8 men, 0 women (Harry Jackson is a prick)

Today on Talk of the Nation (NPR), the guests were Quentin Kidd, Floyd Ciruli, Ken Rudin, Daniel Yergin, Christopher Stephen, George Joffe, David Fulghum and Matt Rutherford.

Marcia's covering Harry Jackson's idiotic and homophobic remarks tonight.  I support her 100%.  But as a Black woman with a blog, I do feel the need to state clearly and on the record that Jackson's remarks were offensive and uninformed.

And, yes, the marriage equality movement has its roots in the Civil Rights Movement.  Most liberation movements in this country do.  And that's a good thing.

I am not insulted when I hear a gay activist -- Black, White, whatever -- compare the Gay Rights Movement to the Civil Rights Movement.  Not only do I agree with the comparison, I'm proud to know that my ancestors include brave men and women who fought for equality and that their battle inspired and continues to inspire others.  You can't hope for a greater legacy.

Harry Jackson is a prick.

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

Wednesday, May 9, 2012.  Chaos and violence continue,  Sahwa walks off the job in Diyala Province, Shinseki and the VA try to distract Congress in the US, Cindy Sheehan meets with the Taxman and Taxwoman, and more. Starting with the US Congress. US House Rep Johnson: I'm going to start off with a bit of a difficult questions. You know, year after year, in annual budget submissions, in annual performance reports, quarterly reports, Congressional testimony and in countless press releases and statements, the VA has consistently touted the 14 day standard as the number one measure of mental health care access. In a five month investigation; however, the IG found that measure to have no real value and to be essentially meaningless. Mr. Secretary, how is it possible that that's not bubbling up to your level? How is it possible that you don't know that? And who is responsible for misleading Congress and the public on this metric? And how will they be held accountable? Secretary Eric Shinseki: Uh, Congressman, I, uh, I-I don't think,uh, anyone has, uh, misled Congress here. Doctor Petzel described three methods of, uh, identifying in the scheduling arena. Capacity, desire date, create date. We have -- They have in the mental health areana been using desire date now since 2007 and my understanding this uh goes back to when we had a previous discussion like this. Uhm, I'm not sure how the, uh, results were achieved but it just seems to me that desire date and create date in the report, uh, are brought together in a way, it's hard for me to determine, whether there was a pure assessment of whether desire date was being executed properly, whether staff were properly trained and following the instructions, that would allow us to focus on corrective actions. Right now, part of my discussion with Dr. Petzel is that we're going to sit down with the IG and make sure we come up with a clear standard here so that when we audit in the future, there isn't this confusion about which date we're uh using and we get a cleaner outcome, understanding. I'm not able to address the specifics here but I would assure the Congressman there's no misleading of Congress. US House Rep Bill Johnson: I can certainly agree that there is no intention to do so but I think we all agree here that the objective is to make sure those veterans that request mental health counseling get it as soon as absolutely possible. That's from yesterday's US House Veterans Affairs Committee hearing.  US House Rep Bill Johnson was questioning VA Secretary Eric Shinseki.  And it may have wrongly seemed like Shinseki answered Johnson's question.  He did not. Johnson asked about the figures that were given.  Shinseki attempted to dispute the report from the Office of the Inspector General. He also attempts to push off his Department's problems onto the IG.  There are these different ways of measuring, Shinseki insists. And we're supposed to say, "Goodness, that is confusing.  That mean old IG!"  But that nonsense is not from the IG.  That is the VA's nonsense.  The VA is the one that wants to bring in "desired date" and other obscuring nonsense.  The IG noted that in the cover letter -- for get the report itself -- back in April: "VHA does not have reliable and accurate method of deteriming whether they are providing patients timely access to mental health care servies.  VHA did not provide first-time patients with timely mental health evaluations and existing patients often waited more than 14 days past their desired date of care for their treatment.  As a result, performance measures used to report patient's access to mental health care do not depict the true picture of a patient's waiting time to see mental health provider."  And if Shinseki wants to object to that finding, it's a little too damn late.  As the next sentence notes, "The Under Secretary for Health conccured with the OIG's findings [. . .]" Congress did not invent the 14% number.  The VA did.  And while Shinseki attempts to distract and pin the blame on the IG, someone whould have asked him what Johnson was originally getting at: How did the VA get this figure they promoted? It was a false figure.  They promoted it over and over.  Please note, Shinseki rushed to assure that no one with the VA had intentionally tried to mislead Congress.  He didn't say a damn thing about their attempts to mislead the public.  But then, misleading Congress can result in sanctions.  Lying to the public is a just standard politics. Playing with the numbers and trying to hide behind terms is not leadership.  US House Rep Cliff Stearns, while questioning the reps for the Office of the Inspector General, probably put it best, "Well, I think the bottom line is, you've said it takes 50 days to provide this roughly 200,000 veterans with their full evaluation.  That's what you're saying and that's not good and that should be changed. And I think that's -- no matter what we're talking about, a capacity desire or a create date -- the bottom line is that veterans, almost 200,000, are not getting serviced.  And the Veterans Administration can use whatever terminology and definitions they want, but by golly, these guys -- these guys and gals aren't getting taken care of.  And that's why we're here today." Minutes before US House Rep Johnson went to his line of questioning, Shinseki was declaring, "My guess here is we're doing good work, we're just not able to document it." Is that your guess?  Are you paid to guess or are you paid to suprevise? The metrics have never been in place and that's not just my opinion, that's the opinon of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee based on their own public statements in one hearing after another.  Shinseki was appointed by Barack Obama to supervise the VA.  Supervision is not a guess.  Shinseki's gotten a pass from the press from early on.  When the fall of 2009 rolled around and veterans were without GI Bill checks, when they couldn't afford housing, when this situation continued through Christmas -- as many veterans stated to the press and to Congress, their kids had to do without Christmas because they still hadn't gotten their checks for the semester they'd just completed, they'd had to borrow money to pay for that. When all of that came out, something came out with it. Eric Shinseki admitted that, shortly after being confirmed to his post by the Senate, he was informed that there would be problems with the checks that fall.  That the system wasn't ready for it.  He knew that and Congress repeatedly asked him if there were any problems, repeatedly asked if help was needed and he said no and no and no over and over.  Then when the problem emerged, VA tried to play dumb for months. October 14, 2009, he told the House Committee on Veterans Affairs: Secretary Eric Shinseki: I'm looking at the certificates of eligibility uh being processed on 1 May and enrollments 6 July, checks having to flow through August. A very compressed timeframe. And in order to do that, we essentially began as I arrived in January, uh, putting together the plan -- reviewing the plan that was there and trying to validate it. I'll be frank, when I arrived, uh, there were a number of people telling me this was simply not executable. It wasn't going to happen. Three August was going to be here before we could have everything in place. Uh, to the credit of the folks in uh VA, I, uh, I consulted an outside consultant, brought in an independent view, same kind of assessment. 'Unless you do some big things here, this is not possible.' To the credit of the folks, the good folks in VBA, they took it on and they went at it hard. We hired 530 people to do this and had to train them. We had a manual system that was computer assisted. Not very helpful but that's what they inherited. And we realized in about May that the 530 were probably a little short so we went and hired 230 more people. So in excess of 700 people were trained to use the tools that were coming together even as certificates were being executed. Uhm, we were short on the assumption of how many people it would take. Let's remember too what the VA did in real time: Blamed veterans.  They did the form wrong or it was the schools!  It was everybody but the VA.  No.  As Shinseki finally admitted in an open hearing -- with the press taking a pass on it -- he knew when he started the job.  He heard it from VA employees, he went to an outside consultant who told him the same thing.  