Saturday, January 09, 2010

Cheating spouse okay to run, real rivals not so lucky

Anthony Shadid never really knew what he had at the Washington Post. It's a trait he carries over to the New York Times. If you doubt it's still a problem, you need only check out his story from today's paper:

In his car, he played loudly a frenetic strain of Arabic pop and, in jest, swerved toward a neighbor riding a bicycle. (The neighbor frowned.) On the trail, he walked with the swagger that a 9-millimeter Beretta in his leather holster brings. Most of his sentences seemed to end in an exclamation point.
"Listen to me!" the married Mr. Hais barked into the phone at his girlfriend.
He hung up, shaking his head. "She’s driving me crazy," he said.

A politician running for Parliament having an affair? An extra-marital affair? In a country in the grip of fundamentalism?

The paragraphs above could lead to an exploration of society and meanings, of facades and realities. Instead, it's just another detail for Shadid to bury in his article entitled "Across Divide in Iraq, a Sunni Courts Shiites."

The big election story remains Nouri's efforts to force out his political rivals ahead of the expected elections in March. Deng Shasha (Xinhua) reports on Saleh al-Mutlak's response to the proposal to ban various groups and politicians including himself:

Mutlak's party had joined a larger alliance named the Iraqi National Movement, which includes the former prime minister Ayad Allawi, a Shiite secular, and Vice President Tariq al-Hashimi, a Sunni Arab, along with 20 other political parties to run the March elections as a one bloc.
"The committee's decision is politically motivated as the national bloc becomes too popular and it would possibly be the biggest bloc in the coming parliament, so they want to weaken it before the elections," Mutlak said.

Diablo Valley College poli sci professor Amer Araim provides the backstory on Ba'athist for today's Contra Costa Times:

Many political leaders in Iraq today are former Baathists. Vice President Adel Abdul-Mahdi and the former prime minister Ayad Alawi as well as many members of Parliament were Baathists, but left the party due to disagreement with Saddam Hussein.
Many other Baathists were willing to do so, but they did not have the chance due to the repressive machine of the regime. It is also a fact that a number of members of the Baath Party are accused of criminal activities during the 35-year Baathist rule.
The occupying powers as well as the special courts in Iraq (which have become known for its bias and lack of justice) have not establish a reliable justice system to deal with those Baathists who committed crimes during the previous regime.
For many Sunni Arabs in Iraq the Baathist label is used to prevent them from participating in the political process.


If Nouri's attempts to bar his political rivals from participating stick, the most likely response will be an increase in violence not just before the elections but well after the polls close. On the topic of violence, Reuters reports today a Baghdad roadside bombing which left four people injured and, dropping back to Friday for the remainder, 1 Iraqi soldier shot dead in Kirkuk and a second one shot in Kirkuk but left injured and not dead.

The following community sites have updated since Friday evening:



Doug notes this from "Call to Action: Shut Down Guantanamo!" (World Can't Wait):


"I have said repeatedly that I intend to close Guantanamo, and I will follow through on that. I have said repeatedly that America doesn't torture, and I'm going to make sure that we don't torture."
- President-elect Barack Obama, November 16, 2008

From Witness Against Torture
On January 22, 2009, President Obama committed his administration to closing the prison camp at Guantanamo within a year. Since that time, the process of releasing, relocating, or prosecuting its remaining detainees has become mired in bureaucratic machinations, Congressional grandstanding, fear-mongering, and political backsliding. Despite his claim to break from the past, President Obama has upheld many of the worst Bush policies - from the denial of habeas corpus, to immunity for torturers, rendition, and indefinite detention without charge or trial.

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














thomas friedman is a great man






oh boy it never ends

Losers in the poker game

Children of UK service personnel killed in action would be offered university scholarships under the Tories, shadow chancellor George Osborne has pledged.
The £8,210 grant would pay course fees and £5,000 a year towards living costs, he told the News of the World.
A further education scholarship would also cover college fees and costs when not covered by other entitlements.

The above is from BBC News' "Tories plan scholarships for children of fallen troops." The Tories aren't proposing that because they're wonderful and caring people. They're a political party. (A conservative one.) Elections are coming up. They want votes. They propose the above because they want votes. And we're emphasizing the above to underscore how pathetic the 'left' is in the US.

In 2008, Jeremy Scahill insisted, after year another Blackwater piece in The Nation magazine, that Democratic Party presidential candidates -- at that point, just Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama -- needed to make a break from Blackwater. Shortly
after the article appears, within 24 hours, Hillary makes the sort of pledge Jeremy's calling for.

What happened next explains how pathetic the left has become and why the country's in so damn much trouble.

Having seen pressure move a candidate (at least to words), the thing to do was to apply further pressure. And applause for Hillary could have forced Barack to make a similar pledge.

Smart people who want things from politicians learn the answer is to play one politician off another, not to be played by politicians. The clerical pool trying to 'lead' the left contained no smart -- or even average -- people.

So Jeremy, who wanted this sort of pledge, now insisted Hillary was just making the pledge because of his article (uh, wasn't that point of the article) and that although Barack wouldn't make the same promise, that was okay.

Jeremy forgot to tell readers (as well as Democracy Now viewers) that he was in the midst of a (non-sexual) seduction by Samantha Power, then Barack's chief foreign policy adviser and (everyone just knew) the next Secretary of State. Jeremy could be tight with the next Colin Powell!!!!!

Proximity made him giddy. Lack of intelligence made him s**ty.

In that moment, when Barack refused to make the same pledge Hillary was making, you saw how pathetic the left had become. The 'feet to the fire' cry proved to be as empty words as Barack's withdrawal of one brigade a month immediately after being sworn in.

There's so much more to a democracy than voting and electoral process but if you're going to stake your name and reputation on merely the electoral process, than you might do well to learn how to play the game and all Panhandle Media demonstrated in 2008 was that they didn't have a damn clue.

They repeatedly covered and lied (John Nichols most famously on NAFTA) for Barack Obama. When it was time for the general election they were too busy pledging unconditional love to Barack to bother to leverage any actions from him. By July 2008, they were too busy doing hit jobs on John McCain.

If you're only means of 'power' is voting, you damn well don't throw in the towel on demands weeks before an election.

But that's what they did. Now they're not happy with the War Hawk Corporatist they help install in the White House and they want to last out at others but which of the lazy asses, which of the simple minded plans to step forward and take accountability?

With all of our lives, they wanted to play high stake poker but they wanted to show their hand before the first bid was made. And that's how the left loses.

And that's why we can't afford them. If they (Norman Solomon, John Nichols, Jeremy Scahill, Amy Goodman, Laura Flanders, etc.) can't get accountable for what they did, they're too sick to help us. If they can't take accountability, they will repeat the same actions in 2012. We can't afford them.

They destroyed the peace movement, they turned it into a get-out-the-vote organ. And we can't let them do that again. They includes Naomi Klein who likes to ride her high horse after elections and really hopes no one notices the way she's all about electoral politics herself. Klein and Scahill are very lucky most of their 2008 political moments appeared off camera or on the Real News Network (which, considering viewership, is basically the same thing).

In England, voters are going to do what they're going to do. If they're smart they will applaud the Tories' proposal and demand that the Labour Party (and the Liberal Democrats) make similar offers. They will pit one party against the other and demand that the parties compete for their votes. In the US, 'leaders' sold out the left before the primaries were over.

Lauren notes Jalal Ghazi's "Cancer - The Deadly Legacy Of The Invasion Of Iraq" (CounterCurrents):

Forget about oil, occupation, terrorism or even Al Qaeda. The real hazard for Iraqis these days is cancer.
Cancer is spreading like wildfire in Iraq. Thousands of infants are being born with deformities. Doctors say they are struggling to cope with the rise of cancer and birth defects, especially in cities subjected to heavy American and British bombardment.
Cancer is spreading like wildfire in Iraq. Thousands of infants are being born with deformities. Doctors say they are struggling to cope with the rise of cancer and birth defects, especially in cities subjected to heavy American and British bombardment.
Here are a few examples. In Falluja, which was heavily bombarded by the US in 2004, as many as 25% of new- born infants have serious abnormalities, including congenital anomalies, brain tumors, and neural tube defects in the spinal cord.
The cancer rate in the province of Babil, south of Baghdad has risen from 500 diagnosed cases in 2004 to 9,082 in 2009 according to Al Jazeera English.

