|
Monday,
April 16, 2012. Chaos and violence continue, Nouri's latest power-grab
gets a little attention, Moqtada al-Sadr joins the list of people
publicly rebuking Nouri, Bloomberg News warns that what everyone's
watching Nouri do isn't even the half of it, and more.
In a new interview, Jane Arraf (Al Jazeera -- link has video and text) has asked
Iraqi President Jalal Talabani about charges that Prime Minister and
thug Nouri al-"Maliki is on the road to becoming a dictator" and
Talabani denied the charge and stated, "There are some shortages -- it
is not only him responsible. I am also responsible. I am responsible
for looking after everything to guard the constitution. I must also
speak, so we are all responsible for the shortages in the government."
Well then Talabani needs to start exercising some responsibility and do
so very quickly.
Yesterday Farah al-Haidari and Karim al-Tamimi were released from jail as was expected -- AFP reported Friday that they would "be jailed until Sunday, a fellow commission member told AFP." As noted in Friday's snapshot,
last Tuesday the UN Secretary-General's Special Envoy Martin Kobler was
praising the Independent High Electoral Commission to the United
Nations Security Council and discussing how important it was to the
upcoming provincial elections next year and then the parliamentary
elections scheduled for the year after. So news that Nouri's had two
members of that commission arrested on Thursday, as reported in real time by Raheem Salman (ioL news), was startling and alarming. Karim al-Tamimi serves on the commission while Faraj al-Haidari is the head of the commission.
How outrageous were the arrests? Saturday, Al Mada reported
that Moqtada al-Sadr declared that the arrests were indications that
Nouri al-Maliki might be attempting to delay the elections or call them
off all together. He makes it clear that the the arrest needs to be
based on eveidence and not on some whim of Nouri's and that it shouldn't
be done because Nouri desires to "postpone or call of the election." Xinhua reported,
"The government in Iraq's northern semi-autonomous Kurdistan region
said Saturday that it has called on the central government in Baghdad to
release the electoral commission's head and another member arrested on
corruption charges." The Oman Tribune notes
that the KRG issued the following statement on Friday: "The decision of
the authorities in Baghdad to issue a detention order against Faraj Al
Haidari and Karim Al Tamimi amounts to a gross violation and dangerous
infringement of the political process. Such a decision is targeting the
independence of the electoral commission ... We call (on the
authorities) to reconsider the detention order immediately and refrain
from persisting in insulting the democratic operation." As Mohamad Ali Harissi (AFP) observed,
"Key political factions accused the premier of moving towards a
dictatorship with the arrest of Iraq's electoral commission chief, a
charge the prime minister denied on Saturday." W.G. Dunlop (AFP) quoted
Iraqiya MP Haidar al-Mullah stating, "When the head of the independent
electoral commission is being targeted, it means it is a message from
the one who is targeting him that he is above the law and above the
political process. The one who is standing behind this is the head of
the State of Law coalition (Maliki), because he wants to send a message
that either the elections should be fraudulent, or he will use the
authorities to get revenge on the commission. This arrest is an
indication that the judiciary has become an obedient tool in the hands
of Mr Nuri al-Maliki."
Al Rafidayn explained
Nouri al-Maliki released a statement Saturday decrying those who
doubted the arrests were sound. The Baghdad court that Nouri controls
made no attempt to even pretend to be impartial or about justice. The
Supreme Judicial Council announced yesterday that Faraj al-Haidari had
used UNHCR money to purchase plots of land and that he will face a seven
year prison term for those actions. AFP spoke
with al-Haidari after his release and he explained the charges are
related to approved one-time bonuses for five employees of amounts
between $80 and $125 (US equivalent). One-time bonuses to five
employees. And he tells them this case was previously dismissed by the
court but the State of Law MP bringing the charges filed an appeal. From
the article: He said that Hanan
al-Fatlawi, an MP from Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's State of Law
coalition, had pursued a large number of complaints against IHEC that
eventually wound up with the Iraqi judiciary."For the last 6 months... the judiciary was sending warrants of investigation every day to the employees," Haidari said.
State of Law is the political slate that Nouri al-Maliki heads. Tim Arango (New York Times) points out,
"Mr. Maliki has sought for two years to consolidate control over the
electoral commission, whose independence is viewed as essential in
ensuring that Iraqi elections are free from fraud, vote rigging and
interference from political parties. Mr. Maliki's critics say the effort
is a part of a pattern of power grabs
-- his near total takeover of the security forces, a recent attempt to
exert influence over the central bank and politically motivated arrests
under the pretext of thwarting coup plots. And it reinforces a narrative
that Mr. Maliki is emerging as an authoritarian leader in the wake of
the American military withdrawl."
