Friday, September 13, 2013

The liability issue

Denis Halliday (Global Research) notes the hidden World Health Organization report won the birth defects the US' use of Depleted Uranium in Iraq:

This issue was first brought to light in 2004 in a WHO expert report “on the long-term health of Iraq’s civilian population resulting from depleted uranium (DU) weapons”. This earlier report was “held secret”, namely suppressed by the WHO:

The study by three leading radiation scientists cautioned that children and adults could contract cancer after breathing in dust containing DU, which is radioactive and chemically toxic. But it was blocked from publication by the World Health Organization (WHO), which employed the main author, Dr Keith Baverstock, as a senior radiation advisor. He alleges that it was deliberately suppressed, though this is denied by WHO. (See Rob Edwards, WHO ‘Suppressed’ Scientific Study Into Depleted Uranium Cancer Fears in Iraq,  The Sunday Herald, February 24, 2004)

Almost nine years later,  a joint WHO- Iraqi Ministry of Health Report on cancers and birth defect in Iraq was to be released in November 2012. “It has been delayed repeatedly and now has no release date whatsoever.”


If the report were released, hypocrite Barack would be a lot less able to strut around yelling about chemical weapons.

Also, the release of the report might go to liability in terms of damages.

Most importantly, it could land the US government in a criminal court.  And, honestly, that's where Bush and Barack belong.




This is C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"



Friday, September 13, 2013.  Chaos and violence continue, twin bombings target a mixed section of Iraq, the Ashraf community remains in turmoil, Desmond Tutu speaks on the topic of Syria, new IRS scandal revelations, and more.


Sunday, in the Bay Area, there's an event:


Sunday, September 15, 2013
12:30pm to 5:00pm

Walnut Park
downtown Petaluma, CA

Speakers:

Daniel Ellsberg - Pentagon Papers whistleblower, supporter of Chelsea Manning and Edward Snowden 
Jill Stein - 2012 Green Party Presidential candidate
Norman Solomon - author, activist, community organizer 
Therese Mughannam-Walrath - Palestinian peace activist
Michael Nagler - Director, Metta Center for Nonviolence
Marc Armstrong - Director, Public Banking Institute
Kamal Prasad - food issues activist
Also speakers on:
  • Immigration issues
  • Stopping mass incarceration
  • Fukushima nuclear plant
  • Unite Here labor campaign
  • Labeling GMOs

Entertainment:

The Pounce & Denounce PlayHouse - Occupy Petaluma's own theater troupe
De Colores with special guest, Francisco Herrera (Música de las Americas)
Spoken Word & Drums by Masaba (the Last Poets), &
Michael Rothenburg
(100K Poets for Change)

Many Social Justice, Environmental, Labor, and Community Organizations will have Informational booths/tables.

The event is produced by the Petaluma Progressives and is cosponsored by KPFA 94.1 FM, the Peace & Justice Center of Sonoma County, The Bohemian and the Committee for Immigrant Rights, Sonoma County. It takes place at Petaluma Blvd South and D Street, downtown Petaluma. It is free to the public.

Tamales, Rice, Beans, Other Goodies & Drinks Available.


For more info, call 707.763.8134
Or by email: info@progressivefestival.org


A KPFA friend asked if we could note the event and note that, from one p.m. to three p.m., KPFA will be covering the event live. That's over the airwaves (94.1 on the FM dial) in the Bay Area and around the world online (KPFA offers live streaming and archives -- some archived program is archived briefly, I didn't think to ask how long this would be archived, sorry).


From an announcement to a quandry, what's wrong with this paragraph:

George W. Bush once flubbed an aphorism (granted, an easy to flub aphorism) about being fooled once, shame on the fooler, being similarly fooled twice, then the shame was on you.1 Barack Obama has turned the scenario on its head. Obama was not fooled by Bush and the neocons pushing for an attack on Iraq. In 2002, while a United States senator, Barack Obama said, “I don’t oppose all wars. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. … That’s what I’m opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.”2 For Obama, invading Iraq would be a dumb war.








That's Kim Petersen (Dissident Voice) making a common mistake.  Barack Obama was not a US Senator in 2002.   He was in the Illinois state legislature.  He would run for the US Senate in 2004.  And his opposition to the Iraq War?

And I'm so sad
like a good book
I can't put this 
Day Back
a sorta fairytale
with you 
a sorta fairytale
with you 
-- "A Sorta Fairytale," written by Tori Amos, first appears on her album Scarlet's Walk

For those who can't remember, let's revisit former President Bill Clinton's 2008 remarks:


"But since you raised the judgment issue, let's go over this again. That is the central argument for his campaign. 'It doesn't matter that I started running for president less a year after I got to the Senate from the Illinois State Senate. I am a great speaker and a charismatic figure and I'm the only one who had the judgment to oppose this war from the beginning. Always, always, always.' "
[. . .]
"Second, it is wrong that Senator Obama got to go through 15 debates trumpeting his superior judgment and how he had been against the war in every year, numerating the years, and never got asked one time, not once, 'Well, how could you say that when you said in 2004 you didn't know how you would have voted on the resolution? You said in 2004 there was no difference between you and George Bush on the war and you took that speech you're now running on off your website in 2004* and there's no difference in your voting record and Hillary's ever since?' Give me a break.
"This whole thing is the biggest fairy tale I've ever seen."

"*" It was 2003 when it was first disappeared as Glen Ford has pointed out.

Barack took no stand against the Iraq War as a US Senator, instead choosing to vote to fund it over and over.  In 2008, Ted Glick became a two-bit whore for the Cult of St. Barack.  At the start of 2007, he was much more honest about just how warlike and centrist Barack Obama actually was (and is).


Today Iraq makes Ana Marie Cox's number one item the topic of Syria's crowded out of the news in recent weeks.  In a column for the Guardian, she notes:


 

Hey, there's still a war going on there! A milder, less deadly one, but sectarian conflict did not end with the official US military exit (over 5,000 armed private security contractors remain). Of all the other stories Americans should be aware of as the Syria debate continues, this is the most significant – and not just because the disaster looms so large in American memories, but because of the disaster that continues today – and has recently escalated. Car bombings and suicide attacks were killing a manageable 200-300 people per month last year; in July, that number was 900, and 700 in August – the deadliest months in five years. While far less than the 2,500 per month that died at the height of US involvement, the higher tolls are linked to Sunni extremists morbidly encouraged by the chaos next door in Syria.
Arming or aiding the Sunni rebels in Syria could give Iraqi Sunnis even more reasons to react with greater violence to the repressive techniques of the Shi'ite-led government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.


Ana Marie Cox is correct that contractors remain.  Marines remain to guard the US Embassy and consulates.  The US military remains as 'trainers.'  As Ted Koppel pointed out in December of 2011, various others would (and did) remain behind.  And we'll yet again note Tim Arango's September 25th New York Times report which included, "Iraq and the United States are negotiating an agreement that could result in the return of small units of American soldiers to Iraq on training missions.  At the request of the Iraqi government, according to [US] General [Robert L.] Caslen, a unit of Army Special Operations soldiers was recently deployed to Iraq to advise on counterterrorism and help with intelligence."


On the ground in Iraq, violence continues.  Twin bombings result in a large death toll on the edge of Baquba.  AP identifies the location as Umm al-Adham village.  AFP reports, "Iraqi officials say a bomb has struck a Sunni mosque during prayers north of Baghdad, killing 28 people in the latest eruption of violence to rock the country." at least forty-one more people are said to be injured. BBC News adds, "Two roadside bombs were detonated as worshippers left the al-Salam mosque after Friday prayers, police said." Lu Hui (Xinhua) reports:


At least 30 people were killed and 42 others wounded around midday when a car bomb hit worshippers as they completed their Friday prayers and went out of a mosque in the town of Ottomaniya, 15 km southwest of the provincial capital city of Baquba, a provincial police source told Xinhua on condition of anonymity.

