Friday, July 9, 2011. Chaos and violence continue, a verdict (not justice) for Jamie Leigh Jones, protests continue in Baghdad, Nouri threatens blood will be spilled, US House Rep Barney Frank observes, "The military budget is not on the table. The military is at the table, and it is eating everybody else's lunch," and more.
Kevin Pina: We're now joined again by our special correspondent on the ground in Tripoli, Libya Madhi Nazemroaya. He is also a research associate for the Center on Globalization based in Canada. Mahdi, welcome back to Flashpoints on Pacifica.
Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya: Thanks for having me again.
Kevin Pina: So what's going on now? I understand you've been seeing on the ground some of the aftermath of the recent bombing campaign by NATO.
Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya: Yes, I just to my shock found out today -- I should be out of this shocked phase -- but I found out today that just down the street from me, a couple of minutes, that a children's center was bombed. And this is a place where lists of children with Down Syndrome and handicapped children -- all these types of children and there lists are there and it was a place where vaccinations were given out and children were helped. That was bombed to smitherrens. And all the records of vaccinations for children were destroyed. And the night before, the United Nations had somebody there working on the files and after 12 o'clock, when they left, the place was bombed to smithereens. And an American couple informed me of this. I was also at a ceremony today, a children's festival, held in honor of some children that were killed in the NATO bombings on the state of Libya.
Kevin Pina: You're listening to Flashpoints on Pacifica Radio and we're talking directly with Tripoli, Libya with our correspondent Mahdi Nazemroaya. Tell me what is the sense on the ground right now? We understand that yesterday the rebels were announcing that several key towns that they were making their drive toward the capitol of Tripoli. What your sense of it there?
Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya: I disagree with those reports. From what I've seen, they're still trying to live in a normal street here in Tripoli. The gates of the city have not fallen to anybody. Yes, it's true that there have been shootings in Tripoli at night -- and it only happens at night. Checkpoints do come out at night but this is part of the destabilization effort against this country. The shootings are random, they're not -- they have no objective. They're at police and they're meant to cause chaos. It's purely for destabilization. Even as I mentioned earlier, their initial protests were held at night. They weren't even real protests. They were destroying property and stuff like that. So I disagree with those reports.
Kevin Pina: Now yesterday we'd also talked a little bit about the US banking role in fomenting the crisis there in Libya and we'd talked a little bit about JP Morgan Chase and I think you were meaning to refer Goldman Sachs as well -- although JP Morgan Chase was involved. You were describing to us how a billion dollars went out of this sort of sovereignty and that Goldman Sachs was responsible.
Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya: Yes, Goldman Sachs. I wanted to clarify that. It was Goldman Sachs who was responsible and it happened before the war. Their money went missing and Goldman Sachs -- and there was no record of this. And they made the Libyans an offer -- for them to invest and buy a share in Goldman Sachs. What happened was they pushed for this war as well, it's being said in Libya, as a means to keep that money because they stole Libya's money. And there is some sort of a conflict across the Atlantic between HSBC, Goldman Sachs and a group of other banks in the United States for control over Libya's assets right now. This is something that is being talked about in this country. And I'm very sure in the coming days in the United States, Canada, Britain, France, this will become part of the bigger picture and part of the news.
Kevin Pina: Well who's now doing the banking for the National Transitional Council, the so-called rebel forces that are controlling cities like Benghazi?
Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya: Well in Benghazi, the Transitional Council's national bank is run by HSBC. They sent specialists there immediately to do this and to set up the new central bank there. The problem with the central bank -- one of the problems we're having with the central bank, they don't have the authority yet to do certain things and there was three keys -- I haven't found out what these keys are exactly -- and two of them were in Tripoli for the central bank and one was in Beghazi and the one in Benghazi so this delayed things for them. In regards to the national bank in Benghazi, I want to point out that it's following the same pattern as the Central Bank in Bosnia, the central bank in Bosnia, because in Bosnia, that central bank was also run by foreign banking companies and under the Bosnian Constitution cannot be run by a Bosnian citizen, it's run by a foreigner. This is very important to know. What type of a country's constitution says its own nationals can't run its own bank? That's what happened in Bosnia and essentially that's what's happening in eastern Libya in Benghazi.
Kevin Pina: Now we hear that there is resumption of oil exports. But HSBC is, of course, a British bank. And the British government is heavily invested and behind the NATO bombing campaign and the NATO military campaign against Libya, correct?
Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya: Yes, that is correct. The British are heavily invested in this project -- as are the French, as are the Americans, and, strangely enough, the Italians and the Turks who are two -- And the Italians and the Turks are losers in this. The Turks were the second biggest trading partners to this country and the Italians were huge -- 40% of Italy's trade would be to Libya. These two countries -- It was a shock to many people that these two countries would turn their backs on the government here and the country here. They are two big economic losers and unless they regain everything -- all their contracts -- they are on the losing end of this war.
Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya goes on to discuss other topics including that he sees a strong connection between the US backed-war and currency issues. Kevin Pina and Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya will continue their conversation on Tuesday's Flashpoints Radio -- Flashpoints airs Monday through Friday on KPFA at 5:00 pm PST and on other stations around the country.
Brad Woodward: After a month of testimony and just ten hours of deliberations, the jury sided with KBR sending Jamie Leigh Jones out of the courtroom in tears. Jones claims she was drugged and raped six years ago while working for defense contractor KBR in Iraq and was suing for $145 million. The jury not only decided that Jones was not raped but that KBR did not commit fraud by inducing her to work for them.
A KBR attorney, Dan Hedges, appeared in the report to explain that KBR intends to continue it's military work -- which presumably means killing US soldiers and contractors via the KBR burn pits and doing so much more to harm the world. KBR, bringing evil to a neighborhood near you. Dan Hedges meanwhile intends to return to the pits of hell until Satan next needs an attorney or a sexual play thing. On Houston's ABC13, Deborah Wrigley filed a report:
Deborah Wrigley: The jury actually announced their verdict about 30 minutes ago and for the former KBR employee who was suing her former employer, it was a stunning legal defeat. Jamie Leigh Jones was hired by KBR in 2005, just in July of that year, and she was stationed in Iraq at a KBR facility. She said that a few days after her arrival there, she was drugged and gang-raped by other KBR workers and part of the allegation not only the rape, but that KBR failed to protect her by failing to disclose "a sexually charged work environment." That amounted to what was a fraud allegation against the company in its hiring of her. Today after just about a day and a half of deliberation, the jury came back immediately said that Jamie Leigh Jones was not raped and that KBR did nothing wrong
in its hiring of her and disclosing the working conditions. [. . .] The verdict stunned Jones. She could be heard crying very loudly in the courtroom and sobbing. She has not yet come out of the courthouse, neither have her attorneys.
I do not know Jamie Leigh Jones, I have never spoken to her. My guess is she was raped. But what I do know is that she was attacked in the court room. Stephanie Mencimer calls herself a reporter. She's actually something else; however, though I have often thought that word in my head I have, to date, never said that word. I'll try to go my grave never saying that word -- even though it so perfectly describes Stephanie Mencimer. The hack who now works for Mother Jones and whose 'reporting' has resulted in numerous objections (including from National Journal columnists), decided to do a little hit piece on Jamie before the verdict was announced.
Stephanie's such a you-know-what.
We're not linking to that garbage. Mother Jones is already a joke -- a Whoreathon for Barack Obama from the rag that once pretended to be independent and unaffiliated with any political party. Now they just whore and do their little attacks on this Republican or that one and pretend that they've really contributed something when all they've done is demonstrated what trash left out in the hot sun smells like.
Little Stephie shows up to list numerous ways in which Jamie's wrong. It's a little piece where Stephie whores for the corporations. I get it, Stephie, you have to grab whatever is thrown at you. I get it. And you're jealous of Jamie because she's strong and she's beautiful. I get it, Little Stephie. Let's you attack the pretty girl and play kill-Mommy, works out all your issues at the same time. Got it.
Not counting cruise-by-the-table junkets, my record for most interviews in one day is 52. I bring this up for a reason. When you give 52 interviews in one day, you can do them by rote and repeat everything you said 52 times. Or you can do a little research on the people who will be (briefly) interviewing you and cater your responses to their interests. So if I was speaking to someone who was known for their sense of humor, I would stress the antics of a day. If I was speaking to someone who was known for their love of food, I would stress the catering, etc. Point being, if you looked at those 52 interviews, if you tried to examine them, you would find many differing details. Not because I was lying but because I emphasized different things.
I don't make a point to talk about myself in my own life let alone here unless it's needed. It's needed now because the thrust of Little Stephie's attack on Jamie's integrity is that in five years, some details of her story have varied. In one day, with 52 interviews, details of the basic stories I shared careened around the room.