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





Friday, January 08, 2010

Iraq snapshot

Friday, January 8, 2009. Chaos and violence continue, the Iraq Inquiry hears that a military coup is possible in Iraq, Nouri's efforts to remain the new Saddam continue, Iran plans to resolve an oil well dispute by . . . building a fence, and more.
 
John Jenkins: So on that basis, I would say that actually the professionalism of the armed forces is going up, and, to a certain extent, this must partly be because they have retained enough professional expertise and experience within their ranks to make that possible. You will also hear from people who say that this is a risk. It remains a risk by having people who have a Ba'athi background within the armed forces at senior levels, and I think one of the things we have seen since the -- the most recent spike in bombings in Baghdad, which started in August, have been renewed accusations that elements -- unreconciled elements of the Ba'ath Party, based externally, are deeply involved in these attacks and retain the will and the aspiration to re-emerge as a political force, as a sort of politically irredentist, a political force within Iraq. I find it very difficult to judge the force of those claims, but the conclusion I draw is that there is clearly a balance to be drawn between using professional competence and experience of former army officers under Saddam, to provide the backbone of the modern Iraqi security forces and dealing with the suspicions and fears of others, that this is the reintroduction of an element of the Ba'ath Party, unreconiclable elements of the Ba'ath Party, back into the security forces. I don't know how that balance is going to be struck. I don't know exactly what the balance at the moment is, what the reality of this is, but it is clearly a political issue inside Iraq and will remain a political issue beyond the national elections in March, I suspect.
 
Committee Member Roderic Lyne: Going beyond the military, we heard from earlier witnesses how a lot of teachers, doctors, civil servants, competent professionals, who had to be in the Ba'ath Party in order to do what they did, were excluded.  Do you feel that that has now been corrected?
 
John Jenkins: I do not have a real sense of that.
 
Committee Member Roderic Lyne: Do you want to comment on that?
 
Frank Baker: If I could. I would comment more about government employees in Ministries across Baghdad where I think it is certainly the case that a large number of Sunnis, and, therefore, by definition, former Ba'ath Party members, are now being employed -- have been employed, in fact, for the last two or three years.  If you look at, for example, the Ministry of Water, where a lot of them are technocrats, but the Minister for Water had made an effort to bring back a lot of the previous Ba'athist experience in order to try to get the Ministry up and running properly back in about 2007/2008. So I think the indications there are, yes, they have done so. I think, if I may, just to revert to your previous question about the democratisation, I think these two are related because on of the big changes we have seen since 2005 has actually been the re-emergence of the Sunnis as a political force in Iraq, with the Sunnis having essentially taken their toys out the pram and walked away.  Back in 2004, not actually partaking in the 2005 provincial elections, not really being a part of the 2005 national elections, and, in fact, what we saw in 2009 was that they played a full part in that and they are going to play a full part in the national elections scheduled for March this year. In that sense, we are seeing the Sunnis now coming back and trying to play a full role -- a large part of the Sunni movement.
 
Witnesses offer their take.  They may be lying. They may be honest.  On the latter, even when honest, it is their view and may be limited or grossly uninformed.  Grossly uninformed would probably best describe Frank Baker who apparently doesn't pick up a newspaper. (As noted in yesterday's snapshot, Iraq is currently banning various political groups from participating in elections intended to take place in March).  John Jenkins is England's current Ambassaodr to Iraq and Baker is their ambassador to Kuwait.  Jenkins and Baker appeared before the Iraq Inquiry in London today offering joint-testimony and also appearing today was Peter Watkins (British Director of Operational Policy) (link goes to video and transcript options).  We're done with Baker, obviously.  Can't even read the morning paper, not much use in you.  We'll instead note the following lengthy exchange:
 
John Jenkins: I think there was a risk with the national elections in March that the turnout will be lower. Because I think it is still fragile, because I think -- having the habit of mind which sees democracy as something you actually have to work at is difficult and is not common at all in the Middle East. But I think this -- the way that politics has emerged as an alternative to the violent settling of disputes seems to be something that most Iraqis actually want. I think one of the turning points, one of the key -- if you can pinpoint what changed when was when Ayatollah Al-Sistani essentially said to people, "Vote. It is important that you vote". I think one of the lessons that the Shia in particular drew from what happened in the 1920s in Iraq is that they didn't actually participate in the process of conducting a modern state with the British mandated authority at the time. They were determined not to repeat this mistake and they concluded that, as the majority community in Iraq, it was, and is, in their interests to have a system that reflects their weight of numbers in the allocation of power at the centre. They also know that they need to bring along the other communities with them, the Sunnis and the Kurds. They know, I think -- or at least a substantial portion of them know -- that they can't do this by violence. You cannot impose this on the Sunnis. I think that in itself is a guarantee of the sustainability of some sort of democratic system in Iraq. How exactly over the next ten years this system will evolve and what sort of democratic system or accountable responsive system we will be looking at in ten year's time, I still find it quite difficult to predict, but they do have the institutions. They have the Council of Representatives, which is actually functioning pretty well, it passes laws, it has debates, but it doesn't have endless debates without passing anything which happens elsewhere in the Middle East where you have similar assemblies. It is not a done deal. It is not a done deal.  If you look at the history of Iraq and the history of military coups in Iraq, you have to think that is always a possibility, a real possibility in the future, but I think where we are at the moment is -- it is much better than we thought it was going to be back in 2004/2005.
 
Committee Member Roderic Lyne: Yes. I mean, obviously, if one goes back to early 2003, one of the stated objective of the leaders of the coalition was that, after Saddam Hussein, there should be democracy in Iraq, and there were people who argued, for precisely the reasons you have given, that this is a singular experience, unique experience in the Middle East and in Iraq's history, that this was simply not realistic. But what you call the democratisation agenda which is now being pursued, but with, as you say, some way to go and no certainty as to success, this is now a realistic agenda?
 
John Jenkins: Yes, I believe it is.
 
Committee Member Roderic Lyne: In the circumstances of today?
 
John Jenkins: I believe it is.
 
Committee Member Roderic Lyne: Can I ask you about de-Ba'athification?  Yesterday, General White-Spunner was telling us how some of the Iraqi generals and commanders he was working with were people who had, as it were, been de-Ba'athified and then had come back into service.  To what extent over the last two years/three years, since 2009, has there been a corrective to perhaps excessive de-Ba'athification under the CPA in 2003? Are people being rehabilitated on the basis of their abilities and merits now?
 
John Jenkins: I'm told -- to be quite honest, I don't know how far this is true, but I am told that many of the senior officers, the generals in particular, in the Iraqi armed forces had -- have some sort of Ba'athi background or background in the Saddam armed forces. Now, of course, it is true that under Saddam, if you want to get on in the armed forces, you need to be a member of Ba'ath Party.
 
Committee Member Roderic Lyne: Not just in the armed forces?
 
John Jenkins: Not just in the armed forces. How far that is being done on the basis of merit, I don't know, is the answer to that. The people who deal most closely with the Iraqi security forces, which are the Americans, say that the standard -- the competence of the Iraqi armed forces is going up. They are getting better and there are elements within the security forces who are very good; elements who aren't so good, but elements who are good. [C.I. note: Next section is where we came in for this snapshot.] So on that basis, I would say that actually the professionalism of the armed forces is going up, and, to a certain extent, this must partly be because they have retained enough professional expertise and experince within their ranks to make that possible.  You will also hear from people who say that this is a risk. It remains a risk by having people who have a Ba'athi background within the armed forces at senior leavels, and I think one of the things we have seen since the -- the most recent spike in bombings in Baghdad, which started in August, have been renewed accusations that elements -- unreconciled elements of the Ba'ath Party, based externally, are deeply involved in these attacks and retain the will and the aspiration to re-emerge as a poltical force, as a sort of politically irredentist, a political force within Iraq.  I find it very difficult to judge the force of those claims, but the conclusion I draw is that there is clearly a balance to be drawn between using professional competence and experience of former army officers under Saddam, to provide the backbone of the modern Iraqi security forces and dealing with the suspicions and fears of others, that this is the reintroduction of an element of the Ba'ath Party, unreconcilable elements of the Ba'ath Party, back into the security forces. I don't know how that balance is going to be struck.  I don't know exactly what the balance at the moment is, what the reality of this is, but it is clearly a political issue inside Iraq and will remain a political issue beyond the national elections in March, I suspect.
 