Never did he inform Congress of that before the press started reporting what was happening.  That's not leadership.  And over and over, this is the pattern with Shinseki who is supposed to be supervising the VA.  The Walter Reed Army Medical Center scandal pre-dates Shinseki.  But there will be many scandals after Shinseki's out of office that result from the lack of supervision right now. Yesterday morning, as he called the hearing to order, Chair Jeff Miller noted why they were meeting. Chair Jeff Miller: I think most of the Committee knows that two weeks ago the VA Inspector General released a report reviewing veterans access to mental health care -- something that we're all very interested in, as are all veterans and Americans across this country.  And I've got to say that the findings in the report are really more than troubling.  That's probably an understatement to just call them troubling.  And one of the most disturbing things that the IG discovered is that more than half of the veterans who seek mental health care through the VA wait an average of 50 days --  50 days --  to receive a full mental health evaluation.  So let me be real clear from the outset, a veteran who comes to the VA for help should never, never under any circumstance have to wait almost two months to receive the evaluation they have asked for and begin the treatment they need.  I don't believe anybody in this room thinks there is any excuse for that type of delay. If the topic seems familiar, it was the same for the April 25th Senate Veterans Affairs Committee hearing.  If you missed those hearings, you can refer to  "Fire everyone at the VA,"    "Scott Brown: It's clearly not working (Ava),"   "VA paid out nearly $200 million in bonuses last year (Wally)" and that week's Wednesday's snapshot. and Friday snapshot.   The hearing was made up of three panels.  The first panel was Shinseki and the VA's Robert Petzel, Mary Schohn, Antonette Zeiss, Annie Spiczak and, from the Office of Inspector General, John Daigh and Linda Halliday.  The second panel was noted in yesterday's snapshot, in Kat's "Congress Member Gone Wild" and in "Congress is supposed to provide oversight."  The witnesses were Dr. Nicole Sawyer,Group Health Cooperative's Diana Birkett Rakow, Dr. James Schuster and Health Net Federal Services' Thomas Carrato.  The third panel was the Disabled American Veterans' Joy Ilem,  Paralyzed Veterans of America's Alethea Predeoux and Wounded Warrior Project's Ralph Ibson. From the first panel, we'll note this exchange. Chair Jeff Miller: You talked about the press release April 19th.  You've acknowledged also that there's about a 15 -- I think it's 1500 mental health staff vacancies.  It could be more or less.  And you're staffing, your testimony today talks about maybe hiring more than 1900.  So what I'd like -- an answer is, I know you're going to try to fill the 1500 vacancy that exists.  You're going to add additional 1900-plus staff.  And the question is: Is that correct?  Then a couple of other things.  How quickly do you think VA can hire the additional staff?  Where are you going to put the additional staff?  And how will you be able to measure the impact they will have on improving care?  Mr. Chairman, let me just make an opening statement here and then I'm going to call on Ms. Annie Spiczak who does the recruiting and retention personnel work for us because you're asking to see what tools we have and what our expectation here is?  We think that we'll get most of that done in the next six months but some of these specialities are difficult to recruit and  I would, be honest with you, I'm not sure I can pin a date when all of them will be in.  But the vast majority of the work will be done in the next six months.  Some of this may carry over into the second quarter of FY13.  Let me call on Ms. Spiczak to talk about the process here. Annie Spiczak: Thank you, Secretary.  Uh, sir, I would say that we have a four-fold strategy to recruit and hire the mental health professionalsthat we need in VHA. Uh, the first part of that strategy is to have a very robust marketing and advertising campaign to do that outreach to mental health providers and providers by the use of USA Jobs, using social media, getting all of those vacancy announcements posted to specialty sites and job boards. The second part of that is using our national recruiters. We have 21 dedicated health care recruiters and they are very involved with the VISNs and the medical center directors to recruit those hard to fill positions -- especially our psychiatrists and our psychologists.  Thirdly, we're going to recruit from our active pipeline of trainees and residents.  VHA has a very robust training program and they are an integral part to filling that pipeline of our workforce.  And, fourthly, we're going to ensure that we have complete involvement and support of VA leadership. Chair Jeff Miller: I guess -- Secretary Eric Shinseki:  Mr. Chairman, I'm going to call on Dr. Petzel to just add some concluding thoughts here.  But I would also point out the, uh, national recruitment program, the 21 high quality recruiters that Ms. Spiczak referred to, all are veterans.  18 of them have extensive experience in recruiting.  And for any new individual who joins the team,  they go through a training program and oversight, mentoring by some of the old timers, so this is a pretty robust crew that we're talking about.  Dr. Petzel? Dr. Robert Petzel:  Thank you, Mr. Secretary.  Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to add briefly, the VA trains -- has 1,000 psychiatric residency positions.  We have over 730 internship positions for clinical psychologists, just to mention a couple of the positions.  We're the largest trainer of mental health professionals in the country.  And this group of trainees is the primary place that we're going to be recruiting those individuals to fill those 1900 jobs. And the last thing I'd like to add is that  the most difficult to recruit group is the psychiatrists. Particularly in more remote and rural areas.  And we have recently sent a memo to the Secretary which I believe he has signed or is about to sign to change the pay table for psychiatrists and to make available other incentives so that we can compete more equitably with the private sector and DoD in terms of recruiting  psychiatrists. Chair Jeff Miller:  Ms. Spiczak, how long does it take for VA to fill a vacancy like the 1500 that are open now for mental health professionals.  What's the average time that those positions have remained vacant? Annie Spiczak:  Sir, it takes anywhere from four to six but for some of our hard to fill positions, it can take up to a year to fill those positions. Chair Jeff Miller: Have you ever been even close to 100% staffed at the full level with the 1500 that you currently have? Annie Spiczak:  Sir, we'll always have a turnover rate, a vacancy rate that we're always trying to close that gap but you have my commitment that we're going to work very hard to close that. Chair Jeff Miller:  At what level is the vacancy rate?  Is it more at the upper level, the lower tier, I hate to say 'lower tier,' but, obviously, the psychiatrist level downward?  Which is the higher rate?  Is it the psychiatrist or is it the person in the -- Annie Spiczak: No, sir. Our turnover rate in FY 2011 for mental health professionals was 7.23%.  And the Bureau of Labor Statistics for the health care industry shows a 28% turnover rate. Chair Jeff Miller: Then I guess the last question that I'd like to ask in this round is how are we going to pay for the extra 1900 mental health care professionals? Secretary Eric Shinseki:  For that question, I'm going to call on Dr. Petzel. Dr. Robert Petzel:  Thank you, Mr. Secretary.  Mr. Chairman, we, uh, have estimated that, uh, cost in Fiscal Year 12 will be relatively small because it's going to take some time to get these people on board and we will use money that we have available in 12.  We expect that this will not exceed 29 million and may be a bit less than 29 million dollars. In fiscal year 13, we're going to separately identify the funding for this initiative as part of each one of the VISNs allocations and then the VISNs will receive a hiring target based on their allocation and we're going to keep very close track of that hiring target.  Ms. Spiczak can give more detail about how we're going to do that, but we're basically going to be daily looking at how they're meeting that hiring target.   We've identified -- We will identify each one of these positions  electronically on USA Jobs by special number so that we can track all of the 1900 new people as well as all of the vacancies that exist right now. Secretary Eric Shinseki:  Mr. Chairman, just a data point. Psychiatrists are the toughest to recruit and I think under this new model we say it's about 57 that we're going to go after in this group of 1900. Of 57, 37 have already been recruited.  7 are already serving. 30 are being on-boarded and so we're beginning to hone in on this most difficult recruiting challenge and working it down.  So there's some evidence that we can recruit to what we need here. That's about as much garbage I can take in one excerpt.  Where to begin?  Annie Spiczak asserts, "Our turnover rate in FY 2011 for mental health professionals was 7.23%. And the Bureau of Labor Statistics for the health care industry shows a 28% turnover rate."  No, they don't.  During the long, long break in the hearing for votes, I called the Bureau of Labor Statistics to check that.  28%?  It was 21.9% in 2006, the highest its been in the last ten years.  