read mike's 'Help Wanted: The Nation's in need of direction.' if you read nothing else, read that.
it's an amazing piece. i told him i was taking a nap (i didn't nap once today until late tonight) and to wake me up when it posted. (and told him, 'i'm serious. i will be mad if you don't.' flyboy said, 'she is serious, i know that look.')
outside the community sites, i recommend robert parry's 'Gonzales Questions Habeas Corpus' (consortium news):
In one of the most chilling public statements ever made by a U.S. Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales questioned whether the U.S. Constitution grants habeas corpus rights of a fair trial to every American.
Responding to questions from Sen. Arlen Specter at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Jan. 18, Gonzales argued that the Constitution doesn't explicitly bestow habeas corpus rights; it merely says when the so-called Great Writ can be suspended.
"There is no expressed grant of habeas in the Constitution; there’s a prohibition against taking it away," Gonzales said.
Gonzales's remark left Specter, the committee's ranking Republican, stammering.
"Wait a minute," Specter interjected. "The Constitution says you can't take it away except in case of rebellion or invasion. Doesn't that mean you have the right of habeas corpus unless there’s a rebellion or invasion?"
Gonzales continued, "The Constitution doesn't say every individual in the United States or citizen is hereby granted or assured the right of habeas corpus. It doesn't say that. It simply says the right shall not be suspended" except in cases of rebellion or invasion.
"You may be treading on your interdiction of violating common sense," Specter said.
While Gonzales's statement has a measure of quibbling precision to it, his logic is troubling because it would suggest that many other fundamental rights that Americans hold dear also don’t exist because the Constitution often spells out those rights in the negative.
For instance, the First Amendment declares that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Applying Gonzales's reasoning, one could argue that the First Amendment doesn't explicitly say Americans have the right to worship as they choose, speak as they wish or assemble peacefully. The amendment simply bars the government, i.e. Congress, from passing laws that would impinge on these rights.
Similarly, Article I, Section 9, of the Constitution states that "the privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."
The clear meaning of the clause, as interpreted for more than two centuries, is that the Founders recognized the long-established English law principle of habeas corpus, which guarantees people the right of due process, such as formal charges and a fair trial.
That Attorney General Gonzales would express such an extraordinary opinion, doubting the constitutional protection of habeas corpus, suggests either a sophomoric mind or an unwillingness to respect this well-established right, one that the Founders considered so important that they embedded it in the original text of the Constitution.
2 things to note. goldie says she was very nervous for about 1/2 her speech to her class on Ehren Watada and then felt more comfortable and, when she finished it, she was amazed by the reaction. (it was a great speech, i heard it on the phone thursday night while she was working on it.) she's writing about it for polly's brew in her column there and i called polly to say 'you might want to ask her if she'll also let you include the speech itself.' she did and goldie said yes so, sunday, check your inboxes and marvel over goldie's speech. i'm really proud of you goldie.
second, i was asked in an e-mail if i didn't care about charles stimson's idiotic and undemocratic comments? i do. but we all cover different areas at our sites. mike covered that very well in
'Fire Charles Stimson' and 'Stimson, Guantanamo.' we could be an echo chamber all covering the exact same topics, we don't. the visitor's new the community websites but every 1 has their own 'beats'. kat covers music as well as politics (especially music if members are e-mailing her asking for it). elaine insults her own work but she covers a number of topics. i usually end up grabbing the occupied territories because that is a strong interest of mine. (when i was on vacation, c.i. and elaine helped out by grabbing that topic and hitting on it strong.) wally and cedric do humor posts where they comment on current events. betty's taken on the uber non-free trader thomas friedman. at the third estate sunday review, it's iraq and a grab bag of other issues (plus the tv reviews which draw a huge number of readers - ava and c.i.'s fan base from those tv reviews is huge and they are approaching tv from a feminist viewpoint). at the common ills, c.i. emphasizes iraq because that's what the community wanted. long before all media took the summer off from iraq, it was already falling off the radar and members asked that it be the focus.
we all repost the snapshot when we post because keesha pointed that out - that iraq needs to be the front burner and you can write about whatever you want but if you've just reposted the snapshot, iraq's covered. it's also true that because of our different 'beats' and approaches, we have the ability to expose others to the snapshot that might not see it otherwise.
