an e-mail today asked me why i didn't like susan sarandon? i've covered that many times before. i've noted how when i was doing publicity in entertainment, an actor who was a client worked with 'the sarandon' (that's what she was called --
in fact, i'm leaving parenthesis.
'the sarandon.'
that's what she was called behind her back and it was stated in sentences such as 'well, don't let her go off with the sarandon.' her?
men would say that about their wives and girlfriends.
don't let susan sarandon around them.
she's - rightly or wrongly (as c.i. would say) - blamed for the big break-up of the 90s, julia and keifer. and then 'the sarandon' takes off on an island get-away with julia.
true or false, rumors always circulated about her and her husband tim.
that started long before problems with the couple's photographs of their children. (but that's a whole other story.)
susan sarandon is not seen as a sexy woman and never has been.
she did thelma & louise where geena davis and brad pitt provided the heat (for any who forgot).
otherwise?
she's the saggy stink on screen. remember white palace?
it's not just susan's bug eyes (which her oldest daughter has and then some which is why she can kiss goodbye any film career), it's those saggy tits that have been saggy since 1979 when she was putting lemons on them in atlantic city.
susan sarandon is 1 of the bitchiest men or women in california.
she gripes about everything.
she griped her way throughout witches of eastwick. a difficult shoot, true. but her problems were with every 1. she hated the director, she hated jon peters, she hated cher ('she stole my part!'). susie couldn't get along with any 1.
she's always been a bad actress. as ... i was going to write 'as her looks faded,' but she never had looks. from the moment bug eyes 1st appeared on the big screen, pauline kael was calling her out (both for acting and for looks). but as she wrinkled more and more, she started getting cast as lower class characters and i think people confused the fact that they could believe her in that class with acting.
i always love to get good susan dirt and a recently deceased actor was always a good source on that. they did a film together (he was the lead, susie was supposed to be playing the 'hot ass') and he loathed her. he made a comment on her in alfie saying it was like when bette davis played margot (is that the character?) in night of the iguana.
he did this funny thing about how the 50 or so year-old davis showed up on stage with her blouse unbuttoned to the naval trying to look sexy and how that's like susie in alfie.
and it was also funny because i'd already heard from a friend at the studio (paramount) about how previews audiences had loathed her in the film.
she's supposed to be sexy but if you love to laugh at susan sarandon (at the sarandon) as i do, rent that film (i own it) so you can laugh and laugh as susan tries to act sexy. laugh as you realize how fat she looks in her final scenes and how she needs to either act her age or have some work done on those chins. (act her age? she's seducing jude law and, in fact, dumps him because she decides he's too old for him - consider it an absurdist comedy.) and that hideous hair. you've never seen such bad hair and you really have to see it from the side to get how ugly it is. her hair overpowers her limited acting skills. it should have been cut, it should have been layered.
how bad is it? ___ (an actress friend who shall remain nameless) said, when we went to see it on the big screen to really enjoy the hideous sarandon, 'oh my god! she's like sylia miles in midnight cowboy - only less sexy and less sympathetic.' oh, we laughed at that. (it helps if you've seen midnight cowboy. and alfie!)
for all i know she and tim robbins have non-stop, torrid sex. but every 1 talks about it as though they're a lavender marriage. in part, that's due to susie's confusing 1st marriage and her lack of relationships prior to tim who arrives just as her career finally might take off. (she's been making films for decades.) and she did the hunger and it's true people might be confusing her with the lesbian vampire. 20th century fox spent a lot of money on the julia and keffer wedding (that never took place) and some of the rumors about susie might result from that.
but regardless of how or why they believe it, every 1 talks about it and she is still called 'the sarandon.' that phrase started when she and julia took the vacation. it doubled its circulation when they made step-mom together.
the guy who e-mailed the question thought it wasn't fair that i didn't like susan or that i said julia had killed her film career. i said both of those things some time ago. and on julia, it was a long time ago.
but, on julia, i was correct. and, in fact, last month entertainment magazines were making the same points about her career being over that i made 1 and 2 years ago.
no 1 wants to see that crap. no 1 wants it.
susie never knew how to use her moment and turn it into stardom.
let's close with c.i.'s 'Iraq snapshot:'
Wednesday, December 10, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, the plight of Iraqi Christians is the focus of a US tour, the head of a Baghdad division embarrasses themselves in expression and appearance, Great Britian may leave Iraq, and more.
Starting in the US where Gregg Krupa (Detroit News) explains Cardinal Mar Emmanuel III Delly ("patriarch of Bablyon") is on a three week visit to the US and met yesterday "with members of the largest Chaldean community outside of Iraq, here in Metro Detroit." Krupa reminds, "Christian clerics have been murdered in Iraq, amid the continuing civil strife and social discord under the American-led occupation and attempts by Muslim extremists to root them out of their homes. Tens of thousands of Iraqi Christians have fled the country during the five years and nine months of war. Some have settled temporarily in Syria, Jordan, Turkey, and the United States and in Europe. International migration officials say that an increasing number has turned up in Lebanon, another country in the Middle East with a significant Christian population." AP notes the visit is to raise attention for the issues effecting Iraqi Christians including the safety crisis and Catholic Culture explains he expressed his puzzlement "as to why they [foreign military forces in Iraq] have not done more to bring about peace and security." Wayne Peal (Mirror) quotes Dave Nona, who attended a Tuesday ceremony by the Cardinal, on the issue of Iraqi Christians migrating to the US, "I would say it was about 12,000 because of homeland security. We're hoping that some 15,000 - 18,000 will be allowed to enter next year." Krupa reports that Tuesday speech noted, "All Iraqis were better off before the American-led invasion and occupation, he said, citing recent statements by President Bush and former adminsitration officials 'who admit that mistakes have been made'." Meanwhile Christian Newswire reports that "former Governor David Beasley, who has worked on numerous humanitarian projects in the Middle East since leaving politics, claimed the United States had failed in its responsibility to the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi Christians who have been forced to flee religious persecution in Iraq. The official position of Secretary Condoleezza Rice is that there is no religious persecution of Christians in Iraq." Catholic Leader notes that Chaldean Auxilary Bishop Shlemon Warduni of Baghdad Patriarchate shared with Vatican Radio last week that less than 800 of the 2,500 Christian families who fled Mosul in October due to attacks have returned. In other persecution news, NPR's Corey Flintoff (Morning Edition) reported last week from Basra on the racism there, "Although they have lived in Iraq for more than 1,000 years, the black Basrawis say they are still discriminated against because of the color of their skin . . . Long relegated to menial jobs or work as musicians and dancers, some of them have recently formed a group to advance their civil rights." Dropping back to religious news, Jenan Hussein and Adam Ashton (McClatchy News) report that the barbaric sacrifice of lambs continues in Iraq and will we hear any of the uproar from those screaming their heads off recently over the fact that Alaska Governor Sarah Palin hunted, the same crowd lying that she was shooting wolves from helicopters? The barbaraci practice of sacrificing animals continues and not a peep. And it needs to be noted that the sacrifice take place anytime the US and Iraq stages a public event. If they're dedicating a new building or they're doing some other big announcement, an animal's being slaughtered. Translation, the US military has endorsed animal sacrifices throughout the occupation of Iraq. It's interesting that the US military is expected to participate in those ceremonies (and if a sacrifice takes place before or after, it is part of the ceremonies) but were they to do the same in the US, they'd be arrested. It's also interesting when you consider that the US military is not supposed to promote religion but many are being asked to stand through these ceremonies which is participation. Equally true is that animal sacrifices goes against the personal religious beliefs of some serving in the US military. Just as the US should never go along with appeasing any host country by not allowing female service members to drive a vehicle, they should never go along with an animal sacrifice and should make it very clear that if one is done, it is done 24 hours before or 24 hours after any joint US-Iraq ceremony so as not to give the impression that the US condones or encourages animal sacrifices.
Turning to the puppet of the occupation Nouri al-Maliki. For over two weeks now, US outlets have filed story after story about the 'mighty' al-Maliki. He's unstoppable, they gushed. He's on the rise. He's the future, Moqtada al-Sadr's the past. No one can touch him. Blah, blah, blah. None of it was news and none of it reflected reality. But the long ass-kiss may finally be ending. While the never-ending smooch was ongoing, the simmering tensions between al-Maliki and the Kurdish Regional Government was largely ignored (Rubin and others at NYT did cover it). Today Jane Arraf (Christian Science Monitor) reports that the puppet's "coalition of support is fraying" due to the conflict with the Kurds but "[w]hile the growing Kurdish-Shiite rift may be the biggest threat yet to Maliki's tenure, what may ensure his survival are fears of the political battle that would follow his ouster and wreck many of the gains in Iraq's young democracy."
Yesterday's snapshot noted Reuters journalist Ibrahim Jassam who is wrongly being held by the US military despite the Iraqi court system ordering that Ibrahim be freed. Ibrahim is one of many reporters suffering in the 'free' Iraq. Last Wednesday's snapshot noted the United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq's "Human Rights Report" [PDF format warning, click here]. The report was the latest (thirteenth) and noted the attacks on the press especially in the Kurdish region where journalists spoke of being "arrested, harassed and ill-treated by KRG police. . . . Local journalist associations have condemned the conduct of the KRG authorities while other journalists were also prevented from covering the military operations." And the snapshot included:
. . . last month saw another journalist targeted in the Kurdistan region. Adel Hussein is the journalist and he's been convicted to six months of prison for the 'crime' of "writing an article about homosexuality". Reporters Without Border notes: "Sexual practices are part of the individual freedoms that a democratic states is supposed to promote and protect. Furthermore, Hussein did not defend homosexuality. He limited himself to describing a form of behavior from a scientific viewpoint. . . . We are astonished to learn that a press case has been tried under the criminal code. What was the point of adoptiong -- and then liberalising -- a press code in Kurdistan region if people who contribute to the news media are still be tried under more repressive laws?" The Committee to Protect Journalists is calling for the immediate release of Adel -- "a doctor and a freelance journalist with the independent weekly Hawlati". CPJ's Robert Mahoney (Dept Director) states, "A judge of all people should know that ignorance of the law is no excuse. This is the second time in a month that a court in Iraqi Kurdistan has sent a journalist to prison in violation of the new press law. We call on the authorities to ensure that the new legislation is widely promulgated and enforced, and we urge the appeal court to overturn this conviction and free Adel Hussein immediately." The other reporter referred to was Shwan Dawdi whose conviction was overturned by the court of appeal. Yahya Barzanji (AP) quotes the Kurdistan Journalist Union's Zirak Kamal stating, "We will appeal this unjust verdict and we hope that Kurdistan officials intervene and solve the problem." BBC explains the Kurdish government is attempting to say that Adel "violated a public decenty law" by reporting.