In 2010, the turnover rate was 15.8% and in 2011, the turnover rate was 15.5%.  In addition, I was told Spiczak's number for the VA was "questionable" and was asked if I thought they were counting "positions" because if they were doing it that way, all those empty positions would artificially reduce the turnover rate.  I asked for an example on that.  If there are 800 positions and only 100 are filled, are you dealing with the turnover rate of that 100 staff or are you using positions and acting as though you have 800 positions?  If you're going by positions -- and including empty positions -- you can artificially reduce the turnover rate.  If that doesn't make sense, blame me and not the Buereau of Labor Statistics which was very helpful.  (Until yesterday's hearing, I hadn't even registered on the term "turnover rate."  The BLS was very helpful in explaining that but if there's a mistake in this paragraph, it's on me and on my misunderstanding the BLS.  And though I did get a name from a mutual friend and call and speak to that person, I was also told that the BLS works very hard to assist everyone with answers and that they do so via the phone and via e-mail.) I would like to note the third panel as well as the line of questioning US House Rep Timothy Walz pursued.  Time and space permitting, we'll do so in snapshots later this week. Iraq today is in the midst of a political crisis caused by Nouri al-Maliki's power grabs.  'Not so fast,'  insists neocon Michael Rubin who writes at Commentary that Nouri's not doing a power-grab or becoming a dictator, he's just "consolidating power."  Yeah, well to become a truly powerful despot, you usually need to start by consolidating power -- which is another way of saying "power grab." He wants you to know that Nouri's "between a rock and a hard place."  And that his targeting of Tareq al-Hashemi?  Well "INTERPOL certainly believed the evidence against Hashemi as, frankly, do even many of Hashemi's supporters."  First, congrats, you spelled INTERPOL correctly which does put you far ahead of the Associated Press.  However, don't be forming conclusions about what INTERPOL 'believes.'  Not only was the Red Notice issued as a part of an arrangement with the US White House, but they chose not to issue an arrest warrant.  They issued a non-binding Red Notice. Rubin is a War Hawk responsible for the illegal war.  Having made such a huge mistake, you'd think he tried to avoid further ones.  As noted many times yesterday, I've been speaking to two friends at INTERPOL about the Red Notice.  One e-mailed suggesting we link to this.  What is that?  It's a Red Notice from March for the arrest of four suspects.  I didn't get the point until I read over it.  As he noted in his e-mail, "The wording, no one wants to pay attention to it."  Compare the wording of it with the one on Tareq al-Hashemi.   As my friend explained when I was able to call him today, a Red Notice, the language is pretty much the same.  It's a standard issue release that only the names and the alleged crimes change.  Except with al-Hashemi.  His release contains: "A Red Notice is not an international arrest warrant."  That's reality. But that's not something that's usually included in the Red Notices.  INTERPOL made a point to include it in al-Hashemi's. Citing security sources, Alsumaria reports that Diyala Province saw an attack on a home that left the home owner and his son dead and that the home invasion was followed by a bombing aimed at the police and citizens who rushed to assist -- 3 civilians were killed and six more injured in hte bombing. They also report a Baghdad car bombing late yesterday claimed 3 lives (including Amir Muhammad Abd Mutlaq) and left six people injured.  Covering these events, Xinhua notes the home invasion was of a police officer's home (the officer wasn't at home) and they count 7 dead and sixteen injured in the violence Alsumaria noted.  Alsumaria also informs that a police officer was shot dead Tuesday in Tal Afar. Yesterday's snapshot included:  "In other news, Kitabat reports thousands poured into the streets of Erbil today as people demonstrated against the magazine Al-Hamsa which some are convinced is anti-Islam.  Demonstrators threw bottles of water and stones and attempted to climb the barriers around the compound.  52-year-old demonstrator Said Ahmed Ali stated that the government was allowing insults to Islam and the Koran.  The editor of the magazine was arrested." Al Rafidayn reports the demonstrators attacked social clubs, liquor stores and a hotel among other establishments.  They smashed the windows of the hotel.  How that 'helped' Islam is not clear in the report nor is how it made the protesters come off as 'holy.' The paper reports they then charged the Kurdistan Parliament and security forces used tear  gas.  Dar Addustour reports that the protesters set fire to liquor stores and when they charged the Kurdistan Parliament, they were hurling stones.  Yesterday's snapshot also noted, "Al Sumaria reports a Sahwa leader in Diyala Province, Sami al-Khazraji, has revealed his monthly salary has been cut and that was on the orders of Nouri and his Minstry of Reconciliation.  Other Sahwa have been cut by 20% in the province and there are said to be over 7,000 Sahwa in the province with most in Baquba." Today Alsumaria reports that over 30 Sahwa in Diayal Province walked off their posts yesterday to protest the cuts. Peace activist Cindy Sheehan has become a tax resister, refusing to fund the war machine.  Today she met with the IRS and notes: I had Round X (X representing an unknown quantity) with the IRS/US Attorney today at the US Attorney's office in Sacramento. The meeting was to try and discover my alleged assets so the IRS could collect approximately 105 grand in taxes that it says I owe for 2005 and 2006. I am not so naive to think that the IRS, using a number of resources or any of the secretive alphabet agencies, doesn't know every single thing about me. However, I refuse to participate in my persecution and furthermore, I should be constitutionally protected from such a thing.  That's the opening, read the whole thing.  And for more information on war tax resistance, she refers people to the National War Tax Resistance Coordinating Committee.  And finally, Debra Sweet's receiving a deserved honor so congratulations to her.  She worked very hard to fight Bush's wars and she works very hard to this day to fight Barack's wars: For immediate release May 7, 2012 Contact: Lina Thorne 718 825 9119 lina@worldcantwait.net Debra Sweet, World Can't Wait Director, will receive the 2012 American Humanist Association's (AHA) Humanist Heroine Award. The award will be presented at the AHA national conference on June 9 in New Orleans and is a joint presentation of the AHA and its Feminist Caucus. Since 1982, this award is given annually to women who promote and advance the ideals of human rights and gender justice using a non-theological approach. Past awardees have included Judy Norsigian, Robin Morgan, Julia Sweeney and Amy Goodman. Debra Sweet helped establish and continues to lead World Can't Wait in its mission to "stop the crimes of our government," including unjust military occupations, covert drone wars, torture and indefinite detention as well as reversing the fascist direction of U.S. society.  She has worked with abortion providers for thirty years, organizing community support and helping them withstand anti-abortion violence.  Since the age of 19, when she confronted Richard Nixon during a face-to-face meeting and told him to stop the war in Vietnam, Debra has been a leader in the opposition to U.S. wars and military occupations. Sweet will be leading World Can't Wait's efforts in protesting  NATO's meeting in Chicago, May 20-21, where  the U.S. and its military allies will discuss the continuation of US/NATO presence in Afghanistan until 2024. Annie Laurie Geller, Co-President, Freedom from Religion Foundation, nominated Debra for this award. "Debra Sweet, more than any person I know, embodies heroism: for women, for peace, for the progression of humanity," she says. "She inspired me, her classmates, the city of Madison, Wisconsin and the entire nation when, as a student, she met President Richard Nixon. Her courage to openly express the views of most Americans toward Nixon and the war was an electrifying moment that touched many and opened our eyes to personal activism. She has gone on to dedicate her life to peace and progressive causes, including feminist issues."  On Friday, May 4, Sweet was convicted with 19 others of disorderly conduct for a 2011 protest against the NYPD's "stop and frisk" policy.  "700,000 people were stopped, questioned and frisked by the NYPD last year, the great majority of them Black and Latino, in violation of their constitutional rights and their humanity," said Sweet. Fellow defendants in the non-violent civil resistance were Dr. Cornel West of Princeton University; Vietnam war resister and revolutionary leader Carl Dix; clergy, students and residents of the Harlem community who had been victimized by the policy.  Dr. West called Sweet "a long-distance freedom fighter whom I deeply respect and love." FOR MORE INFORMATION about The American Humanist Association, contact: Brian Magee, (202) 238-9088 extension 105, Mobile: (202) 681-2425.   FOR MORE INFORMATION about Freedom from Religion Foundation, contact: Annie Laurie Gaylor (608) 256-8900. iraq alsumaria xinhua press tv dar addustour al rafidayn cindy sheehan