take trina's site where she posts on saturday and offers up a recipe and some commentary (often on iraq). she gets mail from a lot of people (mainly women) who are beginning to feel that they can speak out on the war. she's reaching an audience that i don't. it's an important audience and just by including the snapshot her readers are aware of what's going on in iraq. there was an important snapshot (i think they all are, but that day's struck me as especially important) and i had planned to write about something else but was also planning at some point to write about the tv show dynasty. when i saw that day's snapshot, i knew i needed to write about dynasty. i knew that it would get attention (dynasty) and that could create spill over to what was going on in iraq.
c.i. does the heavy lifting on iraq. and keesha was correct that we should all be noting it (which we now do). but, for instance, tonight mike's writing about the nation and kat's written about diana ross. now you are going to have the community checking out both posts. you will also have visitors interested in either topic checking them out. all will have the option of reading the iraq snapshot at the end of those posts. if kat was writing about iraq tonight, she might not get spillover from those interested in diana ross only. it's about raising awareness.
i've known c.i. since right before college and i knew, in college, no point in competing. so no 1 in the community should try. you find your strength, write in your voice, and you will have an audience. if you don't, you won't. the e-mail noted non-member seth's site. (the community has an actual member named seth.) that is a community visitor who decided to start up a site after checking out the community sites for a few weeks. for some reason he used 'seth' as his name. that made it awkward for our own seth. but, more importantly, that seth (of the site) was worried about readers. he wanted readers. he wasn't interested in sharing, so it was probably more about 'hits' (web traffic).
i don't dislike the guy (i don't know him) but he was all over the map in topic and in terms of his writing style. sometimes it was as though it was a conversation, sometimes it wasn't. sometimes it was more academic, sometimes it wasn't. via c.i., i suggested that he focus on daytime dramas because that seemed to be the consistent interest. as a gay man and with daytime tv offering some gay portrayals and the obvious interest in them by seth, it seemed like that would provide him with his voice.
i don't think it did. my opinion is that he expected to have the common ills type readership (c.i. would say 'members! we have members!') and he didn't get that. he did get an increase in readers and some links. and he could have pursued it and built up a following. he didn't. he didn't get the instant hit status and he gave up (or went on a long break - he hasn't posted since august). i know promotion (i made my money in p.r.) and after i realized that seth was interested in soaps, my 1st thought was 'wow, that could really bring in a new audience, some 1 who regularly covers the soaps.' just as trina's recipes (and commentary) have brought in a new audience. but that didn't happen and the lesson there is you can't force it. you have to be you.
at 1 point or another, i believe we've all made that comment at our sites. keesha was exactly right, posting the snapshot would raise awareness. and it's easy, in 2007, to think 'oh well the left was always against the war.' no they weren't. if you're talking about left sites, the reality is a number washed their hands of it in the myth that followed the 2004 election. you had sites that supposedly cared about iraq (before the election myths) promoting a war hawk (simon rosenberg) for dnc chair. if slimey had been the chair, don't kid that we'd be in a different environment now.
you saw sam seder have to deal with an angry audience when he tanked an interview to give simon rosenberg a chance to campaign for dnc chair. sam seder was on air trying to justify that shit but there was no excuse for it. the problems with dlc slimey (who denies being dlc but that's who produced him and whose thoughts and beliefs he still echoes) were well known.
sam seder, who wants to steal a dead african-american woman's catchphrase ('unbought and unbossed'), proved that not only was he a lousy comic but he was also a coward. he couldn't ask hard questions. it was a barabara walters soft-gloss interview at its worst. and he had to take calls (and the message board for the show was full of negative comments) after it was over where he tried to explain himself. (in another sign of difference among the community, c.i. gives seder the benefit of the doubt on that interview, i don't.)
that was the reality. and you can search various sites to see what their position was on simon rosenberg. if they truly were anti-war at that moment (let's assume they were before the 2004 election and returned to being that in the summer of 2005 when it became safer), they wouldn't have promoted a war hawk.
if they truly were independent and left they wouldn't have promoted a telecommunications lobbyist, a man who attacked assistance programs (and their supporters), a man who did nothing for latinos but (when nbc misreported results) rushed in with a column slamming john kerry for something that did not happen, a man who had nothing to say to any 1 but republicans.
