  I figured we'd string together various reports and I wouldn't have to say anything personally.  But that required news actually being covered.  And, of course, that so rarely happens. 
 
At the increasingly embarrassing CBS Evening News with Scott Pelley, they gave thanks for the wrecked ocean liner over the weekend.  There was no news there but they had footage and opened the broadcast with it.  Three days of coverage out of this, it's been a gift for Scott Pelley and for CBS Evening News . . . if not for viewers.  The story was no different at ABC or NBC or PBS.  (And ABC and Chris Cuomo will turn the wreck into a 'special' Friday night.  Pick the bones, pick them dry.  But don't pretend you've supplied news.)
 
Women and men in the military are at risk of sexual assault; however, victims are more often women.  And, as we've seen over and over, when a story's focus can be seen as female, over and over, it gets ignored.  (When Katie Couric anchored the CBS Evening News, sexual assault, breast cancer and other issues that might be seen as effecting primarily women did get covered.)   The networks had plenty of time for the snow in Seattle -- a story that really only effected Seattle.  They just didn't have time for major news in terms of sexual assault in the military which also included policy changes.
 
 
Secretary Leon Panetta:  Over the holidays, we announced two new policies that provide greater support for the victims of sexual assault.  The first policy gives victims who report a sexual assault an option to quickly transfer from their unit or installation to protect them from possible harassment and remove them from proximity to the alleged perpetrator.  Second, we will also require the retention of written reports of sexual assault to law enforcement to be retained for a period of 50 years.  The reason for that is to have these records available so that it will make it easier for veterans to file a claim with the Department of Veterans Affairs at a later date.  These two policies are the first of a broader package of proposals that we will be presenting in the coming months, many of which will require legislative action by the Congress.  Today, I want to announce some additional steps that we are taking.  First, I've directed the establishment of a DoD sexual assault advocate certification program which will require our sexual assault response coordinators and victim advocates to obtain a credential aligned with national standards.  This will help ensure that the victims of sexual assault receive the best care from properly trained and credentialed professionals who provide crucial assistance from the moment an assault is committed.  Second, I have directed the department to expand our support to assault victims to include military spouses and adult military dependents, who will now be able -- this was not the case before -- they will now be able to file confidential reports and receive the services of a victim advocate and a sexual assault response coordinator.  In addition, we're going to ensure that DoD civilians stationed abroad and DoD US citizen contractors in combat areas receive emergency care and the help of a response coordinator and a victim advocate.  Third, because sexual assault cases are some of the toughest cases to investigate and to prosecute, I've increased funding for investigators and for judge advocates to receive specialized training.  We're also putting in place one integrated data system.  The data systems, frankly, were spread among the various services.  We're going to put them together into one data system in order to track sexual assault reports and monitor case management so that we'll have a comprehensive data base for information available later this year. And, finally, in addition to our focus on taking care of victims and holding perpetrators appropriately accountable, we've been focusing on what more can we do to try to prevent sexual assault.  Our leaders in uniform, officers and enlisted are on the front lines of this effort -- they have to be.  We must all be leaders here.  For this reason, I'm directing an assessment -- due in 120 days -- on how we train our commanding officers and senior enlisted leaders on sexual assault prevention and response and what we can do to strengthen that training.  It's important that everyone in uniform be alert to this problem and have the leadership training to help prevent these crimes from occuring.
 
They missed all the above.  But don't worry, that because, for example, ABC World
News with Diane Sawyer couldn't cover the sexual assault story, they missed the big news stories.  No, they had time, they made time, to show the very important YouTube video of a bird playing in the snow.
 
My opinion?  A great deal more is needed by the Defense Dept and I would include the firing of one woman we've regularly advocated for the firing of (if you refuse to testify to Congress, you should be fired, end of story). I think the words will be measured months from now in terms of whether, in practice, much changed.
 
But I give Leon Panetta applause for addressing the topic.  Until a sitting Secretary of Defense is willing to use time to address the topic, nothing's going to change.  Until a Secretary of Defense makes clear that this issue matters at the top, it's not going to matter.  Leon Panetta sent a strong signal yesterday, a needed one, and became the first sitting Secretary of Defense to do so.  Much more needs to be done and I hope it is but I give Leon Panetta credit for doing more than any of his predecessors have.  (And I've said here and face-to-face that I will measure his performance based on this issue and the issue of suicides in the military.  Those are the issues that the press should have been grading Robert Gates on.)
 
