2/23/2012

science thursday

omg. i almost fell out of my chair. i was at the computer trying to figure out what to write and then i'm leaning over to the right and about to fall out. i was so tired.

i am so tired.

most interesting thing i saw this week? this from bloomberg news:

Global warming 50 million years ago caused the first horses, already tiny in stature compared with present-day animals, to shrink 30 percent to about 8.5 pounds, the size of a house cat today, a study suggests.

Later, as the climate cooled, the horse called Sifrhippus began to grow in size, according to research in the journal Science. Scientists the University of Michigan's Museum of Paleontology used fossilized teeth to make the size estimates.




let's close with c.i.'s 'Iraq snapshot:'


Thursday, February 23, 2012. Chaos and violence continue, a wave of attacks hit Iraq, Grand Ayatollah al-Sistani again sees one of his clerics targeted, Iraqiya calls for the government to provide protection or resign, Moqtada al-Sadr's bloc lashes out at the United Nations over Camp Ashraft, and more.


Today a series of spectacular attacks struck Iraq. Martin Kobler, the United Nations' Secretary-General's Special Representative for Iraq, declared, "The continuing violent attacks on Iraqis are totally unacceptable and have to stop. I call on the Iraqi authorities to fully investigate these outrageous acts of violence and bring the criminals to justice. Today's despicable attacks are an assault on human life and death. They are meant to hinder the achievement of national unity and stability." At the US State Dept, spokesperson Mark C. Toner (link is text and video) stated, "Obviously, these were horrible, even heinous, acts that took place today. We strongly condemn these acts of violence and obviously offer our deepest condolences to the families and friends of the victims. Frankly, we view these as desperate attempts by terrorist groups to sow fear and undermine Iraqi democracy at what everyone recognizes is really a critical juncture in their -- in the Iraqi political process." Obviously, the US goes to the 'terrorist' well at the drop of the hat. Having installed a puppet government of exiles and ignored Iraqi will (in the 2010 elections, Iraqis voted Ayad Allawi's Iraqiya ahead of Nouri's State of Law but the White House demanded that Nouri remain prime minister -- in spite of the will of the Iraqi people, in spite of the Iraqi Constitution), the US government has left Iraqis not thrilled with an ineffective government composed of exiles few avenues to pursue to effect change. (Had they honored the will of the Iraqi people expressed in the 2010 elections, there might be more faith in elections within Iraq. The US government is 100% to blame for the attitude in Iraq that elections change nothing.)


The Washington Post's Asaad Alazawi and Ernesto Londono observe, "Iraqi officials did not provide an official death toll, and few appeared on television to speak about, or condemn, the attacks. Osama al-Nujaifi, the Iraq parliament's Speaker, said the attacks represented an attempt to 'flare up strife' among Iraqis."


The wave of attacks were spread across ten locations. RT notes, "The violence started with a drive-by shooting in Baghdad and was followed by blasts inside and outside the capital." Salam Faraj and Mohamad Ali Harissi (AFP) count 16 car bombings and 8 roadside bombings and note Baghdad, Babil, Diyala, Slaheddin, Kirkuk and Nineveh were all hit. Rick Dewsbury (Daily Mail) notes, "The coordinated bombings and shootings unfolded over four hours in the capital Baghdad -- where most deaths were -- and 11 other cities. They struck government offices, restaurants and one in the town of Musayyib hit close to a primary school." Vatican Radio (link is audio) reported on the atta


Charles Collins: It was one of the bloodiest days in Iraq since US troops pulled out in mid-December. In Baghdad, at least 10 explosions tore through mainly Shia neighborhoods during rush hour and other attacks targeted police patrols, commuters and crowds gathered in shopping areas. One bomb went off near a school injuring several children. There were also attacks in Baquba, Mosul and Kirkuk and the province of Salaheddin. Tensions have grown since Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki moved against senior members of a predominantly Sunni political bloc, accusing them of ties to death squads. The blasts hit just weeks before Baghdad plans to host an Arab League Summit which was cancelled last year due to fears of violence in the county.


Adrian Blomfield (Telegraph of London) observes of Baghdad, "Witnesses spoke of seeing wrecked cars and blood stains on the floors and chains of an ice cream shop. One attack claimed six lives in Kadhimiya district, where bombs exploded along a restaurant lined street filled with people having breakfast and morning coffees." 50 dead and "hundreds injured" throughout the country. Asaad Alazawi and Ernesto Londono (Washington Post) count 52 dead and add, "The majority of attacks, which were carried out with car bombs and small arms, appeared to target security forces in the capital and other cities, authorities said." The death toll continued to rise throughout the day. Kareem Raheem (Reuters) noted the death toll has risen to 60. By the end of the day, the Wall St. Journal was reporting the deaths had risen to 70.