Meanwhile, one was killed and five others were wounded in a roadside bomb attack near a Sunni mosque in Qarataba, some 110 km northeast of Baquba, he added.


Raheem Salman, Isabel Coles and Mark Heinrich (Reuters) explain the two bombings "occurred about ten minutes apart in the ethnically and confessionally mixed city, situated around 65 km (40 miles) northeast of the capital Baghdad. The second explosion tore through a crowd of people who had rushed to help those hurt in the first blast."   KUNA notes the death toll rose to 35.

The attacks comes during an already violent September.  Through yesterday, Iraq Body Count counts 403 violent deaths in Iraq so far this month.



In other violence today, National Iraqi News Agency reports a Mosul home invasion has left 6 family members dead, Khalaf Humeed Mohammed (Board Chair of Shura county local council) was shot dead in Mosul, a Ramadi sticky bombing left one police officer injured, an Ishaqi car bombing targeting a bus filled with people journeying from Samarra to Balad and left 3 dead and twelve more left injured, and, early this morning, 1 Khadija preacher was shot dead and a Alaadheim car bombing left four people injured.

One week shy of the nine month anniversary, the ongoing protests in Iraq continue today.  Iraqi Spring MC notes protests took place in Ramadi, in Falluja, in Tikrit, in Mosul and in Baiji.The protesters are demanding basic rights and freedoms. They have to demand them because Nouri fails to honor the most basic promises fails to honor the most basic promises government makes to its citizens.  AP notes today, "Members of Iraq's Sunni Arab minority have been protesting against the Shia-led government since December, angered over what they see as second-class treatment of their sect and what they see as unfair application of tough anti-terrorism measures."

In Nouri al-Maliki's Iraq, everyone's a target.  The Ashraf community was attacked two Sundays ago in Iraq.  They are a group of Iranian dissidents and the latest attack on them led UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon to issue  a statement:



The Secretary-General deplores the tragic events in Camp Ashraf today that have reportedly left 47 killed.  He expresses his sorrow and extends his deepest condolences to the families of the victims.
The Secretary-General reiterates his full support for and his absolute confidence in the relentless work of the United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq (UNAMI).  He appeals for the urgent restoration of security in the Camp as it is the responsibility of the Government of Iraq to ensure the safety and security of the residents. The Secretary-General calls on the Government of Iraq to promptly investigate the incident and disclose the findings.


Adam Schreck (AP) reported that the United Nations was able to confirm the deaths of 52 Ashraf residents.  Al Mada noted that Nouri's declared he should be over the Iraqi investigation since he's commander-in-chief.  And that's exactly why he shouldn't be over it.  Are we really surprised that the concepts of "independence" and "integrity" would escape Nouri?  

US Senator Robert Menendez is the Chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and his office issued the following yesterday:


September 12, 2013
WASHINGTON, DC – U.S. Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ), Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, released this statement condemning the attacks on Camp Ashraf residents, and called on the Iraqi government to protect the community and secure the release of seven hostages taken after the massacre at Camp Ashraf.


“I condemn the brutal violence targeting Camp Ashraf residents in the most forceful of terms and personally offer my deepest sympathies to the families of this horrific act of terror. The surviving residents have been moved to Camp Liberty, but serious threats endure for the community and they remain targets of future attacks even as they are relocated. The United Nations Assistance Mission in Iraq must proceed with their independent investigation and thoroughly ensure the safety and wellbeing of those residents now in Camp Liberty.

“I hold the Iraqi government directly responsible to protect the community, to investigate this matter thoroughly, and to prosecute the perpetrators of this heinous act. I am deeply concerned for the seven hostages who were taken during this attack. The Iraqi government should act swiftly to determine their whereabouts and ensure their safety. There is added urgency for the global community, as well as for the United States, to help resettle this community outside of Iraq, and end this cycle of ongoing terror attacks.”

###


Press Contact
adam_sharon@foreign.senate.gov





Camp Ashraf housed a group of Iranian dissidents who were  welcomed to Iraq by Saddam Hussein in 1986 and he gave them Camp Ashraf and six other parcels that they could utilize. In 2003, the US invaded Iraq.The US government had the US military lead negotiations with the residents of Camp Ashraf. The US government wanted the residents to disarm and the US promised protections to the point that US actions turned the residents of Camp Ashraf into protected person under the Geneva Conventions. This is key and demands the US defend the Ashraf community in Iraq from attacks.  The Bully Boy Bush administration grasped that -- they were ignorant of every other law on the books but they grasped that one.  As 2008 drew to a close, the Bush administration was given assurances from the Iraqi government that they would protect the residents. Yet Nouri al-Maliki ordered the camp repeatedly attacked after Barack Obama was sworn in as US President. July 28, 2009 Nouri launched an attack (while then-US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates was on the ground in Iraq). In a report released this summer entitled "Iraqi government must respect and protect rights of Camp Ashraf residents," Amnesty International described this assault, "Barely a month later, on 28-29 July 2009, Iraqi security forces stormed into the camp; at least nine residents were killed and many more were injured. Thirty-six residents who were detained were allegedly tortured and beaten. They were eventually released on 7 October 2009; by then they were in poor health after going on hunger strike." April 8, 2011, Nouri again ordered an assault on Camp Ashraf (then-US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates was again on the ground in Iraq when the assault took place). Amnesty International described the assault this way, "Earlier this year, on 8 April, Iraqi troops took up positions within the camp using excessive, including lethal, force against residents who tried to resist them. Troops used live ammunition and by the end of the operation some 36 residents, including eight women, were dead and more than 300 others had been wounded. Following international and other protests, the Iraqi government announced that it had appointed a committee to investigate the attack and the killings; however, as on other occasions when the government has announced investigations into allegations of serious human rights violations by its forces, the authorities have yet to disclose the outcome, prompting questions whether any investigation was, in fact, carried out."  Those weren't the last attacks.  They were the last attacks while the residents were labeled as terrorists by the US State Dept.  (September 28, 2012, the designation was changed.)   In spite of this labeling, Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) observed that "since 2004, the United States has considered the residents of Camp Ashraf 'noncombatants' and 'protected persons' under the Geneva Conventions."  So the US has an obligation to protect the residents.  3,300 are no longer at Camp Ashraf.  They have moved to Camp Hurriyah for the most part.  A tiny number has received asylum in other countries. Approximately 100 were still at Camp Ashraf when it was attacked Sunday.   That was the second attack this year alone.   February 9th of this year, the Ashraf residents were again attacked, this time the ones who had been relocated to Camp Hurriyah.  Trend News Agency counted 10 dead and over one hundred injured.  Prensa Latina reported, " A rain of self-propelled Katyusha missiles hit a provisional camp of Iraqi opposition Mujahedin-e Khalk, an organization Tehran calls terrorists, causing seven fatalities plus 50 wounded, according to an Iraqi official release."


Today Ramesh Sepehrrad (UPI) offers:


Addressing the Syrian situation, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry recently told Congress, "The word of the United States must mean something."
Back in 2003, it was the very words of the U.S. government that guaranteed the residents of Camp Ashraf of U.S. protection, words that remain unfulfilled today.
In early 2009, in a breach of the Fourth Geneva Convention, Washington recklessly transferred the protection responsibility for Camp Ashraf to the Iraqi government.
There was ample evidence at the time that Iraq's loyalty to Tehran was making it less than willing or capable of providing the level of protection stipulated by the international law.
Since then there have been five deliberate deadly attacks against the unarmed residents who are members of Iran's opposition group, the People's Mujahedin Organization of Iran.
Every attack has been a test of America's willingness to stand by its words and effectively pressure the Iraqis. Escalating violence against this group shows the United States has failed in every test.