but he was 'cool' and 'fun' and the webbies were just full of love for their boy who was going to put bloggers front and center at the dnc. so what he actually stood for didn't matter and that included the war. because, in case you've forgotten, after 2004's election, we were all supposed to 'move on' from the war. moveon.org did.
so the point is, the common ills took off from the start because c.i. was 1 of the few voices saying the war was wrong. c.i. was the only 1 to call dexy filkins out in real time - the 'award winning' garbage where filkins turned the slaughter of falluja into a video game. there are many who still can't call out dexy. but the community, while having other interests, were always focused on iraq. and that's what the site reflects today.
c.i.'s talked of ending it after the 2008 elections and i understand that. it takes a lot of work. there are too many e-mails to read and answer. there is too much work that goes into the posts. c.i.'s been speaking out against the war around the country at least 2 weeks a month since february 2003. while i take vacations and take weekends off from posting, c.i.'s yet to miss a day. and we're talking multiple posts while i just do this. (and of course, c.i. does a column for the community's 3 newsletters. i don't count the u.k. computer guru's publication as a newsletter because it's technical. and there's the tv reviews which are a huge burden for ava and c.i. because they know that is the third estate sunday review's drawing card. those don't just 'happen.' they have to make time to watch tv, read scripts, phone friends at the network and with the shows, etc.) so to have done all of that and done it day after day, without missing a day, for so long, i can understand c.i.'s desire to get a life back.
but i quoted the godfather to c.i. today and i believe c.i. quoted from the godfather 3 back to me 'every time i think i'm out, they pull me back in.' that was when i raised the issue that the 2004 elections resulted in myths being spun to sell the war and you saw many people justify the war. you saw a woman who gets published in 2 supposedly anti-war, left publications, have a snit-fit with tom hayden when he (rightly) noted that in a column she was promoting the illegal war - promoting it be continued.
why? i'd argue of her and others that some anti-war voices weren't really anti-war. they were pro democratic and when the democratic party signaled that they were going to focus on other issues (while mouthpieces took to the press to promote that as well), those voices decided they were more pro-democratic party than they were appalled by the illegal war. so they dumped the topic.
and it could happen in 2008. c.i. said, 'i hadn't even considered that.' so, for those like courtney who write me at least once a month saying, 'you've got to talk c.i. into continuing the site,' it may yet happen.
c.i.'s been 1 of the strongest voices. c.i.'s been the leading voice on calling out dexter filkins (it wasn't once or twice) and 1 of the few who didn't dump the issue of the way the new york times sells the war when judith miller left the paper.
c.i.'s a strong voice and doesn't do cat blogging or threads. (members objected to comments early on. they were an option at the site in the earliest days. some members, such as keesha, did post comments, but there were also a lot of 'blue dog' and 'yellow dog' assholes posting comments.) the content that goes up (daily - with no vacation, no day off) would be amazing just for the sheer volume. but the powerful voice makes it all the more so.
(and c.i. would note that the voice comes from the community.)
who has led on iraq? you think the nation's led on it? you must not read that laughable magazine. c.i.'s led and has provided some of the strongest coverage. i think it's coverage that will be noted years from now when people look back at this time period. i don't think any 1's going to say 'hey, that cat blogging ended the war! hey that lonely thread blogging ended the war!' i don't think they're going to say 'hey, the nation's silence on war resisters really ended the war!'
c.i. leads on iraq and that's the community's desire. if something stands out, we'll comment on our own sites. but we know who does the heavy lifting.
even now, you've got sarah olson trying to be the new jill carroll. who's noting that?
i will because i wrote about how carroll was destroying her career with those 1st person accounts in the christian science monitor. have you read anything by her lately? no. and you probably never will again. why?
that's not journalism. that's cliff hanger, penelope pitstop melodrama. she could have written about her experiences in another way. (i'm sure the paper dictated the way it was written.) instead it was damsel in distress. now giuliana sgrena was also kidnapped in iraq. in friendly fire, she writes about that but writes about it as a journalist. i feel sorry for jill carroll for what she went through while kidnapped but i think she damaged herself by taking part in the sensationalistic, episodic installments that the christian science monitor ran. it was all 'oh that poor girl!' and it turned her from a journalist people were sympathetic towards to a bit of a joke.