That was in one day. It is the nature of memory that we will emphasize different details at different times. I don't think anyone doubts that Daniel Ellsberg is the brave whistle blower responsible for bringing the Pentagon Papers to the public. But if you listen to an interview he gave in 1976 or one he gave in 1996 or one he gave last year, you will hear different details.
There's also the issue of condensing and Daniel or anyone can tell you that when you're told to condense for time (or know yourself you need to), you will leave out certain elements.
Little Stephie offers nothing that I see where Jamie had contradicted herself in the public record. I do see that Jamie sometimes emphasizes this and sometimes emphasizes that.
Let me go personal one more damn time. I was sexually molested long before puberty. It's not a story I like to discuss, it's nothing I ever mentioned to the MSM or alternative press. It is something I will and do speak about with feminist groups. If I'm speaking about it, one of the issues is how much do I want to reveal, how much do I feel like hurting right now at that moment? And to decide that, I look around at the other women and see if there's someone there who looks like she wants to talk, needs to talk but needs a push, looks like she needs to hear some details someone else suffered through in order to have a comfortable place she can step onto and tell her story. If I don't see or sense something like that, you're not getting details from me, you're getting the basic overview and that's all you're getting.
Little Stephie seems to think that if you've experienced a sexual assault, you wind yourself up like a mechanical toy and recite verbatim the same details over and over, never varying from the script. That's not reality. But, again, Little Stephie's 'reporting' tends to get called out repeatedly so reality is like a tropical destination Little Stephie hopes to make it to some day but will probably never visit.
First she should probably try finding a solid editor. Jamie Leigh Jones has stated she was held in a container over in Iraq. Little Stephie writes, "The false-imprisonment allegation didn't surface until two years after Jones' original rape complaint, when Jones hired a new lawyer." If she means what she writes, Little Stephie is writing that Jones never made the allegation until she "hired a new lawyer" over "two years after Jones' original rape complaint." That is what Little Stephie wrote. If that's what she meant, she's a stupid as she is ugly because Jones -- and US House Rep Ted Poe -- have long maintained that. It has always been a part of the story. If Little Stephie meant what she wrote she needs to learn to at least function with the English language -- mastery of it obviously being far beyond her grasp.
According to Stephanie, Jamie can't suffer from agoraphobia -- literally, fear of the market place -- because she had two children and she spoke out and she testified to Congress and she gave interviews and she did this and she did that and blah, blah, blah. Little Stephie lives in a little world where her small thoughts touch the low ceilings and she therefore fancies herself grand. I speak in front of dozens of groups each week about the wars. I can do that if my hair looks like crap, I can do that if I'm about to fall over from lack of sleep. I can do that because it has nothing to do with me, it has to do with what is needed. By contrast? In my personal life that's not the story. If I'm invited to a party (I don't mean a group of us decide to go out, I'm talking arrive at ___ p.m.), my bedroom's going to have at least 20 dresses on the floor none of which provided me the courage to make an entrance. And I may come across no dress that does, ring up the florist to send flowers with my regrets for being unable to show. I am someone who is known to literally sweat over the thought of picking up a ringing phone (unless I use a fake voice to answer). (Strangely, cell phones don't bother me. They're less formal.) No one who knows of me or knows me casually would ever suspect that I have any 'shyness' to me or that I suffer from panic attacks. But Little Stephie seems to think she can stand outside Jamie Leigh's life and diagnose her. I wasn't aware Little Stephie was a trained therapist.
Jamie Leigh can be gripped with fear and not even be able to walk out to the porch to get her mail (as far as I know, she's never claimed that to have happened, I'm using it for an example) but if her child needs milk for the cereal, she can force herself to go to the grocery store. She can be having the worst day of her life and just want to lock herself away in the bathroom, but if ABC News is saying, "Jamie Leigh, we want to tell your story and that of two other women who say they were sexually assaulted," Jamie Leigh can pull herself together and do it. Not because she doesn't suffer from agoraphobia but because it's something she feels she has to do.
I think Jamie Leigh Jones' current attorneys made two mistakes. The first one is asking for that amount of money. I am not saying she doesn't deserve it. I wish rape victims were awarded billions. But I'm saying when you're using a figure that large, you are going to risk turning off a jury. My opinion, the figure was too high. I could be wrong, I often am and it wouldn't be the first time. The second mistake? I'm not sure they could have fixed this one during the trial. But KBR presented a psychological portrait of Jamie Leigh Jones that they tried to insist was at odds with reality or with the way a rape victim behaves or speaks, etc. Her attorneys would have done well to have anticipated that (and it might not have been possible -- what seems so obvious right now may seem so obvious because we know now exactly what KBR did) and to have provided expert witnesses to explain to the jury there is not victim m.o. There is no standardized response.