The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees issued the following statement today, "UNHCR remains deeply concerned about developments in relation to Camp New Iraq, most notably the security of the remaining residents, not least in light of the horrific events leading to the death of 52 residents last week. UNHCR urges that a peaceful solution be found and calls in particular on the Iraqi government to ensure the security of the residents."  Meanwhile the acting special envoy in Iraq for the UN Secretary-General, Gyorgy Bustin, spoke with the press today.  Adam Schreck (AP) quotes Bustin stating, "What has happened at Camp Ashraf on the first of September is a game changer. It should be a wake-up call to all countries who are in a position to help to come forward. Resettlement is the ultimate guarantee of their security."

Though any country can come to the aid of the Ashraf community, the US government has a legal obligation.  It's really amazing that over a year ago the US took the MEK off the terrorist list nearly a year ago (September 28th) and yet they have failed repeatedly at relocating the Ashraf community out of Iraq.   That is an obligation and its one the State Dept is failing.

 Dropping back to yesterday's snapshot for another Ashraf issue:

AFP reports, "The UN has urged Iraq to investigate the disappearances but there has been 'nothing so far', [UNAMI spokesperson Eliana] Nabaa told AFP."  The National Council of Resistance of Iran states:


Kamal Amin, spokesman for the so-called Ministry of Human Rights of Iraq said today: “Iraqi security forces have detained these individuals for attacking their own forces (Iraqi security forces).” (Voice of Free Iraq, September 12, 2013).
As such, 11 days after repeated denials, the Iraqi government accepted responsibility for the abduction of seven members of the People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran (PMOI) and said that the seven missing PMOI members have been detained by the security forces. He preposterously claimed that they had been arrested because they had attacked the security forces.
The Iranian Resistance’s President-elect, Mrs. Maryam Rajavi, demanded urgent action by the US Secretary of State, the UN Secretary General, the High Commissioner for Refugees and the ICRC to secure the immediate release of the seven hostages and their return [to Liberty].
In recent days the seven hostages were seen in blue prison uniforms in Maliki's Golden division.


Today UNHCR issued the following statement:

These seven are all known by UNHCR to be asylum-seekers, and the agency hopes to have an opportunity to interview them. In light of the numerous and persistent reports over the past week that these individuals may be at risk of forced return to Iran, UNHCR calls upon the Government of Iraq to locate them, to ensure their physical security, and to safeguard them against return to Iran against their will.


Turning to the US,  Archbishop Emeritus Desmond Tutu spoke at Butler University last night.  Robert King (Indianapolis Star) reports:

And characteristic of a man who didn't hesitate to blast a repressive regime in his own country, Tutu didn’t hesitate to wade into the issue of the moment. He praised Americans for being skeptical of an attack on Syria given the “illegal, immoral invasion of Iraq” in 2003.
“I salute the American people because they learned a lesson in 2003, because now a majority of the American people are saying no to a military intervention,” Tutu said. He added: “You Americans are some of the most generous creatures God ever created. Why don’t you drop food and not bombs?”
Tutu’s legacy of speaking truth to power, of seeking justice for the oppressed and for reconciling relationships broken by violence and war is one he has been building for decades. But despite his animated performance, it’s not clear how much longer Tutu -- described by [Rev Allan] Boesak as “one of the greatest living icons of our time” -- would be able to carry on himself. He hobbled to the stage in a leg cast (he has tendonitis) and seemed fatigued backstage when his speech was over.

US war on Syria is not a vanished prospect.  But a number of pushbacks -- such as the protests and public opinion -- and a blunder have combined to avert it at least for now. 
 Martin Michaels (Mint Press News) reports, "About half of all Americans oppose military intervention in Syria, but opposition to attacks is much higher among current service members, according to recent opinion polling by the Military Times -- which found that 75 percent of the military now oppose a U.S. military strike in Syria."  Aaron David Miller (CNN) explains:

The American people are their own experts this time around on what constitutes a vital national interest for the United States and what they want done about it.
After two of the longest and most profitless wars in American history, the public has a more discriminating assessment of what's worth fighting for and what's not. And, deeply dismayed by the standard for victory -- when can we leave, not how do we win -- most Americans rightly see a U.S. military strike on Syria as an imperfect option that is likely either to be ineffective or to draw the U.S. into another country's civil war.

And yet Barack, even now, can't stop trying to push for war.  Jason Hirthler (CounterPunch) points out, "With almost pathological haste, Western governments have moved to undermine Russia's sensible proposal for Syria to hand over its chemical stores, thus avoiding the needless carnage being proposed by the United States. In an interview with CBS Evening News anchor Scott Pelley not hours after the proposal gained the tentative acceptance of the Syrians, Obama grudgingly conceded it was a positive development, but quickly added that it would never have been possible without 'a credible military threat,' and sounded all the appropriate reservations."  Hirthler observes:

In his national address Tuesday night, Obama rather cynically attempted this when he insinuated that the diplomatic solve had emerged from his talks with Vladimir Putin. However, the solution was evidently stimulated by John Kerry’s moment of thoughtless candor, in which he did what no warmongering deputy should ever do—offer the villain an escape route. Kerry said in London on Monday that, sure, if Syria gives up its chemicals, we won’t attack it. The Russian Foreign Minister smartly seized on the admission, quickly secured Syrian acquiescence, and announced a diplomatic breakthrough. Kerry was left dumbfounded, slumping back to Washington with a laurel leaf in hand, instead of the uranium-tipped arrows the White House was so poised to launch “across the bow” of international law.



International law isn't the only thing Barack's disrespecting.  John Glaser (Antiwar.com) notes US House Rep Justin Amash's Tweet:

  1. Under , you'd be indefinitely detained w/o charge or trial if you sent weapons to opposition forces in . Gov't is breaking law.


Glaser writes:

I take it Amash is referring to the clause of the USA PATRIOT Act which prohibits giving material support to groups designated by the United States as terrorists. In Holder v. Humanitarian Law Projectthe court found that “training,” “expert advice or assistance,” “service,” and “personnel,” all qualified as material assistance.
Last year, the U.S. State Department officially designated the Syrian rebels’ foremost fighting group, Jabhat al-Nusra, a terrorist organization. The U.S. has maintained all along that they are employing a “vetting process” to make sure all the material support they send to Syria’s rebels doesn’t go to the bad guys. But U.S. officials told the Washington Post last year that the CIA knew very little about who was receiving U.S. support, nor could they control exactly where it ended up. The New York Times also reported that the Obama administration has been “increasing aid to the rebels” even though “we don’t really know” who is receiving it.

It's amazing that sad fools like Nancy Pelosi would rather get offended by Russian President Vladimir Putin's column yesterday than by the fact that the White House is in bed with al Qaeda and any military action the US takes in Syria would assist and enable al Qaeda.  What a way to 'honor' the victims of 9-11.