No, stupid Rev Phelps, being frisked isn't like being raped

Today on NPR's Talk of the Nation, the guests were Natasha Shamone-Gilmore, Dina Temple-Raston, Henry Louis Gates and Alan Feuer.

Now I want to note Black Agenda Radio.  They did a stop & frisk report this week.  Among the guests on that was Rev. Stephen Phelps.  Of the Riverside Church.  I believe he's White, judging by photos, but who knows these days.

What I do know is that I was raped.  What I do know is that I don't ever need to hear some ridiculous man saying that being searched is the same as being raped.

That stupid, stupid man.  He needs to apologize to those of us who have been raped.  I'm so sick of this nonsense to begin with.  The other night we were watching some stupid documentary about Star Wars fans and they were saying George Lucas raped them of their childhood.  I'm so sick of this.  It's not hyperbole. It's a deliberate distortion.

Rape isn't a joke, it's not funny.  And it's not being searched by the police.

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

Tuesday, May 8, 2012.  Chaos and violence continue, AP takes dictation from the White House, US House Rep Corrine Brown goes bat s**t crazy in an open hearing, Nouri takes his Council of Ministers on the road, and more. This morning, the US House Veterans Affairs Committee held a hearing.  We may cover it tomorrow in terms of issues discussed.  Today, we'll note that there is no excuse for the behavior of one member. Corrine Brown made an ass out of herself.  She was so out of control that censure should actually be considered for her actions.  In fact, "actions" is too mature for the behavior she exhibited.  The term is "tantrums."  She threw tantrums. Democrats better realize most of America doesn't give a damn that you don't control the House.  They do care that you're being increasingly hostile. Now if that's to other lawmakers, it's not appropriate but people will write it off and roll with it.  When that behavior is directed at witnesses, you need to self-check. Corrine Brown was out of control.  There was no excuse for it.  A witness, Dr. Nicole L. Sawyer, was answering Chair Jeff Miller's questions when Brown attacked her.  Brown did not have the floor and knew she didn't.  But she jumped in to attack the witness -- the obviously startled witness.  We're being kind and not quoting.  How is that being kind?  I never quote Corrine Brown in full because she can't speak proper English. A member of the US Congress delcaring, this is just one of them today, "You only know what go on in your area!" is a public embarrassment.  Brown got degrees, for something other than learning, and she made it into the US Congress.  You'd think she'd have enough self-pride to have learned how to speak properly.  She can't so, check the archives, we quote her selectively to avoid embarrassing her.  If most of America saw examples of Brown's speaking, they would be appalled.  She sounds like she never made it out of middle school.  As a member of Congress, its upon her to educate herself so that she can speak proper English. When a witness is responding to the Chair, Brown needs to learn not to interrupt.  The witness wasn't saying anything outlandish or hostile and was clearly confused by Brown's tantrum.   By Brown suddenly yelling out in the middle of the witness' answer.  After Brown's tantrum, Miller again asked the witness to speak.  The doctor did so and attempted to bring Brown into her response which sounded a lot like conciliatory remarks before Brown cut her off and started screaming that the chair better tell the witness not to talk to her, better tell the witness to address her remarks to the chair. There was no excuse for Corrine Brown's behavior.  She's long been the joke of Congress because of how she speaks and how she never knows what she's talking about.  We'll touch on that last thing.  Corrine at another point in the hearing was throwing a tantrum in defense of VA Secretary Eric Shinseki and insisting that this wait time results were skewed -- the results are from the VA's Office of the Inspector General.  They are not skewed, they are not partisan.  They are independent.  But Brown's loves to show just how stupid she can be.  "They trying to," the uneducated idiot declared at one point.  That would be: "They are trying . . ."  It's called English.  You're a member of the US Congress, you should know proper English.  But, anyway, Brown was going on about how there are so many referrals outside of VA and these referrals aren't factored in. She is highly uninformed.  2% is the percentage of referrals for last year.  That was established in the April 25th Senate Veterans Affairs Committee hearing.  If you missed those hearings, you can refer to  "Fire everyone at the VA,"    "Scott Brown: It's clearly not working (Ava),"   "VA paid out nearly $200 million in bonuses last year (Wally)" and that week's Wednesday's snapshot. and Friday snapshot There's no excuse for Corrine Brown's repeated stupidity and there was no excuse for her attacking a witness, for her belitting the witness, for her attacking the degree the witness has ("She's an educational doctor! She's not a medical doctor!"), for her attacking educators (as Chair Jeff Miller noted) and for her sour attitude. The witness is not a VA employee.  The witness has her own psychology practice in Exeter, New Hampshire.  She has worked on many veterans issues (I don't know her but I do know of her, I believe Elaine knows her) including setting up wellness programs and addressing TBI and PTSD.  She did not deserve to be snarled at and hissed at and attacked.  Unlike Corrine Brown, Nicole Sawyer has gone out of her way to help veterans.  And that includes many efforts that had no payment at all.  And there was Corinne Brown telling the witness that all the members of the Committee care about is money.  (The Chair rightly took offense to that.)  If I were running against her (she has an opponent in the Democratic Party primary and she'll be facing a Republican in the general election), I'd simply run the video of her declaring all that Congress cares about is money.  Over and over.  With a slogan like, "Corrinne Brown knows her priorities."  "We just care about the money.  We just care about the money.  We just care about the money.  We just care about the money."   I'd run that ad over and over and over.  And she wouldn't be re-elected. She'll try to claim that she was attempting to say that Congress should care about more than money but that's not what she said, that's not what she indicated. The witness was explaining that you cannot do mental health in "cookie cutter" fashion.  And she was explaining how, for example, eight visits to a psychologist or social worker or psychiatrist wouldn't be enough for most veterans with mental health needs. Corrine Brown told her that would have to be enough because that's what they [Congress] had decided and that's what they were willing to pay for. So Corrine Brown not only attacked a witness, she proclaimed that a veteran who can't manage mental health in 8 appointments is then on his or her own. I've seen crazy behavior in hearings before.  And since we've been attending for the last six or seven years, I've seen, for example, Steve Buyer attack a witness and then storm out.  Slamming the door as he left the hearing. But nothing before was like today.  In fact, all the worst moments of the last seven years combined couldn't equal Corrine Brown's outrageous behavior and outrageous statements.  Repeating, you're not there to attack the witnesses.  And if you're on the Veterans Affairs Committee, you never should make the statement that 8 appointments is enough to heal someone.  You should never be that stupid.  I was asked by a veteran attending the hearing, after the hearing, "Did she say that we should be well in 8 appointments?"  Yes, that is what she argued. At one point she wanted to (loudly) insist, "I've been on this Committee for 20 years."  Well in that time you should have learned how to conduct yourself.  The fact that you haven't learned that doesn't give you permission to attack a witness whose only crime is attempting to answer the questions she was asked. Brown and others need to realize that the VA's done a lousy job.  Serving the needs of veterans is not playing partisan politics.  Some of Brown's most outlandish behavior today can be pinned on the fact that Shinseki and the VA he heads were being called out and she saw her role as Democratic Party heavy weight.  Next time, she should remember that on the Veterans Affairs Committee, she's supposed to represent veterans and she's on a committee that's supposed to provide oversight of the VA.  We could point out that with the exception of this latest audit -- the one Corrine Brown attacked repeatedly -- which resulted from the work of Senator Patty Murray (Chair of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee), everything else has been the press.  It was the Washington Post that made the Walter Reed scandal news, not the House Veterans Affairs Committee.  Time and again, the body that's supposed to provide oversight of the VA has done a sorry job of that and when Corrine Brown thinks that, on top of that, she can attack health care providers in a meeting, insist that it's all about money and that mental health issues can be solved in 8 sessions, that woman has serious problems and her peers need to pull her aside and convey that message to her. Turning to Iraq where press outlets work overtime to lie.  Sameer N. Yacoub of AP manages to top Reuters for worst reporting and who would have thought that was possible?  Yacoub breathlessly announces, "Interpol on Tuesday put Iraq's fugutive Sunni vice president on the equivalent of its most-wanted list at the behest of the Shiite-dominated government in Baghdad."  First off, Yacoub, it's "INTERPOL" not "Interpol."  Just as it's "CIA" and not "Cia."  With a byline and end credits that reads like a Biblical epic from MGM in the 50s, Reuters offers Suadad al-Salhy, Vicky Buffery, Seda Sezer, Patrick Markey and Janet Lawrence 'explaining' that "Interpol called for the arrest of fugitive Iraqi Vice-President Tareq al-Hashemi . . ." INTERPOL -- begged by the US -- issued an "alert."  They did not issue an arrest warrant.  They issued "thousands" of alerts a year (conversation with INTERPOL at 2:35 PM EST today).  The alerts are not "arrest warrants."  They are not presented by INTERPOL as being "arrest warrants."  Why is the press still (we touched on reality this morning)?  "My best guess?  I think you know the United States government can be quite persuasive."  Apparently.  And the press can be very compliant -- to put it kindly.  Here's the INTERPOL press release on the issue: LYON, France – At the request of Iraqi authorities, INTERPOL has published a Red Notice for Iraq's Vice-President, Tariq Al-Hashemi, on suspicion of guiding and financing terrorist attacks in the country. The Red Notice for Al-Hashemi represents a regional an international alert to all of INTERPOL's 190 member countries to seek their help in locating and arresting him, following the issue of a national arrest warrant by Iraq's Judicial Investigative Authority as part of an investigation in which security forces seized bombing materials and arrested individuals. The publication of the INTERPOL Red Notice for Tariq Al-Hashemi will see INTERPOL's Fugitive Investigative Support unit and the Command and Coordination Centre at its General Secretariat headquarters closely liaise with its National Central Bureaus in the region and worldwide to pool and update all relevant intelligence. "The INTERPOL Red Notice against Tariq Al-Hashemi will significantly restrict his ability to travel and cross international borders. It is a powerful tool that will help authorities around the world locate and arrest him," said INTERPOL Secretary General Ronald K. Noble. "This case also clearly demonstrates the commitment of Iraqi authorities to work with the world police community via INTERPOL to apprehend individuals facing serious charges," added the Head of INTERPOL. Containing identification details and judicial information about a wanted person, a Red Notice is circulated to police in all of INTERPOL's member countries and seeks the apprehension of a wanted person with a view to their extradition. A Red Notice is not an international arrest warrant.  Many of INTERPOL's member countries however, consider a Red Notice a valid request for provisional arrest, especially if they are linked to the requesting country via a bilateral extradition treaty. In cases where arrests are made based on a Red Notice, these are made by national police officials in INTERPOL member countries. INTERPOL cannot demand that any member country arrest the subject of a Red Notice, and an individual wanted for arrest should be considered innocent until proven guilty. "A Red Notice is not an international arrest warrant."  