More
quietly, Maliki's government is pursuing worrisome measures that are
potentially of greater long-term importance, as it crafts rules that
will govern the new Iraq into the distant future.
These laws, regulating such things as mass communications and political parties, are necessary. Unfortunately, as detailed in a report by the Canada-based Centre for Law and Democracy,
the versions drafted by Maliki's government for parliamentary approval
would unreasonably hinder freedom of expression, assembly and
association.
The Internet Bill provides for life imprisonment
and heavy fines for offenses such as publishing information about the
manufacture of "any tools or materials used in the planning or execution
of terrorist acts." It sounds reasonable, but the measure could cover
articles about the making of ink, paper, computers, guns, knives, or
just about anything. An individual can be heavily fined or jailed for
life for using a computer or information network to harm the reputation
of Iraq. Similar laws elsewhere -- Turkey's
infamous Article 301, for example, which made it a crime to "insult
Turkishness" and a successor law that bars insulting the Turkish nation
-- have inevitably led to dubious prosecutions and infringements on
human rights.
And on to more violence. AFP notes
that an Iraqi man apparently exploded his own Saadiyah home in the
midst of an Iraqi military raid on the house -- in addition to his own
life, the explosion killed 4 members of his family. In other violence, AP reports that 4 Shi'ite famers were shot dead today in Rashidiyah. ioL News notes
yesterday saw a Taji home bombing which claimed the life of both
parents and their five-year-old son ("a two-year-old girl survived but
was wounded"), a Kirkuk car bombing claimed 1 life and left eleven
people injured and a roadside bombing outside Nawafei village claimed
the life of 1 man who was the son of a Sahwa leader. Margaret Griffis (Antiwar.com) notes
other Sunday violence included a Wadi Hajar bombing which claimed the
life of 1 police officer (three people injured), a Baghdad sticking
bombing targeting a dentist claimed his life, 1 Shabak was shot dead in
Mosul, 1 suspected assailant was shot dead by Mosul police, a Tuz
Khormato home invasion claimed the life of 1 Iraqi soldier, 1 former
government official was shot dead in Buhriz, a Gatoun bombing injured a
woman and her daughter, a Tikrit bombing injured a police officer and
"The body of the deputy major of Suleimaniya was discovered hanged in his jail cell. The family of Zana Hama Saleh insisted
that he would not have committed suicide because he said he was
awaiting release. No evidence of forced suicide was found. Saleh was
detained on corruption charges." Alsumaria adds that a street cleaner was shot dead outside Tikrit.
Heidi
Boghosian: There's -- There's so many names of individuals in this
condition. Russell Maroon Shoatz also a former Black Panther who's been
incarcerated I think almost 40 years but half of that has been in
solitary confinement at SCI Greene in Pennsylvania. The reason they
give there is that they're afraid that, at the age of seventy almost,
that he will be seen as a leader, a political leader who will inspire
other inmates to resist.
Natsu
Taylor Saito: Yes. And what we're seeing is back in the 60s and 70s
when they were targeting political activists -- when the federal
government was targeting political activists -- it was clear that they
were identifying people because of their ability to influence others.
Like Fred Hampton, for example. Killing Fred Hampton was very
significant because he was being effective in mobilizing a true rainbow
coaltion -- not because he was a Black separatist or, you know,
whatever.
Heidi Boghosian: Right.
Natsu
Taylor Saito: But they were always pretending like that's not what it
was about. And now they're coming out and being quite blatant, right?
Your ideas, your ability to have what some of us would consider a
positive influence on other inmates or young people who are incarcerated
makes you dangerous and therefore we will impose these conditions.
And that's really sort of the trend I see generally with so much of what
has been happening recently is the taking of these political
suppression techniques that were at least covert in the 60s and 70s and
bringing them out, normalizing them, legitimizing them in their
framework. You know, making them technically legal and pushing one step
further each time with the PATRIOT Act, the Defense Authorization Act
this time. You know, taking these types of COINTELPRO measures of
spying on people and putting in informants and falsely accusing and
arresting people and even assassinating people. We see that all being
out in the open. And I find that particularly frightening that there
seems to be acquiescence with that process.
Heidi
Boghosian: We've seen it with the establishment of communications
management units in which individuals such as Daniel McGowan, who was an
animal rights activist, has been basically locked away, kept out of
communication from others and it does seem that even in those movements
that have emerged in the last, you know, 15 or 20 years, those
techniques that you described are now routinely now applied to target
leaders or charasmatic individuals who have a demonstrated track record
that they can work to effect change.
Natsu
Taylor Saito: Yes, it's like you are not allowed to be an effective
communicator of the so-called wrong ideas. And even if we look at Lynne
Stewart's case, right? They tagged her with terrorism offensives for
facilitating a communication that everybody can see had no actual
effect. But it was a communications restriction on her client that
ended up getting her convicted.