Wednesday, Ruth noted, "One year ago today, Glen Doherty, Sean Smith, Chris Stevens, and Tyrone Woods were killed in Benghazi.  We still do not have the needed answers."  In this community, Ruth does the heavy lifting on Benghazi.  (And does a great job.)  We note it mainly in terms of Congressional hearings here.  The right-wing Newsbusters (a media watchdog) e-mails to note their piece by Matthew Balan which opens, "As of Thursday morning, CBS's morning and evening newscasts have yet to mention a revelation made by their own investigative correspondent, Sharyl Attkisson, on Tuesday -- that Secretary of State John Kerry told Congress 'he will not honor the request to make Benghazi survivors available for questioning'."  The basis for the claim?  This Tweet by CBS News' Sharyl Attiksson:


Secy Kerry tells congress he will not honor the request to make Benghazi survivors available for questioning.


That requires a report and not a Tweet.  CBS needs to report it.  They can put that up against footage of John Kerry testifying before the House Foreign Affairs Committee if they're unaware of how this is news.  Not only does such a move warrant a report, it also requires a statement to the public from the State Dept and reporters at the department's semi-daily press briefing should be demanding a response to why Kerry is refusing.

We cover the IRS scandal here.  Newsbusters also notes Geoffrey Dickens piece on that:

The Big Three (ABC, CBS, NBC) networks have colluded with the Obama administration to censor the latest IRS scandal news. The latest: On September 11 the Wall Street Journal’s editorial page, in an article headlined “Lois Lerner’s Own Words,” reported the following: “In a February 2011 email, Ms. Lerner advised her staff—including then Exempt Organizations Technical Manager Michael Seto and then Rulings and Agreements director Holly Paz—that a Tea Party matter is ‘very dangerous,’ and is something ‘Counsel and [Lerner adviser] Judy Kindell need to be in on.’ Ms. Lerner adds, ‘Cincy should probably NOT have these cases.’

That’s a different tune than the IRS sang in May when former IRS Commissioner Steven Miller said the agency’s overzealous enforcement was the work of two ‘rogue’ employees in Cincinnati. When the story broke, Ms. Lerner suggested that her office had been unaware of the pattern of targeting until she read about it in the newspaper. ‘So it was pretty much we started seeing information in the press that raised questions for us, and we went back and took a look,’ she said in May.”
The article also offers a review of many developments in the ongoing story.  Of those, I would note: "On August 6, as reported on CNN.com, the vice chairman of the Federal Election Commission, Don McGhan, revealed 'he has seen numerous undisclosed e-mails between FEC staffers and the Internal Revenue Service that raise new questions about potential collusion between the two federal agencies in the alleged targeting of conservative political groups'."  Otherwise?  We've covered this stuff.  Reading their list and what has or hasn't been covered, I was surprised that there was no coverage of the targeting of pro-life groups.  I am 100% pro-choice.  That's not the issue.  The issue is free speech without being hindered or penalized by government.  Dropping back to the May 17th snapshot:
US House Rep Aaaron Schock had a number of issues to raise about what the IRS did. A pro-life was group was asked about the content of their prayers and [then-Acting IRS Commissioner Steve] Miller couldn't weigh in on whether or not that was an appropriate question for the IRS to ask.  Another pro-life group was asked if they taught "both sides of the issue."  As anyone knows, I'm firmly pro-choice.  That does not mitigate my offense at these questions the IRS asked and, especially with regard to prayer, they crossed a line.  It's a damn shame Steve Miller didn't know how to respond but a clear indication he was never up for the job. Schock noted another pro-life group was asked to reveal what writing would be on signs they carried at a protest?  Again, Miller had no comment. Popular responses from Miller included: "I don't know," "I don't believe so," "I have no reason to believe . . .," "I don't think so," "I don't have exact knowledge on that," "I'm really not sure" and "I'd have to go back and check."  He wasn't sure if he had notes.  He wasn't sure about timelines.  He was sure about this or about that. 
 The targeting of pro-life groups was apparently news to The National Review when they came across it in August.  With Benghazi and the IRS, the biggest surprise for me personally is how little so many people know about it.  And by 'people,' I mean those writing about it.  Bob Somerby has strengths.  Benghazi is not one of them.  He was very good at repeating what made the papers about hearings.  He was lousy with facts because he wasn't at those hearings.  A six hour hearing, even with the best reporter, will not be accurately captured in a news article or a TV report. (Nor does my covering a hearing here does not accurately capture the full hearing.) And to hear Bob pontificate about what this or that means and make one factual mistake after another was as frustrating as it was hilarious.  Point being, the IRS scandal is a real scandal.  The press has done a poor job explaining the whys of that.  Josh Hicks (Washington Post) reported today:

House Republicans on Thursday rekindled a months-old controversy by releasing what they described as new evidence that the Internal Revenue Service targeted conservative groups for political reasons. Rep. Dave Camp (R-Mich.), chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, revealed e-mails that he said show “high-level IRS employees in Washington were abusing their power to prevent conservative groups from organizing and carrying out their missions.”
In one message, IRS official Lois Lerner told her staff: “Tea Party matter very dangerous. This could be the vehicle to go to court on the issue of whether [a Supreme Court decision] overturning the ban on corporate spending applies to tax exempt rules … Cincy should probably NOT have these cases.”





 

 




 
 


 
 

Thursday, September 12, 2013

Barack gets called out

Global Research has a report by Larry Everest about Barack's lying:


The American public is being trained to think in these terms through Obama’s speech, and through endless spinning and “debate” among media pundits who are allowed access to maintream media. But people who have the ability to think critically and have the moral sense to look at things from the standpoint of the interests of HUMANITY have to loudly and clearly REJECT THESE TERMS in all kinds of ways, including connecting that outlook with, and encouraging political protests against, any U.S. moves against Syria.

It is an unfortunate fact that among the forces “in the field” in Syria, none of them represent the interests of the people—including the regime and its allies and the motley collection of jihadists and more pro-U.S. forces. Beyond that, two reactionary forces are setting overall terms in the Middle East—“the West” (capitalism-imperialism, led by the U.S.) and—on a much lesser scale but equally reactionary—Islamic Jihad. And other reactionary powers (like Russia) are maneuvering for their own interests in the devastating civil war in Syria that has killed over 100,000 and made refugees of a million people.

But none of this should be an excuse for inaction and disorientation by people who oppose a U.S. attack. Just the opposite. An important editorial at revcom.us, “Syria: No War for Imperialist Interests!” bears ongoing study as a reference point for everyone who finds intolerable the “choices” of different ways of bringing oppression and suffering to the people of Syria. That editorial discusses the problems the imperialist system is facing right now, including that because of real difficulties, obstacles, and dangers to the U.S. empire involved in various scenarios they are debating, it may actually not be a settled question whether the U.S. attacks Syria. In short, there is both a moral and political basis to oppose any U.S. attack on Syria in any form, and openings to wage political protest on that basis.

Barack's the biggest con job in the world.  He thinks he can sweet talk the polish off the shoe. But the thing about con men is that, once they're exposed, no one bothers to trust them anymore.

And that's how it is now for Barack.

He's been exposed.

There's no new and shiny for him anymore.

He is the con man who betrayed the trust.



This is C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"


Thursday, September 12, 2013.  Chaos and violence, Moqtada al-Sadr makes an announcement, Atheel al-Nujaifi clears up a matter, Iraqi women garner some press attention, Vladimir Putin offends a number of people (including Nancy Pelosi and John McCain) by citing international law, and more.