Another issue veterans face is exposure to Burn Pits -- veterans, service members and contractors.  Stony Brook University holds the first ever Burn Pit Scientific Symposium February 13th and, in addition, there is a move towards a citizen registry:
 
BurnPits360 is serving as a pathway of advocacy to assist veterans, their families, and civilian contractors who have been negatively affected by toxic burn pits.  Contractors were assigned the task of properly disposing of any and all trash on military installations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other locations in the Middle East. Unfortunately, instead of using incinerators, the contractors disposed of the waste through toxic burn pits and now thousands of veterans have been put at serious risk.
BurnPits360 is inviting anyone that has been affected from exposure to toxic burn pits and environmental hazards to sign up on the registry.  We are conducting a voluntary cohort anonymous study with Dr. Szema at Stony Brook University.  The study simply requires self-reporting your information on the online registry, providing a proof of military service (DD-214), a signed legal consent form, and additional questionnaires.  This study will help to provide vital information to doctors and researchers that will help properly diagnose and treat the vast array of medical complications arising from these exposures. It will provide the Department Of Defense and the Department Of Veteran Affairs with data that will allow them to develop a healthcare model for specialized healthcare specific to toxic exposures and environmental hazards.
The importance of this registry is to serve as a model for all military personnel, civilian contractors, and their families to self-report injuries and deaths from toxic exposure from burn pits and other environmental hazards. It will also assist in proving causation and the correlation between the exposure and the illness, as well as determine all areas of possible exposure.  It will provide the VA with the data needed to develop legislative language for the development of a compensation and pension category specific to toxic exposures.
Most importantly, this study is completely anonymous.  None of your personal information will be shared at any time. (In such cases where information would ever need to be made public, it would not be done so without the members written consent, whereas the veteran, contractor, and/or their family have the option to decline to participate at that time.)
Should you be interested in participating in the study, please contact Burn Pits 360 via email [burnpitadvocates@burnpits360.org] or by telephone [361-816-4015]. 
 
 
Still on veterans issues,
Senator Patty Murray is the Chair of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee.  Her office notes:
 

For Immediate Release
January 19, 2012
Contact:
Murray: 202-224-2834
Filner: 202-225-9756


Murray, Filner Request GAO Review of VA's Sterilization of Reusable Medical Equipment Policies and Procedures

(Washington, D.C.) -- Today, U.S. Senator Patty Murray, Chairman of the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs, and Congressman Bob Filner (D-CA) sent a letter to Government Accountability Office (GAO) Comptroller Gene Dodaro expressing concern over reports of shortcomings in the sterilization of reusable medical equipment. In the letter, they urge the GAO to investigate whether VA's leadership is taking appropriate actions to address these problems across the system.

"On numerous occasions, VA has reported to Congress about the various investigations it has conducted and the problems these investigations have identified, which they claim have led to the development of new processes and procedures to reduce the risk of these problems reoccurring," Senator Murray and Congressman Filner said in the letter. "However, we continue to hear about the same types of quality of care incidents at VA medical facilities and we are concerned that this is an indication that VA is not effectively learning from these incidents and subsequently translating those lessons into system-wide improvements."
The full text of the letter follows:

January 19, 2012



The Honorable Gene L. Dodaro

Comptroller General of the United States

Government Accountability Office
441 G Street, NW
Washington, D.C. 20548

Dear Mr. Dodaro:

We know of repeated quality of care problems throughout the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) health care system. Some of these problems, such as shortcomings in the sterilization of reusable medical equipment, reoccur with unacceptable frequency. This raises concerns as to whether VA's leadership is taking appropriate actions, including the appropriate disciplinary actions, to effectively address the problems across the system. On numerous occasions, VA has reported to Congress about the various investigations it has conducted and the problems these investigations have identified, which they claim have led to the development of new processes and procedures to reduce the risk of these problems from reoccurring. However, we continue to hear about the same types of quality of care incidents at VA medical facilities and we are concerned that this is an indication that VA is not effectively learning from these incidents and subsequently translating those lessons into system-wide improvements.