BBC News offers a series of photos of the aftermath here. Globe and Mail offers four photos here. The Telegraph of London offers video here. Jack Healy (New York Times) notes mourners in Baghdad's Karrada neighborhood where 16-year-old Sajad Montasire died waiting "for a minibus to take him to school" and quotes his brother Mustafa explaining, "He just had his breakfast, took his books and left walking. I heard the explosion, I ran into the street, and I found his shoe." Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) explains Sunnis were targeted (not just Shi'ites) and quotes Iraq Body Count's Hamit Dardagan stating, "The situation is worsening [January's count of over 400 dead] shows a constant level of violence that doesn't seem to let up." Al Arabiya notes the death toll from today's attacks has risen to 70. Nizar Latif (The National Newspaper) notes that the Interior Ministry rushed to blame al Qaeda in Mesopotamia but MP Hassan Jihad -- who serves on the Parliament's Security and Defense Committee -- notes that "the attacks show that the Iraqi armed forces and the country's security apparatus were not where they need to be." It should be noted that the Deputy Minister at the Interior Ministry feels Iraq's security forces have had enough training. (He advised the US government to spend the money for training Iraqi security forces on something in the United States instead.) It should also be noted that he unofficially runs the Ministry of the Interior. That's because, in his second term as prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki has refused to appoint a Minister of the Interior. In addition, Nouri's refused to appoint a Minster of Defense or a Minister of National Security. (Technically, he's refused to nominate. Parliament votes up or down on the nominee. But Nouri's refused to offer nominees to head those three security ministries.) Nouri's named prime minister-designate in November 2010. Per the Constitution, he is to form a (full) Cabinet -- that includes each nominee being approved by Parliament. At the end of December 2010, he was unconstitutionally moved from prime minister-designate to prime minister despite having failed at the Cabinet (which should have meant President Jalal Talabani named a new prime-minister designate who would then have 30 days to try to form a Cabinet). During this period with no heads of the three security ministries, violence has been on the rise. Over a year later, Nouri has still not named people to head the security ministries and a National Alliance member recently revealed that the National Alliance (Nouri's State of Law, Moqtada al-Sadr's bloc and the Supreme Islamic Council of Iraq are the three biggest blocs in the National Alliance) doesn't want anyone named to the posts. They'd prefer that, for the duration of Nouri's term, the ministries remain headless.


Press TV emphasizes that today's "deadly violence comes weeks before an Arab League summit scheduled to be held in Iraq at the end of March." Al Mada notes that 13 Arab leaders are expected to participate in the summit and that the US has had "a big role" in persuading Arab leaders to attend. Ali A. Nabhan, Sam Dagher and Jabbar Yaseen (Wall St. Journal) explain:


The latest violence also casts a shadow over Iraq's quest to host the Arab League's summit of leaders on March 29. It would be the first such meeting since uprisings swept through the Arab world, toppling four leaders and besieging the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. Last year's summit was postponed because of the events. Iraq has poured hundreds of millions of dollars into preparations for the summit and a team from the Arab League met with Iraq Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari on Monday to discuss security and other arrangements.


Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports Baghdad reaction to today's attacks:


"What are the security officials doing?" shouted Hadi Abdulwahab, a father of four whose shop in Karrada isn't far from the site of one of the car bombings. "This is proof that they are not in control. The armed groups are in control."
Only luck, he said, kept him alive. The insurgents "hit when and where they want," he said. "There is no security plan. There is no security. We are alive only because we weren't hit -- this time. We leave our homes in the morning not knowing whether we will return or not."



Raheem Salman (Los Angeles Times) quotes shop owner Ali Sabah Qadim stating, "These explosions increase our concern that security in Baghdad is still not good. What is the guilt of those innocent children who were going to their schools? Today we have a new number to be added to the orphans, widows and handicapped in Iraq."
Al Jazeera and the Christian Science Monitor correspondent Jane Arraf Tweeted:


#Iraq #Sadr bloc, Iraqiya fault Iraqi government and intel services for not stopping wave of attacks, interior ministry blames al-Qaeda.