In a new development, The Committee to Protect Journalists announces that Adel was pardoned Sunday by KRG President Massoud Barzani and quotes CPJ Deputy Director Robert Mahoney stating, "We are relieved that President Barzani intervened to right this injustice. We call on the authorities to ensure that the new legislation is enforced and that Adel Hussein is the last journalist to be sent to prison in Iraqi Kurdistan because of his work." Reporters Without Borders notes:Reporters Without Borders welcomes yesterday's release of physician and freelance journalist Adel Hussein from prison in Erbil (330 km north of Baghdad) under a pardon granted by the president of the Iraqi region of Kurdistan at the start of every religious festival.Hussein had been in prison since 24 November, when he was found guilty of offending public decency under article 403 of the criminal code for writing an article about homosexuality for the independent Kurdish-language weekly Hawlati.
Turning to the topic of Blackwater -- Monday 5 mercenaries turned themselves into US federal authorities for charges stemming from the September 16, 2007 slaughter in Baghdad, Tina Susman and Usam Redha (Los Angeles Times) guage Iraqi opinion on the development. A veteran of Iraq's military, Ali, tells the reporters, "It means no one is above the law, even if he's an element of foreign forces. It also means the victims will get justice." An unnamed police officer states, "Because they killed 17 innocent people, of course they should be arrested." It's very rare that Iraqis are quoted or their opinions reported on.
Take McClatchy's Leila Fadel being interviewed by Paul Jay for the Real News Network in what is supposedly a nine minute interview about Iraqi suspicion of the treaty masquerading as a Status Of Forces Agreement. Yet at 2:37 in, she's still not talking about Iraqis. And she's wasted everyone's time with what appears to be a defense of McClatchy's AWFUL coverage from Baghdad of the treaty. She's yammering on and on endlessly about the Arabic version of the agreement ('which we translated into English") and who gives a damn, Leila? What do we care about? Well, how about you explain how Adam Ashton, in Iraq for McClatchy, couldn't (for McClatchy) write the truth about the treaty; however, Ashton works for The Modesto Bee and one Saturday, while still in Iraq, he could (for The Modesto Bee) write the realities that McClatchy wouldn't allow? How about you trying explaining that?
In what plays like yet another attempt to excuse the AWFUL reporting by McClatchy coming out of Baghdad, Leila begins referring to the "way that Maliki has sold the agreement to the population and has talked about it is as the end of the American occupation, he has won a date" -- uh, Fadel, he doesn't control the US press and the US press went with that -- including the Baghdad division of McClatchy that you head -- so how about taking a little damn responsibility or is that too difficult?
And, since you're now in DC and since the White House posted an English language version of the agreement (on Thanksgiving, as soon as the Iraqi Paliament voted it into effect -- as they said they would), why don't you address what that says?
And since you haven't read the White House version -- availabe for three weeks now -- maybe you ought to lose the attitude evident at 3:32 regarding Iraqis? (How "a lot of them haven't read" the Arabic version or done so well enough "to have an opinion.") In fact, if the average Iraqi that hasn't read the agreement in full doesn't have the right to an opinion in your opinion, then maybe you just should just close yourself off until you MAKE the time to read the White House version, published at the White House's website. You are, after all, a reporter and what's required and expected of you is a great deal more than what's required and expected of civilians whose country is occupied and under attack and who live in fear and do not have US passports that allow them to breeze in and out of Iraq at will? And, by the way, the Iraqis that "don't believe" in all the hog wash you have sold via McClatchy? They're right. They're right not only because it's a one-year treaty that either side can cancel in 2010 or 2011 -- which means you embarrass yourself in public when you bore us all with what's going to happen in 2011. But you don't need to know about that cancellation clause -- a clause Fadel 'forgot' to note when discussing the Arabic version for over 2 minutes (though that clause is also in the Arabic version). You only need to know that no US Embassy in any country is not protected by the US military. You only need to grasp that a larger embassy would require a larger US military force to protect it. You only need to realize that as long as the US Embassy remains in Baghdad, US forces will be on the ground in Iraq. That's reality. Here's some more -- don't show up for an inteview looking like a Los Molcajetes waitress serving chips and salsa. And for any little whiner at McClatchy who feels that's .just so harsh, let me be really clear: What McClatchy and others have done with regards to the treaty OUT DOES what Judith Miller did. Judith Miller (wrongly and laughably) believed that there were WMDs in Iraq. She should have shown skepticism, she shouldn't have been a stenographer. (And she was one of many.) But this illegal war continues because 'reporters' lie. LYING about the treaty, lying to Iraqis and Americans to lull them into a false belief that the war is winding down is nothing but an attempt to reduce pressure on the governments of both countries. You are servicing the adminstration, you are not servicing the people. And with all the lies that led to the illegal war having been exposed as lies, to provide new cover is outrageous and goes far beyond (my opinion) anything Miller could have hoped to do. In 2004 and 2005, we were regularly noting that if the Judith Millers got the US over there, the Dexter Filkins kept the US over there and they did so by lying in print regularly.
From Iraq, McClatchy rouses themselves enough to note little bits of violence . .
Bombings?
Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad roadside bombing wounded five people today while another roadside bombing detonated in Mosul.
Corpses?
Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 1 corpse discovered in Baghdad.
Yesterday the Defense Dept's inspector general released a report [PDF format warning, click here]. Mike Mount (CNN) reports that the study shows, "The U.S. Marine Corps kenw of the threat posed by roadside bombs before the start of the Iraq war, yet did nothing to buy protective vehicles for troops . . . Additionally, Marine leaders in 2005 decided to buy up-armored, or reinforced, Humvees instead of Mine Resistant Ambush-Protected vheicles to shield troops in Iraq from mines and other explosives -- a decision that could have cost lives, according to the report obtained Tuesday by CNN." Washington Post's Derek Kravitz explained last night, "After the inspector general's report became public, the Pentagon announced late today that it would order up between 2,800 to 10,000 of the vehicles, called MRAP-All Terrain Vehicles, for the Army and Marine Corps.":
Thomas Harding (Telegraph of London) reports that Gordon Brown, UK Prime Minister, will allegedly declare in early 2009 that British forces will withdraw from Iraq. This comes as the BBC reports Conservatives in the British Parliament are calling for a public investigation of the "origins and conduct" of the illegal war.
In US political news, Paul Street (ZNet) observes that president-elect Barack Obama's War Hawk nature was always evident (and Street called it out in real time and is the author of Barack Obama and the Future of American Politics):
The Times was wrong to suggest a significant change in Obama's concept of "reality" in regard to Iraq. Those willing to look seriously beneath the "antiwar" campaign imagery his marketers crafted for liberal and progressive voters can easily determine that there is no fundamental discontinuity. Obama voted to fund the illegal occupation without conditions in 2005 and 2006. He worked to support pro-war over antiwar Democrats in the 2006 congressional primaries. He distanced himself from U.S. Congressman Jack Murtha's (D-PA) early and courageous call for withdrawal from Iraq in 2005. He lectured progressives on the alleged need to not be seen as "working against the president" on Iraq (after the Democrats' 2006 congressional victories) and on how Democrats shouldn't "play chicken with the troops" (a preposterous conservative smear) by calling for immediate withdrawal from Iraq. He voted against a troop withdrawal proposal by Senators John Kerry and Russ Feingold in June 2006, arguing that setting a firm date for retreat would "hamstring" diplomats and military commanders. .In the fall of 2006, Obama told the Chicago Council on Global Affairs that "The American people have been extraordinarily resolved [in support of the Iraq occupation]...They have seen their sons and daughters killed or wounded in the streets of Fallujah." This was a remarkable comment in light of the two massive assaults (notorious across the Middle East and Muslim world) the Pentagon launched (indiscriminately slaughtering civilians in large numbers) on that Iraqi city in April and November of 2004.Obama's heralded "antiwar speech" of October 2002 (given when he was still a state senator) opposed the planned invasion of Iraq on pragmatic, not principled grounds. It criticized the imminent invasion as a strategic mistake (a "dumb war"), neglecting to mention its criminal and immoral nature, its petro-imperial motivations, and the large number of Iraqis it would kill and maim.Consistent with those omissions, Obama has never criticized the ethics or legality of Operation Iraqi Liberation (O.I.L.). He has always refused to significantly note Iraqi casualties (including more than 1 million civilian dead) and he denies the broader Holocaust the U.S, has imposed on Iraq. He told CNN's Candy Crowely last July that the United States should not apologize to anyone for any of its foreign policies under Bush and he has repeatedly claimed that the U.S. invaded the Iraq with "the best of intentions" (democracy- and freedom-promotion). He even told Wisconsin autoworkers last February that that the U.S. must "stop spending billions of dollars a week trying to put Iraq back together."Obama's 2002 "antiwar speech" came down from his Web site in 2003 because he decided to run for the U.S. Senate that year. He was nowhere to be seen around downtown Chicago when two nights of massive demonstrations took place there against Bush's invasion in March of 2003. And during the 2004 Democratic Convention, where he made the Keynote Address that made him an overnight celebrity (a "BaRockstar"), Obama told the New York Times that he might have voted (like Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, and John Edwards) to authorize Bush to invade Iraq if he had been in the U.S Senate and had access to the same "intelligence" as other U.S. Senators in the fall of 2002.Obama's spokespersons have been consistently mushy and deceptive about his Iraq withdrawal plans, making it clear to serious investigators that Obama will continue the occupation indefinitely. He told FOX News thug Bill O'Reilly this summer that "the Surge" had "succeeded beyond our wildest imaginations" and he has refused to sign on to legislation seeking to ban private "security" contractors like Blackwater from Iraq and Afghanistan.
iraq
nprcorey flintoff
adel husseinreporters without bordersthe committee to protect journaliststhomas hardingtelegraph of london
paul street
the los angeles timestina susmanusama redhathe new york timesdavid leonhardtcnnmike mountthe washington postderek kravitz
jenan hussein
mcclatchy newspapers
adam ashton
12/10/2008
12/09/2008
heroes and a coward (norman solomon)
before we get to political, let's start with nbc's Heroes. if you missed it last night, you can stream online.
i'm not going to write about it on mondays, sorry.
flyboy and i are both into the show now and it's just easier to tevo it and watch it when the baby is down for the night. that way neither of us miss anything.
so what happened.
elle is dead. i thought she was but i was hoping to be wrong there (week before, silar was starting to kill her). silar burned her body. nathan has gone over to the dark side (ugh!). hiro's now powerless.
let's go to that.
this has stopped being a plot. it is now a snowball going down a mountain (to hell?) and about as interesting as watching a snow ball roll.
if arthur's not dead, the way the story is going is arthur will continue to steal powers as will silar and then the 2 of them will meet up for a major mano y mano fight.
arthur grabbed hiro's power. and the catalyst.
and it's getting real old watching arthur and silar do their scavanger hunt each day.
hiro's losing his powers just reminded me of how ticked off i am that peter has. i'm tired of that.
claire was under utilized.
that didn't please me either.
i've decided i loathe tracy (i believe that's the name of the character).
matt has an interesting subplot and that's worth watching.
i am still going to watch and the good news is that at the end of the episode, arthur died.
if he stays dead, the story could really improve. but i don't believe he's really dead.
if he is, hopefully, this means peter has his powers back. that every 1 does. silar killed arthur when peter couldn't (or didn't appear able to).
so that's heroes.
if arthur's dead, it could really get interesting. if arthur's alive, i've got a feeling we'll see more 'which powers can i steal this epiosde' over and over from both silar and arthur.
so let's talk norman solomon. normy, you may remember, offered a clip-job 'book' recently. no 1 bought it. what was the title?
made love, got herpes?
i think that was the title. (no, it wasn't but it should have been.)
so this week little normy resurfaces like bad debt on a credit report.
his latest snot he coughed up is called 'the silent winter of escalation.' which is really cute, don't you think, because who's been more silent than normy?
he fell for barack and he shut his mouth because he's 1 of those women who love too much and fall for their abuser.
i think this is hilarious, it's the opening of the article:
Sunday morning, before dawn, I read in the New York Times that “the Pentagon is planning to add more than 20,000 troops to Afghanistan” within the next 18 months -- “raising American force levels to about 58,000” in that country. Then I scraped ice off a windshield and drove to the C-SPAN studios, where a picture window showed a serene daybreak over the Capitol dome.