 
From the above section, Richard Norton-Taylor (Guardian) emphasizes that a military coup is still "a real possibility". Alex Barker (Financial Times of London) also stresses that aspect.  Surprisingly since this is what stood out to the press (those are just two examples), none latched upon Iraqi President Jalal Talabani's statements Wednesday.  Huang Peizhao and Li Xiao (People's Daily Online) reported of Wednesday's remarks:
 
On Wednesday, a military parade was held in Baghdad "Green Zone" of the unknown soldier monument to mark the 89th anniversary of the Iraqi Army Day. President Jalal Talabani and top military officers attended a ceremony and parade. In his speech delivered on the occasion, President Talabani stressed the need "to build a new Iraqi army with a defensive ideology", and the task of the military is "to protect the population and enforce security within its borders", "to defend the territorial integrity and state sovereignty" and to "fight terrorism". So it is the precondition to reshape Iraqi military for national security, social stability and peaceful environment in its post-war reconstruction, some analysts noted.
According to regulations, a parliamentary election is planned for early March 2010, which represents a major part of the post-war reconstruction and a great event in the Iraq's political life. Whether this incoming national general election proceeds smoothly will determine whether or not Iraqi's future would be heading for stability. To this end, Talabani asked the armed forces to prepare for "escorting" the election at the same time appealing for general public to unite together to greet the election.
Channel 4 News' Iraq Inquiry Blogger live blogs the hearings on Twitter and  we'll note this Tweet on today's hearing:
 
Good heavens - stenographer butts in and says she's been at it formore than two hours and she's had quite enough, thank you very much!
 
Iraq Inquiry Blogger also explains, "Almost all the witnesses to date -- be they diplomatic, military or civilian -- were people charged with carrying out policies and intructions that had been decided upon by their political masters. From next week we'll also begin to start hearing from the politicians (and members of their innermost circles, eg Alastair Campbell next Tuesday) who took those decisions and created those policies."
 
The issue of Iraqi women was raised by the committee.  We'll note the following exchange:
 
Committee Member Usha Prashar: My second question is about progress on issues to do with women because it was part of the constitution in 2005. Has there been any progress on that area or not?
 
John Jenkins: In terms of representation of women nationally, I think there is quite a good story to tell actually. In terms of violence against women, I think this is a national issue in Iraq. We have seen, particularly in the north, in the KRG, a government which is prepared to do what it says it wants to do, which is to take action against honour killings, for example. I think you are dealing with -- and I think in Basra as well the intimidation of women by militias has stopped, and I think other people have said, you know, that actually one of the things the Charge of the Knights [Basra assault in 2008] did was reveal what we all thought, which was that most Basrawis didn't want this to happen, didn't want their lives disrupted, didn't want to be intimidated, didn't want their wives and daughters to be intimidated by the militias.  I think -- and there were some very feisty Iraqi female members of Parliament, many of whom I have met. All have very distinctive ideas about how this should be pursued. Sustaining this, of course, is going to be -- like  most things in Iraq is going to be a challenge, particularly when there are such strong counter-cultural currents. 

Committee Member Usha Prashar: So are you saying there has been a steady progress of women in the political process, in representation?
 
John Jenkins: There has been progress. Whether this is -- steady? There has been progress. There has been progress, but I think now it will be -- the trick will be to make sure this continues. I think it is patchy, the way this has happened around the country.  I think it is certainly easier to achieve -- to achieve progress in urban areas than it is in rural areas on this.
 
 
Peter Watkins testimony focused primarily on the 2007 and beyond role for England in Iraq which includes the British military "providing naval assets alongside the Americans to help protect the oil platforms fromterrorist or whatever threats" and "which is providing officer training at the Iraqi military academy in Al Rustmiyah".  Asked by Committee Member Martin Gilbert about Iraqi opinion of the continuing British role, Watkins responded, "My impression was the Iraqis were very keen for us to continue with both the naval training and the oil platform protection and, indeed, the officer training.  I imagine the Iraqi military was keener on it than other, but there was not a strong divergence of views across the Iraqi system.  They wanted us to continue with those roles." Defining the "Iraqi system" wasn't touched on (except by Committee Member Roderic Lyne much later), nor the populace's long expressed desire to have all foreign occupiers out of Iraq.   The UN mandate -- authorizing the occupation, not the invasion (no UN mandate authorized the invasion) -- was touched on.  It's still not understood clearly by a number of people (Raed Jarrar for example) which is why the US Status Of Forces Agreement is not understood.  The chief player that didn't want the UN mandate (again) extended was Nouri al-Maliki. 
 
Peter Watkins: Basically, this was the part of the pattern of Iraq recovering its sovereignty.  The Iraqis did not want UNSCR -- the UNSCR mandates to be extended beyond the end of December 2008. I think Prime Minister Maliki made that clear in his letter, which is attached to UNSCR 1790.  They wanted to move to the position of a normal state.
 
Watkins revealed that the government (Nouri in his counsel by the context of Watkins statement) wanted to do a blanket agreement for other countries continuing their role in Iraq after the SOFA passed the Iraqi Parliament November 27, 2008 and this was proposed; however, this lacked the support of "a number of Iraqi Parliamentarians, members of the Council of Representatives, that they should have been presented with an agreement which they would have seen as binding on both sides. [. . .] There was an increasing feeling that they wanted to have distinct agreements with each country, reflecting the specific roles of those countries."  The British went with a Memo Of Understanding and, in Watkins discussions of that, he details how, without a new agreement (the ventual MOU), when the mandate ended, the British would have had to depart.  That's basic but since the issue's been confused by the likes of Raed Jarrar, let's point out again that the US SOFA is a contract and can be terminated, can be extended or can be replaced with a new agreement.  The same was true of the UN mandate.  It could be extended (and was repeatedly), terminated (it was at the end of 2008) and replaced with something else (it was replaced, for the US, with the SOFA at the end of 2008).
 
Iraqi objection to a foreign presence has long been documented.  Roderic Lyne was the only committee member to raise the issue.
 
Committee Membmer Roderic Lyne: So we wanted to do it, they want us to do it -- I suppose when you say "Iraqis", you mean particularly the leadership of the Iraqi Government, because clearly there are different points of view on the Iraqi side?
 
Peter Watkins: The Iraqi Government wanted us to do it. It was clear, when Simon MacDonald and I went to Baghdad on 1 June to finalize the text, that they wanted to reach agreement.
 
Turning to Nouri's attempts to ban political rivals, Nada Barki and Anthony Shadid (New York Times) note, "An Iraqi parliamentary committee moved Thursday to bar a Sunni Muslim lawmaker from national elections in March, outraging his supporters and threatening to worsen sectarian tension here.  The lawmaker, Saleh al-Mutlaq, a prominent Sunni politician, and his group, the National Dialogue Front, were among those disqualified on the grounds of promoting the banned Baath Party of former President Saddam Hussein."  Leila Fadel and Qais Mizher (Washington Post) observe, "The decision by the Justice and Accountability Commission, in charge of cleansing high-level Baathists from the ranks of the government and security forces, seemed to be an attempt to purge candidates with links to the old political order, many of whom are popular among secular nationalist voters. The move is a blow to hopes of bringing opposition figures -- who turned to violent resistance over the past seven years -- into the political fold, part of the U.S. strategy to bolster the government."