I don't think Jamie Leigh Jones got a fair trial at all. I can understand if some women choose not to talk or write of this trial. It is frightening and there are times when I do think myself, of similar instances, "We'll let's bury this so it doesn't get used again." "Burying it" doesn't refer to Jamie Leigh. It refers to what was done to her and I really fear we're going to see more corporations attempt this sort of smear. If it happens, attorneys for the victims need to be prepared to do a walk-through for the jury. The victim is being put on trial and her responses are being judged to be out of the 'norm.' So the jury needs to hear (over and over) that there is no norm. Each victim -- female or male -- will respond in individual ways that have to do with their own issues, their own attitudes. The assault leaves an impression, it does not create them, it does not birth them, they do not emerge from an assault alll walking and talking exactly the same. Five people shot in five different robberies are not expected to conduct themselves in exactly the same manner. There is no reason that sexual assault victims should be expected to all act alike.
Jamie Leigh Jones fought for the rights of victims over the last years. That can't be denied. She stated she was raped and, again, while I can't know that it happened, I believe her. As awful as what happened to her in Iraq was, I'm willing to bet today was pretty awful as well. And, again, I can understand a desire on the part of some women to bury this for fear that highlighting it will lead other corporations to attack in the way KBR did Jamie Leigh but I do hope that we're not going to all be slient and let Little Stephie's stab in the back be the last word. What this really does is encourage victims of sexual assault to be silent. If you talk about it, if you think it through -- as one does every traumatic event in life, there's a good chance a corporation's going to use that against you. That's the real message in today's verdict and I feel we need to push back against that. For that reason I'm sharing things here that I wouldn't normally.
Let's move over to the thug, crazy Nouri al-Maliki. State of Law creates an 'issue' and then he flogs it forever in his attempt to look like a leader. It's amazing, when you consider that he's been prime minister since spring 2006, how much work is required for Nouri to look like a leader -- or at least almost like one. Xinhua quotes Mini Fraud declaring yesterday, "Today, nobody is marginalized in Iraq, I confidently say the government treats all Iraqis, provinces, political blocs and parties equally." Well, yes, the average Iraqi is pretty much treated with disdain and disgust by the so-called government the US installed in Baghdad; however, that's not what Nouri was referring to.
Osama al-Nujaifi is the Speaker of Parliament. Last week, he visited the US and, among other things, raised the issue of the missing billions in the oil-for-food fund. State Of Law is accused of using his absence to fuel a rumor that he called for Sunnis to break off from Iraq and form their own region. Once back in Iraq, al-Nujaifi issued a statement and his comments (original comments about Sunnis in Iraq) were noted in full and that should have been the end of it. However, Nouri can't let it go and continues to distort the remarks in an attempt to inflame Shi'ites against Sunnis -- please grasp this is being done not by 'firebrand' Moqtada al-Sadr but by the prime minister of the country. Salah Nasrawi (al-Ahram Weekly) notes:
During a visit to Washington last month, Osama Al-Nujaifi, a key leader of the Sunni-backed Al-Iraqiya List and holder of the post of speaker of the Iraqi parliament, told the US government-owned Al-Hurra television channel that Iraq's Sunni minority was "frustrated" and might declare "a region" of its own in the country. "As a matter of fact they [the Sunnis] have strong feelings of frustration. They feel they are second-rate citizens and are not partners in the government," Al-Nujaifi said in an interview. "If this is not solved quickly and in a prudent way before things get worse, they might think about separation or taking measures to ensure their rights," he said. Al-Nujaifi's unusually blunt remarks prompted criticism from Shia leaders, who accused him of sectarianism and separatism. Some 75 Iraqi Shia MPs asked for a debate in parliament and demanded an apology from Al-Nujaifi. However, so far Al-Nujaifi has remained defiant, and upon returning from Washington he told a press conference that "the formation of such regions is a constitutional right", referring to the Iraqi constitution written after the US-led invasion, which declared Iraq to be a federal country and gave its different groups the right to form autonomous regions.