Therefore, we request that the Government Accountability Office (GAO) conduct a review of VA's processes and procedures for responding to quality of care incidents that occur within its health care system. Specifically, we request that GAO review the following:

1. What processes and procedures does VA use to respond to quality of care incidents that occur at its medical facilities, including quality assurance reviews and disciplinary actions? To what extent do these processes and procedures compliment and inform each other? What, if any, gaps or inconsistencies exist?

2. How does VA determine which processes and procedures to use to respond to quality of care incidents? What factors contribute to why certain processes and procedures are chosen by VA over others?

3. What challenges, if any, do VA staff face when using these processes and procedures?

4. To what extent are the processes and procedures carried out consistently across VA's health care system?

5. What data, if any, does VA systematically collect with regard to its employees' involvement in quality of care incidents, including clinicians and others? How, if at all, are these data trended and analyzed? To what extent are these data used to determine what actions to take in response to these incidents?

6. To what extent does VA use the data to identify opportunities for system-wide quality improvement?


As a follow-on to the above work, we also request that GAO perform an in-depth assessment of the extent to which VA medical facilities follow the processes and procedures used to respond to quality of care incidents.

Thank you for your work to improve the care and services our veterans receive. We look forward to reviewing your findings.

Sincerely,


PATTY MURRAY
Chairman Ranking Democratic Member
Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs


BOB FILNER
Ranking Democratic Member
House Committee on Veterans Affairs
###
 
 
Turning to Iraq, yesterday the Turkish Embassy in Baghdad was attacked. Turkey's Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued the following statement:
 
Today at 13:50 local time (12.50 Turkish local time) a rocket attack (RPG) was launched against our Embassy in Baghdad. One of the rockets hit the concrete blocks placed in front of our Embassy's protective outer walls without causing any death or injury. It has been learned that the other rocket exploded in the car from where it was fired.
We strongly condemn this heinous attack perpetrated against our Embassy. Furthermore, we expect the Iraqi authorities to capture the perpetrators of the attack as soon as possible, bring them promptly to justice and take all the necessary security measures in order to decidedly prevent the recurrence of such attacks.
Necessary demarches have been made in this regard with the Iraqi authorities and it has been reminded with emphasis that ensuring the security of diplomatic missions is the host country's obligation. The Iraqi authorities confirmed that they would take the necessary steps regarding the security of our Embassy in compliance with their responsibilities stemming from international law and adopt every measure to prevent the recurrence of such incidents.
Turkey will closely follow up on the measures to be taken by the host country to ensure the security of our diplomatic missions in Iraq.
 
Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers' Miami Herald) reports, "No one has claimed responsibility for the Wednesday attack, in which assailants fired three rockets at the embassy.  But the timing of the assault, just days after an acrimonious exchange between al-Maliki and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, raised suspicions that al-Maliki sympathizers were responsible."
 
On Morning Edition (NPR -- link is audio and transcript), Sean Carberry reported on the visit back to Iraq that Aseel Albanna made after 20 years of living in the US. It starts with the high of her exclaiming, "I can't believe I'm here, I just have sheer joy inside me." It descends rather quickly as she expresses dismay at what has happened to Baghdad, how her neighborhood "used to be a beautiful neighborhood [. . .] this is really shocking. This neighborhood used to be like all brand new houses, beautiful yards, beautiful streets, beautiful greenery and now I don't know how to describe it. It's just a mess."

Just a mess also describes the political climate in Baghdad where the political crisis continues. Deutsche Welle notes, "After the 2010 elections, the ethnic and religious groups signed a power-sharing agreement in Erbil. But Maliki appeared to have other plans from the outset. Formally, a joint government does exist. [. . .] Maliki did not name a defense minister, for example. The post was actually earmarked for a Sunni. At the same time, he filled central positions with his own party supporters or just took them over himself."  Economist Kadhim Habeb is quoted stating, "Maliki's goal is to push through his sole reign. He is a little despot."  Sam Dagher (Wall St. Journal) reports that Iraqiya met in Baghdad yesterday to explore Nouri al-Maliki's ouster while Kurdish officials did the same in Erbil. Suadad al-Salhy (Reuters) notes the political crisis continues to thrive and al-Salhy runs through some possibilities:

The political blocs are working out details of a conference to help sort out the political turmoil but it may not happen this month. The conference, some politicians say, could ease tensions and allow Sunni lawmakers to save face and go back to their jobs, ending the boycott.
In Sunni-majority Salahuddin province a bid to win more autonomy from Baghdad is gaining steam, although a quick resolution is unlikely. Petitions have been distributed, a constitutionally necessary step toward a referendum on greater self-rule.
Maliki's Shi'ite allies are trying to take advantage of the turmoil to win government jobs, power within ministries and provincial councils and the release of prisoners.
Kurdistan may use the presence of Hashemi and support for Maliki as bargaining chips to win concessions in its ongoing disputes with Baghdad over oil and land rights and the region's share of the national budget.
Aswat al-Iraq reports that Sunday will be another meeting to prepare for a national conference where the various blocs could attempt to talk through a resolution.  Since last month President Jalal Talabani and Speaker of Parliament Osama al-Nujaifi have been calling for a national conference.  Jane Arraf (Al Jazeera) interviews Ayad Allawi today (link is text and video). Excerpt:
 
Ayad Allawi:  Once we see positive steps taken by the government to reduce the tension to embark on dialogue and to revert back to the agreement power sharing then, of course, we'll reciprocate. Indeed our history is very clear, we won the elections but because of the veto against us from foreign powers, after nine months we decided for the sake of the Iraqi people to compromise and to accept that Prime Minister from the other bloc, the losing bloc, the second bloc -- not losing but the second bloc, to take the premiership position. And this is all done for the sake of the Iraqi people and for the -- for the sake of Iraq. Then -- but based on partnership -- and when we agreed on partnership then when we saw nothing was implemented, the Iraqiya constituents have been targeted, arrests -- widespread arrests, torture, intimidation.  And then this moved into targeting the leaders of Iraqiya, accusing them in the media of doing wrong things. And this is unheard of in judiciary channels, that people are exposed on TV and media and so on. And we saw no movements along the lines of implementing the power sharing and then these intimidations started.  And now we agreed to attend this national conference to find a way out of the mess that Iraq is in.  For all this we have done for the sake of Iraq and for the sake of Iraq all these compromises to make sure that this government will function, that the country will recover and that the country will be able to face its own destiny without Americans, without foreign powers inside Iraq.  But unfortunately this is where we're at now.
 
 

Yesterday, another arrest took place. Margaret Griffis (Antiwar.com) explains, "Baghdad Provincial Council Vice President Riyadh al-Adhadh was arrested on terrorism charges and stands accused of financing a terrorist group in Abu Ghraib. Adhadh is a Sunni doctor who founded a free clinic in Adhamiya and is the focus of an English-language documentary on Iraq. The Iraqi Islamic Party condemned the action and called it an "unprecedented escalation" in the political arena." The arrest doesn't help the political climate. The message of late has been that Nouri is targeting Iraqiya and not Sunnis -- placing the emphasis on Vice President Tareq al-Hashemi's and Deputy Prime Minister Saleh al-Mutlaq's political affiliation and not tying in the arrests that began in October (over 800 Iraqis were arrested -- largely Sunni -- charged with plotting a coup -- less widely reported was the announcement a few weeks ago that they would all be released -- there was no plot). al-Adhadh is Sunni and part of the Iraqi Accord -- a Sunni political party which had significant problems and battles with Nouri during Nouri's first term as prime minister. For more on the Iraqi Accord, you can refer to this Carnegie Endowment for International Peace page. And, if these arrests continue, it's going to take more than the current planned PSAs to stop an increased hardening between the two major sects in Iraq.