We covered that this morning.  With "thousands" of these issued each year -- in addition to actual "arrest warrants," pay attention Associated Press, Tareq al-Hashemi did not become 'public enenmy number one' or, in fact, make INTERPOL's most wanted list.   As I was told this afternoon (while the House Veterans Affairs Committee was taking a very long break for votes), there is no "high priority or even priority, we put out a Red Notice.  We are not pursuing the matter." Al Jazeera and the Christian Science Monitor's Jane Arraf Tweeted today: jane arraf ‏ @janearraf Does anyone really think #Turkey is going to extradite al-Hashemi to #Baghdad rather than wave him off to Erbil? Interesting dilemma though. Expand Reply Retweet Favorite No, no one thinks that.  And that includes INTERPOL.  Arraf also Tweeted: jane arraf ‏ @janearraf #Turkish spokesman says al-Hashemi to return to Kurdish northern #Iraq after medical treatment. Elegant solution for everyone but the Kurds. Expand Reply Retweet Favorite Jane Arraf reports on the events -- with context so many of her peers forgot to include -- for Al Jazeera here. There is NO arrest warrant and Iraq wants to try him for executable crimes.  We went over this this morning and if you don't believe me, Sinem Cengiz (Sunday Zaman) reported last week, even if Nouri filed a formal request for Turkey to hand al-Hashemi over, the Turkish government would have to refuse: "The legal obligations of Turkey stemming from being a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) prohibit it from handing any person over to another country if the suspect will likely be executed."  Refer to the Council of Europe Human Rights Handbooks Series No. 8: The Right To Life, specifically the section on extradition and the death penalty, if this concept is new to you. Is it that hard to grasp?  No arrest warrant issued (as INTERPOL's own press release states) and the European Convention on Human Rights Treaty in effect, al-Hashemi is fine in Turkey.  He's fine in the region expect in Iran or Kuwait.  Jordan's willing to grant him asylum right now, Saudi Arabia has also indicated that they're willing to grant asylum.  In addition (in terms of relocating somewhere else to live permanently), he can go to any European country that signed off on the ECHR if he chooses to. Relocating?  Nouri al-Maliki relocated Kurdish ministers today.  He did so, AFP reports, by going to Kirkuk and holding a meeting of his Council of Ministers -- one which the Kurds chose to boycott.  Oh, that Nouri al-Maliki, he really lights up a room . . . just by leaving it.  Kirkuk is disputed with both the Baghdad-central government and the KRG claiming rights to it.  Article 140 of the Constitution outlines how the dispute is to be resolved; however, it demanded those actions (census and referendum) be taken before the end of 2007.  Nouri refused to honor the Constitution in his first term which should have been the clue to everone that he didn't deserve a second term.  Rudaw reports the Kurdish Brotherhood List is stating it will now hold a meeting in Kirkuk and, in the words of the KBL's head Muhammad Kamal, "According to the Iraqi constitution, Kirkuk is a disputed region, so if Baghdad has a right to hold a meeting in the city, the KRG has the same right." As the political crisis in Iraq continues, Al Mada reports that Ayad Allawi, leader of Iraqiya, states they are interested in dialoguing with all who are serious about ending the crisis; however, the chief means to do that is to re-instate the Erbil Agreement and that the issue of the targeting of Vice President Tareq al-Hashemi must be resolved as well.  Before we go further, Dar Addustour reports Nouri is again targeting the Independent Electoral Commission, an arrest warrant has been issued for Saad al-Rawi who is one of the commissioners.  Meanwhile things just got more difficult for the White House that never believed in self-determination.  Not only are they working overtime to protect their pet and puppet Nouri al-Maliki, they're also having to work hard to make sure that if their efforts fail and Nouri's replaced, it's not with someone they despise.  Dar Addustour reports that the White House is pulling out all stops to make sure that potential replacements do not include Moqtada al-Sadr or his supporters.  Remember, it was a drawdown, not a withdrawal. Al Mada notes that efforts to limit Iraqiya's power continues with the announcement (which should seem familiar, its made every other week) that a number (twenty to twenty five members) of Iraqiya will announce today the formation of their own political slate.  You have to wonder how much US taxpayer money is wasted on this and wasted over and over again?  Al Mada notes Moqtada al-Sadr says the Erbil Agreement must be implemented.  They also reject a proposal State of Law floated last week: a withdrawal of confidnece that would require new elections for parliament which would then elect a prime minister which would then nominate a cabinet -- a process that could take over a year easily and would leave Nouri in power that whole time with no strong checks on him.  The Sadr bloc is stating a no-confidence vote would be on Nouri and, per the Constitution's Article 61, would have nothing to do with other offices. Article 61 of the Constitution, Section 8: B.  1) The President of the Republic may submit a request to the Council of Representatives to withdraw confidence from the Prime Minister. 2) The Council of Representatives may withdraw confidence from the Prime Minister based on the request of one-fifth of its members. This request shall not be submitted except after an inquiry directed at the Prime Minister and after at least seven days from the date of submitting the request. 3) The Council of Representatives may decide to withdraw confidence from the Prime Minister by an absolute majority of the number of its members. C.  The Government is deemed resigned in case of withdrawal of confidence from the Prime Minister. Per the Constitution, if the prime minister was ousted via a no-confidence vote, the Council of Ministers would be out as well.  The prime minister-designate could nominate the same people for the same posts, but, per the Constitution, the Council of Ministers terms would all end with the no confidence vote. For a no confidence vote . . . Absolute majority means more than half.  There are 325 members of the Parliament.  That would be 163 votes. When Nouri was trying to form a governing majority, even after Moqtada al-Sadr had come on board in October of 2010, Nouri was still four seats short of absolute majority.  If a vote was taken and Nouri could hold State of Law together, he would have 89 votes via his political slate.  The National Iraqi Alliance holds 70 votes.  Their support would be a question mark since they are headed by Ibrahim al-Jaafari who is one of the names Moqtada al-Sadr is floating as the next prime minister should Nouri be ousted.  Iraqiya won the most seats and they have 91 votes. If Iraqiya could keep their bloc together (that includes White Iraqiya and other offshoots) and get all of the National Iraqi Alliance, that's 161 votes right there.  However, the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq is part of the National Alliance and the White House has been making generous offers to Amar al-Hakim (leader of ISCI) to buy his support for Nouri.   Though it currently appears al-Hakim is siding with DC, there are long term conflcits between Nouri and Amar al-Hakim (and they go back to the conflicts between Nouri and Amar's father) so his support for Nouri remains a question mark. (Their inabilty to get along is one reason why Nouri formed the State of Law political slate.)  The Kurdistan Alliance is 43 seats.  If the Kurds could pull together (doubtful), all of their seats total would be 57 seats.  (Goran and the Kurdistan Alliance might pull together; however, it's far from likely that the Krudistan Islamic Union, for example, would pool their votes.) In other news, Kitabat reports thousands poured into the streets of Erbil today as people demonstrated against the magazine Al-Hamsa which some are convinced is anti-Islam.  Demonstrators threw bottles of water and stones and attempted to climb the barriers around the compound.  52-year-old demonstrator Said Ahmed Ali stated that the government was allowing insults to Islam and the Koran."  The editor of the magazine was arrested.  Al Sumaria reports a Sahwa leader in Diyala Province, Sami al-Khazraji, has revealed his monthly salary has been cut and that was on the orders of Nouri and his Minstry of Reconciliation.  Other Sahwa have been cut by 20% in the province and there are said to be over 7,000 Sahwa in the province with most in Baquba.  Kitabat notes some Iraqi Christians are again calling for an autonomous home in Nineveh.  Though the idea has been a non-starter in the past, if there was a time to press for it, it's probably right now when the issue of a potential no-confidence vote means every vote in Parliament counts. This week's. Black Agenda Radio, hosted by Glen Ford and Nellie Bailey (first airs each Monday at 4:00 pm EST on the Progressive Radio Network),  featured a conversation with Arun Gupta about Occupy.  We'll note the section regarding the anti-war movement. Arun Gupta: We only need to go back a few years to the anti-war movement to see the danger of being turned into a partisan movement. People can Google stuff about MoveOn's role. Norman Solomon wrote a lot about this, people like David Swanson, Tom Hayden. And essentially the argument is that MoveOn played a really opportunistic role is what a lot of people in the anti-war movement said then and tell me now -- that they were interested in glomming on the anti-war movement not because they were principled in terms of opposing war whomever was prosecuting those wars but they were seeking to gain millions of members which they did. And yet while they were gaining all these new members, they were never calling for a full, unconditional withdrawal. And when this came to a head in 2007, when the Democrats took over both houses of Congress, after they cyncially rode the anti-war movement to power at the last minute. About a month or two before the 2006 elections, the Democrats suddenly realized, "Hey, we could make all these big gains if we start to sound anti-war." And they did. Well once they got into power in 2007, there was a clamor to just cut the funding because that's the Constitutional process: Congress appropriates the funds. And they could easily cut the funds and the Pentagon would have had enough money to bring all the troops home. Instead, they didn't do that. And it was like, "Oh, we don't need the power of the purse, we'll set a deadline." And that collapsed because MoveOn played a role. Whether it would have passed is an open question, but what MoveOn ended up doing was essentially thrawrting the effort to bring the bill to defund the war before Congress. There were two bills, one was a Pelosi bill which was about the invade timetable and then there was, I think it was a Barbara Lee bill, which was about cutting off funding and it [MoveOn] refused to put the Barbara Lee bill before a vote by its membership. And this is the thing about MoveOn, it likes to present itself as "We're very Democratic, it's determined by the members." And at the time, the leader of MoveOn, he said, "Well we know it's going to pass, but it's not realistic." So they were subverting their own democratic forum, basically to serve the interests of the Democratic Party. And, of course, if we go back to 2007, what happened? All the efforts to end the war collapsed. And there's still US troops, thousands of troops, thousands of mercenaries, thousands of spies, in Iraq today. And on top of that, we have a president who, in 2011, was waging six different wars at once, who was asserting the right to the assassination of US citizens without due process and who was pushing policies with surveillance and indefinite detentions. Glen Ford: And so what we have is an anti-Republican war movement which, of course, ends totally when there's no Republican in the White House. And I supposed what we could be looking forward to with an Occupy that seems to be dominated by the Rebuild the Dreams and MoveOns is a movement that opposes corporate rule but says nothing about the president of the United States' deep collaboration with corporate rule. iraq al mada alsumaria al rafidayn dar addustour al sabaah kitabat rudaw black agenda radio glen ford nellie bailey