While I was on C-SPAN’s “Washington Journal” for a live interview,
that's enough. wow, normy, are you writing about afghanistan?
coz it kind of seems like it's all 'me-me-me-me-me'.
and sure enough because he'll start self-plugging his products shortly. and you'll grasp that he doesn't write articles, he writes infomercials.
he has the nerve to accuse others of silence.
the man who lied for barack and still can't call his lover out. barack must have really tapped normy hard because normy's not at all worried about being the joke of the 'independent' media set. in fact, he appears to seek it out.
he's now interested in afghanistan.
did the iraq war end?
no, but he'd sooner sleep in the wet spot then call out barack for not ending the iraq war so it's really important that normy move on to another topic quickly.
let's close with c.i.'s 'Iraq snapshot:'
Tuesday, December 9, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, Blackwater remains in the news, IOM sounds alarms regarding migrants, the US military refuses to release a journalist, so many of Barack's buddies are in trouble, and more.
Starting with Blackwater. Yesterday five mercenaries for Blackwater Worldwide surrendered themselves to authorities as a result of grand jury indictments for the September 17, 2007 slaughter that resulted in at least 17 Iraqis being killed in Baghdad. CBS and AP (link has text and video) ask Iraqis for their reactions to the news. Mohammed Latif states, "I think it is a move in the right direction to make the security company employees realize that they are no longer above the law and they should stop behaving like cowboys on the streets of Baghdad." Rasim Hussein offers, "This indictment is not enough because there are still dozens of criminal security company employees on the loose in Iraq." Rania Abouzeid (Time magazine) also reports on Iraqi reaction to the news and quotes Hosham Abdel Kader stating, "It's about time they pay for their crimes. I recoil, I freeze when I see those mercenaries on the street." US Attorney General Jeffrey Taylor declared yesterday that "we are duty-bound to hold them accountable, as no one is above the law, even when our country is engaged in war." The Dallas Morning News uses that statement to editorialize, "Iraqis have waited far too long to hear these words from the U.S. government. Nevertheless, Iraqi government should cautions its people not to have high expectations. Security contractors at the time of the shooting fell under no clear legal authority. Since they were operating on foreign territory, U.S. law did not necessarily apply to them." The San Francisco Chronicle notes, "The incident became a flash point in many different ways. It proved to be a fantastic recruiting tool for insurgents. It enraged the Iraqi government, which lobbied unsuccessfully for the right to try the guards in Iraq. . . . And here in the United States, the case sparked discussion of why the war depended so much on private firms in the first place. One guard - perhaps sensing the scope of the reaction to the incident - already has pleaded guilty to killing at least one Iraqi, in exchange for a reduced sentence. The other five are facing 35 counts and at least 30 years."
Meanwhile Mike Doyle (McClatchy Newspapers) explores the primary (evolving) law that would apply and notes, "The Blackwater contract was with the State Department. The five indicted Blackwater guards were part of a Tactical Response Team called Raven 23; the killings in question occurred when Raven 23 responded to the detonation of an improvised explosive device near another Blackwater team guarding, apparently, a State Department employee. Who was this employee, and what was his or her function? Would protecting, say, an agricultural attache amount to 'supporting the mission' of the Pentagon?" Pamela Manson (Salt Lake Tribune) reports that the attorneys for the five are publicly maintaining that there is no case and that all "will be cleared." Dan Slater (Wall St. Journal) argues a recent case holds the key to the fate of the five, "Remember Jose Luis Nazario? He was the former Marine who was charged, under the MEJA, with voluntary manslaughter for allegedly killing unarmed Iraqis. In August, a jury in Riverside, Calif., acquitted Nazario. As today's WSJ report about Blackwater notes, prosecutors in the Nazario case faced jury skepticism. After the not-guilty verdict, jurors hugged Nazario and said they didn't feel they 'had any business' judging combat conduct." A great deal will ride on the testimony of Jeremy P. Ridgeway who copped a plea bargain. Ginger Thompson and James Risen (New York Times) report he "described how he and the other guards used automatic rifles and grenade launchers to fire on cars, houses, a traffic officer and a girls' school." Ridgeway, Josh Meyer (Los Angeles Times) notes, was "the turret gunner in the last vehicle had a panoramic view, has provided invormation that strongly indictes the shootings were unprovoked, authroities said." At the International Herald Tribune, Ginger Thompson explains, "Ridgeway said in the court documents unsealed Monday that the episode in Nisour Square on Sept. 16, 2007, started when the guards opened fire on a white Kia sedan 'that posed no threat to the convoy'."
How does photo-journalist Ibrahim Jassam pose any threat? Answer: He doesn't. But he's imprisoned by the US military in Iraq. The December 1st snapshot noted that the the Central Criminal Court of Iraq ruled Ibrahim must be freed. But Reuters reports this morning that the US military is refusing to release Ibrahim and stating they will continue holidng "him into 2009".US Major Neal Fisher is quoted stating that the court order means when Ibrahim is released, "he will be able to out-process without having to go through the courts as other detainees in his threat classification will have to do." Fisher sees no conflict in that and his earlier statement to Reuters that, "Though we appreciate the decision of the Central Criminal Court of Iraq in the Jassam case, their decision does not negate the intelligence information that currently lists him as a threat to Iraq security and stability." Golly Major Neil, if the US has 'evidence' and 'reason' to hold Ibrahim then surely it would be 'dangerous' to out-process him automatically at some point in 2009, right? All these oodles and oodles of info would need to be turned over to an Iraqi court, right? That is the argument for not releasing him after all: 'The Iraqi court doesn't know what we know.'But if you make that argument (and mean it), you don't turn around and say, 'When we're done with him, we'll follow the court's order and release him quicker than other prisoners who will still need to go before a court.' You can't have it both ways. Either the US knows information justifying Ibrahim being held or it doesn't. If it does, then surely such information would not just need to be turned over to an Iraqi court, it would also require a new trial. The fact that Major Neal doesn't see it that way goes to how weak the US case against Ibrahim is. David Schlesing (News Editor-in-Chief at Reuters) is quoted stating, "I am disappointed he has not been released in accordance with the court order."
Turning to the issue of Iraqi women, we'll start with women in general. Women's eNews runs a really bad article that they make even worse by attempting to put one over on their readers. Nadira Artyk's "Muslim Feminists Confront a World of Obstacles" has a dateline of 12-9-08 and it avoids ever noting dates for the conference. That conference took place in October. It ran from October 24 through October 27. Click here for better coverage from the BBC. Instead of rushing to post it, Women's eNews should have taken a moment to think, "Hmmm? Who is ignored in this article?" Or are they unaware that Dr. Bouthaina Shaaban was at the conference? Seems like Nadira -- two months after the conference -- should have included something on that, right? Shaaban spoke on the conference's opening day and considering her position with regards to Iraqi refugees fleeing to Syria and considering the employment (I'm referring to prostitution) that so many female refugees have to resort to, one would think there was something of a little more value than the grand standing moments of Nadira's friends. Isabel S. Murray (Dartmouth Free Press) reported on the same conference (in October, she reported) and stated the Qur'an forbids polygamy. A good time to note that polygamy remains an issue in Iraq. This from MADRE:
We demand the repeal of polygamous marriages and all other discriminatory laws against women in Kurdistan. On October 27, 2008, legislation allowing polygamous marriages was passed in a parliamentary session in Erbil, the capital city of Kurdistan. This legislation is part of a constitutional draft proposing to replace the old family status law, in use since 1958. It was changed partially, under Saddam Hussein, to subjugate women's rights further. After the fall of Saddam's regime in 2003, a new constitution was written and passed in Iraq. This constitution was solely based on Islamic Sharia Law and openly stated its support for gender apartheid against women. We clearly see that the proposed constitution for the Kurdish region is no better than the Iraqi one. In fact, it is just a smaller version. The current family status law was reactionary enough -- being purely based on discrimination against women and their treatment in society as second class citizens--but now the Kurdish Regional Government wants to change it further, and not for the better.Women in Kurdistan have been subjected to all kinds of violence and discrimination throughout their history. Under Saddam's regime, they endured all kinds of hardship, torture and abuse. They have fared no better under the current Kurdish rule. "Honour killings", female genital mutilation, forced marriages, bullying women to commit suicide and the denial of civil and individual rights have been the main characteristics for almost the past two decades. The approval of this current legislation will assist in the oppression of women and lead to a huge increase in violence against women. This is a historical mistake. We hold the Kurdish parliament and its government responsible for the violations of women's rights in this region, due to these discriminatory laws. Therefore, we call upon every concerned organisation and individual to support us in this campaign to repeal this law. We also call for unconditional equal rights, freedom and equality for women in Kurdistan to be enshrined in law. Yours Truly, - Yanar Mohammed: President of Organisation of Women's Freedom in Iraq, Iraq - Houzan Mahmoud: Representative of Organisation of Women's Freedom in Iraq, UK - Vivian Stromberg: MADRE, USA - Maria Hagberg: President of Network Against Honour Crimes, Sweden - Rega Svensson: Head of Organisation of Women's Freedom in Iraq, Sweden - Joe Tougas: Journalist, Human Rights Activist, USA - Jennifer Kemp: Women's Rights Activist, USA - Maryam Namazie: Spokesperson for Equal Rights Now, Iran - Joanne Payton: International Campaign against Honour Killings - Thomas Unterrainer: Nottingham - Sam Azad: Socialist campaigner - Ingrid Ternert: Representative of the Peace Movement, Germany - Ruth Appleton: Co-ordinator Santé Refugee Mental Health Access Project - Anna-Lisa: Sweden - Aase Fosshaug: Sweden
But why listen to MADRE, they are concerned with human rights and the Women's eNews' story explains to us just how 'passe' human rights is. (Human rights is passe -- and a subthread of the conference, so is feminism -- which also gets left out of the article.) MADRE sent out the above in November. Via Afif Sarhan (IslamOnline):
From 1994 to 2005, when Kurdistan was divided, polygamy was banned in areas ruled by the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) but allowed in areas run by the Kurdistan Democratic Party.