Michael S. Smith: Yeah. She issued a press release and, for doing that, they put her away for ten years.
Natsu Taylor Saito: Mmm-hmm.
Michael
S. Smith: And ironically, the person whom she was representing, his
movement looks like it's coming into substantial power in Egypt.
Natsu Taylor Saito: That is interesting.
Michael
S. Smith: I read a very good article that you wrote some years ago
after the US PATRIOT Act was passed and one of the questions you posed,
talking about homeland security, and you said, "Whose homeland and whose
security?" That was seven years ago. Can you bring that up to date
and ask that question again?
Natsu
Taylor Saito: Yes. I think that really is becoming more and more
clear. And it sort of ties back to some of the themes of this notion of
American exceptionalism. You know, who is the American that's supposed
to be so exceptional? And what is the America that is supposed to be
so exceptional? I really see that reflected -- sort of frighteningly --
across the political spectrum. Like, I think in campaign rhetoric of
the Republican primaries right now you see this constant reference to
America being exceptional and we want to bring the country back to what
it was and it's like whose country are they talking about? And who are
they excluding? And it's fairly clear that they're not talking about
people of color, they're not talking about poor people -- any of these
other groups though sometimes they claim to be populist. But we also
see it with the Obama administration authorizing of assassinations and
indefinite detentions of American citizens. Well which American
citizens are we talking about? And are they more secure? Are any of us
more secure when this all rest on some secretive executive branch
decision? And even with movements that seem to have, in many ways,
wonderful political potential -- like the Occupy movement -- there is a
sort of homogenizing of who it is we're talking about. And one example
that will probably make your listeners hate me is in Denver there was an
effort made by folks in the American Indian Movement and the community
here in Denver to get the Occupy folks to acknowledge that -- there has
to be acknowledgment of the fact that this land was taken from American
Indians and that American Indians still have a right to
self-determination -- not to just be lumped into 'we all want a share of
this ill gotten pie,' right? But when that was taken apparently to the
national movement, it was resoundingly rejected as being divisive.
And, to me, that illustrates this notion that we get to define who's
American and then then we get to propose a course of political action on
their behalf. But each of these sectors has exclusionary definnitions
of who's an American. And I find that really troubling.
Heidi Boghosian: Natsu, going back to your book Meeting the Enemy: American Exceptionalism and International Law, I
think it's been a year since we've had you on to talk about that and
we've been disappointed with President Obama's record: the invasion of
Libya, other military actions, you've referenced some of our policies.
But what's your take on what we're facing in the next year or so? What
are the repercussions from our ill gained military power?
Michael S. Smith: Selectively applying international law.
Heidi Boghosian: Right.
Natsu:
Yes. I think that that's a really major problem. And that's a lot of
what I was talking about in there, this sort of selective reliance on
international law. It's -- One of the misperceptions, I think, is that
the United States doesn't care about international law. In fact, it
utilizes international law heavily in certain arenas. For example, for
preventing people in poor countries from getting access to drugs that US
pharmaceutical companies have patents on and they're protected by
certain intellectual property agreements. But on the other hand being
willing to flaunt international law rather dramatically. And I think
the invasion of Libya is a good example of that. Of going into another
country that is in a certain state of political turmoil and essentially
moving in to assassinate its leaders. I think the assassination of
Osama bin Laden falls in that category. These are things that are
being justified based on the personal characteristics of these
individuals which is very dangerous. It violates long-standing
international law on both state sovereignty but also the way in which
political participation and true democracy is supposed to be working --
which the United States claims to be promoting. If you can go in and
assassinate those indiviuals that you don't like, that completely throws
out of whack international law in terms of the state relations. But
also it sets up the precedent that anybody we don't like, we can just
assassinate rather than giving due process of law to. I find that
setting a very frightening precedent. And I think the renewal of the
drone strikes in Pakistan is another good example of that. I don't think
international law -- as it exists -- allows those kinds of measures. I
don't think the United States would begin to argue it was legal if it
was at least half of the rest of the countries of the world doing it.
And it undermines the entire system in a way that really says "might
makes right." And that's a dangerous position for everybody right now
-- in the world -- but it's also dangerous for the United States because
there's no assurance that the United States will always be the most
powerful country in the world.
Staying with radio, the latest broadcast of Correspondents Report with Elizabeth Jackson (Australia's ABC -- link is audio), finds Stephanie Kennedy in DC visiting the section of Arlington Cemetery where the fallen from the Iraq War and the Afghanistan War are buried. Excerpt. Stephanie
Kennedy: They died on the battlefields in dusty deserts and on
unforgiving mountains on foreign soil. But their final resting place is
here, in the rolling meadows of Arlington Cemetery. Tucked away in a
pocket of this hallowed ground is what's become known as "The Saddest
Acre in America." Section 60 is in the south-east part of this vast
cemetery. It's the burial ground for more than 800 American soldiers
killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. Cemetery officials have very strict
rules about adding decorations on gravestones here but, in this little
corner, they've turned a blind eye. And the manicured grounds are the
same as is the perfect symetry of the headstones. But what's different
here is the personal touches left by the families of the fallen.