Starting with Syria.  Jason Ditz (Antiwar.com) reports of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, "Assad is said to have given an interview to Russian television announcing his intention to cede control of the arms to the international community. He will reportedly endorse the Russian plan, and say that it was Russia’s efforts, not US threats, that led to his decision."  The spotlight is on Russia.  Russian President Vladimir Putin has a column in the New York Times.  As Cedric's "He reads" and Wally's "THIS JUST IN! SHOCKING!" note, US Senator John McCain is outraged.  House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi avoids the issue of war:


  1. Hopefully, when Pres. says "we must not forget that God created us equal" he includes gays and lesbians in Russia.


Her avoidance of the topic of war is because she's supporting it.  As Joseph Mayton (The Progressive) reported earlier this week, California's eighth district is not happy:


In the heart of San Francisco, a stone's throw from the United Nations Plaza and the Civic Center, scores of residents gathered in front of senior Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi's office to push for an end to what one protester said was the "war-mongering that we saw in the lead up to the Iraq war."
For many, the calls for war are a return to the George W. Bush era of violence as an appropriate response.

To many of us in the eighth district, Nancy has morphed into The Bride of Bush.  Meanwhile Zaid Jilani (Moyers & Company) notes the morphing taking place in the Republican Party:


 In 2011, that started to change, when dovish Republicans like Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) and Rep. Justin Amash (R-MI) took office. In his foreign policy coming-out speech at Johns Hopkins University, Paul said he would “rather send some…professors around the world than I would our soldiers” and would “rather do that than go to war with Iran.” In May, 26 Republicans voted for an amendment by Rep. Jim McGovern (D-MA) to implement a timetable for withdrawal from Afghanistan that only narrowly failed. Later that year, 225 House Republicans joined 70 Democrats to reject authorizing military action in Libya after hostilities began.
 Two years later, Paul took to the floor of the Senate to conduct a talking filibuster to protest the expanding use of drones. While he started virtually alone, his act of protest eventually drew enough popularity to culminate in 34 votes against the nomination of John Brennan for CIA director – with the majority of the Republican caucus, 31 senators, standing with Paul.

John McCain, Nancy Pelosi and other assorted idiots are appalled by Putin's column. Why?  Here's the section that upset them the most:


Relations between us have passed through different stages. We stood against each other during the cold war. But we were also allies once, and defeated the Nazis together. The universal international organization – the United Nations – was then established to prevent such devastation from ever happening again.
The United Nations' founders understood that decisions affecting war and peace should happen only by consensus, and with America's consent the veto by security council permanent members was enshrined in the United Nations charter. The profound wisdom of this has underpinned the stability of international relations for decades.
No one wants the United Nations to suffer the fate of the League of Nations, which collapsed because it lacked real leverage. This is possible if influential countries bypass the United Nations and take military action without security council authorisation.
The potential strike by the United States against Syria, despite strong opposition from many countries and major political and religious leaders, including the pope, will result in more innocent victims and escalation, potentially spreading the conflict far beyond Syria's borders. A strike would increase violence and unleash a new wave of terrorism. It could undermine multilateral efforts to resolve the Iranian nuclear problem and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and further destabilise the Middle East and North Africa. It could throw the entire system of international law and order out of balance.

As Betty explained last night:


Sorry but Putin is right.  Without approval from the UN Security Council, a US attack on Syria would be illegal and constitute an act of aggression -- per international law.
I'm not outraged that Putin's lecturing Barack but I do find it telling of just how awful Barack has been that Vladimir Putin is comfortable calling him out.
On the world stage, Barack is a joke and he has no one to blame but himself.



For those who may have missed how international law works, IPS analyst Phyllis Bennis has repeatedly explained explained it.  We'll include her speaking to Peter Hart on FAIR's Counterspin two Fridays ago:



Phyllis Bennis:  Only if the [United Nations] Security Council votes to endorse the use of force is the use of force legal.  No other agency, institution, organization has that right.  So the Kosovo precedent that you refer to and that unfortunately this is being talked about in the press.  It's being asserted that if the Security Council doesn't agree, there are other options.  Yeah, there are other options.  The problem is they're all illegal.  The Kosovo model was illegal.  What the US did in 1999, when it wanted to bomb, to start an air war against Serbia over Kosovo, realized it would not get support of the Security Council because Russia had said it would veto.  So instead of saying, 'Well okay we don't have support of the Security Council, I guess we can't do it,' they said, 'Okay, we won't go to the Security Council, we'll simply go to the NATO High Command and ask their permission.'  Well, what a surprise, the NATO High Command said 'sure.'  It's like the hammer and the nail.  If you're a hammer, everything looks like a nail.  If you're NATO everything looks like it requires military intervention.  The problem is, under international law, the UN charter is the fundamental component under international law that determines issues of war and peace.  And the charter doesn't say that the Security Council or NATO or the President of the United States can all decide over the use of force.  The only agency that can legally approve the use of force is the Security Council of the United Nations.  Period.  Full stop.


Jon Greenberg and Louis Jacobson (PolitiFact) speak with international law experts and their conclusions are the same as Bennis' conclusion and they point out, "The most important consequence of the United States flouting international law would likely be a loss of credibility whenever it sought to invoke international law down the road. Ignoring international law in one context makes it harder for the United States to invoke international law in other scenarios when the United States believes it furthers national interests or global security."  Bennis and Rev Jesse Jackson (Z-Net) weigh in on Barack's speech Tuesday night:


Still, the President unfortunately reserved the right to launch a military strike if the diplomatic effort does not succeed, and we urge Congress to oppose any such military authorization.
We cannot forget 2002, when then-President Bush persuaded Congress to vote for an authorization for war he claimed was only to strengthen his diplomatic hand. As we know, that authorization was instead used to justify an illegal war and occupation of Iraq, a war whose consequences continue to be felt across the region and here at home.

A potential alternative to a U.S. military strike – a strike opposed overwhelmingly by the American people and the U.S. Congress – is now on the table.

Russian, Syrian and Iranian diplomats are talking. Options that didn’t exist yesterday are suddenly on the table. The U.S. and our allies, with the United Nations in the forefront, seem ready to join those new initiatives to generate a binding, verifiable and enforceable UN resolution to rid Syria of its chemical weapons in a way that does not threaten wider war.


"Who knew there was a wide and deep anti-war consensus in the United States?!" asks Bernardine Dohrn (In These Times).  She then answers:

Apparently not the president, who appears blindsided by the growing opposition to U.S. military attacks on Syria, nor the always hawkish Sens. McCain and Graham, who speak for the aging national security elite, nor the New York Times, which flacked for a violent strike on the first day of Obama’s war announcement but made an about-face the next day, running a devastating front-page photo of “rebel” forces executing their trussed, face-down young prisoners point-blank.


The Voice of Russia notes Madonna, Ed Asner and Mike Farrell have weighed in against war on Syria.   World Can't Wait's Debra Sweet Tweets today:





Expand 



 
 Ann Garrison (CounterPunch) notes, "President Barack Obama, Secretary of State John Kerry, and Prime Minister David Cameron have all by now invoked Rwanda, 1994 as reason to drop Cruise Missiles on Syria, so I spoke to Paul Rusesabagina, whose autobiography, An Ordinary Man, became the Hollywood movie Hotel Rwanda, in the interest of clarifying the invocation."  Use the link to read the transcript of her interview.  Click here to visit her site where she's posted the audio of the interview (KPFA Evening News).  Yesterday, Al Jazeera and the Christian Science Monitor's Jane Arraf Tweeted some basic facts about the civil war taking place in Syria.



  1. Sad, sad human rights report on says most children killed by indiscriminate shelling from both sides, government air strikes.
  2. report cites organized against civilians by government forces, says intelligence services could be guilty of war crimes.



  3. report - growing # of foreign fighters, more money and discipline means radical groups outmatching divided moderate opposition.



This afternoon, Free Speech Radio News (link is audio) reported on Syria.