brenda starr belongs on the funny pages.
which brings us to sarah olson who is aggressively pursuing the press.
here's the long and short of it. she interviewed ehren watada. she's now being asked by the military to testify at his court-martial about that interview.
the military isn't asking that she provide any info. just that she verify that what she printed was correct (she also did radio reports).
the request is fairly simple. whether you agree with or not, the request is very simple. (i don't agree with the request.)
some how she has managed to interest the national press in the non-stop issue of what will sarah olson do?
it's more damsel in distress.
if she'd say 'i won't testify' (she doesn't believe she should be forced to testify), she could talk about that.
but she won't say that.
or, actually she will say that.
sometimes.
sometimes she won't.
she offers an ever changing story from day to day. speaking with laura flanders, she's not going to testify!
speaking with every 1 else, she's not sure what she's going to do or she begs off with she can't discuss her legal strategy or some other bullshit.
she also changes her story on whether or not she supports ehren watada. she wrote a lengthy piece about how pathetic and weak spined she was and, in that piece, she went on about how, as a journalist, she couldn't support or not support a source. that would be watada.
then she talks to aaron glantz, after that, and is shocked, shocked, that any 1 would think she hasn't supported watada, why she has always supported him, she has always backed him.
what?
now as laughable as her dance has been, the result is that somehow the story has become 'what will sarah olson do?' (a better title would be 'what's she going to say next?')
somewhere along the line, she appears to have forgotten that she is a journalist. the story is ehren watada (who faces 6 years if convicted) not sarah olson who faces nothing.
faces nothing?
if she refuses to testify, she could end up in jail for contempt. that's not 6 years. but, most importantly, for that to happen, she would have to refuse to testify and, except when speaking to laura flanders, she hasn't said she won't testify. she told amy goodman, various print reporters, and aaron glants (before the flanders interview) that she couldn't talk about her legal strategy. that 'strategy' does not have to include not testifying.
since she was on with flanders, she's spoken to matthew rothschild of the progressive and suddenly she's not saying 'i won't testify.' she's again falling back on 'i won't discuss my legal strategy.'
you know what? i hope she testifies. i hope she does because i don't think it will make a damn for ehren's case (he's going to be railroaded) and it will demonstrate the obvious (that too many can't see now) which is sarah olson's 'plight' is nothing but junk news. it's wasted all of our time as we've listened to a supposed journalist play for our sympathies without ever taking a stand.
say what you will about judith miller (and i hate miller) who did her own bit of campaigning when she didn't want to testify, but she took a position. and went to jail for it.
sarah olson doesn't want to take a position. at least not a clear or consistent 1.
she wants to bore us all with 'this is so hard.'
life is hard.
life is especially hard if you've taken a position that could cost you - what ehren's done.
she's taken no position and wants to play the weak little girl hoping editorial boards across the nation will come to her defense (as far as i know, only the right-wing leaning l.a. times has).
'defend me!' she all but gasps. 'because i won't defend myself.'
in the words of michelle pfeiffer, 'you make me sick. always waiting for some batman to save you.' (batman returns.)
she's pathetic.
and she has made ehren's court-martial all about her.
ehren's being court-martialed for taking a stand and sarah olson wants to center stage for not taking 1. but please, please, please, every 1 else take a stand for her.
she really needs to take a stand or stop talking.
her whimpering drives as many away from her as does her ever shifting position.
reporters have been asked to verify their stories in court before. apparently it's a new thing for a military 'court' to ask that. they are not asking for her work product, they are not seeking her notes. they are asking her to say 'yes, he said to me what i printed.'
if you're opposed to doing that (i would be), then you say 'i'm not doing it.' you take a stand.
if you're not opposed to it, you do it. (and many journalists do.)
what you don't do is make yourself the story, day after day. what you don't do is present yourself as a pathetic, trembling victim when the 1 really facing punishment is ehren watada.
sarah olson has become the person you avoid, the 1 who can't shut up about herself.
she has no 1 to blame for that but herself (and possibly bad legal advice).
olson is not being asked to name an unnamed source. she's being asked to say 'yes, what i wrote was what happened.' it's not complicated. whether you think she should testify or not, what she's being asked to do is not complicated. but she's managed to turn the whole thing into a long running soap opera with herself cast as erica kane in the melodrama.