But that's not really true. It's true for Sunnis -- "a blow to hopes of bringing opposition figures . . . into the political fold" -- but not of Shi'ites. Moqtada al-Sadr's militias were the focus of Nouri's ire in 2008, leading to the assault on Basra. They've been brought in. Nouri's worked overtime to bring the League of Righteous into the system. It appears that only the Sunnis are unwelcome. The League of Righteous, for example, not only attacked a US base and killed 5 US soldiers, they also kidnapped 5 British citizens and one remains missing. But that's not apparently a reason to keep them out of the political process. They still get face time with Nouri and his staff.  Afif Sarhan (Islam Online) quotes Saleh al-Mutlak stating, "The government move just show how democracy is far from Iraq and clearly demonstrates a persecution from some other parties. The government will be surprised with the reaction they will get from Iraqis at the country's streets who are our supporters and conscious voters." Nada Barkri (New York Times) reports attempts to protest in the streets of Baghdad today were prevented by Iraqi security forces and quotes Diyala Province's Najim al-Harbi stating, "There is a great popular resentment toward this decision, which lacks any legal justification. The Iraqi street is now boiling."

Doubt that it's just Sunnis being targeted? From Liz Sly's "Iraq bars major Sunni party from election" (Los Angeles Times):

The Justice and Accountability Committee charged with checking that candidates don't have ties to Baathists has named Saleh Mutlak, a prominent lawmaker, among those disqualified from the elections, according to the panel's executive director, Ali Lami.   
That means that Mutlak's Iraqi Dialogue Front also will be barred, said Lami, who was detained by the U.S. military for a year on suspicion of ties to Iranian-backed militias.

So you can be a Shi'ite, like Ali Lami, accused of ties to Iran and decide who will participate or not. You just can't have full participation if you're a Sunni. This isn't new and it's really not surprising. When a foreign government (the US) occupies a country and sets up a puppet government staffed with exiles from the country, the exiles are going to seek revenge. That's all that's happened in Iraq, that's the only real 'progress.' The Shi'ite exiles have extracted blood and vengance on various Sunnis -- some of whom wronged them previously, some of whom didn't. And they've made this extraction with US guns, tanks and air power to support them. The occupation was never supposed to be peaceful. That's why thugs were chosen to head the puppet government. You don't put blood thirsty exiles in charge of a country you want to 'heal.'

You put thugs in charge so the entire populace lives in fear with the hope that they will be too cowed to object to the dances the puppets do for the occupying power.  And, if you're Nouri, when the populace appears to have moved away from sectarian divides, you work to eliminate your political rivals who might do better than you in the upcoming election. Little Nouri is the new Saddam. He was put in charge by the US and he seeks blood and revenge. This was obvious in yesterday's public hearing of the Iraq Inquiry where British
Lt Gen Barney White-Spunner explained that Nouri jumped the gun on a planned Basra operation by several months apparently due to the fact that the governor of the province was a political rival. Not only did that take place, but Nouri had no concern about the civilian population and wanted the British to willy-nilly bomb from the air which would have resulted in massive deaths. That's Little Nouri, the US thug chafing at his leash, ready to kill as soon as he's let off it.

Al Jazeera notes of the move, "This year many Sunni Muslim political parties are expected to take part in the vote. But if al-Mutlaq is barred from the vote, it could lead to widespread Sunni unrest and disillusionment with the political process."  Jason Ditz (Antiwar.com) explains, "Analysts warned that the move could lead to a broader boycott of the election among Sunnis and raise doubts about the nation's political stability."
Turning to some of today's reported violence . . .
 
Bombings?
 
Reuters notes a Shirqat car bombing which injured seven people.
 
Shootings?
 
RTE News reports that 5 suspects were killed by US forces "in prolonged gunbattle that began Friday morning on the Mosul-Baghdad road, south of Mosul" and that another armed clash in Nineveh Province claimed 3 lives and leaving five injured.
 
Last month, the world attempted to sort out competing claims (as oil prices soared) that Iran had or was occupying an Iraqi oil field.  Iran denied the occupation and/or insisted that it was Iran's oil field anyway.  Iraq insisted the occupation was taking place and that it was Iraq's oil fields.  Some residents of neighboring areas stated that the occupation had taken place weeks before the press reported it and that it was now over. Alice Fordham (Times of London) reports that Hoshyar Zebari (Iraq's Foreign Minister) met with Manouchehr Mottaki (Iran's Foreign Minister) in Baghdad to address the Fakka oil field: "Both ministers indicated after the meeting that they had not been able to resolve the ownership of the parts of Fakka oil field disputed since the 1988 end of the Iran-Iraq war, nor had they agreed on a version of what happened in the incursion. Mr Zebari said that after 'direct action' was taken by the Iraqi Government the Iranian flag was lowered at the site, while Mr Mottaki said that the Iraqi side might have been partly to blame."  The Tehran Times reports that the two reached "important agreements for resolving the disputes over their borders" and that Iran would build a fence to settle the Fakka oil field dispute. UPI observes today, 'If Iran took control of the southern fields it, rather than Iraq, would surpass Saudi Arabia, its Sunni-dominated regional rival."  Mike noted the meeting of the two ministers yesterday and how Jalal Talabani, Iraqi president, appeared to be going strangely out of his way to suck up to Iran.
 
In the US, despite three callers raising the issue of Iraq on today's second hour of The Diane Rehm Show (NPR), Iraq was not a topic for discussion.  Martin Walker jumped on one issue raised by a caller for sentence or two to take the conversation where he wanted (Pakistan).  He did not, however, address Iraq.  He did float, wrongly, the notion that there is uproar in the Arab World (however that's defined) over Judge Ricardo Urbina's decision in the recent Blackwater case. Naturally, Walker couldn't explain the decision because his who point of existance is apparently to inflame.  Judging by the callers, MSNBC's night time talk show hosts are among the ones putting out this talking point.  Reality, none of those three are reporters, none of the three speak Arabic.  The Arab speaking world, judging by Arabic publications, is not 'inflamed' at the US over the decision.  To believe that requires a lot of ignorance and bigotry on the part of the person making the assumption.
 
The Arab speaking world is not a dunce or an idiot. They are as highly intelligent as any other society, they have the same number of less than on the ball people.  They're not 'the other' or strange or stunted.  The Baghdad shooting took place in September 2007.  Over two years later, a decision is not going to 'inflame' them.  They're not going to be up in arms because there was never a strong feeling that, if proven guilty, Blackwater would be held accountable.  The Arab speaking world is not unaware of the close governmental ties Blackwater had with the previous administration and the current administration. There's anger expressed at the US and anger expressed at Nouri al-Maliki whose grandstanding on the issue has not gone over well (due to the fact that Nouri did nothing on this issue and contractors still remain in Iraq).  As someone who can read Arabic, the 'inflamation' allegedly being seen today was present . . . when Steven D. Green received a life sentence and not the death penalty.  That outrage was due to the fact that Green didn't deny raping and killing Abeer or killing her parents and her younger sister.  His 'defense' was all about not denying the charges.  So when he walked -- on a charge that would have resulted in death in many MidEast countries -- it did create an outrage.  That outrage was more akin to the outrage over Abu Ghraib (though it never reached the same intensity), the Blackwater decision, judging by Arab language media, is not like either and much of the anger is aimed at Nouri.
 
In the US, Philip J. Crowley handled today's State Dept briefing.  He gave lip service to "respect the rule of law" but mainly bobbed and weaved.  One such moment was when he was told that the State Dept was late in responding to an incident that took place last year -- referring to Urbina's verdict.  Crowley appeared dazed and not to grasp the word play there -- the decision was announced December 31, 2009.  So while it was 'last week,' it was also 'last year.'  But he was taken aback and apparently unable to process that fact.  He was given the following numbers: 120,000 military contractors in Iraq and 130,000 to 132,000 US troops as of summer 2009.  He was asked if this said anything about Iraq's so-called sovereignty?
 