Since the two administrations united in 2005, the issue took center stage with the provincial parliament issuing laws covering the whole region.
In July, Amanj Khalil (Isis International) noted the struggles Kurdish women have had in even being heard:
"Why are religious clerics even on the committee?" asked Chlura Hardi, head of the independent Khatuzeen women's centre in Erbil, which advocates for women's rights. She said the committee "has no right to impose religion on the draft law. We have been working to separate religion from the state, but now they want us to make a commitment to religion."
Meanwhile the International Organization for Migration is calling for increased protection of migrants. To recap, we'll note the New York Times on Sunday, "In another development, McClatchy Newspapers reported last week that about 1,000 South Asian men hired by a subcontractor for the American military had been held for months in slavelike conditions near the Baghdad International Airport. The men had paid middlemen to obtain jobs in Iraq with a Kuwait-based subcontractor to KBR that provides services to the military, McClatchy said." That's the basics of the situation and, while Adam Ashton did report on this story for McClatchy, the Times of London's Deborah Haynes has owned this story. Today she reports on the IOM's call for greater protection and speaks with IOM's Chief of the Iraq mission Rafiq Tschannen who tells her, "I am very much worried because we have been highlighting this problem for some time." Haynes also provides more photos of the migrants. IOM notes:
An IOM assessment last week of a group of Bangladeshi, Indian, Nepalese and Sri Lankan migrants camped out near roadsides close to the airport, found nearly 60 men in a desperate situation. Some of the migrants had no shelter at all, covering themselves with whatever they could find lying around. Others were living in tents or containers but all were without running water or electricity. Food was being provided on an ad hoc basis by the US military and Iraqis living nearby. "We are very worried about these men who need humanitarian help. Winter is fast approaching and they cannot be left to stay out in the open like this without proper facilities," says IOM's Chief of Mission for Iraq, Rafiq Tschannen.
All the migrants had borrowed money or sold off land, businesses or homes to pay up to USD 3,000 to middlemen to work in Iraq that would pay much greater salaries then they could ever hope to earn at home.
Upon arrival, however, there were no jobs and for some of them, their passports were also taken away by the recruiters. Although some in the group have found other work by themselves, mainly as cleaners or doing other service labour, most of the men have now been in Iraq for four months without a job or income.
There is a possibility that there may be more migrants in a similar plight at this site alone that IOM is unaware of, while a reported 1,000 migrants from various nationalities, predominantly South Asian and contracted by a catering company, are being kept in three warehouses in a secured area around the airport without their passports.
During the assessment at the roadside camp last week, some of the migrants begged IOM to help them return home while others felt that they couldn't go back until they could pay off the debts they had incurred to get to Iraq. Their lack of papers puts them in a very difficult and vulnerable situation.
Some Nepalese migrants have managed to go home either through assistance from family back home or by borrowing money from fellow Nepalese migrants with jobs in Iraq, thereby increasing their debts.
IOM will soon be providing voluntary return and reintegration assistance to eight Nepalese migrants. However, the Organization is urgently seeking funds to help another 11 migrants and potentially hundreds more.
Violence continues and Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) offers one person was wounded in a Baghdad mortar attack yesterday and one during a "controlled detonation" bombing in Baghdad. Reuters notes a Mosul roadside bombing left one woman wounded and a Mosul grenade attack injured a police officer.
Turning to US politics, the Illinois Green Party issues a statement on the arrest of Barack-pal and Governor Rod Blagojevich:
We in the Illinois Green Party are deeply troubled by the arrest ofGovernor Rod Blagojevich and his chief-of-staff John Harris. TheGovernor is charged with attempting to personally profit from hispower to appoint a person to the U.S. Senate. While we recognize thatthe accused are innocent until proven guilty, we must also admit thatwe are not surprised by these allegations. We have seen a longpattern of pay-to-play from Blagojevich, and indeed, a long pattern ofpay-to-play throughout Illinois politics for years. The long sordidhistory of corruption in Illinois must finally come to an end.
The Green Party has always stood for accountability, transparency, andclean government through clean elections. We reject all corporatecampaign contributions, advocate for public financing, and have longpushed for at least caps on individual contributions, so that ourelections will no longer be pay-to-play.
We call on the Illinois General Assembly to hold an emergency session to:
1) Develop legislation to give the people of Illinois the ability torecall their public officials;
2) Consider the impeachment of Governor Blagojevich;
3) Amend Illinois statute to provide for an open process for fillingthis and future U.S. Senate seats, preferably through a specialelection, as the process for filling the current vacancy has beenirrevocably tainted;
4) Reform the campaign finance system, banning all corporate campaigncontributions, and installing caps on individual contributions;
5) Further reform the campaign finance system to eliminatepay-for-play, by barring or severely limiting contributions frompolitical appointees, and mandating that political committees returndonations made from individuals subsequently appointed to publicoffice, boards, or commissions.
These are the first steps which need to be taken to help instillintegrity, transparency, and accountability to our state government.
Phil Huckelberry Chair, Illinois Green Party
Another Barack friend is in the news. Homphobic Jeremiah Wright is back and he's making it harder for the pathetics who defended his crap earlier this year to muster a defense for him. Andrew Herrmann (Chicago Sun-Times) reports Wright delivered a 'sermon' at Trinity where he called Elizabeth Hasselbeck a "dumb broad". Wags are already dubbing Wright's latest crap The Sermon From The Chip On His Shouler. The 'great intellect' of Wright that had Bill Moyers raving was on full display in Sunday's rant -- Joseph (Cannonfire) notes that Wright called out the US for bombing the Japanese "67 years to the day" Sunday -- and points out Sunday was December 7th. (Pearl Harbor, Idiot Wright, when the Japanese bombed the US.)
Staying in World of St. Bambi, the man who assembles Barack's pretty words is making news. (PUMAPac and The Confluence are covering this story extensively.) Jon Favreau -- the punk, not the actor-writer-director -- posed for a photo with a Hillary carboard cut-out where he leered and grabbed the breast area while Jon's friend or male lover pretended to kiss Hillary and pour beer down her throat. It's an offensive image and one they elected to make public via FACEBOOK. Equally true is the photo wasn't just snapped (nor is this the only one of the two friends or lovers from the 'photo shoot'). Your first clue that a lot went on during this photo is the amused faces of those behind the two friends/lovers who are highly amused for people who can't even see what's going on. Riverdaughter lists reasons why Jon Favreau needs to go now:
Because Favreau is now the face of the Obama administration. Everytime Obama opens his mouth, we will see Favreau and his frat boy drinking buddies acting like young macho thugs. He is writing the words for the President of the United States. Obama's credibility is already compromised with us. Every time Obama pulls out the hopey-changey shtick from now on, we're going to know that it came from the mouth of Jon Favreau.
Because it means that Obama has no real understanding of the kind of discrimination and behavior that women are subjected to in public, at work or in the family.
Because Hillary Clinton is not the only one disrespected by it. Jon might as well be groping all of our breasts.
Because the longer it sits out there, the more it looks like Obama is insensitive to the disrespect shown towards women. We already know this but we think it is time for Obama to get with the program and shows us that he gets it and will not tolerate male adolescent fantasies of degrading powerful women.
Because dismissing groups like The New Agenda as a bunch of female whiners sends a strong message that women's priorities are inconsequential to Obama.
Because Obama stole the primary with hooligan idiots like Favreau and we want these idiots punished.
iraq
the new york timesginger thompsonjames risen
the los angeles timesjosh meyer
ibrahim jassam
deborah haynes
mcclatchy newspapers
i'm not going to write about it on mondays, sorry.
flyboy and i are both into the show now and it's just easier to tevo it and watch it when the baby is down for the night. that way neither of us miss anything.
so what happened.
elle is dead. i thought she was but i was hoping to be wrong there (week before, silar was starting to kill her). silar burned her body. nathan has gone over to the dark side (ugh!). hiro's now powerless.
let's go to that.
this has stopped being a plot. it is now a snowball going down a mountain (to hell?) and about as interesting as watching a snow ball roll.
if arthur's not dead, the way the story is going is arthur will continue to steal powers as will silar and then the 2 of them will meet up for a major mano y mano fight.
arthur grabbed hiro's power. and the catalyst.
and it's getting real old watching arthur and silar do their scavanger hunt each day.
hiro's losing his powers just reminded me of how ticked off i am that peter has. i'm tired of that.
claire was under utilized.
that didn't please me either.
i've decided i loathe tracy (i believe that's the name of the character).
matt has an interesting subplot and that's worth watching.
i am still going to watch and the good news is that at the end of the episode, arthur died.
if he stays dead, the story could really improve. but i don't believe he's really dead.
if he is, hopefully, this means peter has his powers back. that every 1 does. silar killed arthur when peter couldn't (or didn't appear able to).
so that's heroes.
if arthur's dead, it could really get interesting. if arthur's alive, i've got a feeling we'll see more 'which powers can i steal this epiosde' over and over from both silar and arthur.
so let's talk norman solomon. normy, you may remember, offered a clip-job 'book' recently. no 1 bought it. what was the title?
made love, got herpes?
i think that was the title. (no, it wasn't but it should have been.)
so this week little normy resurfaces like bad debt on a credit report.
his latest snot he coughed up is called 'the silent winter of escalation.' which is really cute, don't you think, because who's been more silent than normy?
he fell for barack and he shut his mouth because he's 1 of those women who love too much and fall for their abuser.
i think this is hilarious, it's the opening of the article:
Sunday morning, before dawn, I read in the New York Times that “the Pentagon is planning to add more than 20,000 troops to Afghanistan” within the next 18 months -- “raising American force levels to about 58,000” in that country. Then I scraped ice off a windshield and drove to the C-SPAN studios, where a picture window showed a serene daybreak over the Capitol dome.
While I was on C-SPAN’s “Washington Journal” for a live interview,
that's enough. wow, normy, are you writing about afghanistan?
coz it kind of seems like it's all 'me-me-me-me-me'.
and sure enough because he'll start self-plugging his products shortly. and you'll grasp that he doesn't write articles, he writes infomercials.
he has the nerve to accuse others of silence.
the man who lied for barack and still can't call his lover out. barack must have really tapped normy hard because normy's not at all worried about being the joke of the 'independent' media set. in fact, he appears to seek it out.
he's now interested in afghanistan.
did the iraq war end?
no, but he'd sooner sleep in the wet spot then call out barack for not ending the iraq war so it's really important that normy move on to another topic quickly.
let's close with c.i.'s 'Iraq snapshot:'
Tuesday, December 9, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, Blackwater remains in the news, IOM sounds alarms regarding migrants, the US military refuses to release a journalist, so many of Barack's buddies are in trouble, and more.