5 men, 2 women

Today on Talk of the Nation (NPR), the guests were Steven Erianger, Ivan Vejvoda, the always ridiculous Jonathan Capehart (agree or disagree with him doesn't matter, he's ridiculous and incapable of making a logical presentation), Barbara Bradley Hagerty, Jerry DeWitt, Teresa MacBain and Stephen Sestanovich.

And that's all I'm in the mood for.  I keep waiting to hear on NBC's Whitney.  I think we should have gotten an answer already.  I also think the sitcom should be renewed and that it was the best sitcom NBC aired this season.  It pulled in the ratings.  It's ridiculous that this show remains "on the bubble" and could go either way.


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

Monday, May 7, 2012.  Chaos and violence continue, Bradley Manning's case gets more coverage (from the only radio program you can count on to supply it), the White House has apparently bungled again meaning that the deaths of 5 US service members will go unpunished, the Iraqi political crisis continues with charges and counter-charges tossed around, and more.

 

 

Starting with Bradley Manning who has a court-martial scheduled to start September 21st.  Monday April 5, 2010, WikiLeaks released US military video of a July 12, 2007 assault in Iraq. 12 people were killed in the assault including two Reuters journalists Namie Noor-Eldeen and Saeed Chmagh. Monday June 7, 2010, the US military announced that they had arrested Bradley Manning and he stood accused of being the leaker of the video. Leila Fadel (Washington Post) reported in August 2010 that Manning had been charged -- "two charges under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The first encompasses four counts of violating Army regulations by transferring classified information to his personal computer between November and May and adding unauthorized software to a classified computer system. The second comprises eight counts of violating federal laws governing the handling of classified information." In March, 2011, David S. Cloud (Los Angeles Times) reported that the military has added 22 additional counts to the charges including one that could be seen as "aiding the enemy" which could result in the death penalty if convicted. The Article 32 hearing took place in December.  At the start of this year, there was an Article 32 hearing and, February 3rd, it was announced that the government would be moving forward with a court-martial.  Bradley has yet to enter a plea and has neither affirmed that he is the leaker nor denied it.

 

 

Today on WBAI, Law and Disorder Rado was live (this is an additional broadcast -- the regular, recorded hour long show -- with Nick Surgery discussing Common Cause's complaint against the American Legislative Exchange Council and updates on Lynne Stewart, May Day and more) due to WBAI being in plege drive mode and the live broadcast spoke with journalist Kevin Gosztola about Bradley Manning.

 

Michael Ratner: I want to step back and ask you, because we've been getting a number of calls, I want to stop and ask you: Who was Bradley Manning? You touched on it but even start with he joined the military, etc., etc. and some of his background and then we'll bring us up to the current proceedings.

 

Kevin Gosztola: Right. So he was born in Oklahoma.  And he had a, you know, pretty small town growing up.  You know you wouldn't have thought him to be -- He wasn't from a big city.  But his family was -- he didn't have the best family situation growing up.  His father and mother did divorce and ended up separating.  He spends some time Oklahoma and then ends up going over to the UK to live with his mother for a couple of years and go to school in high school.  Then he comes back to the United States and he's sort of wondering aimlessly around the United States looking for a job, something to do with his life.  His father is angry at him.  I think by that time, his father knows that he is gay and that becomes a source of tension.  I also gather from different sources that he didn't get along with his step-mother.  And so his father eventually suggests, 'You should join the military, you need some stability.'

 

Michael Smith:  Make him a man.

 

Kevin Gosztola: What?

 

Michael Ratner:  Yeah and he joins the military.

 

Heidi Boghosian:  And joking --

 

Kevin Gosztola: And in the military he becomes this person who becomes an intelligence analyst and as we've learned in the hearings that I've been at, he didn't have a good ride in the military.  It was something that was very hard for him to handle because essentially the whole time he was in the military he had to hide his sexual orientation.

 

Michael Ratner: Now, now, Kevin, you will bring us up to eventually he's alleged to have uploaded a bunch of documents to WikiLeaks.  Can you talk about that a little bit and then bring us up to the charges?

 

Kevin Gosztola: Right. So through November 2009 to May 2010, we have all of these alleged releases so basically anything that you know of that had WikiLeaks in the headlines, this is the source, the alleged source right now.  So through December to January, we have the Collateral Murder Video being released, you have War Logs files being moved over, you have cables going, you even have a special document a WikiLeaks Threat Report that I believe the CIA put together that was suggesting what kind of threat the WikiLeaks organization would pose.  And you've got the Gitmo files being moved.  Remember the Gitmo files were released in April of last year.  And so all of these releases that were headlines.  And in May, he starts to chat with a hacker Adrian Llamo allegedly -- I mean, it's believed that he was chatting with him. And then Adrian turns Bradley in the second day of the chats, into the feds.  Adrian continues to chat, basically looks like something that amounts to entrapment as he continues to get Bradley to incriminate himself on paper. Then Bradley's picked up and arrested.  He's in Baghdad.  He's moved to Kuwait.  And then he's moved to [Marine Corps Base] Quantico Brig [in Virginia] after a month.  And there in Quantico was where people really started to get to know Bradley Manning because of the outrage of how he was being treated by the military.

 

You can read Kevin Gosztola's writing at Firedoglake's The Dissenter.   Law and Disorder Radio  is  a weekly hour long program that airs Monday mornings at 9:00 a.m. EST on WBAI and around the country throughout the week, hosted by attorneys Heidi Boghosian, Michael S. Smith and Michael Ratner (Center for Constitutional Rights),

 

Michael Ratner:  And now Kevin, go to some of the charges against Bradley Manning and tell us what he's accused of.

 

Kevin Gosztola: The charges basically break up to about three sets here.   The most severe charge against him is that he aided the enemy.  And that is basically an espionage charge and suggests that he had some -- that he was actually helping al Qaeda.  They've named the enemy.  So for listeners, the government has come out and said that the enemy is al Qaeda. And he's accused of aiding indirectly.  So using the WikiLeaks website to aid al Qaeda.  And there's much more to say about that charge but to other charges, the soldier's accused of unauthorized downloading to his computer.  So downloading software that he didn't have the right to have on his computer as an intelligence analyst.  And then he's also alleged to have brought discredit to the army and he's got several charges, I think about 15 or 16 of the charges are actually bringing dishonor to the military and making the military look bad by taking certain actions that were part of the leaks, the alleged leaks.

 

Heidi Boghosian:  Could you talk a little bit more about that charge of aiding al Qaeda even indirectly? I don't understand how they came up with that.

 

 

Kevin Gosztola: Yeah.  So, I mean what's really -- what's really startling to me as somebody who comes in and hopes to see that if you're going ot charge a soldier with aiding the enemy, you'd be able to show that this person had evil intent.  I mean, I think it should be clear that if you're going to make someone pay and go to jail for life without parole essentially, that's what we're talking about, people listening should know that this is a federal offense that comes with even the possibility of a death penalty but the government claims they won't give that.  So let's just assume he would get life without parole.  What's really startling is that the government wrote this charge so that they didn't have to prove that he had intent.  So that's what they're trying to do throughout the hearing, that's what they've been trying to do throughout all the legal proceedings so far, to get away without having to show Bradley had any intent to aid al Qaeda.  So while there's nothing that I've seen presented in court, it basically amounts to making a huge example out of Bradley Manning so that other military soldiers would never consider doing what Bradley is alleged to have done.  You know, taking material at his fingertips and not releasing every single piece of information that he had but releasing key sets of documents that gave us insight into some of the worst aspects of the Bush administration, some of the crimes and some of the misconduct of the Bush administration and to a little extent to the Obama administration, what had been going on by the government.

 

Not having taken money from The Nation magazine, I have no need to ever whore for the Democratic Party,  (I also understand "alleged."  For example, the documents that were leaked -- they're not alleged.  The government has admitted they're real.  Without that admission, the government couldn't sue because any judge -- even a military judge -- would toss it out if the government wasn't admitting their documents had been released.  If the documents were fake, there might be fraud charges but the current charges wouldn't apply.)  The Obama administration's crimes are greater than the Bush administration.  Bully Boy Bush didn't oversee Iraq.  Robert Gates did.  Then Secretary of Defense Robert Gates.  The Collateral Murder Video comes under Gates' watch.  The incoming administration should have known as much as what an analyst allegedly had access to on a remote computer.  And yet Barack Obama made the decision to keep Gates as his own Secretary of Defense.  (Gates just left last summer, replaced by Leon Panetta.)  When the Collateral Murder Vido took place, General David Petraeus was the top US commander in Iraq.  When Barack was sworn in, Petraeus was then the commander of CENTCOM. Barack then went on to put Petraeus (June 2010) in charge of Afghanistan.  He retired from the military in August and was given the Army Distinguished Service Medal -- apparently for overseeing the deaths of journalists in Baghdad? And Barack went on to make Petraeus the director of the CIA.

 

If you're on The Nation payroll, you can say, "Tsk, tsk, George Bush." If you're a functioning adult living in reality, you grasp that promoting and embracing these two and others makes Barack wore and more culpable than Bush who could claim that it was all a surprise in 2007 that the events portrayed in the Collateral Murder Video took place.

 

It's equally true that Bully Boy Bush hasn't commented on Bradley Manning publicly.  He could.  He's no longer commander in chief.  But Barack is commander in chief.  That's a Constitutional power -- Article 2, Section 2.  It's a serious role. One that Barack shirks when he pronounces Bradley guilty before Bradley's even been tried or entered a plea.  As Kat's BFF Kevin Zeese observed in April 2011 at War Is A Crime:

 

On Thursday April 21, 2011 in San Francisco a group of Bradley Manning supporters protested the prosecution of Manning at a Barack Obama fundraising event. One of Manning's supporters was able to question the president directly afterwards and during the conversation, Obama said on videotape that Manning was guilty.