He is correct that it's a constitutional right. He has also warned what could happen thus far and has not, despite Nouri and others lies, called for it to happen. Al Rafidayn reports Nouri spoke at length yesterday and, reading the article, you may be struck by all the words Nouri used while never noting the issue al-Nujaifi actually raised: rising Sunni discontent. That was what al-Nujaifi was speaking of. He wasn't proposing a division, he was offering a warning. Instead, State of Law and Nouri have distorted it into "Iraqiya wants to break up Iraq!" Iraqiya isn't Sunni. It is a Sunni - Shi'ite alliance. Jason Ditz (Antiwar.com) quotes Nouri proclaiming that if Sunni's secede, "If it happens, people will fight each other and blood will reach to the knee." Chris Floyd (Empire Burlesque) saracastically notes, "Wait a minute! Is this a national leader using extreme rhetoric to threaten condign punishment against those who rebel against his government? Isn't that what Moamar Gadafy was accused of doing? Wasn't this indeed the whole casus belli of West's war on Libya? Then we must immediately intervene militarily to save the innocent civilians of western Iraq from this threatened bloodbath! We'd better send troops into Iraq right away to stop this raging heinous monster!"
When not distorting facts to make Iraqiya the 'evil doer,' State of Law focuses on the West. Al-Rafidayn reports State of Law has concocted a convoluted plot -- it would require Miss Marple to decipher -- in which the West is using Kuwait to destroy Iraq's economy. It's another attempt by an increasingly unpopular faction to play us-against-them in the hopes of shoring up support.
Because the crazy never ends, we're still on Nouri. Al Mada reports that he also declared yesterday that Iraq is immune to change sweeping the region. File that under "famous last words."
In this toxic climate, Jalal Talabani prepares to host a second house party. Al Sabaah reports that the president of Iraq intends to host various political factions at his home tomorrow. Along with addressing outstanding issues or 'old business' like the Erbil Agreement and the failure to appoint heads to the security ministries, Talabani also intends to discuss his recents meet-ups with officials in Iran and Greece. New Sabah notes that Talabani has been doing many one-on-one meetings (including with Nouri) ahead of the big meet-up. Al Mada reports that Moqtada is raging about US Vice President Joe Biden's upcoming visit -- the worst keep secret in Baghdad after Nouri's poor comb-over. And if you need another reason Jay Carney needs to stop lying through his teeth, the article quotes him at length (his denial of discussions to extend the US military occupation) -- providing much amusement for Iraqis, no doubt, while also further cheapening the US image in Iraq (and who would've thought that was possible).
Turning to some of today's violence, Reuters notes 2 Sahwa were shot dead in Jurf al-Sakhar, a woman's corpse was discovered in Abu Saida, assailants in Iraqi military uniforms shot dead 1 Sahwa in Baquba, a Bahdad roadside bombing left four people injured, a police officer was left injured in a Kirkuk shooting, and, dropping back to Thursday night for both that follow, a Falluja car bombing left ten people injured and a one Iraqi soldier was injured in a Baghdad attack.
As yesterday was winding down, news reports began to emerge about Iraqi artificats being returned to Iraq. Lily Kuo (Reuters) reported, "An ancient bead necklace, terra cotta tablets from ancient Babylonia depicting Ishtar, the goddess of love and war, and posters of deposed leader Saddam Hussein were among artifacts that U.S. officials returned to the Iraqi government on Thursday." Jason Ukman (Washington Post) explained, "An estimated 15,000 pieces were stolen from Iraq's National Museum in pillaging after the U.S.-led invasion in 2003, and many more are believed to have been smuggled out since then by U.S. military personnel and contractors. More than half of the items that have turned up in the United States or elsewhere have been repatriated to Iraq, but treasured items remain missing." There was no blame to be found in the articles -- the antiquities apparently walked out of Iraq by themselves -- but at least there were no efforts to spin it as "THE US DOES IT AGAIN!" in those two articles. Marieke van der Vaart's "Iraqi antiquities looted in war returned: U.S. helps restore cultural heritage" (Washington Times) was nothing but spin "U.S. helps restore cultural heritage." The antiquities were looted not because the giant looters, armed to the tooth, battled US forces in downtown Baghdad and managed to whisk various artificats out of Baghdad and then out of the country.