Philip J. Crowley:  I don't have -- I can't verify those numbers. I think there have been some GAO numbers more recently, I think, that puts your numbers well below. I mean, contractors play an important role in any significant operation anywhere in the world, whether it's a military operation, whether it's a humanitarian operation. And it is something that we are going to see in the future. The real issue is -- is what are they doing, how are they doing it, how are they integrating. In the case of Iraq, how well are the operations of the contractors integrated within military operations. In other cases, how well are they integrated within the institutions within specific countries.

 
November 2, 2009, the Commission on Wartime Contracting was told by the GAO's William Solis that, as of the end of August, there were 128,700 US service members "spread aong 295 bases throughout the country." This despite the fact that the US press had reported 115,000 and 110,000 for the bulk of 2009. 
 
 
Philip J. Crowley: But nonetheless, I think it's safe to say that in Afghanistan, in Iraq, in other places, contractors will have a role to play and a valuable role to play. But we are looking to make sure that not only their role is appropriate but that where they are there, they have effective oversight, they're fulfilling the terms of their contract, and they're held accountable when things go wrong.

Asked whether or not US contractors might remain in Iraq even if a US withdrawal (of "armed forces") took place, Crowley responded:
 
It could be a little bit of both. I mean, you have a transition here where, in fact, once we get through the election in early March in Iraq, we will -- working closely with the Government of Iraq and following the strategic agreement that we have with Iraq, we'll begin to transform our relationship. Military forces will withdraw over time. That will have some impact on contractors who are there to primarily support our military presence in Iraq. More of the effort will shift from the military component to the civilian component. We may well have contractors at the State Department, for example, who will continue to function in Iraq to help Iraq itself build institutions of government. But over time, more of this activity will shift from being a U.S. responsibility to being an Iraqi responsibility.
 
Back to The Diane Rehm Show.  As Ruth's "E.P.A. pressures Diane Rehm not to cover mountaintop mining" explained last night, Diane's attempt to cover mountaintop coal mining on Thursday's first hour resulted in objections from the governmental agency.

Diane Rehm: And before we begin, let me tell you that we did contact the E.P.A., invite them to take part in the show. A spokesman said that their work with Hobet mine resulted in Hobet being able to gather more coal, it resulted in 50% less impact on the streams. The spokesman stressed that the E.P.A. does not have the power to stop the practice of mountaintop mining. The spokesman also expressed annoyance with our covering the subject of mountain top mining without giving the E.P.A., whom we contacted yesterday morning, sufficient time to respond. And let me be sure to say to all of our listeners, our subject matters for the next day's show are always decided 24 hours in advance.
 
TV notes, NOW on PBS begins airing on most PBS stations tonight (check local listings) and this week's program explores the Afghanistan War:

President Obama is sending as many as 30,000 more troops to combat Taliban and al Qaeda forces in Afghanistan this year, but are we missing the true target? On Friday, January 8 at 8:30 pm (check local listings), NOW reports directly from Pakistan's dangerous and pivotal border with Afghanistan, where Pentagon war planners acknowledge many of the enemy fighters and their leaders are based. The U.S. has been relying on Pakistan to act against Taliban militants there, but the Pakistani army's commitment is in question. NOW takes you to the true front lines for an eye-opening, inside lookyou haven't seen before, and won't soon forget.

And NOW on PBS has posted video online of Pakistan forces fighting the Taliban as a preview for Friday's show. Washington Week begins airing on many PBS stations tonight (and throughout the weekend, check local listings) and joining Gwen are Peter Baker (New York Times), James Barnes (National Journal), Ceci Connolly (Washington Post) and Tom Gtelten (NPR) who fortunately won't be able to laugh at listeners who call in since this isn't a radio show. Meanwhile Bonnie Erbe will sit down with Debra Carnahan, Avis Jones-DeWeever and Leslie Sanchez to discuss the week's events on PBS' To The Contrary. Check local listings, on many stations, it begins airing tonight. And turning to broadcast TV, Sunday CBS' 60 Minutes offers:

Watching The Border Steve Kroft reports on the status of the multi-billion-dollar "virtual fence" being built at the U.S.-Mexican border, which is years behind schedule and so far covers only about one percent of the border.
Revelations From The Campaign Authors of a new book, "Game Change," and John McCain's former top campaign strategist reveal behind-the-scenes issues from the Republican and Democratic camps during the presidential campaign. CNN's Anderson Cooper reports. Watch Video
Resurrecting The Extinct Scientists believe they can sustain endangered species - maybe even one day resurrect some that have died out - using DNA technology. Lesley Stahl reports. Watch Video
60 Minutes, Sunday, Jan. 10, at 7 p.m. ET/PT.

 

Little Nouri doesn't believe in free and fair elections

An Iraqi parliamentary committee moved Thursday to bar a Sunni Muslim lawmaker from national elections in March, outraging his supporters and threatening to worsen sectarian tension here.
The lawmaker, Saleh al-Mutlaq, a prominent Sunni politician, and his group, the National Dialogue Front, were among those disqualified on the grounds of promoting the banned Baath Party of former President Saddam Hussein.
While the decision is not final -- Iraq's election commission must ratify it -- Mr. Mutlaq also suggested that he had no real recourse and warned of the implications.

The above is from Nada Barki and Anthony Shadid's "Move Made to Bar Iraqi From Ballot" in this morning's New York Times and Barki and Shadid moved to the Times from the Washington Post while McClatchy's Leila Fadel moved to the Washington Post. Fadel and Qais Mizher's "Iraq bars 15 political parties with Baathist ties from upcoming elections" (Washington Post) observe, "The decision by the Justice and Accountability Commission, in charge of cleansing high-level Baathists from the ranks of the government and security forces, seemed to be an attempt to purge candidates with links to the old political order, many of whom are popular among secular nationalist voters. The move is a blow to hopes of bringing opposition figures -- who turned to violent resistance over the past seven years -- into the political fold, part of the U.S. strategy to bolster the government."

But that's not really true. It's true for Sunnis -- "a blow to hopes of bringing opposition figures . . . into the political fold" -- but not of Shi'ites. Moqtada al-Sadr's militias were the focus of Nouri's ire in 2008, leading to the assault on Basra. They've been brought in. Nouri's worked overtime to bring the League of Righteous into the system. It appears that only the Sunnis are unwelcome. The League of Righteous, for example, not only attacked a US base and killed 5 US soldiers, they also kidnapped 5 British citizens and one remains missing. But that's not apparently a reason to keep them out of the political process. They still get face time with Nouri and his staff.

Doubt that it's just Sunnis being targeted? From Liz Sly's "Iraq bars major Sunni party from election" (Los Angeles Times):

The Justice and Accountability Committee charged with checking that candidates don't have ties to Baathists has named Saleh Mutlak, a prominent lawmaker, among those disqualified from the elections, according to the panel's executive director, Ali Lami.
That means that Mutlak's Iraqi Dialogue Front also will be barred, said Lami, who was detained by the U.S. military for a year on suspicion of ties to Iranian-backed militias.
Mutlak had been cleared for participation in the last election, in December 2005, but Lami said that new information had come to light that showed Mutlak "is a Baathist and nominated himself as a Baathist." He declined to provide further details.



So you can be a Shi'ite, like Ali Lami, accused of ties to Iran and decide who will participate or not. You just can't have full participation if you're a Sunni. This isn't new and it's really not surprising. When a foreign government (the US) occupies a country and sets up a puppet government staffed with exiles from the country, the exiles are going to seek revenge. That's all that's happened in Iraq, that's the only real 'progress.' The Shi'ite exiles have extracted blood and vengance on various Sunnis -- some of whom wronged them previously, some of whom didn't. And they've made this extraction with US guns, tanks and air power to support them. The occupation was never supposed to be peaceful. That's why thugs were chosen to head the puppet government. You don't put blood thirsty exiles in charge of a country you want to 'heal.'
You put thugs in charge so the entire populace lives in fear with the hope that they will be too cowed to object to the dances the puppets do for the occupying power.