Starting with Blackwater. Yesterday five mercenaries for Blackwater Worldwide surrendered themselves to authorities as a result of grand jury indictments for the September 17, 2007 slaughter that resulted in at least 17 Iraqis being killed in Baghdad. CBS and AP (link has text and video) ask Iraqis for their reactions to the news. Mohammed Latif states, "I think it is a move in the right direction to make the security company employees realize that they are no longer above the law and they should stop behaving like cowboys on the streets of Baghdad." Rasim Hussein offers, "This indictment is not enough because there are still dozens of criminal security company employees on the loose in Iraq." Rania Abouzeid (Time magazine) also reports on Iraqi reaction to the news and quotes Hosham Abdel Kader stating, "It's about time they pay for their crimes. I recoil, I freeze when I see those mercenaries on the street." US Attorney General Jeffrey Taylor declared yesterday that "we are duty-bound to hold them accountable, as no one is above the law, even when our country is engaged in war." The Dallas Morning News uses that statement to editorialize, "Iraqis have waited far too long to hear these words from the U.S. government. Nevertheless, Iraqi government should cautions its people not to have high expectations. Security contractors at the time of the shooting fell under no clear legal authority. Since they were operating on foreign territory, U.S. law did not necessarily apply to them." The San Francisco Chronicle notes, "The incident became a flash point in many different ways. It proved to be a fantastic recruiting tool for insurgents. It enraged the Iraqi government, which lobbied unsuccessfully for the right to try the guards in Iraq. . . . And here in the United States, the case sparked discussion of why the war depended so much on private firms in the first place. One guard - perhaps sensing the scope of the reaction to the incident - already has pleaded guilty to killing at least one Iraqi, in exchange for a reduced sentence. The other five are facing 35 counts and at least 30 years."
Meanwhile Mike Doyle (McClatchy Newspapers) explores the primary (evolving) law that would apply and notes, "The Blackwater contract was with the State Department. The five indicted Blackwater guards were part of a Tactical Response Team called Raven 23; the killings in question occurred when Raven 23 responded to the detonation of an improvised explosive device near another Blackwater team guarding, apparently, a State Department employee. Who was this employee, and what was his or her function? Would protecting, say, an agricultural attache amount to 'supporting the mission' of the Pentagon?" Pamela Manson (Salt Lake Tribune) reports that the attorneys for the five are publicly maintaining that there is no case and that all "will be cleared." Dan Slater (Wall St. Journal) argues a recent case holds the key to the fate of the five, "Remember Jose Luis Nazario? He was the former Marine who was charged, under the MEJA, with voluntary manslaughter for allegedly killing unarmed Iraqis. In August, a jury in Riverside, Calif., acquitted Nazario. As today's WSJ report about Blackwater notes, prosecutors in the Nazario case faced jury skepticism. After the not-guilty verdict, jurors hugged Nazario and said they didn't feel they 'had any business' judging combat conduct." A great deal will ride on the testimony of Jeremy P. Ridgeway who copped a plea bargain. Ginger Thompson and James Risen (New York Times) report he "described how he and the other guards used automatic rifles and grenade launchers to fire on cars, houses, a traffic officer and a girls' school." Ridgeway, Josh Meyer (Los Angeles Times) notes, was "the turret gunner in the last vehicle had a panoramic view, has provided invormation that strongly indictes the shootings were unprovoked, authroities said." At the International Herald Tribune, Ginger Thompson explains, "Ridgeway said in the court documents unsealed Monday that the episode in Nisour Square on Sept. 16, 2007, started when the guards opened fire on a white Kia sedan 'that posed no threat to the convoy'."
How does photo-journalist Ibrahim Jassam pose any threat? Answer: He doesn't. But he's imprisoned by the US military in Iraq. The December 1st snapshot noted that the the Central Criminal Court of Iraq ruled Ibrahim must be freed. But Reuters reports this morning that the US military is refusing to release Ibrahim and stating they will continue holidng "him into 2009".US Major Neal Fisher is quoted stating that the court order means when Ibrahim is released, "he will be able to out-process without having to go through the courts as other detainees in his threat classification will have to do." Fisher sees no conflict in that and his earlier statement to Reuters that, "Though we appreciate the decision of the Central Criminal Court of Iraq in the Jassam case, their decision does not negate the intelligence information that currently lists him as a threat to Iraq security and stability." Golly Major Neil, if the US has 'evidence' and 'reason' to hold Ibrahim then surely it would be 'dangerous' to out-process him automatically at some point in 2009, right? All these oodles and oodles of info would need to be turned over to an Iraqi court, right? That is the argument for not releasing him after all: 'The Iraqi court doesn't know what we know.'But if you make that argument (and mean it), you don't turn around and say, 'When we're done with him, we'll follow the court's order and release him quicker than other prisoners who will still need to go before a court.' You can't have it both ways. Either the US knows information justifying Ibrahim being held or it doesn't. If it does, then surely such information would not just need to be turned over to an Iraqi court, it would also require a new trial. The fact that Major Neal doesn't see it that way goes to how weak the US case against Ibrahim is. David Schlesing (News Editor-in-Chief at Reuters) is quoted stating, "I am disappointed he has not been released in accordance with the court order."
Turning to the issue of Iraqi women, we'll start with women in general. Women's eNews runs a really bad article that they make even worse by attempting to put one over on their readers. Nadira Artyk's "Muslim Feminists Confront a World of Obstacles" has a dateline of 12-9-08 and it avoids ever noting dates for the conference. That conference took place in October. It ran from October 24 through October 27. Click here for better coverage from the BBC. Instead of rushing to post it, Women's eNews should have taken a moment to think, "Hmmm? Who is ignored in this article?" Or are they unaware that Dr. Bouthaina Shaaban was at the conference? Seems like Nadira -- two months after the conference -- should have included something on that, right? Shaaban spoke on the conference's opening day and considering her position with regards to Iraqi refugees fleeing to Syria and considering the employment (I'm referring to prostitution) that so many female refugees have to resort to, one would think there was something of a little more value than the grand standing moments of Nadira's friends. Isabel S. Murray (Dartmouth Free Press) reported on the same conference (in October, she reported) and stated the Qur'an forbids polygamy. A good time to note that polygamy remains an issue in Iraq. This from MADRE:
We demand the repeal of polygamous marriages and all other discriminatory laws against women in Kurdistan. On October 27, 2008, legislation allowing polygamous marriages was passed in a parliamentary session in Erbil, the capital city of Kurdistan. This legislation is part of a constitutional draft proposing to replace the old family status law, in use since 1958. It was changed partially, under Saddam Hussein, to subjugate women's rights further. After the fall of Saddam's regime in 2003, a new constitution was written and passed in Iraq. This constitution was solely based on Islamic Sharia Law and openly stated its support for gender apartheid against women. We clearly see that the proposed constitution for the Kurdish region is no better than the Iraqi one. In fact, it is just a smaller version. The current family status law was reactionary enough -- being purely based on discrimination against women and their treatment in society as second class citizens--but now the Kurdish Regional Government wants to change it further, and not for the better.Women in Kurdistan have been subjected to all kinds of violence and discrimination throughout their history. Under Saddam's regime, they endured all kinds of hardship, torture and abuse. They have fared no better under the current Kurdish rule. "Honour killings", female genital mutilation, forced marriages, bullying women to commit suicide and the denial of civil and individual rights have been the main characteristics for almost the past two decades. The approval of this current legislation will assist in the oppression of women and lead to a huge increase in violence against women. This is a historical mistake. We hold the Kurdish parliament and its government responsible for the violations of women's rights in this region, due to these discriminatory laws. Therefore, we call upon every concerned organisation and individual to support us in this campaign to repeal this law. We also call for unconditional equal rights, freedom and equality for women in Kurdistan to be enshrined in law. Yours Truly, - Yanar Mohammed: President of Organisation of Women's Freedom in Iraq, Iraq - Houzan Mahmoud: Representative of Organisation of Women's Freedom in Iraq, UK - Vivian Stromberg: MADRE, USA - Maria Hagberg: President of Network Against Honour Crimes, Sweden - Rega Svensson: Head of Organisation of Women's Freedom in Iraq, Sweden - Joe Tougas: Journalist, Human Rights Activist, USA - Jennifer Kemp: Women's Rights Activist, USA - Maryam Namazie: Spokesperson for Equal Rights Now, Iran - Joanne Payton: International Campaign against Honour Killings - Thomas Unterrainer: Nottingham - Sam Azad: Socialist campaigner - Ingrid Ternert: Representative of the Peace Movement, Germany - Ruth Appleton: Co-ordinator Santé Refugee Mental Health Access Project - Anna-Lisa: Sweden - Aase Fosshaug: Sweden
But why listen to MADRE, they are concerned with human rights and the Women's eNews' story explains to us just how 'passe' human rights is. (Human rights is passe -- and a subthread of the conference, so is feminism -- which also gets left out of the article.) MADRE sent out the above in November. Via Afif Sarhan (IslamOnline):
From 1994 to 2005, when Kurdistan was divided, polygamy was banned in areas ruled by the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) but allowed in areas run by the Kurdistan Democratic Party.
Since the two administrations united in 2005, the issue took center stage with the provincial parliament issuing laws covering the whole region.
In July, Amanj Khalil (Isis International) noted the struggles Kurdish women have had in even being heard:
"Why are religious clerics even on the committee?" asked Chlura Hardi, head of the independent Khatuzeen women's centre in Erbil, which advocates for women's rights. She said the committee "has no right to impose religion on the draft law. We have been working to separate religion from the state, but now they want us to make a commitment to religion."
Meanwhile the International Organization for Migration is calling for increased protection of migrants. To recap, we'll note the New York Times on Sunday, "In another development, McClatchy Newspapers reported last week that about 1,000 South Asian men hired by a subcontractor for the American military had been held for months in slavelike conditions near the Baghdad International Airport. The men had paid middlemen to obtain jobs in Iraq with a Kuwait-based subcontractor to KBR that provides services to the military, McClatchy said." That's the basics of the situation and, while Adam Ashton did report on this story for McClatchy, the Times of London's Deborah Haynes has owned this story. Today she reports on the IOM's call for greater protection and speaks with IOM's Chief of the Iraq mission Rafiq Tschannen who tells her, "I am very much worried because we have been highlighting this problem for some time." Haynes also provides more photos of the migrants. IOM notes:
An IOM assessment last week of a group of Bangladeshi, Indian, Nepalese and Sri Lankan migrants camped out near roadsides close to the airport, found nearly 60 men in a desperate situation. Some of the migrants had no shelter at all, covering themselves with whatever they could find lying around. Others were living in tents or containers but all were without running water or electricity. Food was being provided on an ad hoc basis by the US military and Iraqis living nearby. "We are very worried about these men who need humanitarian help. Winter is fast approaching and they cannot be left to stay out in the open like this without proper facilities," says IOM's Chief of Mission for Iraq, Rafiq Tschannen.
All the migrants had borrowed money or sold off land, businesses or homes to pay up to USD 3,000 to middlemen to work in Iraq that would pay much greater salaries then they could ever hope to earn at home.