The US military refused to protect the museum. It was right next to the oil ministry. That got protected. The Bush White House decided that was a priority. Donald Rumsfeld made jokes about the looting. Rumsfeld declared, at a press conference, "The images you are seeing on television you are seeing over and over and over, and it's the same picture of some person walking out of some building with a vase, and you see it 20 times and you think, 'my goodness, were there that many vases?' Is it possible that there were that many vases in the whole country?" And when he was saying this, the press was chuckling, eating it up. People in New Orleans take needed food -- which would have spoiled quickly in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina -- and a segment of the US press wants them shot and killed. But Iraq's museum is looted, treasures are taken, possibly lost forever, and the US press thinks it's cute and funny and finds Donald Rumsfeld endearing. Boy, did they turn on him quick when he was no longer Secretary of Defense. So they're not only suck ups, they're disloyal ones at that.
There are no bragging rights to "We found them!!!" The US government should have made the Iraqi museum a priority, it should have been a secured site. The refusal to do what was required aided the looting. British archaeologist Paul Bradford (Portable Antqiuity Collecting and Heritage Issues) notes the news and feels that "the US authorities are all-too-eager to show what they managed to stop at their porous borders and repatriated with the usual ceremony and the usual speeches and backslapping. Even if it is mostly rubbish."
Following two landmark judgments from the European Court of Human Rights yesterday, Amnesty International is once again calling on the UK authorities to act decisively to ensure accountability for actions of UK armed forces and officials in Iraq for alleged human rights violations.
In the first of the two cases, Al-Skeini and Others v the United Kingdom, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the UK was required by the European Convention on Human Rights to conduct independent and effective investigations into the killing of six civilians during security operations carried out by UK soldiers in Iraq in 2003 and 2004.
The Court found the UK had failed to ensure such investigations in five of the six cases, in violation of article 2 (right to life) of the Convention. Significantly, the Court rejected arguments by the UK that the Convention did not apply to the UK's operations because they occurred outside the UK's ordinary territory. The Court held that the fact the UK was an occupying force over the territory in question and therefore exercised public powers there meant the Convention applied. Such a situation, the Court held, was one among a range of scenarios where the Convention applies outside the ordinary territory of European states. (Another example the Court cited was where a state exercises effective physical power and control over an individual by taking him or her into custody, somewhere else in the world). In the second of the two cases, Al-Jedda v the United Kingdom, the European Court found that the prolonged internment of Hilal Abdul-Razzaq Ali Al-Jedda, for more than three years in a detention centre in Basra, Iraq, run by British forces, violated his right to liberty and security under the European Convention.
The UK claimed that Al-Jedda was not entitled to the protection of the European Convention at all. It argued that the United Nations alone was legally responsible for the detention, since, it argued, UK forces were acting as part of the Multi-National Force in Iraq, under a specific mandate from the UN Security Council. The UK also argued that, even if it was legally responsible for the detention, the relevant UN Security Council resolutions authorised internment and this would override any contrary obligations the UK had under the Convention.
The Court rejected the UK's arguments, finding that it was indeed legally responsible for Al-Jedda's internment by its forces, and that nothing in the UN mandate disentitled him to the protections of the ECHR. The Court therefore found his internment to violate article 5 (right to liberty and security) of the Convention.
Amnesty has long been concerned by the UK's narrow interpretation of the European Convention on Human Rights, and its ongoing attempts to deny or limit the applicability of its obligations under international human rights treaties, and domestic laws intended to implement those obligations, to the conduct of the UK's armed forces overseas. This narrow interpretation has led to the denial of an effective remedy to many individuals whose rights have been, or are alleged to have been, violated by the conduct of UK service personnel. Amnesty has frequently emphasised that the UK's human rights obligations extended extraterritorially to anybody within its power or effective control and that the UK could not avoid accountability simply by claiming the rights did not apply. These arguments have been further vindicated by yesterday's rulings from the Court.
Following the judgment of the European Court, Amnesty calls on the UK to ensure that it implements the judgment, including by conducting independent, impartial, thorough and effective investigations into the killings in the Al-Skeini case, as well as with respect to other killings by UK armed forces in Iraq during the same period. The UK must also ensure that victims of serious human rights violations committed by UK armed forces during their operations in Iraq are provided with effective remedy and reparation for those violations.