And, if you're Nouri, when the populace appears to have moved away from sectarian divides, you work to eliminate your political rivals who might do better than you in the upcoming election. Little Nouri is the new Saddam. He was put in charge by the US and he seeks blood and revenge. This was obvious in yesterday's public hearing of the Iraq Inquiry where British
Lt Gen Barney White-Spunner explained that Nouri jumped the gun on a planned Basra operation by several months apparently due to the fact that the governor of the province was a political rival. Not only did that take place, but Nouri had no concern about the civilian population and wanted the British to willy-nilly bomb from the air which would have resulted in massive deaths. That's Little Nouri, the US thug chafing at his leash, ready to kill as soon as he's let off it.

Al Jazeera notes of the move, "This year many Sunni Muslim political parties are expected to take part in the vote. But if al-Mutlaq is barred from the vote, it could lead to widespread Sunni unrest and disillusionment with the political process."

TV notes, NOW on PBS begins airing on most PBS stations tonight (check local listings) and this week's program explores the Afghanistan War:

President Obama is sending as many as 30,000 more troops to combat Taliban and al Qaeda forces in Afghanistan this year, but are we missing the true target? On Friday, January 8 at 8:30 pm (check local listings), NOW reports directly from Pakistan's dangerous and pivotal border with Afghanistan, where Pentagon war planners acknowledge many of the enemy fighters and their leaders are based. The U.S. has been relying on Pakistan to act against Taliban militants there, but the Pakistani army's commitment is in question. NOW takes you to the true front lines for an eye-opening, inside lookyou haven't seen before, and won't soon forget.

And NOW on PBS has posted video online of Pakistan forces fighting the Taliban as a preview for Friday's show. Washington Week begins airing on many PBS stations tonight (and throughout the weekend, check local listings) and joining Gwen are Peter Baker (New York Times), James Barnes (National Journal), Ceci Connolly (Washington Post) and Tom Gtelten (NPR) who fortunately won't be able to laugh at listeners who call in since this isn't a radio show. Meanwhile Bonnie Erbe will sit down with Debra Carnahan, Avis Jones-DeWeever and Leslie Sanchez to discuss the week's events on PBS' To The Contrary. Check local listings, on many stations, it begins airing tonight. And turning to broadcast TV, Sunday CBS' 60 Minutes offers:

Watching The Border Steve Kroft reports on the status of the multi-billion-dollar "virtual fence" being built at the U.S.-Mexican border, which is years behind schedule and so far covers only about one percent of the border.
Revelations From The Campaign Authors of a new book, "Game Change," and John McCain's former top campaign strategist reveal behind-the-scenes issues from the Republican and Democratic camps during the presidential campaign. CNN's Anderson Cooper reports. Watch Video
Resurrecting The Extinct Scientists believe they can sustain endangered species - maybe even one day resurrect some that have died out - using DNA technology. Lesley Stahl reports. Watch Video
60 Minutes, Sunday, Jan. 10, at 7 p.m. ET/PT.


Radio notes. The Diane Rehm Show begins airing on most NPR stations (and begins streaming online live) at 10:00 am EST. The first hour, domestic hour, Diane's panelists include Christopher Rowland (Boston Globe), Jerry Seib (Wall St. Journal) and Lynn Sweet (Chicago Sun-Times). The second hour, international hour, her panelists include Elise Labott (CNN), Barbara Slavin and Martin Walker (UPI). Diane's broadcast are archived and can be streamed online at no charge.

Still on Diane Rehm, I'll guess most community members have already read Ruth's "E.P.A. pressures Diane Rehm not to cover mountaintop mining " from last night. Yesterday, Diane's first hour was on mountaintop coal mining and she noted the following at the start.

And before we begin, let me tell you that we did contact the E.P.A., invite them to take part in the show. A spokesman said that their work with Hobet mine resulted in Hobet being able to gather more coal, it resulted in 50% less impact on the streams. The spokesman stressed that the E.P.A. does not have the power to stop the practice of mountaintop mining. The spokesman also expressed annoyance with our covering the subject of mountain top mining without giving the E.P.A., whom we contacted yesterday morning, sufficient time to respond. And let me be sure to say to all of our listeners, our subject matters for the next day's show are always decided 24 hours in advance.

What Diane Rehm decides to explore on her show and what she doesn't really isn't the business of the EPA's. And I don't believe whining is provided for in the agency's tax payer funded budget.

Sherwood Ross passes on the following:


The Robert Jackson Steering Committee
January 7, 2010
For Immediate Release
FOIA Request Filed for OPR Report on Bush's Lawyers

An organization of attorneys, journalists, and advocates today filed a request under the Freedom of Information Act requesting the long-suppressed report from the Department of Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) regarding the conduct of President Bush's top lawyers in the Office of Legal Counsel who authored memos purporting to authorize torture and aggressive war.

The request, linked below along with a transmittal letter, asks for the OPR report that has long been promised by Attorney General Eric Holder, as well as an earlier OPR report completed during the last months of the Bush administration. The request also seeks the 10 page rebuttal of the 2008 report by then- Attorney General Michael Mukasey.

Members of the Robert Jackson Steering Committee (RJSC) filed the request. Founded in September 2008, the RJSC works to bring about the criminal prosecution of top government officials in the United States alleged to have committed war crimes. The committee was named in honor of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson, who was the top U.S. prosecutor of Nazi war criminals at Nuremberg. "We must never forget," Jackson had said in his Opening Statement, "that the record on which we judge these defendants today is the record on which history will judge us tomorrow. To pass these defendants a poisoned chalice is to put it to our lips as well."

Transmittal Letter
FOIA Request

Charlotte Dennett, an attorney member of the RJSC and one of the authors of the FOIA request, said: "The time has come to squarely address the role of these lawyers. Did they create new laws redefining the crime of torture after American forces had already begun torturing prisoners? And if so, for what purpose and on whose orders? We cannot countenance further delays or accept a greatly watered-down version of the original report. We must know the facts and then decide whether President Obama's Department of Justice is continuing the cover-up begun under his predecessor."