Can you imagine if the Supreme Leader of Iran, Ayatollah Khamene'i, pronounced an Iranian military whistle blower "guilty" before any trial was held? Khamene'i is the commander-in-chief of all armed forces in Iran, just as President Obama is the commander-in-chief of the U.S. armed services. Would anyone in the United States think that a trial before Iranian military officers that followed such a pronouncement could be fair? The U.S. government would use the situation to make propaganda points about the phony justice system in Iran.

President Obama's pronouncement about Manning, "He broke the law," amounts to unlawful command influence – something prohibited in military trials because it is devastating to the military justice system. Manning will be judged by a jury of military officers in a military court where everyone involved follows the orders of the commander-in-chief. How are these officers going to rule against their commander-in-chief, especially after Manning has been tortured in solitary confinement for almost a year? Any officer who finds Manning "not guilty" will have no chance of advancing his career after doing so.

Article 37 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice makes undo command influence unlawful. Unlawful Command Influence has been called "the carcinoma of the military justice system" and is often described as "the mortal enemy of military justice." The importance of the command structure in the military makes command influence a threat to fair trails, i.e. "because the inherent power and influence of command are necessary and omnipresent facets of military life, everyone involved in both unit command and in military justice must exercise constant vigilance to protect against command influence becoming unlawful."

 

 

After the interview was over, the Law and Disorder gang returned to the topic of one charge that's been brought against Bradley.

 

Michael Ratner:  The question is how he aided in the enemy and I was in court when this happened and they asked the prosecutor how was he aiding the enemy and they said, 'He's aiding the enemy and he did it indirectly by giving documents to WikiLeaks which then published the documents on WikiLeaks which are then read by al Qaeda and then they get information about --

 

Michael Smith:  Themselves.

 

Michael Ratner:  Well bascially. 'And it drums up their supporters to say how bad the US is and all this.'  And that's somehow aiding the enemy.  Now what's interesting about that charge -- and Kevin alluded to this question of intent -- the New York Times, let's say for example, let me give our listeners an example, they publish the documents or information about President Bush engaging in warrantless wiretapping of people in the United States and abroad.  And, of course, that's published in the New York Times and, of course, al Qaeda reads the New York Times, so why couldn't you charge the New York Times with indirectly aiding the enemy al Qaeda?  It's obvious why you don't, because their intention, the New York Times, was not to aid al Qaeda.  Their intention was to bring out the illegalities of the US system of wiretapping.  Like a Bradley Manning allegedly putting these documents to bring out the crimes of the United States. His intention was not to aid al Qaeda. 

 

Michael Ratner's a legal expert and his opinions are always wroth seriously considering.  However, there's another issue with regards to his example.  The New York Times is a press outlet.  Whatever your opinion of it, it is recognized as such.  The First Amendment comes into play and, in Michael's example, the paper is reporting.  Would Bradley Manning, if he did leak the documents, be seen in the same role?  Would he be seen as leaking to the press or, WikiLeaks being a whistle blower organization (that's how it was seen before Bradley was charged and that's how it promoted itself), would it be something different.  That's "A."  "B," I've never read the chat logs and have no plans to.  They are edited and they may or may not be genuine.  But the prosecution has read them and they know what Adrian Llamo will say at the court martial -- trained canaries always sing the tunes they're taught.  Point being, aiding the enemy is a serious charge and it might exist currently in an attempt to frighten Bradley and to force his hand.  Or it might be charge they plan on keeping in the court-martial.  If they plan on keeping it, I would assume they had Llamo ready to spin or they wouldn't have lodged it to begin with.  This whole area that Michael Ratner's outlining so very well is confusing for one reason: The defense hasn't entered a plea.

 

We're including Michael Ratner's take because it's legally sound and may be correct.  But there's a great deal unknown at this point still and I'm trying to make it clear that it's his argument, not mine.  There have been a number of e-mails expressing disappointment that I didn't use this space to defend a service member who just got drummed out of the military.  We covered that by noting Justin Raimondo's writing on the topic.  I couldn't write on it because I'd long ago made an argument here* -- repeatedly -- that didn't allow me to take a stand defending that service member without being a hypocrite.  So should it turn out that Llamo testifies that in hours of chat, once Bradely expressed that he didn't care whether this helped al Qaeda or not or that he wanted it to, we're not painted into a corner or blindsided because I haven't made that an issue in the arguments we've made here.

 

[*We have repeatedly defended the rights of service members, active duty, to take part in protests and to speak their minds freely provided they were not in uniform.  When Adam Kokesh was being targeted by the military, we were able to cite the difference in his case.  In uniform or not, he was taking part in street theater and the court had recognized that as legal during Vietnam when American service members -- active duty -- took part in street theater actions while in fatigues or uniforms.  From the Supreme Court's decision in Schacht v. United States (1970):

 

The Government's argument in this case seems to imply that somehow what these amateur actors did in Houston should not be treated as a "theatrical production" within the meaning of 772 (f). We are unable to follow such a suggestion. Certainly theatrical productions need not always be performed in buildings or even on a defined area such as a conventional stage. Nor need they be performed by professional actors or be heavily financed or elaborately produced. Since time immemorial, outdoor theatrical performances, often performed by amateurs, have played an important part in the entertainment and the education of the people of the world. Here, the record shows without dispute the preparation and repeated presentation by amateur actors of a short play designed to create in the audience an understanding of and opposition to our participation in the Vietnam war. Supra, at 60 and this page. It may be that the performances were crude and [398 U.S. 58, 62] amateurish and perhaps unappealing, but the same thing can be said about many theatrical performances. We cannot believe that when Congress wrote out a special exception for theatrical productions it intended to protect only a narrow and limited category of professionally produced plays. 3 Of course, we need not decide here all the questions concerning what is and what is not within the scope of 772 (f). We need only find, as we emphatically do, that the street skit in which Schacht participated was a "theatrical production" within the meaning of that section.
This brings us to petitioner's complaint that giving force and effect to the last clause of 772 (f) would impose an unconstitutional restraint on his right of free speech. We agree. This clause on its face simply restricts 772 (f)'s authorization to those dramatic portrayals that do not "tend to discredit" the military, but, when this restriction is read together with 18 U.S.C. 702, it becomes clear that Congress has in effect made it a crime for an actor wearing a military uniform to say things during his performance critical of the conduct or [398 U.S. 58,63] policies of the Armed Forces. An actor, like everyone else in our country, enjoys a constitutional right to freedom of speech, including the right openly to criticize the Government during a dramatic performance. The last clause of 772 (f) denies this constitutional right to an actor who is wearing a military uniform by making it a crime for him to say things that tend to bring the military into discredit and disrepute. In the present case Schacht was free to participate in any skit at the demonstration that praised the Army, but under the final clause of 772 (f) he could be convicted of a federal offense if his portrayal attacked the Army instead of praising it. In light of our earlier finding that the skit in which Schacht participated was a "theatrical production" within the meaning of 772 (f), it follows that his conviction can be sustained only if he can be punished for speaking out against the role of our Army and our country in Vietnam. Clearly punishment for this reason would be an unconstitutional abridgment of freedom of speech. The final clause of 772 (f), which leaves Americans free to praise the war in Vietnam but can send persons like Schacht to prison for opposing it, cannot survive in a country which has the First Amendment. To preserve the constitutionality of 772 (f) that final clause must be stricken from the section.

 

 

It's a damn shame the press ignored that verdict while miscovering the charges against Adam.]

 

 

In news of Iraq's legal system, US Senator Kelly Ayotte's office issued the following today:

 

WASHINGTON, DC - U.S. Senator Kelly Ayotte (R-NH), a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, released the following statement today regarding an Iraqi court's ruling to release Ali Mussa Daqduq - a Hezbollah member who was transferred to Iraqi custody when U.S. forces withdrew last December:

"This confirms my fears that transferring Daqduq to Iraqi custody would result in his release. Daqduq is a member of Hezbollah who served as a key liaison with Iran. He trained Iraqi extremists who targeted U.S. troops, and he is suspected of planning the operation in 2007 that resulted in the deaths of five U.S. military personnel.  If Daqduq is released, there is little doubt that he'll resume terrorist activities. This case highlights the need for a designated terrorist detention facility to detain, interrogate, and try foreign terrorists."

In addition to questioning senior Defense Department officials about Daqduq in Senate Armed Services Committee hearings last year, Senator Ayotte joined 19 other Senators in sending a letter to Secretary Panetta on July 21, 2011.  The letter expressed the Senators' concerns that transferring Daqduq to Iraqi custody might result in his release and a return to terrorist activities. 