Dorian Merina:  As the conflict in Syria continues, efforts to find a diplomatic solution continue with US Secretary of State John Kerry arriving in Geneva, Switzerland today to begin two days of talks with Russian officials on securing and eliminating Syria’s chemical weapons stockpile. But the Washington Post and Wall Street Journal report that the US has been sending shipments of weapons and other supplies to the Syrian opposition’s army at the same time it pursues these peaceful negotiations. Syrian President Bashar al-Assad said the US must stop threatening military force and arming the opposition in order for diplomacy to work. On Capitol Hill, FSRN's Alice Ollstein has more.

Alice Ollstein:  A United Nations spokesperson told news outlets Thursday that it has received documents from the Syrian government regarding the prospect of joining the chemical weapons convention  -- the first step of a Russian-backed proposal for the government of Bashar al-Assad to turn over his chemical weapons stockpiles to the international community.  But in an interview with the Russian TV network Russian 24 on Thursday, Assad said the continued threat of military strikes from the United States as well as US supplied arms to the opposition could derail this diplomatic progress.  White House spokesperson Jay Carney defended the arms shipment in a press conference Thursday.  

Jay Carney:  The President on down has said that we are -- have been -- stepping up our assistance to the Syrian military opposition, no question.  The issue of Assad's chemical weapons is separate from our policy response to the civil war in Syria.  And that response is built around humanitarian support for the Syrian people, assistance to the opposition -- including assistance to the Supreme Military Council as well as an effort with a broad range of allies and partners -- including Russia -- to bring about a resolution of that civil war through a political settlement because that is the only way to end that war

Alice Ollstein:  But many peace advocates, international law experts and former government officials say the weapons shipments will only fan the flames of the violent conflict.  Ray McGovern who worked in military intelligence for 27 years told FSRN he's concerned the arms shipments will hurt the negotiations between Russia, Syria and the United States and so they're also likely to prolong the fighting on the ground.

Ray McGovern: It's chaos and so for us to be sending weapons into that calculus?  Well, it's just to give sop to the CNN crowd to say, 'Well we're doing what we can to help the rebels' -- al Qaeda and al Nusra, the most belligerent anti-American factions are the ones that are doing all the effective fighting.  The other factions, such as they are, will either join them or give up their weapons to them or whatever.  I mean this is a civil war in the most messy sense.



Meanwhile Adbusters ponders the selectivity of Barack's outrage over chemical weapons:
 

The use of white phosphorus and depleted uranium in Iraq are a violation of the same international law Obama is now righteously defending. As we see the piles of dead children in Damascus, we're reminded of the pictures of deformed babies in Fallujah, Iraq. On August 29, 2013, a decade after the US invasion of Iraq, Al Jazeera reporter Dahr Jamail points to videos of babies born in Iraq with horrendous defects and malformations. This is the legacy the morally upright US left in Iraq. Jamail says, “we are seeing a rate of congenital malformations in the city of Fallujah that has surpassed even that in the wake of the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki that nuclear bombs were dropped on at the end of World War II.”
Meanwhile, as Assad admits to its chemical weapons stash and considers handing it over to avoid attack, Obama still, albeit tentatively, considers striking..

Chemical weapons being used in Syria would be bad.  Chemical weapons being used in Iraq is nothing to acknowledge.  It's a highly selective outrage.  Larry Kaplow (NPR) observes, "Iraq is one of those slow-boil crises -- not as dynamic or transformational as a military coup in Egypt or a civil war in Syria. Refugees aren't creating havoc on the borders. Iraq's government doesn't seem on the verge of falling. Instead, Iraqis are stuck in a middle ground: A daily life wracked with danger but without enough upheaval to raise international alarm."  AFP's Prashant Rao discussed violence on Twitter today.





    1. So far this month, at least 241 people have been killed and 463 wounded by violence in Iraq - tally:


    2. this never seem to be ending



    3. Sadly, if anything, the violence seems to be worse than before.









Turning to today's violence in Iraq, National Iraqi News Agency reports a Ramadi bombing claimed 3 lives and left four people injured1 army captain was shot dead in Mosul, 1 corpse was discovered in Mosul (17-year-old male who had previously been taken into custody by the military), and a Ramadi car bombing claimed 2 lives and left two more people injuredLu Hui (Xinhua) reports, "Three soldiers were killed and 31 soldiers and would-be soldiers wounded in a suicide truck bomb attack targeting an Iraqi army recruitment center near the northern city of Kirkuk on Thursday, a local police source said." KUNA notes a Ramadi home bombing which "killed three and injured three others including women and children."  Also on violence, UNAMI issued the following today:



Baghdad, 12 September 2013 – The Deputy Special Representative of the United Nations Secretary-General for Iraq (DSRSG), Mr. Gyorgy Busztin, condemns in the strongest terms yesterday’s suicide bomb attack against a mosque in the northern area of Baghdad, which killed and injured dozens of worshipers, as they were exiting after evening prayers.
“This heinous act of violence which shocked the country, shall not undermine the belief in peaceful coexistence among the Iraqi people,” Mr. Busztin said, extending his deep sympathy and sincere condolences to the families of the victims and wishing a speedy recovery to the wounded.



In other news, AFP and Al-Akhbar report that, "The survivors of a mass killing in an Iraqi camp housing Iranian exiles were moved during the night to another camp on the edge of Baghdad, the United Nations said on Thursday.  The Iraqi authorities ordered the transfer of the 42 in the wake of violence in Camp Ashraf in the central Iraq province of Diyala on September 2 in which 52 members of the People's Mujahedeen Organization of Iran died."  Reuters adds, "The dissidents belong to the Mujahadin-e-Khalq (MEK), which wants Iran's clerical leaders overthrown. They are no longer welcome in Iraq under the Tehran-aligned Shia Muslim-led government that replaced the late Sunni dictator Saddam Hussein."


Camp Ashraf housed a group of Iranian dissidents who were  welcomed to Iraq by Saddam Hussein in 1986 and he gave them Camp Ashraf and six other parcels that they could utilize. In 2003, the US invaded Iraq.The US government had the US military lead negotiations with the residents of Camp Ashraf. The US government wanted the residents to disarm and the US promised protections to the point that US actions turned the residents of Camp Ashraf into protected person under the Geneva Conventions. This is key and demands the US defend the Ashraf community in Iraq from attacks.  The Bully Boy Bush administration grasped that -- they were ignorant of every other law on the books but they grasped that one.  As 2008 drew to a close, the Bush administration was given assurances from the Iraqi government that they would protect the residents. Yet Nouri al-Maliki ordered the camp repeatedly attacked after Barack Obama was sworn in as US President. July 28, 2009 Nouri launched an attack (while then-US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates was on the ground in Iraq). In a report released this summer entitled "Iraqi government must respect and protect rights of Camp Ashraf residents," Amnesty International described this assault, "Barely a month later, on 28-29 July 2009, Iraqi security forces stormed into the camp; at least nine residents were killed and many more were injured. Thirty-six residents who were detained were allegedly tortured and beaten. They were eventually released on 7 October 2009; by then they were in poor health after going on hunger strike." April 8, 2011, Nouri again ordered an assault on Camp Ashraf (then-US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates was again on the ground in Iraq when the assault took place). Amnesty International described the assault this way, "Earlier this year, on 8 April, Iraqi troops took up positions within the camp using excessive, including lethal, force against residents who tried to resist them. Troops used live ammunition and by the end of the operation some 36 residents, including eight women, were dead and more than 300 others had been wounded. Following international and other protests, the Iraqi government announced that it had appointed a committee to investigate the attack and the killings; however, as on other occasions when the government has announced investigations into allegations of serious human rights violations by its forces, the authorities have yet to disclose the outcome, prompting questions whether any investigation was, in fact, carried out."  Those weren't the last attacks.  They were the last attacks while the residents were labeled as terrorists by the US State Dept.  (September 28, 2012, the designation was changed.)   In spite of this labeling, Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) observed that "since 2004, the United States has considered the residents of Camp Ashraf 'noncombatants' and 'protected persons' under the Geneva Conventions."  So the US has an obligation to protect the residents.  3,300 are no longer at Camp Ashraf.  They have moved to Camp Hurriyah for the most part.  A tiny number has received asylum in other countries. Approximately 100 were still at Camp Ashraf when it was attacked Sunday.   That was the second attack this year alone.   February 9th of this year, the Ashraf residents were again attacked, this time the ones who had been relocated to Camp Hurriyah.  Trend News Agency counted 10 dead and over one hundred injured.  Prensa Latina reported, " A rain of self-propelled Katyusha missiles hit a provisional camp of Iraqi opposition Mujahedin-e Khalk, an organization Tehran calls terrorists, causing seven fatalities plus 50 wounded, according to an Iraqi official release."