Peter Weiss, another RJSC attorney member and author of the FOIA request, added: "We are not simply requesting that a long-promised report be released sooner rather than later. We are requesting transparency in the unprecedented procedure of letting the very subjects of a DOJ misconduct report propose changes to it. The current Chilcot Inquiry in England of the build-up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq has revealed an editing process in which the attorney general of that nation reversed his opinion that the war would be illegal. If a similar editing job has been performed on the original OPR report, the American public has a right to know it."
David Swanson, Chair of the Robert Jackson Steering Committee who also worked on the FOIA request, said "Much awaits this report. Bar associations have delayed disbarment. Congressional committees have delayed subpoenas and impeachments. The Department of Justice has delayed prosecutions. One of the lawyers under review, John Yoo, is facing a civil suit from one of the victims of his actions, Jose Padilla. If the Justice Department is refusing to release the report in order to deny the report to Padilla's legal counsel, the public has a right to know."
Justice Robert H. Jackson's words in his opening statement as Chief Prosecutor at Nuremberg have special relevance to today: "The common sense of mankind demands that law shall not stop with the punishment of petty crimes by little people. It must also reach men who possess themselves of great power… [for they, too,] as Lord Chief Justice Coke put it to King James, [are] 'under ... the law.' And let me make clear that while this law is first applied against German aggressors, the law includes, and if it is to serve a useful purpose it must condemn aggression by any other nations, including those which sit here now in judgment."
Members of the Robert Jackson Steering Committee are: Chair David Swanson is the author of Daybreak: Undoing the Imperial Presidency and Forming a More Perfect Union by Seven Stories Press, Co-Founder of AfterDowningStreet.org. Swanson became chair in November 2009. Past Chair Lawrence Velvel served as chairman of the Steering Committee of the Justice Robert H. Jackson Conference On Planning For The Prosecution of High Level American War Criminals, or the Robert Jackson Steering Committee for short, through October 2009. Velvel is Dean of the Massachusetts School of Law and a professor of law. John Bonifaz, Legal Director of Voter Action, author of Warrior-King: The Case for Impeaching George W. Bush. Kristina Borjesson, an award-winning print and broadcast journalist for more than twenty years and editor of two recent books on the media. Shahid Buttar, executive director of the Bill of Rights Defense Committee. Marjorie Cohn, a law Professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, immediate past president of the National Lawyers Guild, author of Cowboy Republic: Six Ways the Bush Gang Has Defied the Law (PoliPointPress, 2007), and editor of "The United States and Torture: Interrogation, Incarceration and Abuse" (NYU Press, Fall 2010). Colleen Costello, Staff Attorney of Human Rights, USA, of Washington, D.C., and coordinator of its efforts involving torture by the American government. Ben Davis, a law Professor at the University of Toledo College of Law, where he teaches Public International Law and International Business Transactions. He is the author of numerous articles on international and related domestic law. Charlotte Dennett, investigative journalist, attorney, 2008 candidate for Attorney General of Vermont, and author of The People v. Bush: One Lawyer's Campaign to Bring the President to Justice and the National Grassroots Movement She Encounters Along the Way (Chelsea Green, January 2010). Valeria Gheorghiu, attorney. Jeanne Mirer, President of the International Association of Democratic Lawyers. Chris Pyle, a Professor at Mount Holyoke College, where he teaches Constitutional law, Civil Liberties, Rights of Privacy, American Politics and American Political Thought, and is the author of many books and articles, including Getting Away with Torture: Secret Government, War Crimes, and the Rule of Law.. Elaine Scarry, the Walter M. Cabot Professor of Aesthetics and the General Theory of Value at Harvard University, and winner of the Truman Capote Award for Literary Criticism. Peter Weiss, vice president of the Center For Constitutional Rights, of New York City, which was recently involved with war crimes complaints filed in Germany against former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and others.
Andy Worthington, British journalist and author of The Guantanamo Files: The Stories of the 774 Detainees in America's Illegal Prison (Pluto Press, 2007). Kevin Zeese, attorney, activist, serves as Executive Director of Voters for Peace and Prosperity Agenda. He has filed complaints with bar associations seeking the disbarment of 15 Bush-Cheney lawyers for facilitating torture (two who also served Obama-Biden) as part of the Disbar Torture Lawyers Campaign of Velvet Revolution on whose board he serves.

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












60 minutes
cbs news
pbs
now on pbs
to the contrary
bonnie erbe
npr
the diane rehm show

Once more on Judge Ricardo Urbina's Blackwater decision

In Baghdad on Thursday, a shooting victim who has not settled said he still wanted the guards prosecuted in criminal court.
"Iraqi blood is not that cheap," said Mehdi Abu Zaman, 45, who said he lost his sight after being shot. "The civil suit is not enough. There is no justification for this. If they gave me all the money in the world, my vision will not come back."
Another wounded man, Sami Hawas Hamoud Abu Iz, told the Associated Press that the company had offered $100,000 to each family of a person who died and $30,000 to those wounded. He said plaintiffs' lawyers told victims they might not receive anything if they did not agree to a settlement.
Phone and e-mail messages for Susan L. Burke, a Washington lawyer who represented the plaintiffs, were not returned.


The above is from David Zucchino's "Iraqis settle lawsuits over Blackwater shootings" (Los Angeles Times) and we've got to again return to the topic because there's so much misinformation out there. Not referring to Zucchino's straight-forward article. And we covered Urbina's decision repeatedly at the end of last week. But others, like Amy Goodman, can't be bothered explaining the decision. For example, in a headline, she'll sulk and pout one day, then the next toss out prosecutorial abuse in her spoken words. She'll do a bad segment 'on' the decision that refuses to explore it and its actual, lasting meaning to instead offer up conspiracy theories and pretend she's somehow informed her audience of a damned thing.

So let's walk through it again. Salah Hemeid (Al-Ahram Weekly) offers a reaction to Justice Ricardo Urbina's decision:

Dean Boyd, a spokesman for the US Justice Department, said the department was "obviously disappointed by the decision". He said the department was "still in the process of reviewing the opinion and considering our options" in the 90-page ruling. Neither the White House nor the State Department reacted to the dismal ruling or explained what their next step is.
The Iraqi government's response was not less pathetic. Prime Minister Nuri Al-Maliki said on Monday his government would launch lawsuits in US and Iraqi courts against Blackwater rejecting the US judge's decision to throw out charges. In a statement his office said the government "rejects the ruling issued by the American court acquitting the company of the crime of killing a number of citizens."
Despite the deadly shooting and a string of other violations the Iraqi government still allows the company to work in Iraq. The Iraqi government failed to move to ban the company sticking to its earlier promise that it would not renew Blackwater's licence to operate there when it expires in May.

Hemeid does not appear to understand Urbino's decision (very few have bothered to explain it) and he doesn't understand how US elections work nor what was promised. Later on, he will weigh in that Hillary should be held to her 2008 campaign promise. Hillary ran for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination. She did not get that nomination. Any promise she made for what she would do as president died when she didn't the nomination, that's reality, try grasping it. She is now Secretary of State. She does not decide policy or control the administration. If Blackwater mattered to anyone as an election issue -- this includes the increasingly CIA friendly 'author' of a Blackwater book -- then they should have supported Hillary's campaign. Instead they ran interference for Barack -- this includes the increasingly CIA friendly 'author' of a Blackwater book -- who, pay attention, made no real promises re: Blackwater. The CIA dupe or payroll added, for example, got cozy with Sammy Power and began 'reporting' from her view leading her to brag to the Obama campaign that they tell her what they wanted out there and she'd get it out there. Duped by Sammy Power, he's probably now being duped by the CIA (and notice how he knits a stitch only to pull it apart in the next article).


Charles McDermid and Abeer Muhammad (Asia Times) unintentionally provide an example of how to confuse the issue:

The incident's infamous reputation added to the anger last week when Iraqis learned of a US court's decision to dismiss a federal case against the five Blackwater employees charged with 14 counts of voluntary manslaughter and 20 counts of attempted manslaughter for the Nisour Square shooting.
The subsequent announcement on Thursday that Blackwater, now "re-branded" under the commercial name Xe, had reached out-of-court compensation settlements in seven outstanding civil cases for the use of excessive violence and killings of Iraqis has brought relief to some. An early report by al-Jazeera quoted one victim as calling the as-yet-undisclosed settlement "a victory against the Blackwater firm".
[. . .]
"The American court's decision is a clear violation of human rights. The incident in Nisour Square was a crime against humanity which deserves serious punishment not a settlement," said Ali Raheem al-Asadi, of the rights group Iraqi Foundation. "It is bizarre to have such criminals exonerated by a country that presents itself as advocating for human rights everywhere."

After 20 paragraphs, the authors finally note the decision. After 20 paragraphs. And after you've waded 20 paragraphs of absurdity, you might expect that the verdict itself would result in more than one paragraph and serious examination but you would be wrong. As for the claim by Iraqi Foundation file it under the same S**T that the country's Human Rights Minister served up last week. People might try learning something before opening their mouths. I'm really not in the mood for this garbage or a left that falls silent -- which is what happened when everyone returned from their vacations this week.

Judge Ricardo Urbina made a sound decision, in fact, his ruling was the only way a judge could have gone and upheld the law. The prosecution (the Justice Dept) based their case -- didn't just use which would have been enough to toss the charges to begin with -- on statements that the accused made during a State Dept investigation when they were offered immunity for their co-operation. They were told the statements made to the State Dept investigators (US government) could not be used against them. Having cooperated, the accused then found the Justice Dept (US government) using those statements in a case against them.

That's prosecutorial misconduct and it demands that any charges be dismissed. It also should have resulted in a public investigation within the Justice Dept and a few heads should roll over that.

At least 17 people died in the 2007 Baghdad slaughter. That's a misfortune and a crime. A larger crime would take place if the US government was allowed to ignore and break the law to secure a conviction. This is not something minor.