Upon arrival, however, there were no jobs and for some of them, their passports were also taken away by the recruiters. Although some in the group have found other work by themselves, mainly as cleaners or doing other service labour, most of the men have now been in Iraq for four months without a job or income.
There is a possibility that there may be more migrants in a similar plight at this site alone that IOM is unaware of, while a reported 1,000 migrants from various nationalities, predominantly South Asian and contracted by a catering company, are being kept in three warehouses in a secured area around the airport without their passports.
During the assessment at the roadside camp last week, some of the migrants begged IOM to help them return home while others felt that they couldn't go back until they could pay off the debts they had incurred to get to Iraq. Their lack of papers puts them in a very difficult and vulnerable situation.
Some Nepalese migrants have managed to go home either through assistance from family back home or by borrowing money from fellow Nepalese migrants with jobs in Iraq, thereby increasing their debts.
IOM will soon be providing voluntary return and reintegration assistance to eight Nepalese migrants. However, the Organization is urgently seeking funds to help another 11 migrants and potentially hundreds more.
Violence continues and Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) offers one person was wounded in a Baghdad mortar attack yesterday and one during a "controlled detonation" bombing in Baghdad. Reuters notes a Mosul roadside bombing left one woman wounded and a Mosul grenade attack injured a police officer.
Turning to US politics, the Illinois Green Party issues a statement on the arrest of Barack-pal and Governor Rod Blagojevich:
We in the Illinois Green Party are deeply troubled by the arrest ofGovernor Rod Blagojevich and his chief-of-staff John Harris. TheGovernor is charged with attempting to personally profit from hispower to appoint a person to the U.S. Senate. While we recognize thatthe accused are innocent until proven guilty, we must also admit thatwe are not surprised by these allegations. We have seen a longpattern of pay-to-play from Blagojevich, and indeed, a long pattern ofpay-to-play throughout Illinois politics for years. The long sordidhistory of corruption in Illinois must finally come to an end.
The Green Party has always stood for accountability, transparency, andclean government through clean elections. We reject all corporatecampaign contributions, advocate for public financing, and have longpushed for at least caps on individual contributions, so that ourelections will no longer be pay-to-play.
We call on the Illinois General Assembly to hold an emergency session to:
1) Develop legislation to give the people of Illinois the ability torecall their public officials;
2) Consider the impeachment of Governor Blagojevich;
3) Amend Illinois statute to provide for an open process for fillingthis and future U.S. Senate seats, preferably through a specialelection, as the process for filling the current vacancy has beenirrevocably tainted;
4) Reform the campaign finance system, banning all corporate campaigncontributions, and installing caps on individual contributions;
5) Further reform the campaign finance system to eliminatepay-for-play, by barring or severely limiting contributions frompolitical appointees, and mandating that political committees returndonations made from individuals subsequently appointed to publicoffice, boards, or commissions.
These are the first steps which need to be taken to help instillintegrity, transparency, and accountability to our state government.
Phil Huckelberry Chair, Illinois Green Party
Another Barack friend is in the news. Homphobic Jeremiah Wright is back and he's making it harder for the pathetics who defended his crap earlier this year to muster a defense for him. Andrew Herrmann (Chicago Sun-Times) reports Wright delivered a 'sermon' at Trinity where he called Elizabeth Hasselbeck a "dumb broad". Wags are already dubbing Wright's latest crap The Sermon From The Chip On His Shouler. The 'great intellect' of Wright that had Bill Moyers raving was on full display in Sunday's rant -- Joseph (Cannonfire) notes that Wright called out the US for bombing the Japanese "67 years to the day" Sunday -- and points out Sunday was December 7th. (Pearl Harbor, Idiot Wright, when the Japanese bombed the US.)
Staying in World of St. Bambi, the man who assembles Barack's pretty words is making news. (PUMAPac and The Confluence are covering this story extensively.) Jon Favreau -- the punk, not the actor-writer-director -- posed for a photo with a Hillary carboard cut-out where he leered and grabbed the breast area while Jon's friend or male lover pretended to kiss Hillary and pour beer down her throat. It's an offensive image and one they elected to make public via FACEBOOK. Equally true is the photo wasn't just snapped (nor is this the only one of the two friends or lovers from the 'photo shoot'). Your first clue that a lot went on during this photo is the amused faces of those behind the two friends/lovers who are highly amused for people who can't even see what's going on. Riverdaughter lists reasons why Jon Favreau needs to go now:
Because Favreau is now the face of the Obama administration. Everytime Obama opens his mouth, we will see Favreau and his frat boy drinking buddies acting like young macho thugs. He is writing the words for the President of the United States. Obama's credibility is already compromised with us. Every time Obama pulls out the hopey-changey shtick from now on, we're going to know that it came from the mouth of Jon Favreau.
Because it means that Obama has no real understanding of the kind of discrimination and behavior that women are subjected to in public, at work or in the family.
Because Hillary Clinton is not the only one disrespected by it. Jon might as well be groping all of our breasts.
Because the longer it sits out there, the more it looks like Obama is insensitive to the disrespect shown towards women. We already know this but we think it is time for Obama to get with the program and shows us that he gets it and will not tolerate male adolescent fantasies of degrading powerful women.
Because dismissing groups like The New Agenda as a bunch of female whiners sends a strong message that women's priorities are inconsequential to Obama.
Because Obama stole the primary with hooligan idiots like Favreau and we want these idiots punished.
iraq
the new york timesginger thompsonjames risen
the los angeles timesjosh meyer
ibrahim jassam
deborah haynes
mcclatchy newspapers
12/08/2008
the new yorker? not so peaceful when it mattered
above is Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Princess Brat" and isn't it brilliant?
i, unfortunately, am not. there's a hall closet that i put off cleaning for some time. i do spring cleaning. and in 2007, i was pregnant and largely on bedrest. in 2008? oh come on, my baby was turning 1 year-old and i was also doing some stuff on the road with ava, c.i., kat and wally. so it's waited and waited. i knocked it out finally - finally! - tonight.
it's 1 of those closets you just open to toss something else. you never go into it because you need something. if there's something you're wondering whether to keep or not, that is the closet.
so there were a lot of things to go through and get rid of and i found several new yorkers in there from march 2003. it was very disappointing.
on the eve of the iraq war, what was the magazine doing? jerking off. wasting time with a 'fiction' issue. bad writing from bad writers (referring to the march 17, 2003 issue). and their 'wit' and 'genius' that katrina vanden heuvel loves (well, the 1 she sucks up to, she actually can't stand him)? little hendrick hertzberg (popularly known as rick hertzberg) was writing a dopey and wimpy piece entitled 'attack anxiety.' well don't say hertzberg didn't do his damn best to encourage war.
for all the posing that mags posers do, you might think they would have some firey statement but forget about. they are the cowards.
the march 24, 2003 issue, is hertzberg objecting?
of course not.
he is writing about imbeds. he does seem reluctant about the illegal war.
i would argue that appears to be an attitude for a lot of idiots: resignation.
this piece was called 'terror and torture' and it certainly describes the reading experience.
march 31, 2003, david remnick grabbed the talk of the town duties with 'after the battle.' peevish describes him. and mainly because bully boy lacked humility.
yes, that was what to bemoan as iraqis were being slaughtered. (that's sarcasm.)
never forget that.
a lot of posers today want to act like they were leading the charge and they damn well weren't.
in fact, 1 of the reasons the common ills built up so quickly was because people cared about iraq and c.i. covered it. as 2004 drew to a close, they were washing their hands of iraq - our alleged 'left.' what's the idiot's name? lakshami?
i forget. she's the idiot bitch who ripped off mike.
she was just starting to blog at crap-ass alternet (which spied on a teenager and tried to intimidate him and none of us link to it for that reason). so what did she do?
well she stole from mike because that's what 'professional writers' do.
what an idiot.
but the same thief was writing in januray 2005 that it was time to move on and blah, blah, blah. the war wasn't over but laskshami was ready to move on over to the other side and get all onboard for victory parades.
she's an idiot.
but most thiefs are.
let's close with c.i.'s 'Iraq snapshot:'
Monday, December 8, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, 5 Blackwater mercenaries turn themselves in, the Justice Dept announces the charges in a press conference, Iraqi women fight back against efforts to deny them of their rights, and more.
The Salt Lake Tribune reports today: "Blackwater Worldwide security guards indicted in Washington D.C. for the 2007 shooting of Iraqi civilians surrendered to federal authorities in Salt Lake City this morning. They arrived one by one with their attorneys starting about 7:45 a.m. As the first three of five men walked in, they offered no comment to reporters. Attorneys said they would attend a 1:30 p.m. hearing, where the exact charges are expected to be unsealed. The indicted men wore suits and expressionless faces as they walked from 400 South into the federal courthouse at 350 S. Main St." The five are Paul Slough, Nick Slatten, Donald Ball, Dustin Heard and Even Liberty, as Ginger Thompson and Katherine Zoepf (New York Times) reported yesterday after the attorneys for the five men gave some confirmation to the indictments. Ruth noted the reported indictments on Friday evening (and was careful to note they were reported and not confirmed at that point) citing Kevin Bohn and Terry Frieden (CNN) reporting five (then unnamed) Blackwater Worldwide employees were indicted and a sixth was supposed to be talking plea agreement. Saturday found Ginger Thompson and James Risen (New York Times) reporting on the indictment and noting that "at least 17 Iraqi civilians" were killed September 16, 2007 a shocker for those of us who remember the paper's inability to count the number correctly in the days and days after the slaughter. However, the paper wasn't the worst outlet. we'll get to the worst. First, let's refresh via the September 18, 2007 snapshot:
Turning to the subject of US mercenaries. Blackwater's latest slaughter continues to garner attention. On Sunday, Blackwater fired into crowds and they've repeatedly changed their story ever since. Are the mercenaries in our out? Martin Fletcher (Times of London) notes that any effort to eject them from Iraq -- any Iraqi effort -- "would be resisted strenuously by the US Government, whose security arrangements will be thrown into chaos if Blackwater can no longer operate in Iraq." Which is why US Secretary of State and Anger Condi Rice spent 15 minutes on the phone with puppet of the occupation Nouri al-Maliki. Ned Parker (Los Angeles Times) noted that "several contractors predicted Monday that it was unlikely the Iraqi government would carry through with the threat to expel Blackwater."For all intents and purposes they belong to the [U.S.] Department of State," one contractor said of Blackwater employees". Kim Sengupta (Independent of London) reports on "an extraordinary telephone news conference, the US embassy spokeswoman could not answer whether the company was still working for the Americans inside the Green Zone, or what its legal position was along with similar foreign contractors within Iraq." Sengupta also notes the ever changing story of Blackwater for why the opened fire on unarmed Iraqi civilians killing at least 8 on Sunday. Ned Parker (Los Angeles Times) notes that Ali Dabbagh spoke to the press in Baghdad and noted that the Iraqi investigation "had found that guards with the private security company Blackwater USA had fired without provocation on a Baghdad traffic circle, killing eight people and wounding 13" and that a child was among the dead. As Leila Fadel, Joseph Neff and Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) point out, "Whether the Iraqi Interior Ministry will be able to enforce its decision to ban North Carolina-based Blackwater Security from operating in Iraq is likely to be a major test between the government of Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki and the United States. Blackwater, founded by a major Republican Party benefactor, is among the most prominent -- and most controversial -- of dozens of companies that provide security to both government and private individuals in Iraq. In 2003, the U.S.-led Coalition Provisional Authority exempted the companies and their employees from prosecution under Iraqi law, but Iraqi officials disputed whether that exemption remains in effect, and U.S. officials declined to comment."