The United Nations issued the following today:


12 September 2013 – A United Nations official in Iraq today announced the successful relocation of the last group of Camp Ashraf residents to a camp near the Baghdad area, pending their resettlement outside the country.
“The process, concluded today, has come a long way since its launch in February 2012, with the Government and the residents both abiding by the agreement between the UN and the Government of Iraq on the transfer of Camp Ashraf residents to the temporary transit location of Camp Hurriya,” said the Deputy Special Representative of the Secretary-General for Iraq, Gyorgy Busztin.
Camp Ashraf was comprised of Iranian exiles, many of them members of a group known as the People’s Mojahedeen of Iran.
More than 3,000 residents have been relocated to Camp Hurriya, previously known as Camp Liberty, while the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) carries out a process to determine their refugee status, and resettle them outside of the country, in line with an agreement signed in December 2011 between the UN and the Iraqi Government.
Camp Ashraf has been attacked several times, making relocation a priority for the UN Assistance Mission for Iraq (UNAMI). The latest attack, which took place earlier this month, killed and injured numerous camp residents.
“The tragic events of 1st September, when 52 residents lost their lives in a terrorist attack, while seven others are still unaccounted for, was a sombre reminder of the necessity to conclude the final phase of the relocation process without further delay,” Mr. Busztin said.
“Resettlement outside Iraq is now the priority, and it is urgent that countries ready to host the residents come forward to accept them, providing them a safe future outside Iraq.”
Mr. Busztin also called on the Iraqi Government to abide by its commitment to ensure maximum safety and security for Camp Hurriya residents until all of them leave the country.





While the UN spins happy, there are outstanding issues not noted above -- chief among them, missing people.  AFP reports, "The UN has urged Iraq to investigate the disappearances but there has been 'nothing so far', [UNAMI spokesperson Eliana] Nabaa told AFP."  The National Council of Resistance of Iran states:


Kamal Amin, spokesman for the so-called Ministry of Human Rights of Iraq said today: “Iraqi security forces have detained these individuals for attacking their own forces (Iraqi security forces).” (Voice of Free Iraq, September 12, 2013).
As such, 11 days after repeated denials, the Iraqi government accepted responsibility for the abduction of seven members of the People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran (PMOI) and said that the seven missing PMOI members have been detained by the security forces. He preposterously claimed that they had been arrested because they had attacked the security forces.
The Iranian Resistance’s President-elect, Mrs. Maryam Rajavi, demanded urgent action by the US Secretary of State, the UN Secretary General, the High Commissioner for Refugees and the ICRC to secure the immediate release of the seven hostages and their return [to Liberty].
In recent days the seven hostages were seen in blue prison uniforms in Maliki's Golden division.


Turning to Iraqi politics, Kitabat reports cleric and movement Moqtada al-Sadr has finished trips to Lebanon and Jordan and paid his respects to his late father at the Najaf shrine and is now ready to re-enter political life.  Moqtada has surprised many by announcing he was stepping away from politics.  Iraqiya leader Ayad Allawi publicly called for Moqtada to return to politics.  Allawi's sentiments were echoed by Iraqis of all sects, not just Shi'ite members of Moqtada's movement.  In a statement issued today, Moqtada acknowledged those calls and announces he will heed them.

Some felt the move was a stunt and said so in real time.  Whether it was a stunt or not (it felt like a real announcement and decision to me when he announced he was walking away from politics), the move underscores how important Moqtada has become to Iraqi politics and how he could command respect in the role of prime minister.  Because of the stances he has taken in the last three years, Moqtada the politician is seen as fighting for the interests of Iraq.  That's a huge shift from the early years of the war when Moqtada was seen by many Iraqis as only interested in Shi'ites (and only in fundamental ones at that).

Of all the leaders decrying the occupation, Moqtada was viewed with the most suspicion outside his Shi'ite followers.  That might have had to do with youth.  It might have been that he was being judged against his father (a problem Ammar al-Hakim is still struggeling with).   There was an understandable and natural rallying around Moqtada in early 2008 as Nouri attacked Basra and Sadr City.  But with his public return to Iraq just a few years ago, Moqtada has made for a more worldly and mature figure.  In statements and actions, he's made nods to Sunnis and Kurds and to a more inclusive Iraq.

Iraqis of all sects have grown weary of the violence and of the leaders like Nouri who only represent a part of Iraq and whose actions are attacks on other Iraqis.  At a time when the Iraqi people are feeling a universal kinship with one another (which is the only reason a full blown civil war is not taking place currently) Moqtada has emerged as a national figure embracing a national Iraqi identity.

Nouri al-Maliki wants a third term.  Whether he's worked that out with the US or not, he wants it.  Ayad Allawi remains a powerful political rival but Moqtada is the truly threatening one for and to Nouri.
 Sunday, we noted Nineveh Governor Atheel al-Nujaifi had an arrest warrant out.  Alsumaria notes that al-Nujaifi appeared before the Integrity Committee today in Baghdad and the warrant has been rescinded.  Hopefully, that ends the matter.  While Atheel was in Baghdad, his brother was in Turkey.  All Iraq News notes Speaker of Parliament Osama al-Nujaifi met with Turkey's Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan to discuss mutual relations and how to ease tensions.  Furthest distance traveled for a meeting this week may go to the Kurds.  Hurriyet Daily News reports:

A delegation from the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) is in Washington to hold meetings with U.S. officials, including senators, congressmen, think tank policy researchers and companies to update them on developments in the Kurdistan Region, Iraq and the wider region.
Minister Falah Mustafa Bakir, Head of the Department of Foreign Relations, and Bayan Sami Abdul Rahman, the KRG High Representative to the U.K., met Brett McGurk, the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Iran and Iraq at the Department of State, and Kelly Clements, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Population, Refugees and Migration, the KRG website reported.


No one's had it easy in post-invasion Iraq.  Women have been targeted with violence and targeted by politicians who have repeatedly attempted to strip them of their rights.  In the face of all this, Iraqi women have remained strong.  UNAMI notes:

Years of repression, economic sanctions, and armed conflicts have led to deterioration in the lives of women in Iraq and an associated loss to the country since women are marginalized and unable to contribute economically, socially, and politically. Iraqi women today suffer from a lack of educational opportunities, a lack of health care and limited access to the labour market as well as high levels of violence and inequality. These conditions are often exacerbated by misconceptions of traditions, cultural and social values, false perceptions, and a lack of awareness of women’s rights and potential, as well as institutional and legal barriers. 