 

 

Ayote is a Republican Senator (and, according to yesterday's Meet The Press roundtable, among those being considered as the running mate for likely GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney).   She's talking about the news that Suadad-al Salhy, Patrick Markey and Andrew Heavens (Reuters) reported this morning, that Iraq's 'justice' system has cleared Ali Mussa Daqdug of all charges related to the "2007 kidnapping attack that killed five U.S. troops."  what are we talking about?  This was "the Special Groups network," US term, which later became the League of Righteous.  For more on that, refer to [PDF format warning] Marisa Cochrane's "Asaib Ahl al-Haq and the Khazali Special Groups Network" (Institute for the Study of War).  The five Americans killed?  The inability to legally punish a group of kidnappers and killers?  For context, let's fall back to the June 9, 2009 snapshot:




This morning the New York Times' Alissa J. Rubin and Michael Gordon offered "U.S. Frees Suspect in Killing of 5 G.I.'s." Martin Chulov (Guardian) covered the same story, Kim Gamel (AP) reported on it, BBC offered "Kidnap hope after Shia's handover" and Deborah Haynes contributed "Hope for British hostages in Iraq after release of Shia militant" (Times of London). The basics of the story are this. 5 British citizens have been hostages since May 29, 2007. The US military had in their custody Laith al-Khazali. He is a member of Asa'ib al-Haq. He is also accused of murdering five US troops. The US military released him and allegedly did so because his organization was not going to release any of the five British hostages until he was released. This is a big story and the US military is attempting to state this is just diplomacy, has nothing to do with the British hostages and, besides, they just released him to Iraq. Sami al-askari told the New York Times, "This is a very sensitive topic because you know the position that the Iraqi government, the U.S. and British governments, and all the governments do not accept the idea of exchanging hostages for prisoners. So we put it in another format, and we told them that if they want to participate in the political process they cannot do so while they are holding hostages. And we mentioned to the American side that they cannot join the political process and release their hostages while their leaders are behind bars or imprisoned." In other words, a prisoner was traded for hostages and they attempted to not only make the trade but to lie to people about it. At the US State Dept, the tired and bored reporters were unable to even broach the subject. Poor declawed tabbies. Pentagon reporters did press the issue and got the standard line from the department's spokesperson, Bryan Whitman, that the US handed the prisoner to Iraq, the US didn't hand him over to any organization -- terrorist or otherwise. What Iraq did, Whitman wanted the press to know, was what Iraq did. A complete lie that really insults the intelligence of the American people. CNN reminds the five US soldiers killed "were: Capt. Brian S. Freeman, 31, of Temecula, California; 1st Lt. Jacob N. Fritz, 25, of Verdon, Nebraska; Spc. Johnathan B. Chism, 22, of Gonzales, Louisiana; Pfc. Shawn P. Falter, 25, of Cortland, New York; and Pfc. Johnathon M. Millican, 20, of Trafford, Alabama." Those are the five from January 2007 that al-Khazali and his brother Qais al-Khazali are supposed to be responsible for the deaths of. Qassim Abdul-Zahra and Robert H. Reid (AP) states that Jonathan B. Chism's father Danny Chism is outraged over the release and has declared, "They freed them? The American military did? Somebody needs to answer for it."

If what's taking place right now is outrageous, let's remember the outrage should have been present in 2009.  Jonathan B. Chism was correct, somebody did need to answer for that but no one ever did.  Possibly that's why today's events are taking place.  Without outrage, the White House was lulled into believing no one was watching.  And that it didn't matter as a result.   December 16, 2011, Liz Sly and Peter Finn (Washington Post) reported on the US handing Ali Musa Daqduq over to the Iraqis:


He was transferred to Iraqi custody after the Obama administration "sought and received assurances that he will be tried for his crimes," according to Tommy Vietor, spokesman for the National Security Council in Washington.

Jack Healy and Charlie Savage (New York Times) report, "Although military officials said he confessed freely and that his interrogation had not included any harsh techniques, his statements to American military interrogators would probably be deemed inadmissible in Iraqi court.  But the Obama administration had hoped that he would instead face charges of illegally entering Iraq, a crime that could result in a 10-year prison sentence."  5 Americans who were in Iraq because the government ordered them there get killed and Barack thinks a "a 10-year prison sentence" for enterting the country without a visa is justice?  Maybe next the White House will push for a drunk and disorderly and get held in the tank until he sobers up?

Kitabat reports that Nouri caved to pressure from Tehran and that's why he was released.   It's also noted that a number of US Senators were asking the White House not to turn Daqduq over to Iraq but to move him to Guantanamo or another facility.  However, the White House insisted that they knew best and they had these assurances. 

 

 

They knew 'best' in backing Nouri for a second term as well, right?   The political crisis continues in Iraq.  Kitabat reports that Moqtada al-Sadr's boc announced yesterday that it has six people in mind to replace Nouri al-Maliki as prime minister if he's unable to take the necessary steps to resolve the crisis.  Al Mada reports that the threat to withdraw confidence in Nouri is coming from Moqtada al-Sadr, Speaker of Parliament Osama al-Nujaifi, KRG President Massoud Barzani and Iraqiya leader Ayad Allawi.  Nouri is stewing in a mess of his own making. Abdul Rahman al-Rashid (Gulf News) observes: 

 

It is obvious that Al-Maliki would go to extremes to remain in his position. He is accused of manipulating the election committee, which should be an independent body, and of arresting his opponents on serious charges. He relieved his top ministers and took hold of all the high sovereign positions for himself and his party, although he had agreed with the other political parties on a fair distribution of portfolios. He needed their support, because he did not win the majority that would have enabled him to form the government.

Al-Maliki went too far in his conflicts -- to a degree of threatening the country's unity. He wanted to coerce the Kurdish leadership and make them succumb to his authority. He also allied with the Iranians so as to obtain the support of the supreme Iranian religious leader in the elections. He also provided finances to the regime of Bashar Al-Assad against the popular uprising in Syria. Al-Maliki has backed the militias of Hezbollah and is now threatening Turkey.

 

 

Marina Ottaway and Danial Kaysi's [PDF format warning] "The State Of Iraq"  (Carnegie Endowment for International Peace) reviewed events and noted:

Within days of the official ceremonies marking the end of the U.S. mission in Iraq, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki moved to indict Vice President Tariq al-Hashemi on terrorism charges and sought to remove Deputy Prime Minister Saleh al-Mutlaq from his position, triggering a major political crisis that fully revealed Iraq as an unstable, undemocractic country governed by raw competition for power and barely affected by institutional arrangements.  Large-scale violence immediately flared up again, with a series of terrorist attacks against mostly Shi'i targets reminiscent of the worst days of 2006.

But there is more to the crisis than an escalation of violence.  The tenuous political agreement among parties and factions reached at the end of 2010 has collapsed.  The government of national unity has stopped functioning, and provinces that want to become regions with autonomous power comparable to Kurdistan's are putting increasing pressure on the central government.  Unless a new political agreement is reached soon, Iraq may plunge into civil war or split apart.

The agreement was the Erbil Agreement.  March 7, 2010, Iraq held parliamentary elections.  Ayad Allawi's Iraqiya came in first ahead of Nouri's State of Law.  Nouri refused to give up the post of prime minister.  What followed were eight months of political stalemate.  The White House and the Iranian government were backing Nouri so he knew he could dig in his heels and did just that.  Finally, in November, the US-brokered Erbil Agreement was reached.  Nouri could have a second term as prime minister provided he made concessions on other issues.

Nouri used the agreement to get his second term and then trashed the agreement refusing to honor it.  Until last week, he and his supporters had taken to (wrongly) calling the agreement unconstitutional.  And though the KRG, Iraqiya and Moqtada al-Sadr have been calling for the Erbil Agreement to be fully implemented since summer 2011, it took last week for State of Law to finally discover that themselves loved the Erbil Agreement.  Needless to say, the sudden attraction to the deal is seen as mere lip service.

State of Law meanwhile sees the distraction as the way to go.  Alsumaria reports MP Yassin Majid is stating, 'Dictator, who's the dictator?' as he makes a point to assert that since Massoud Barzani has ruled the Kurdistan region for twenty years, he's the dictator, not Nouri.  Majid accompanied Nouri to DC in December and, along with being a member of State of Law, Majid is also the attorney of record for State of Law.  Those details didn't make the story.  But another thing that didn't make the story is that Massoud Barzani hasn't ruled the KRG for 20 years. The position of prime minister was created in 2003 -- Barzani has been prime minister since 2003.  Secondly, prior to 2003, the Kurdistan region was divided into two areas with the KDP (Barzani's party) in charge of one section (Barzani in charge) and with the PUK (Iraqi president Jalal Talabani's party) in charge of the other region.

Alsumaria reports that Moqtada al-Sadr's bloc is stating the Nouri has until May 17th to implement the Erbil Agreement.  State of Law's response?  What do they always do?  Try to distract by pointing at something else.  Aswat al-Iraq reported yesterday that "State of Law MP Ameen Hadi disclosed that the visit" to Erbil two Saturdays ago by Moqtada "was without the consent of the National Alliance."

 

 

 

 

 

iraq
wbai
law and disorder radio
michael s. smith
heidi boghosian
michael ratner

al mada alsumaria

al rafidayn

dar addustour

al sabaah

kitabat

the associated press

sinan salaheddin

reuters

suadad al-salhy

patrick markey

andrew heavens

the washington post

liz sly

peter finn

jack healy

the new york times
alissa j. rubin
charlie savage