that's not how a reporter makes a career.
some 1 should pull her aside and explain that to her.
i felt sympathetic for jill carroll but i noted the reality when that series was either about to start running or had just started running. so when i write about sarah olson, i'm not just writing because she's pulling the focus from ehren, i'm also writing because she's committing career suicide as she continues to play victim.
there's a chance that dahr jamail may be asked to testify. a reporter for the honolulu star-bulletin has been asked to testify. you have not seen either running from reporter to reporter, broadcast studio to broadcast studio, whining about themselves. they're conducting themselves like journalists. when dahr jamail speaks about it, he speaks about watada's case. he does not make himself the centerpiece. he does not whine or speak of the 'legal strategy' he can't talk of. he does not offer 1 thing 1 minute and something else the next.
he's never had to proclaim 'i support ehren watada' because there's never been any doubt that he does.
sarah olson was asked to make a decision. she doesn't want to make that decision. she wants some 1 to ride in on a horse and make it for her.
that's bullshit.
and if she really supported ehren watada, she should have grasped that since he can't present his defense (the judge won't let him) she might be the only one who could explain what he believes in. under cross examination by the defense, they could do this: 'you say that you reported the events accurately. let's go through them to be sure we are clear. ehren watada said he was opposed to the war because?'
if the judge tried to step in and say, 'it's in her article which she has admitted is true!' the defense can reply, 'that article appeared in june and the interview took place prior to that. we want to go through it line by line to make sure, for the record, that she's standing by it.'
i'm tired of reporters who face a slap on the wrist (at worst) taking up everyone's time with their own personal dramas.
here's c.i.'s 'Iraq snapshot:'
Friday, January 19. 2006. Chaos and violence continue, but speculation is so much more fun for the mainstream press; war resisters stand up and some stand with them; General Casey uses weasel words;
Starting with news of US war resister Ehren Watada who, in June 2006, became the first commissioned officer to publicly refuse to deploy to Iraq. Watada faces a court-martial February 5th and the 'judge' has stripped him of the right to present a strong defense. Arguments that can't be made in a kangroo court can be made by in the real world at Citizens' Hearing on the Legality of U.S. Actions in Iraq which starts tomorrow and concludes Sunday at the Evergreen State College Tacoma Campus (10:00 am to 4:00 pm each day). As Michael Gilbert (The News Tribune) reports "a lineup of speakers will make the case that the war and the ongoing occupation are illegal under international and U.S. law, and that an officer such as Watada has a duty to disobey orders to take part in it." Zoltan Grossman tells Gilbert that "the event will take the shape of a congressional hearing" and notes that those participating include the following: Denis Halliday, Ann Wright, Francis Boyle, Daniel Ellsberg, Darrell Anderson, Harvey Tharp and Nadia McCaffrey.
While some stay silent (The Nation) Peter Michaelson (BuzzFlash) steps up, "The world is upside down, and one brave first lieutenant tries to set it right. The U.S. war in Iraq is illegal and immoral, says 1st Lt. Ehren Watada. In thus choosing reality over fallacy, and refusing to deploy to Iraq with his Stryker brigade, the 28-year-old Honolulu native faces six years in the brig when his court-martial begins next month at Ft. Lewis near Seattle." Peter Michaelson and BuzzFlash stood up. FYI, BuzzFlash is offering Peace buttons and Howard Zinn's A Power Governments Cannot Suppress.
Also standing up, of course, in support of Watada is Iraq Veterans Against the War have set up Camp Resistance and Portland IMC has audio of Dennis Kyne and Darrell Anderson speaking about Camp Resistance. Anderson spoke of how they were camping outside Fort Lewis, "That bus is parked right there and it's not leaving until the trial is over, not till February." Anderson noted the positive reaction from soldiers at Fort Lewis, "They see the bus, they know who we area. After six days, we had soldiers honking, soldiers rolling by in their civilian clothes and screaming out the window. And I remember like, wow, I was just coming up here for Watada and Suzanne Swift and I didn't think the soldiers were going to . . . I never heard of soldiers power fisting anti-war guys. And that's when it hit me, that they're done. They're not going back for a third time. 'Cause that's where I'd be if I didn't go AWOL, I'd be at my third tour right now. Three years in Iraq, three years. Could you imagine Vietnam vets, could you imagine going back to Vietnam three times? Three years and you don't come back from that. You go to Iraq, but you don't come back."