Saleem al-Wazzan (Niqash) reports today:



Human rights groups say there’s been an increase in female suicides in Basra and it may well be because of the difference in the lifestyles Iraqi youth see online and what they must deal with in real life. Only problem is, suicide, especially by girls, is seen as dishonouring one’s family and many are hidden.  
The story of Maha Abbas is a sad one. Apparently the 14-year-old Basra local soaked her clothes with oil and then set herself on fire. The teenager died 24 hours after being taken to hospital and after her death, her family locked the door of their house and refused to speak to anyone about the incident. 

But the neighbours were soon talking. It was a suicide, they said. She was depressed, said one neighbour, Ahmed Mujber. “There were ten children in the family and the father would always fight with his wife and daughters. When he divorced he prevented the children from seeing the mother. That was why she killed herself,” the neighbour concluded.

The fact that Maha’s family tried to hide her death is not uncommon. Because when women in Iraq commit suicide they supposedly bring disgrace to the family and to the dignity and honour of their tribe. Suicide is also unacceptable in religious circles: Islam says that only God may take a life, including one’s own.  

Because a lot of society in Iraq is still fairly conservative and also tribal, mention is not often made of female suicides. The suicide’s family may try to convince others that their daughter died in an accident and they may not even hold a funeral ceremony for the woman.

While when compared to the West, the numbers of women committing suicide in Iraq remain fairly low, some believe that those numbers are rising. Figures are by no means conclusive though and there is sometimes also deliberate confusion between suicide and an honour crime – that is, where a woman is killed because she has been sexually active in a way perceived as illicit by her family or husband. Although adultery is seen as dishonourable, suicide woman is worse – and no doubt, the murderer prefers to avoid jail time.


Also reporting on Iraqi women is Diovan Barwari (Al-Monitor):

 She set her small body on fire after pouring several liters of kerosene over herself and lighting a match. This is how she ended her life after her father refused to allow her to marry her lover and insisted she marry someone she did not know.
  Shahnaz, who was not yet 25 years old, died at a burn center in Nineveh in April 2010 after physicians failed to save her from the injuries that disfigured her entire body. She is now another number on the long list of tragic victims of forced marriages.
Kalnaz, Shahnaz’s younger sister, described the incident to Al-Monitor: “It was an ominous day, [but] we did not expect her to carry out this disastrous act.” She added, “Fire devoured my sister’s body while she screamed out against at all those who were unjust to her.”
The decision made by Layla, 27, was different. She acquiesced to a marriage that she was forced into by her family, to live a life that she described as a “silent death,” rather than a “scandalous death,” after her family refused to allow her to marry her university classmate.



The American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO) held their national convention this week.  As with any organization's convention, various business will take place.  This includes passing resolutions.  One vying for approval at this convention:


Resolution 21: Resolution in Support of Labor Rights in Iraq



Submitted by the South Carolina AFL-CIO
Referred to the Resolutions Committee
WHEREAS, Hassan Juma’a Awad, President of the Federation of Oil Unions in Iraq, has been criminally charged by the Ministry of Oil for allegedly organizing strikes at the South Oil Company; and 
WHEREAS, strikes in this sector have taken place with increasingly regularity as workers in the oil industry seek to protect their rights and interests, improve their working conditions, and seek redress for their grievances; and
WHEREAS, if convicted, Hassan Juma’a Awad could face stiff fines or even 3 years of imprisonment, and the Federation of Oil Unions could be severely crippled—all part of an effort by the al-Maliki government to remove a huge obstacle and source of resistance to privatization of Iraq’s oil resources; and
WHEREAS, the attacks on Hassan Juma’a Awad and the Federation of Oil Unions—which are attacks on freedom of association and the right to organize and bargain collectively—reflect the government of Iraq’s intention to hold onto repressive laws and policies issued by the Saddam Hussein regime, namely, Decree 150 of 1987 and Labor Law No. 71, both of which are in contradiction with ILO conventions and international labor standards, including conventions to which Iraq is signatory; and
WHEREAS, U.S. Labor Against the War (with which CWA is affiliated), the AFL-CIO Solidarity Center and the Iraq Civil Society Solidarity Initiative have spearheaded an international campaign to protest the ongoing violation and denial of worker rights in Iraq, the harassment and persecution of labor activists, interference in the internal affairs of unions, and now an effort to criminalize union activity and prosecute Hassan Juma’a Awad and other union leaders; and
WHEREAS, these actions on the part of the al-Maliki regime are part of a larger pattern of increasingly authoritarian, sectarian and anti-democratic actions and policies that threaten not only the labor movement but all independent civil society organizations that seek to build a peaceful, tolerant, democratic society;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the South Carolina AFL-CIO joins USLAW, Solidarity Center, the Iraq Civil Society Solidarity Initiative and unions the world over to demand that the government of Iraq immediately drop all charges against Hassan Juma’a Awad and cancel the punitive orders issued by the Ministry of Oil to union activists, including all retaliatory transfers, reprimands  and disciplinary penalties against union activists; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the South Carolina AFL-CIO calls upon the Iraqi government to abide by internationally recognized labor standards, including the right of free association to organize, collectively bargain and strike as reflected in International Labor Organization Conventions and Iraq’s own Constitution, and further calls upon the Iraqi government to expeditiously adopt a basic labor law that affirms those rights for all workers, both public and private sector; and
BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the South Carolina AFL-CIO will inform its members about the threat to labor rights in Iraq and encourage them to participate in appropriate solidarity activities in support of the unions and workers of Iraq, and will submit this resolution  to the AFL-CIO with a request that it be adopted at the forthcoming Quadrennial Convention of the Federation.


 Good for the South Carolina chapter but the resolution did not pass.  No real surprise from the increasingly weak-ass and pathetic AFL-CIO.  US Labor Against War has always been more of a friend to Iraqi labor.  John Wojcik (People's World) reports:


Hassan Juma'a Awad, president of the Iraq Federation of Oil Unions, was in town as a guest at the AFL-CIO's 2013 convention where he spoke at a special event organized by U.S. Labor Against the War.
Hassan Juma'a said that workers in his country are routinely denied their right to organize unions and to speak out about working conditions. And he said oil workers whom he represents are engaging in a full-fledged battle to prevent big multinational oil companies from completely taking over the nation's oil industry. Until the U.S. invasion of Iraq the oil companies were nationally owned. BP, ExxonMobil and others have systematically been grabbing control over the industry ever since the U.S. invasion, he said.
"They started out by coming in as consultants and in some cases now essentially control the major oil fields. There are $43 billion in oil profits that should be going to solve the lack of electric power and housing in the post-war cities and towns of Iraq," he said, "but the gangster element in control now after the U.S. invasion has ensured that the Iraqi people haven't seen a dime of that money."
"The situation is such that the people of Iraq gain very little from their own oil industry and in fact have to ask how does it benefit us at all?" he said. "We get environmental problems, higher cancer rates, but the money doesn't go to improving conditions for the people."
Iraq's Ministry of Oil, doing the bidding of the multinational oil companies, filed criminal charges against him earlier this year alleging that the strikes he has led undermined the Iraqi economy. But after the government failed to produce evidence, a judge threw out the case in July.


Iraq War veteran Chelsea Manning leaked documents to WikiLeaks about the US government's criminal actions in Iraq and Afghanistan (counter-insurgency, counter-terrorism, ignoring torture of Iraqis by Nouri's forces, etc).  For that, she was court-martialed and, last month, sentenced to 35 years in prison.  Debra Sweet Tweets the following today:

 




Blog Archive