While Amnesty welcomes the rejection of the UK's arguments that human rights treaty obligations did not apply at all in these two cases at the European Court, it remains concerned by any implication in the reasons given in the Al-Jedda judgment that a UN Security Council resolution might in theory, if it were clearly enough worded in this regard, allow or even oblige states to act in a manner inconsistent with their obligations under international human rights law. Given the Court's findings in the case about the specific resolution and actions at issue, the hypothetical question of whether some other resolution might have had a different legal effect did not squarely arise. Amnesty considers that no Security Council resolution purporting to authorise, let alone oblige, states to act in contravention of fundamental principles of human rights could ever in that respect be valid under international law.
Background: The case of Al-Jedda concerned one of the so-called "security internees" detained without charge or trial by the UK contingent of the Multi-National Force in Iraq. Hilal Al-Jedda was arrested by US soldiers in Iraq on 10 October 2004, apparently acting on information provided by British Intelligence services. He was taken to Sha'aibah Divisional Temporary Detention facility in Basra city, a detention centre run by British forces, and held there, without charge or trial until his release on 30 December 2007 over three years later. This type of detention, sometimes called "internment", is prohibited by the European Convention (except perhaps under a valid derogation in certain types of emergencies - the UK did not seek to rely on any derogation in this case).
The case of Al-Skeini relates to the death of six Iraqi civilians at a time when the UK was recognised as an Occupying Power under international humanitarian law. They were: Hazim Jum'aa Gatteh Al-Skeini, aged 23, shot dead in the street by the commander of a British military patrol; Muhammad Abdul Ridha Salim, a teacher aged 45, shot and fatally wounded by a sergeant in a military unit who forcibly entered his brother-in-law's house; Hannan Mahaibas Sadde Shmailawi, aged 33, shot and fatally wounded by gunfire during an exchange involving a British military patrol while she was eating a family evening meal in her home; Waleed Sayay Muzban, aged 43, shot and fatally injured by a lance corporal during a military patrol while he was driving a minibus; and Ahmed Jabbar Kareem Ali, aged 15, allegedly beaten and forced into the Shatt Al-Arab river by British soldiers where he drowned.
The sixth death, that of Baha Mousa, a hotel receptionist aged 26, in September 2003, occurred after he was tortured over a period of 36 hours while detained by British troops. A court martial in the UK of seven UK military personnel in relation to the case of Baha Mousa concluded in March 2007. By the end of the proceedings, six of the seven defendants had been acquitted of all charges. One soldier had pleaded guilty to a charge of inhumane treatment - a war crime - and was acquitted of the remaining charges. The court martial confirmed that numerous individuals had been responsible for inflicting unlawful violence on Baha Mousa and other detainees. However, as the judge remarked, many of those responsible were "not charged with any offence simply because there is no evidence against them as a result of a more or less obvious closing of ranks".
In May 2008 a public inquiry was announced into the circumstances of the case, which concluded its oral hearings in October 2010 and is expected to deliver its final report in September 2011. In light of the Inquiry the European Court determined that the father of Baha Mousa, Colonel Daoud Maousa, the sixth applicant in the case of Al-Skeini was no longer of victim of a breach of the procedural obligation to conduct an effective, independent and impartial investigation into the circumstances of his son's death, under Article 2 (the right to life).
Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "9th Circuit Shows Leadership" went up yesterday, noting that the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals did what Barack said he'd do but, years later, still hadn't gotten around to doing: end the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy. Ed O'Keefe (Washington Post) reports on the court's decision and the reaction to the decision overseas:
"I'm ecstatic," said one soldier stationed in Baghdad, adding that he planned to meet Thursday night at a military coffee shop with other gay soldiers to celebrate. "We won't be loud or obnoxious, but we will show solidarity and resolve," the soldier said by e-mail, speaking on the condition of anonymity while the ban remains in effect. Military officials in Iraq said Thursday that the approximately 47,000 troops deployed here had completed training courses on schedule. But when asked, one official said there was no way of knowing how many courses had been conducted in Iraq, suggesting only that there had been many. At Bagram air base in Afghanistan, an Air Force staff sergeant who also requested anonymity said the court decision would probably add to the confusion about the end of the policy. "A lot of people thought it all ended back in December and thought we were done," the staff sergeant said in an interview. "People are frustrated. They're waiting and thinking, 'It'll be any week now,' and they'd just like it to get done."
And finally though the cry from DC politicians is that the belt must be tightened and spending must be cut, Donna Cassata (AP) reports that the House voted today, 336 for, 87 against, to provide $649 billion to cover the wars for another year. US House Rep Barney Frank is quoted observing, "The military budget is not on the table. The military is at the table, and it is eating everybody else's lunch."