As Nouri gears up for the reported televising of another set of 'confessions' against Vice President Tareq al-Hashemi, Al Mada notes that Iraqiya spokesperson Maysoun Damluji has pointed out that the airing of these 'confessions' runs contrary to the Constitution an to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which Iraq is a signature to. She observes that it risks the impartiality and independence of the court and thrwarts the ability of a defendant to present their case fairly. I am stating that Nouri (the State) cannot release these 'confessions' to the media and still claim that they are honoring the Constitution's presumption of innocence until proven guilty.
Violence continues in Iraq. Reuters notes 1 person shot dead in Mosul, a Baquba roadside bombing which left two police officers injured, a Baquba homebombing targeting a Sahwa which injured him, "his wife and one of his children" (Sahwa are also known as "Awakenings" and "Sons Of Iraq" -- they are largely Sunni and were put on the US payroll in the last years of the Bush administration to get them to stop attacking the US military and US military property -- as then Gen David Petraeus testified to Congress in April 2008; Nouri al-Maliki was supposed to take over paying Sahwa, he was supposed to find security jobs for some and, for others, find non-security government jobs, this was to bring them into the political process, he refused to do so); a Baquba home bombing targeted the Baquba mayor (no one was injured), four Baquba bombs targeted a Shi'ite family (no one was injured), three Baquba grocery stores were bombed, 1 police officer was shot dead in Baghdad last night, 1 person was shot dead in Jalawla last night and 1 Sahwa was shot dead in Samara last night (three other people were also shot).
 
Back in the US, Brent Frazier (Nashville's News Channel 5, link has text and video) reports on Iraq War veteran Sal Gonzalez. Excerpt.

Brent Frazier: 26-year-old Sal Gonzalez will tell you he came to the CMA Music Fest back in 2006 and never left. Tonight the Los Angeles native played to a packed Exit/In and he hopes somebody in the crowd liked what they heard.

Sal Gonzalez: I'm an American. That's -- that's the only thing I am, that's the only thing I ever will be.

Brent Frazier: Retired US Marine Sal Gonzalez can tell you his story --

Sal Gonzalez: -- was a bomb, an IED. It was just placed on the side of the road, buried.

Brent Frazier: How he joined the military at 18 --

Sal Gonzalez: I'm not going to deny that I was a Marine and that I went to serve my country. I'm very proud of that fact.

Brent Frazier: How he dodged death overseas.

Sal Gonzalez: Going through combat, losing somebody

Brent Frazier: But he'd rather sing to you.


For more on Sal Gonzalez, you can watch this video which is another interview with him and features some of his music. He is on Facebook and he is on MySpace where you can stream some of his songs.  Sal Gonzalez is attempting to get the word out on Not Alone which is a resource for service members and veterans (and their families) dealing with PTSD and combat stress.
 
 
Posted by at

'It's just a mess'

On Morning Edition (NPR -- link will be audio shortly -- it will also be transcript later today), Sean Carberry reported on Aseel Albanna visit back to Iraq after 20 years of living in the US. It starts with the high of her exclaiming, "I can't believe I'm here, I just have sheer joy inside me." It descends rather quickly as she expresses dismay at what has happened to Baghdad, how her neighborhood "used to be a beautiful neighborhood [. . .] this is really shocking. This neighborhood used to be like all brand new houses, beautiful yards, beautiful streets, beautiful greenery and now I don't know how to describe it. It's just a mess."

Just a mess also describes the political climate in Baghdad where the political crisis continues. Sam Dagher (Wall St. Journal) reports that Iraqiya met in Baghdad yesterday to explore Nouri al-Maliki's ouster while Kurdish officials did the same in Erbil. Suadad al-Salhy (Reuters) notes the political crisis continues to thrive and al-Salhy runs through some possibilities:

The political blocs are working out details of a conference to help sort out the political turmoil but it may not happen this month. The conference, some politicians say, could ease tensions and allow Sunni lawmakers to save face and go back to their jobs, ending the boycott.
In Sunni-majority Salahuddin province a bid to win more autonomy from Baghdad is gaining steam, although a quick resolution is unlikely. Petitions have been distributed, a constitutionally necessary step toward a referendum on greater self-rule.
Maliki's Shi'ite allies are trying to take advantage of the turmoil to win government jobs, power within ministries and provincial councils and the release of prisoners.
Kurdistan may use the presence of Hashemi and support for Maliki as bargaining chips to win concessions in its ongoing disputes with Baghdad over oil and land rights and the region's share of the national budget.