As Ehren Watada's February 5th court-martial approaches, this week the US military announced their decision to charge Agustin Aguayo with desertion and missing movement which carry a maximum sentence of seven years in prison. Watada, Aguayo, and Anderson are part of a movement of resistance within the military that also includes Kyle Snyder, Agustin Aguayo, Ivan Brobeck, Darrell Anderson, Ricky Clousing, Aidan Delgado, Mark Wilkerson, Joshua Key, Camilo Meija, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Stephen Funk, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Jeremy Hinzman, Corey Glass, Patrick Hart, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Katherine Jashinski, Chris Teske and Kevin Benderman. In total, thirty-eight US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum.Information on war resistance within the military can be found at Center on Conscience & War, The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline, and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters.
From CODEPINK:
Bring the Peace Mandate to D.C. on J27! On Election Day voters delivered an unmistakable mandate for peace. Now it's time for action. Join CODEPINK in a national march to D.C. on January 27-29, to send a strong, clear message to Congress and the Bush Administration: The people of this country want the war and occupation in Iraq to end and we want the troops home now! See our latest actions, and click here for details.
In Iraq today?
Bombings?
Reuters reports a bombing of a butcher's shop that killed the butcher in Hilla. Mohammed al Awsy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad bombing ("at AL ELLWIAH intersection in KARDA") that killed a police officer and left another dead, a mortar attack ("near haifa street") that killed 2 and left 3 more wounded, another martar attack ("bayaa area western Baghdad") that left one person injured and a mortar attack that killed a woman and wounded 3 more people. Kim Gamel (AP) reports that a Shi'ite mosque was bombed "in sourthern Baghdad" (before the bombing, two guards of the mosque were killed).
Shootings?
CBS and AP report that "a man working for the Ministry of Tourism and Archaeology Affairs . . . was shot to death near his home in a predominantly Sunni neighborhood in western Baghdad." Reuters reports three shot dead in Falluja (Iraqi soldier and two ex-police officers), a Sunni preacher was shot dead in Kirkuk, and an attack on a minibus left two wounded in Hilla. Mohammed al Awsy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports that, in Tikrit, a vehichle was stopped an official checkpoint, the car contained 4 family members and began accusing one ("OMAR") of having fake identification but they waived them on only for them to be stopped by "unknown gunmen" immediately after who wanted to know which one was Omar "and killed him immediately and stabbed his other brother" leaving his sister and mother to drive to the hospital in Tikrit.
Corpses?
Mohammed al Awsy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 17 corpses were discovered in Baghdad today ("1 yarmouk, 2 amil, 1 aour, 2 zaafaraniyah, 1 selakh, 1 kamaliyah, 4 rahmaniyah, 1 bayaa, 1 shurta khamsa and 3 in dora. some were tortured and handcuffed").
In addition to the above, today US military announced today: " A Multi-National Division - Baghdad Soldier died when an improvised explosive device detonated on a patrol in a northwest section of the Iraqi capital Jan. 18" and the BBC reports that six British oldiers were wounded following an attack utilizing rockets and mortars ("on the Basra Palace camp").
In legal news, on Thursday, three US troops confessed and to review that:
*Hashim Ibrahim Awad who was the grandfather kidnapped and then murdered last year (April). Eight US service members were charged. They are known as the Pendleton Eight. Four had already confessed to their involvement. Yesterday, Trent Thomas became the fifth with his plea agreement.
*Three Iraqis, on May 9th, were detained by US troops, placed in plastic handcuffs, released (handcuffs cut off) with the intent to kill them ("Kill them all" is what some defense lawyers argued their clients were told). Four US troops were charged with this. William B. Hunsaker confessed (and was sentenced) earlier this month, Juston R. Graber also confessed to his involvment this month. Raymond L. Girouard maintains his innocence. Yesterday, Core Clagett entered a plea agreement. (It should be noted his attorney, Paul Bergin, has his own problems these days.) So that's three out of four having admitted guilt.