Mementos of lives lived adorn many of the graves: laminated photographs
of soldiers in uniform in happier times, with families and wives and
fiancees, there's childrens' drawings, and even a can of tobacco on one
grave, unopened beer bottles and with Easter came chocolate eggs and
balloons. And here's a stuffed bear -- he's actually fallen over so I'll
just prop him back up. It's actually -- It's actually a little Easter
bunny -- or a big Easter bunny. There are cards and letters too. This
one reads: "Beloved son, your smile lit up our world. Life is not nearly
so bright without you. We love and miss you so much."
Finally,
earlier this month, the US Justice Dept announced charges against a
Home Depot in Arizona asserting that they had violated the Uniformed
Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (see " Home Depot fires people for being deployed?"). The law firm of Boyle, Autry & Murphy
have filed suit against the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections over
their treatment of the firm's client Iraq War veteran Bryan Kubic:
Master
Sgt. Bryan N. Kubic fought for his country for 23 years, but now is
forced to battle his state government. With the help of Attorney Devon M. Jacob,
Kubic is seeking civil relief after being harassed, criminally charged
and wrongfully terminated from his employment by individuals at the
Pennsylvania Department of Corrections (DOC).
The
disturbing story began in 2010, when Tammy Ferguson became the DOC's
chief of security. Ferguson continually harassed military personnel -
including Kubic - about current and past requests for military leave. As
a result, Kubic requested a transfer to a prior position he held at the
DOC Training Academy.
Upon seeing the
request to transfer, Ferguson called Kubic a "coward" and denied his
request. She scolded him, saying that the "U.S. military does not trump
the DOC." Kubic - who was awarded the Combat Infantry Badge while
serving in Iraq - continued following DOC protocol for military leave
requests, and Ferguson escalated her harassment by launching a criminal
investigation into Kubic's military leave use history. Knowing he was in
the right, Kubic waived his Miranda rights and voluntarily submitted to
an interrogation by DOC investigator Stephen Allen.
Kubic
provided evidence demonstrating that he was either on military duty or
at Veterans Affairs (VA) medical appointments during his times of leave.
Regardless, Allen brought criminal charges against Kubic for theft by
deception and receiving stolen property, and Ferguson suspended Kubic's
employment.
At a preliminary hearing
on the charges, investigator Allen admitted that he had no evidence to
establish that Kubic was not performing military duty during the times
in question. Both charges were eventually dismissed and this story
should have ended. Sadly, it did not.
Ferguson
continued an extrajudicial campaign aiming to terminate Kubic's
employment with the DOC. Kubic battled the disciplinary charges,
providing the DOC with evidence convincingly demonstrating his military
service on the dates in question and his compliance with DOC military
leave directives.
In spite of the
evidence clearly showing Kubic's proper and legal use of military leave,
Ferguson terminated Kubic's employment. Perhaps Ferguson believed she
had won the final battle of her personal power struggle over the DOC
employees' ability to serve in the military. Regardless of Ferguson's
motives, Kubic wants to see justice prevail, so that military personnel
can freely work at the DOC without suffering unlawful discrimination.
"When you serve your country, you don't expect to be treated differently than anyone else," Kubic told CBS 21 news.
Kubic has teamed with Attorney Jacob of Boyle, Autry & Murphy
to bring a federal civil rights lawsuit against Ferguson, Allen and one
other DOC employee responsible for the charges unfairly leveled against
him. The case, Kubic v. Allen, et al., is pending in the United States
District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania.
The decorated war veteran - who is not
suing the DOC itself - hopes to see Ferguson terminated for her
abhorrent behavior. Kubic, who suffers from post-traumatic stress
disorder (PTSD) as a result of his military service, is also seeking
financial compensation for the psychological and financial harm caused
by the criminal charges and the unlawful termination of his employment.
Kubic's disturbing story demonstrates
the importance of the American civil justice system: Without the power
of a civil lawsuit, Ferguson would have dealt the final, damaging blow
to Kubic's reputation and livelihood.
With
his day in court, Bryan Kubic will have an opportunity to clear his
name and ensure that justice is achieved. Kubic has suffered irreparable
harm to his reputation - something that money can't fix - but he
believes that when he prevails in federal court it will help to
guarantee that military personnel receive the equal treatment and
respect that they deserve.
| 
No comments:
Post a Comment