Yesterday, another arrest took place. Margaret Griffis (Antiwar.com) explains, "Baghdad Provincial Council Vice President Riyadh al-Adhadh was arrested on terrorism charges and stands accused of financing a terrorist group in Abu Ghraib. Adhadh is a Sunni doctor who founded a free clinic in Adhamiya and is the focus of an English-language documentary on Iraq. The Iraqi Islamic Party condemned the action and called it an "unprecedented escalation" in the political arena." The arrest doesn't help the political climate. The message of late has been that Nouri is targeting Iraqiya and not Sunnis -- placing the emphasis on Vice President Tareq al-Hashemi's and Deputy Prime Minister Saleh al-Mutlaq's political affiliation and not tying in the arrests that began in October (over 800 Iraqis were arrested -- largely Sunni -- charged with plotting a coup -- less widely reported was the announcement a few weeks ago that they would all be released -- there was no plot). al-Adhadh is Sunni and part of the Iraqi Accord -- a Sunni political party which had significant problems and battles with Nouri during Nouri's first term as prime minister. For more on the Iraqi Accord, you can refer to this Carnegie Endowment for International Peace page. And, if these arrests continue, it's going to take more than the current planned PSAs to stop an increased hardening between the two major sects in Iraq.

As Nouri gears up for the reported televising of another set of 'confessions' against Vice President Tareq al-Hashemi, Al Mada notes that Iraqiya spokesperson Maysoun Damluji has pointed out that the airing of these 'confessions' runs contrary to the Constitution an to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which Iraq is a signature to. She observes that it risks the impartiality and independence of the court and thrwarts the ability of a defendant to present their case fairly. I am stating that Nouri (the State) cannot release these 'confessions' to the media and still claim that they are honoring the Constitution's presumption of innocence until proven guilty.

Al Mada also covers Ayad Allawi's press conference yesterday in Baghdad. Allawi is the head of Iraqiya which came in first in the March 2010 elections. Allawi offered three options. The Erbil Agreement -- signed off on by all major political parties in November 2010 and overseen by the US government -- be honored, that the current government be dissolved and new elections called, that Nouri be replaced with a prime minister from the National Alliance. That last one's the one that enraged the non-legal genius who wanted to 'analyze' yesterday despite his lack of legal background. He felt this couldn't happen. But it actually could happen for reasons outlined in yesterday's snapshot as well as other reasons. Other reasons include Nouri was illegaly moved from prime minister-designate to prime minister. Jalal Talabani, as president, could make that call and, noting that Nouri still hasn't come up with a full cabinet, declare someone else prime minister-designate. The 'legal' 'genius' also stated that Nouri couldn't be replaced due to the fact that Iraqiya would have the largest number of members in Parliament. Actually, Iraqiya was robbed of its ability to do what the 'genius' now insists would happen. And now it's too late for that to happen. The same framework that allowed Nouri to be 'eligible' would remain. State of Law's would be unlikely to break off from the current coalition they formed with the National Alliance and others. Nouri's popularity has never been great. Polls show that to be the case with the Iraqi people (see Zogby's polling last month) and it's also true within his political 'allies.' Dawa, in 2010, after the elections, was publicly floating kicking him out of the Dawa Party. State of Law MPs, in 2010, were happy to insist at times that they could go along with another person other than Nouri being prime minister. (Their only concern was that it be from the SoL or National Alliance.)

Nothing Allawi has proposed is unconstitutional.

Violence continues in Iraq. Reuters notes a Baquba homebombing targeting a Sahwa which injured him, "his wife and one of his children" (Sahwa are also known as "Awakenings" and "Sons Of Iraq" -- they are largely Sunni and were put on the US payroll in the last years of the Bush administration to get them to stop attacking the US military and US military property -- as then Gen David Petraeus testified to Congress in April 2008; Nouri al-Maliki was supposed to take over paying Sahwa, he was supposed to find security jobs for some and, for others, find non-security government jobs, this was to bring them into the political process, he refused to do so); a Baquba home bombing targeted the Baquba mayor (no one was injured), four Baquba bombs targeted a Shi'ite family (no one was injured), three Baquba grocery stores were bombed, 1 police officer was shot dead in Baghdad last night, 1 person was shot dead in Jalawla last night and 1 Sahwa was shot dead in Samara last night (three other people were also shot).

Very depressing that, in the last ten hours, only Press TV has filed on yesterday's attack on the Turkish Embassy in Baghdad. And is Sam Dagher the only correspondent with an article in a US paper noting the attack? Considering the August 19, 2003 bombing of the UN headquarters and the September 22, 2003 attack, you'd think the attack would register as a major sign of concern.



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




































Posted by at
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)