September 18, 2007, PBS' NewsHour provided a discussion (link has audio, transcript and video). Judy Woodruff moderated the discussion and set it up with a clip of an eye witness (speaking through a translator), We see the security firms or the so-called American security firms doing whatever they want in the streets. They beat citizens and scron them. . . . . They shot randomly." Woodruff then brought on David Brooks of the wrongly named the International Peace Operations (it's a civilain arm of the US military) and Jeremy Scahill (who was still an independent journalist back then, having not yet joined the Cult of Barack). Scahill explained that "the Bush administration failed to build the coalition of willing nations to occupy Iraq and so instead it built a coalition of billing corproations. As you said, there are now [more] private contractors in Iraq than there are official U.S. soldiers." That was a real attempt at an honest dicussion. You had Scahill and Brooks from opposite sides and you had Woodruff, a journalist who knows her trade and takes pride in practicing it. Sadly . . .
The October 10, 2007 snapshot noted the worst 'discussion' and it was on PBS. Yes, Washington Week (or Washington Weak) where the gas bag and the fool shall roam -- freely! And without shame! US News & World Reports' Linda Robinson and Gwen appeared to believe their job was to confuse the issue. Linda wanted to "set the stage" but never in such a way that addressed the people of Iraq, the wounded or the dead. Her idea of setting the stage was offering excuses and justifications for Blackwater's slaughter: "Very, very violent city. You're driving around, bombs going off at any unpredicted time. So what happens is these convoy drivers use tactics. They throw things at people. They sound their horns, their sirens. If you don't get out of the way, they will shoot. And so Iraqi drivers generally pull over as soon as they see a convoy." Robinson considers all she stated normal so let's again ask: "So the question is, were Linda Robinson or Gwen to be walking to their cars at the start of the day and a car came zooming through with those in it throwing things at them, would they see that as a problem? Should Jon Stewart attempt to find out for The Daily Show? In fact, it shouldn't even be a surprise. Gwen and Robinson should volunteer for it to prove what good sports they are. After ten to fifteen minutes of drive-bys where water bottles are hurled at them (the mildest object usually cited in press reports) from speeding cars, let's see their smiling, bruised (possibly bloodied?) faces and find out whether they now think that 'the problem' includes a great deal more than being able to tell if a convoy is approaching?"
Here's Linda babbling on some more: "This is the situation right now. With the U.S. military the size that it is, there is no way that uniformed military people could do the job of guarding all these civilians. And it's our biggest embassy in the world and they're trying to get all of these developments people out. I mean, that's part of the General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker thing is to get the civilians out to help people in the neighborhoods."
Linda will say that the "agreesive tactics do protect the people inside the vehicle. What's the problem of course is that innocent Iraqi civilians have been killed. Now, we do -- and this is why I introduced this topic with the violence of that environment." During the entire discussion, only AP's Charles Babington seemed aware of the issues at stake. He demonstrated that by asking, "And there's nothing the Iraqi government can do? Can't take them to court, can't arrest them?" Linda explained Paul Bremer exempted them in 2004 with a decree leading Gwen to qucikly jump in with, "Okay, thank you, Linda." Yes, let's not focus on the Iraqis too much when discussing Iraq.
"At least 17" is the figure reported on the story in this news cycle. At one point, the Interior Minsiter in Iraq was saying 20 Iraqis were shot dead (that count was being given in September of 2007). AP's Matt Apuzzo and Lara Jakes Jordan report the five Blackwater employees indicted (a six is reportedly in the midst of a plea bargain) intend to turn themselves today in Utah and the reporters observe: "The case already is shaping up to be a series of contentious legal battles before the guards can even go to trial. By surrendering in Utah, the home state of one of the guards, the men could argue the case should be heard in a far more conservative, pro-gun venue than Washington, some 2,000 miles away." Nadine Elsibai and Cary O'Reilly (Bloomberg News) add, "Government officials said at a news conference it intends to try them in Washington, where support for the war in Iraq isn't likely to be as strong as in the western state." Del Quentin Wilber (Washington Post) notes "the Justice Department unsealed a 35-count indictment against them. . . . The indictment said all five were charged with volunatary manslaughter, attempt to commit manslaughter, and using and discharging a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence. A sixth security guard, Jeremy P. Ridgeway, pleaded guilty Friday to charges of voluntary manslaughter and attempt to commit voluntary manslaughter, according to papers filed in court today."
At the press conference at the Justice Dept today, Assistant Attorney General Patrick Rowan noted, "We're here to announce that a 35-count indictment has been unsealed in the District of Colubmia. As you are aware, an indictment is merely a formal charging document notifying a defendant of the charges against him or her. All defendents are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty in a court of law. The indctment unsealed charges five Blackwater security guards with voluntary manslaughter, attempt to commit manslaughter, and weapons violations, for their alleged roles in the September 16, 2007 shooting at Nisur Square in Baghdad, Iraq. Specifically, the defendants are charged with killing 14 unarmed civilians and wounding 20 other indivuals in connection with this event. In addition, we can report that a sixth Blackwater security guard had pleaded guilty to charges of voluntary manslaughter and attempt to commit manslaughter for his role in the same shooting."
US Attorney Jeffrey Taylor then spoke and we'll note this from his remarks:
As set forth in the indictment, the five defendants were all employed by the Armed Forces outside the United States. Specifically, the defendants worked as independent contractors and employees of Blackwater Worldwide, a company contracted by the Department of State to provide personal security services related to supporting the Department of Defense in the Republic of Iraq, within the meaning of the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act, or MEJA.
On September 16, 2007, the five defendants and 14 other Blackwater independent contractors were assigned to a convoy of four heavily armed trucks known as a Tactical Support Team, using the call sign Raven 23, whose function was to provide backup fire support for other Blackwater personal security guards operating in the city of Baghdad.
On September 16, 2007, at around noon, the Raven 23 convoy was responding to the detonation of a vehicle-borne improvised explosive device that had just exploded in the vicinity of a different Blackwater personal security detail located about a mile away from Nisur Square, and which was transporting a USAID protectee.
The members of the Raven 23 convoy understood that their mission was defensive in nature. They were not permitted to engage in offensive military actions, use the military tactic known as suppressive fire, or exercise police powers. They also understood that they were only authorized to discharge their firearms in self-defense and as a last resort.
The four heavily-armed vehicles in the Raven 23 convoy entered Nisur Square and then positioned themselves in order to block any traffic from entering the circle. Seconds after the Raven 23 convoy entered the traffic circle, it is alleged that at least six members of the Raven 23 convoy, including the five defendants named in the indictment, opened fire with automatic weapons and grenade launchers on unarmed civilians located in and around Nisur Square, killing, as Pat said, at least 14 persons, wounding at least 20 other individuals and assaulting but not injuring at least 18.
The first victim was later identified as a second-year medical student named Ahmed Haithem Ahmed Al Rubia'y, who was driving a white Kia sedan that was approaching the traffic circle from the south. The passenger of that vehicle was also shot and killed. That victim was Dr. Al-Khazali, the mother of the driver of the vehicle.
None of the victims of this shooting was armed. None of them was an insurgent. Many were shot while inside civilian vehicles that were attempting to flee from the convoy. One victim was shot in the chest while standing in the street with his hands up. Another was injured from a grenade fired into a nearby girls' school. At least 18 civilian vehicles were damaged by gunfire from the convoy, some substantially.
The indictment does not charge or implicate Blackwater Worldwide. It charges only the actions of certain employees for their roles in the September 16 shooting. They are Paul A. Slough, age 29, of Keller, Texas; Dustin L. Heard, 27, Maryville, Tennessee; Evan S. Liberty, 26, Rochester, New Hampshire; Nicholas A. Slatten, 23, of Sparta, Tennessee; and Donald W. Ball, 26, of West Valley City, Utah.
All five defendants are each charged with 14 counts of voluntary manslaughter, 20 counts of attempt to commit manslaughter, and one count of using and discharging a firearm and destructive devices during and in relation to a crime of violence. The firearms included an SR-25 sniper rifle, M-4 assault rifles and M-240 machine guns. The destructive devices were M-203 grenade launchers and grenades.
If convicted of the charges in the indictment, the defendants could face up to ten years in prison on each manslaughter count, seven years in prison on each attempted manslaughter count, and a mandatory minimum sentence of 30 years on the firearms charge.
Of the plea bargain, Taylor noted the man's name was Jeremy P. Ridgeway ("age 35, of California") and that it took place in DC last Friday "before Judge Ricardo Urina. He pleaded to superseding information charging him with one count of voluntary manslaughter and one count of attempt to commit manslaughter." There is no date scheduled for Ridgeway's sentencing at this point.
Also speaking at the press conference was Joseph Persichini Jr. (FBI Assistant Director In-Charge) whose remarks included:
The tragic events in Nisur Square on September 16 of last year were shocking and a violation of basic human rights. That day in Baghdad around a busy traffic circle at Nisur Square, the Iraqi citizens were going to lunch, stopping at the market, traveling with their families and children. The traffic circle soon became congested due to construction. Traffic slowed down then gunshots rang out. At that moment many innocent lives were altered. Unarmed citizens were traumatized, injured or killed.
Following this incident the Department of State requested that the FBI investigate the shooting. The FBI's Washington Field Office deployed an investigative team to Baghdad for four weeks of evidence collection and investigation. The FBI was augmented by two agents from the Department Diplomatic Security Service and the Department of State.
To add to the difficulty in an already challenging case, FBI and Department of State personnel had to face the dangers of working extensively outside the green zone. They had to overcome language barriers and deal with cultural and religious sensitivities.
Since that first deployment to Baghdad, members of the investigative team, which included up to 10 special agents, returned to Iraq four additional times in furtherance of our investigation. The FBI utilized every resource available to ensure that a comprehensive and thorough investigation was conducted. Those resources included forensic specialists from the FBI laboratory, members of the Washington Field Office, extra territorial squad and the evidence response team, and Department of Justice Attorneys.
As a result of the tireless dedication and extraordinary efforts of the team, over 250 interviews were conducted and more than 200 pieces of physical evidence were obtained to support the investigation. As with most FBI investigations, we would not have been successful without the assistance of local law enforcement partners. We had the extreme good fortune of working with members of the Iraqi national police. The assistance provided by the Iraqi national police was instrumental to our success of our mission. These officers work under extraordinary challenging circumstances every day and I extend my gratitude to them.