And it's a sign of how phony so many on the left have become (Amy Goodman being only one example) that they continue to refuse to explore the issues involved.

We do not want the US government to go after people with such 'zeal' that they break the law. If they break the law, they, more than other body or person, needs to be held accountable because the US government has all the resources and all the power. If they break the law in pursuing a conviction, the case needs to be tossed out and, yes, that is justice at work. 17 people are dead, that's sad and it's a misfortune. But it would be a travesty of justice if Judge Urbina had waived through the prosecutions.

When you say it's okay for the government to break the laws, you can't turn around and after and say, "Well, not anymore." The law is either upheld or it's not. Blackwater's not 'popular' so some refuse to get it. Including a number of people who would be screaming their heads off if this were another case and Urbina had allowed it to go through. They'd be whining, "Unfair! Wrong!"

And it would be wrong. It is wrong under any circumstances to allow the US government to break the laws in pursuing a criminal conviction. That's ignoring not only the law but the beliefs that the US judicial system is based upon.

The five accused walk. That's what's supposed to happen in this situation. Did they intentionally kill Iraqi citizens? We don't know. I suspect they did. But we do know that the government refused to play by the rules and follow the law. When the government did that, a bigger crime took place and if Judge Urbina hadn't called that crime out, it would be a lot harder for the next judge to. You either believe the US government is bound by the same laws as the defense or you don't. If you don't, then you're assisting a government in its move towards a totalitarian state because you're saying: The government can do whatever it wants to pursue a conviction and should not be held accountable.

Back to the dupe. A number of e-mails ask if I'm aware that he's rewriting/revising and stealing. Yes, I am aware. That's part of his knitting a stitch and then unraveling it. However, to be clear, he's not stealing from me. I made one comment (a few sentences) on the issue at Third. Elaine and Mike also made comments in that roundtable at Third and Elaine had already written extensively on the topic at her site. He's stealing from Elaine, not me. If it were from me, I'd just ignore it and we wouldn't mention it but to steal from my friend? Oh, I'm not going to be silent there. The hideous Scott Horton (whom Rebecca nailed for his failure to either comprehend or be able to explain Urbina's verdict -- had to rush to conspiracies instead) is also pushing that nonsense. Why are they pushing it? Because Elaine pointed out that Dupe was being a tool (knowingly or not) of the CIA and pushing the version of events the CIA wants pushed. She also explained that were she a CIA asset (she'd never be one) and had become the target of the CIA's ire so that they were no burning her, she'd make sure they grasped she'd take them down with her so they'd back off. There's nothing controversial about Elaine's statements (and many a great film has a similar basis -- see Robert Redford 3 Days of the Condor, for example). Once Elaine made that suggestion, Dupe and Horton began to insist, "That's what Erik Prince is doing!!!!" No, that's not what he did with Vanity Fair. If he's smart, that's what he will do. But he has not publicly sent a message thus far.

By the way, let's underscore how lazy Horton and Dupe are. They took what Elaine said Prince should do and they now present it as fact. In the same roundtable referenced in the paragraph before, Mike talked of the rumors that the CIA used Blackwater as part of a money laundering scheme. This is the first time this has appeared here because I'm just not interested in the topic. But when Mike brought that up, I did weigh in during Third's roundtable to back him up because that is the DC chatter on the social scene. So Horton and Dupe take Elaine's public advice to Prince and present it as what Prince is doing but with a solid lead that would require work (Mike's comments), they take a pass? Either they don't want to do the work or Dupe isn't being led to that aspect of the story by his handlers.

On the topic of Elaine. Last night's "I Hate The War . . ." included "It's why Norman Solomon continues to preach 'elect Dems' as the answer." That sentence should have had a link to Elaine's post on Monday. I thought I had put it in but I see I didn't. (I'll add it after this goes up.) And Amanda e-mailed on "I Hate The War . . ." to ask when ". . ." became part of the title? Good question. I was in Blogdrive already (to post at the mirror site) and when the 'form' popped up for it, I went to enter the title and it has 'auto remember' or something. I was tired and wanted to be done and didn't puzzle over it, just took the ". . ." over to the title in Blogspot. We'll go back to just "I Hate The War" next Thursday.

The following community sites updated last night:



Cedric's Big Mix
Huh?
10 hours ago

The Daily Jot
THIS JUST IN! WHAT DOES HE MEAN?
10 hours ago

Thomas Friedman is a Great Man
Barack needs his beauty sleep
10 hours ago

Mikey Likes It!
Iraq
10 hours ago

Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude
it's not always about bush
10 hours ago

SICKOFITRADLZ
Another setback for equality
10 hours ago

Trina's Kitchen
Who suffers?
10 hours ago

Ruth's Report
E.P.A. pressures Diane Rehm not to cover mountaintop mining
10 hours ago

Oh Boy It Never Ends
Those shows with bad ratings . . .
10 hours ago

The World Today Just Nuts
Baby Bully Boy
10 hours ago

Ann's Mega Dub
KFPA's Morning Show tries to play catch up
10 hours ago

Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills)
Meanwhile in England . . .
10 hours ago


Radio notes. From The Bat Segundo Show:

Happy New Year from The Bat Segundo Show! The cultural radio program, featuring unusual and insightful interviews with today's authors, filmmakers, and cultural voices, has released four new installments for your listening pleasure. In addition, the show has now returned to a weekly schedule, where new episodes will be released every Friday.
These new installments (in no particular order) include a bilingual chat with the legendary filmmaker Michael Haneke (#316), who discusses his latest film The White Ribbon, a conversation with biographer Terry Teachout (BSS #314) about Louis Armstrong and the early days of jazz, a hard-hitting colloquy with journalist Ken Auletta (BSS #315) about the insides of Google, and a return appearance from Katharine Weber (BSS #317), which somehow manages to work in candy, the Madagascar Plan, and fixed societal positions.
Mr. Segundo's condition continues to vary. His introductory appearances are becoming more infrequent and, in at least one instance, he appears to have surrendered his introductory duties to a amateur DJ operating somewhere in California. But we understand that his energies are presently directed for a defense of his questionable tactics, which will be unveiled in a future program.
The main Segundo site can be found here:
http://www.batsegundo.com
To subscribe to the show with a podcatcher program (for later transfer to your iPod), copy and paste the following URL into your program:
http://feeds.feedburner.com/segundo
On the main site, there is also a black box that is rather large but friendly, should you desire to subscribe to the show via iTunes.
Please note: You do not have to have an iPod to listen the show! If you go to the main Segundo site, you can save the MP3 to your lovely machine by clicking on the bat picture or, if you're the kind of person who prefers swinging a bat over clicking on one, we do have a user-friendly interface with many listening and streaming options below the capsules.
Here are links to the new shows:
SHOW #314 -- Terry Teachout (38:28)
Direct Link to Show:
http://www.edrants.com/segundo/terry-teachout-bss-314/
Five Second Excerpt: "Armstrong’s file contains nothing of any interest because he didn’t play at political benefits. I mean, the FBI was aware of the fact that he used marijuana."
* * *
SHOW #315 -- Ken Auletta (54:41)
Direct Link to Show:
http://www.edrants.com/segundo/ken-auletta-bss-315/
Five Second Excerpt: "Larry is fixated on 150. It’s the size of cafeterias."
* * *
SHOW #316 -- Michael Haneke (28:09)
Direct Link to Show:
http://www.edrants.com/segundo/michael-haneke-bss-316/
Five Second Excerpt: "The film is the ski jump and it’s up to the spectator to jump."
* * *
SHOW #317 -- Katharine Weber (36:21)
Direct Link to Show:
http://www.edrants.com/segundo/katharine-weber-ii-bss-317/
Five Second Excerpt: "This is a novel about chocolate, chocolate, chocolate — chocolate grows within twenty degrees of the equator all the way around the globe. And some of the finest chocolate on this planet comes from Madagascar."
* * *
Thanks again for listening!
The Bat Segundo Crew



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















thomas friedman is a great man






oh boy it never ends