*Abeer is the one Megan says she can follow but just to recap for anyone who is confused -- three admissions of guilt in three different war crimes took place yesterday -- Abeer Qasim Hamza (14-years-old), Hadeel Qassim Hamza (five-years-old, Abeer's sister), Qassim Hamza Raheem and Fakhriya Taha Muhasen (her parents) were all killed on March 12, 2006. In addition Abeer was gang raped before being killed. Those charged in the incident were Steven D. Green (to be tried in a civilian court because he had left the military before the war crimes were learned of), Jesse Spielman, Bryan Howard, James P. Barker and Paul Cortez. (Anthony W. Yribe was not charged with participating -- he was charged with failure to report the crimes, dereliction of duty.) Green has entered a plea of not guilty in a federal court. James P. Barker confessed in court in November (and named Cortez as a co-gang rapist). Paul Cortez confessed yesterday but his attorney maintains Cortez was an 'oberserver.' Was he an observer in rape?
Barker's testimony was that it appeared Cortez was raping Abeer but, from his statements, he wasn't able to determine penetration. (Wasn't able to determine it from his angle. Whether Cortez penetrated or not, he took part in the gang rape, according to Barker, because Barker confessed to how they took turns holding Abeer down during the gang rape.)
Meanwhile Robert Gates visits Iraq and calls the current climate a "pivotal moment." Meeting up with the outgoing George Casey ("top American commander in Iraq"), CBS and AP report that Casey declares: "I think it's probably going to be the summer, late summer, before you get to the point where people in Baghdad feel safe in their neighborhoods." Is that what you think? Casey's not done with feelings checks or predictions, Robert Burns (AP) reports that escalated troops (the 21,500 Bully Boy wants to send into Iraq) COULD be back "home by late summer". COULD. A weasel word.
"Casey, didn't you say US troops would be back home by late summer?"
"No, I said could."
Meaningless weasel words meant to comfort and lull a public that's enraged by an illegal war with no apparent end. AP reports that Nancy Pelois (US House Speaker) has declared Bully Boy "has dug a hole so deep he can't even see the light on this. It's a tragedy. It's a stark blunder."
CBS, CNN and the whole mainstream press report that Muqtada al-Sadr's top aide was arrested, this following yesterday's reported arrest of Shi'ite fighters, and that al-Sadr is now in hiding fearing for his life and moving his family around while stating that a holy period of Muharram (the new year -- short answer). al-Sadr is quoted stating that no attacks will be initiated by him during the holy period (however, a response would be another issue) but when it is over, "we'll see." How much of this is true, how much of this is the sort of jerk-around we were once supposed to believe during Vietnam (remember Henry Kissinger really, really wanting to have those Paris Peace Talks -- at least publicly?), who knows.
More importantly, what Nouri al-Maliki is willing to go along with (not order, he doesn't have the power to order) at this minute and after more troops are on the ground is also a question mark.
Most importantly, Baghdad is a city.
Al-Anbar Province and Baghdad are where Bully Boy wants to send the bulk of esclation. As Webster Tarpley and Bonnie Faulkiner discussed Wednesday on KPFA's Guns and Butter, house-to-house, blah, blah, blah (the kind of nonsense that makes Michael Gordon light headed) creates a flank, you have less power to move in a city (tanks, et al). Tarpley compared it to the desperation measures of Hitler when commander-in-chief of the Eastern Front against Russia.
As people get exicted over who may have gotten arrested and who may not have, what al-Sadr might have said or not, what al-Maliki might do or not, what COULD happen this summer, it seems (yet again) some basic realities are being ignored. Noting one reality is Warren P. Strobel (McClatchy Newspapers): the illegal war "hasn't turned out the way advocates of the Iraq invasion had hoped or the way Bush and [U.S. Secretary of State] Condi Rice had predicted." Nor the way the New York Times and many others predicted either.
For more reality, Anthony Arnove, author of Iraq: The Logic of Withdrawal, will be speaking tomorrow as well as next Saturday:
*January 20, 7 pm, Chicago, IL (with Jeff Engelhardt)University of Illinois-ChicagoContact: Adam Turl, 773-567-0936, adamcturl@yahoo.com*January 27, 5 pm, Washington, DC (with Kelly Dougherty)Busboys and Poetshttp://www.busboysandpoets.com/blog_events.htm