In addition to the Iraqi National Police, the FBI was supported by many members of the United States military. Their assistance was invaluable in the protection of our personnel. The FBI's legal attaché office in Baghdad and the U.S. embassy personnel provided unwavering support during each of our team's deployment to Iraq. The success of one of the FBI's most difficult investigations was truly a team effort with many components and challenges.
What was at stake here was not just an investigation into the allegations of the violation of federal law. But, more importantly, it was an investigation into the protection of basic human rights, that should be afforded to all people, not just citizens of the United States. The FBI is committed to investigating all allegations of violations of the rule of law and defending individual civil rights and civil liberties, whether at home or abroad.
At the US State Dept this morning, Sean McCormack handled the press briefing and attempted to avoid responding on the topic of Blackwater stating, "I'll refer those over to the -- any questions about that over to the Department of Justice. But you know, let me just say one thing about the people who provide protection for our diplomats in Iraq as well as around the globe. They do, in many cases, heroic work and important work that allow us to do our jobs. All of that said, if there are individuals who have broken rules, regulations, or law, they need to be -- laws -- they need to be held to account. And I'll just stop there and not offer andy further comment. If the Department of Justice has anything further to say about actions they may be taking, I'll leave it to them to say it."
Katherine Zopef and Atheer Kakan (New York Times) reported a development (a scoop, in fact, for the paper) this morning following an interview with Abdulwahab Abduklkader who survived the September 16, 2007 slaughter (he was wounded while driving in his car -- first Blackwater chased his car down, rammed it and then shot at him) and revealed them that the FBI questioned him, asked him to walk them through via the satellite images of the area the slaughter took place and that he was brought to the United States in May to testify before a grand jury. Richard Beeston (Times of London) observes, "From next year foreign security guards will lose immunity from prosecution under the terms of the new "status of forces agreement" signed between Baghdad and Washington. The next time a foreign security guard opens fire on civilians he will face Iraqi justice. The days of the cowboys running amok in Iraqi cities are over. "
Blackwater isn't the only news regarding Iraq; however, it is the bulk of it. Sunday Sudarsan Raghavan (Washington Post) reported on the situation for women in Iraq: "From the southern port city of Basra to bustling Irbil in northern Iraq, Iraqi activists are trying to counter the rising influence of religious fundamentalists and tribal chieftains who have insisted that women wear the veil, prevented girls from receiving education and sanctioned killings of women accused of besmirching their family's honor. In their quest for stability in Iraq, U.S. officials have empowered tribal and religious leaders, Sunni and Shiite, who reject the secularism that Saddam Hussein once largely maintained. These leaders have imposed strict interpretations of Islam and enforced tribal codes that female activists say limit their freedom and encourage violence against them." Muna Saud is quoted explaining, "Women are being strangled by religion and triablism."
Violence in Iraq today? Apparently Blackwater is all anyone can focus on. Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) notes 20 corpses were discovered in Al Anbar Province today. And that's it for reported violence currently.
Meanwhile AP's Erica Werner and Kimberly Hefling report that the family of Roger Suarez-Gonzalez faces new questions and heartache after video surfaced of his death while serving in Iraq, video which suggests he may not have been killed by enemy forces but by so-called "friendly fire."
The treaty has gone through on Iraq's side and the White House that never wanted Congressional input and approval (despite the Constitution requiring that) gets its way as Congress (and, yes, president-elect Barack) roll over. Friday an interview Iris Ludeker did with Phyllis Bennis was posted at ZNet. Bennis spoke with Ludeker about the treaty on November 24th. Her statements included:
The first problem in examining the SOFA text is that we cannot yet be sure exactly what the text says. The Iraqi parliament is debating one version, that has been translated informally to English for the international press. But we do not yet have the White House's official version. Until that time, I do not think we can assume that the text now being discussed in the press is necessarily "the" final version. There are many in Iraq who are eager to present the text as a victory for Iraqi sovereignty; there is certainly the possibility that the text circulating in Iraq has been doctored with in such a way as to over-emphasize Iraq's power in the future U.S.-Iraq relationship. The agreement specifies that the Arabic and English texts are equally valid, but without the official U.S. version of either text, it is impossible to know for sure what it says. We also should not assume the current draft will be ratified by the Iraqi parliament, or that it will be similarly approved by the U.S. Senate - which is necessary under the U.S. Constitution despite Bush administration claims that such ratification is not needed because this is only an "ordinary" SOFA agreement. "Ordinary" SOFA agreements do not take into account on-going wars as is the case in U.S.-occupied Iraq.
Turning to the US, to the White House in fact, National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley -- who was very lucky that investigating the outing of CIA agent Valerie Plame stopped so quickly -- issued a statement this morning regarding a New York Times editorial:Sunday's New York Times contains an editorial expressing inaccurate and incomplete statements on pre-war intelligence and the war in Iraq. While the President has repeatedly acknowledged the mistakes in the pre-war intelligence, there is no support for the Times' claim that the President and his national security team "knew or should have known [the intelligence] to be faulty" or that "pressure from the White House" led to particular conclusions. Nothing in the many inquiries conducted into these matters supports the view of the Times' Editorial Board. Indeed, the independent Silberman-Robb Commission and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence concluded that no political pressure was brought to bear on the Intelligence Community. As the President has stated, he regrets the intelligence was wrong, but it was intelligence that members of Congress, foreign governments as well as the Administration all believed to be accurate. Working with Congress, the President has since put in place a number of intelligence reform measures to try to ensure that such mistakes do not happen again. While Saddam Hussein did not have stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, he was a threat, and his removal has opened the door to a democratic Iraq in the heart of the Middle East that is an ally of the United States. The New York Times continues to have difficulty acknowledging the undeniable success of the President's decision to surge an additional 30,000 troops into Iraq. Because of the surge, Iraq is a more stable and secure country. It is the success of the surge that is allowing American troops to withdraw from Iraq and return home with a record of heroic service and still unheralded success. The intelligence manufactured and, in many cases, did not come through normal channels. The CIA knew the intelligence was false and some fought back against the lies but the CIA was not used for the 'gathering.' Feith, et al, set up their own little 'office' with the White House's knowledge and on the orders of Bully Boy. The evidence was manufactured. Saying that it's the same evidence Congress has is b.s. because it is the 'evidence' the White House provided Congress with, most infamously in Collie Powell's lie-infested 'testimony' which should have resulted (and still should) in charges being brought against Powell. The Times' editorial is "The Deluder in Chief" and all Hadley's statement will do is draw attention to it (as evidenced by the fact that we're noting the editorial right now): It was skin crawling to hear him tell Mr. Gibson that the thing he will really miss when he leaves office is no longer going to see the families of slain soldiers, because they make him feel better about the war. But Mr. Bush's comments about his decision to invade Iraq were a "mistakes were made" rewriting of history and a refusal to accept responsibility to rival that of Richard Nixon. At one point, Mr. Bush was asked if he wanted any do-overs. "The biggest regret of the presidency has to have been the intelligence failure in Iraq," he said. "A lot of people put their reputations on the line and said the weapons of mass destruction" were cause for war. After everything the American public and the world have learned about how Mr. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney manipulated Congress, public opinion and anyone else they could bully or lie to, Mr. Bush is still acting as though he decided to invade Iraq after suddenly being handed life and death information on Saddam Hussein's arsenal. The editorial is correct. Of course it takes a lot of nerve for the editorial board to write the above or the below: The truth is that Mr. Bush, Mr. Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld had been chafing to attack Iraq before Sept. 11, 2001. They justified that unnecessary war using intelligence reports that they knew or should have known to be faulty. And it was pressure from the White House and a highly politicized Pentagon that compelled people like Secretary of State Colin Powell and George Tenet, the Central Intelligence director, to ignore the counter-evidence and squander their good names on hyped claims of weapons of mass destruction. Judith Miller is the New York Times catch-all excuse and we're all supposed to believe that Miller wrote her articles, the guest columns (and turned down the many columns against going to war with Iraq that the paper rejected), the editorials and, in fact, edited the news section of the paper and determined which stories made the front page. Miller is the paper's fall-gal when the paper was on board with selling the illegal war. Finger pointing at the White House would be more loudly applauded if the paper had ever gotten fully honest about their role in the selling the illegal war. The mini-culpa -- anyone remember that -- promised there would be futher investigation. Was there? (No, there wasn't.) And the matter was allowed to slide. Another editorial could easily read: The truth is that the New York Times had been chafing to attack Iraq before Sept. 11, 2001. They justified that unnecessary war using unsourced stories, drumming up the beat of war and refusing to question so-called intelligence reports that they knew or should have known to be faulty. And it was a need to be 'in' with the the White House and a highly politicized Pentagon that compelled journalists to ignore the counter-evidence and squander their good names on hyped claims of weapons of mass destruction, to abandon the skepticism that is supposed to be at the heart of journalism and turn themselves into Stenographers to the Court of St. Bully Boy. Hadley echoes his superior Condi Rice whom CNN reports told Fox "News" yesterday,"While it's fine to go back and say what might we have done differently, the truth of the matter is we don't have that luxury. And we didn't at the time." The truth? Condi wants to talk about the truth? Okay, that is funny.
Intentionally funny is Mickey Z (via Dissident Voice) who skewers the Cult of Barack cheerleaders. Sample:
In fact, I'm willing to go out on a limb right now and boldly predict that by the year 2011, the number of US combat troops in Iraq will have decreased by at least 10-15%. To those who want more, I ask: We can't expect Obama to simply withdraw those brave, heroic, gallant, valiant, superhuman men and women in one shot, can we? No way, there's no cut and run for America. (And remember: we wouldn't be in this mess if that damn egotistical Ralph Nader hadn't ruined everything in 2000. He shouldn't be allowed to run. Make it illegal, I say.)
At least Obama is forming a strong centrist coalition. "A team of rivals," they say. Some may nitpick and point out that every single appointee is a Washington retread who supported the war and could've just as easily been chosen by John McCain had he won, but Obama is clearly in charge and he's brilliant. He makes the decisions, and he's so articulate. He promised hope and change and, being that he's so eloquent, I'm positive he will deliver. It would be negative, bitter, and cynical to think otherwise. In fact, anyone not thrilled with the historic election of a half-black man should not be allowed to breathe our precious oxygen. (Ain't that right, Tim Wise?) Keith Harmon Snow is an independent journalist. Iraq's really not his focus but two weeks ago comments about him (positive comments) had to be pulled from a snapshot when I was informed we were over 82K (they can only be so long or they don't hit the site when e-mailed). He has an article up at Dissident Voice and we'll link to that and point out that he is an independent journalist and it is amazing how many allegedly 'independent' outlets are not open to him. KHS is also a favorite of Kat's and she's written of him many times at her site. (Such as here or here.)
iraq
the new york timesginger thompsonkatherine zoepf
atheer kakan
blackwater usa
jeremy scahill
the new york timessabrina tavernise
mcclatchy newspapers
ned parker
leila fadel
matt apuzzolara jakes jordan
erica wernerkimberly hefling
the washington postsudarsan raghavan
phyllis bennisiris ludker
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)