Aswat al-Iraq reports, "The official spokesperson of al-Iraqiya Bloc, Mayson al-Damlouji, demanded the government to bear responsibility and stop bloodshed or to present its resignation." The editorial board of the National Newspaper has a very strong editorial which includes:



The increase in attacks on Shia communities also corresponded with Prime Minister Nouri Al Maliki, the leader of the Shia State of Law coalition, consolidating power at the expense of the opposition Iraqiya party and accusing leading Sunni politicians of planning the violence. Vice President Tareq Al Hashemi, a Sunni who fled to the Kurdish Autonomous Region, again maintained his innocence this week after Iraq's top judicial court formally accused him of sectarian violence.
Whether Mr Al Hashimi is guilty or not (and it is difficult to judge in this poisoned political atmosphere), the political feuding and sectarian murders are closely related. As long as Mr Al Maliki's government continues to marginalise non-Shiites, there will be no lasting security solution in Iraq.


No one's tying in the violence to the ongoing crackdowns in Iraq. That ongoing crackdown would include the 92 people Al Sabaah reports Nouri had arrested yesterday. In addition, Yasser Talal (Dar Addustour) reports that more warrants are coming and that Nouri's claiming there's a plot to assassinate him. Nouri al-Maliki, prime minister of Iraq and chief drama queen.


Nouri lashed out at many members of Iraqiya in the last months, none more so than Vice President Tareq al-Hashemi whom he accused of terrorism. Last week, 9 judges from Nouri's kangaroo court in Baghdad declared al-Hashemi guilty (despite not having had a trial and despite what Article 19 of the Iraqi Constitution dictates: All are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law). Al Sabaah cites unnamed gossips in Parliament who are insisting that, in three more sessions, Parliament will be declaring a death sentence for al-Hashemi. This despite the fact that Parliament's not holding a hearing and most likely doesn't have the votes to put that forward?


In other violence, Al Rafidayn reports that a cleric of Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani was targeted for assassination yesterday with a hand grenade as he finished morning prayers and was leaving a mosque in Najaf. He wasn't harmed in the attack. This attack comes after a series of attacks over the weekend on al-Sistanti clerics. Friday Kitabat reported that Supreme Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani accused party officials of widespread corruption -- financial and administrative. Saturday Kitabat reported that six homes in Nasiriyah and Diwaniyah Provinces belonging to representatives of al-Sistani were attacked with hand grenades and bullets. No one was harmed in the attacks which would appear to indicate the attacks were not to harm but to send a message. A warning could be sent for any number of reasons but it is curious that he decries corruption among politicians and the next day homes of his representatives are attacked. Aswat al-Iraq noted 2 of the homes attacked in Diwaniyah Province and that a mosque in the area was also attacked.


Meanwhile Al Rafidayn reports United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in Iraq's spokesperson Claire Bergoa issued a statement in which she declared there are 5.1 million internally displaced Iraqis (internal refugees) and that 3.1 million became displaced in 2006 or after. The statement on internal refugees comes as the Sadr bloc lashes out at Iranian refugees in Iraq. Ahlul Bayt News Agency quotes Rassem al-Marvani, Cultural Advisor of the Sadr bloc, stating that United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon "is actually implementing other's policies which are against Iraq's freedom and independence since there is no law that allows Ban Ki-moon to comment on the presence of the MKO in Iraq or their leaving the country." He's referring to Camp Ashraf residents. He accuses Ban Ki-moon of being in league with the US and Europe.



Camp Ashraf houses a group of Iranian dissidents (approximately 3,000 people -- 400 were moved to Camp Liberty last week). Iranian dissidents were welcomed to Iraq by Saddam Hussein in 1986 and he gave them Camp Ashraf and six other parcels that they could utilize. In 2003, the US invaded Iraq.The US government had the US military lead negotiations with the residents of Camp Ashraf. The US government wanted the residents to disarm and the US promised protections to the point that US actions turned the residents of Camp Ashraf into protected person under the Geneva Conventions. As 2008 drew to a close, the Bush administration was given assurances from the Iraqi government that they would protect the residents. Yet Nouri al-Maliki ordered the camp attacked twice. July 28, 2009 Nouri launched an attack (while then-US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates was on the ground in Iraq). In a report released this summer entitled "Iraqi government must respect and protect rights of Camp Ashraf residents," Amnesty International described this assault, "Barely a month later, on 28-29 July 2009, Iraqi security forces stormed into the camp; at least nine residents were killed and many more were injured. Thirty-six residents who were detained were allegedly tortured and beaten. They were eventually released on 7 October 2009; by then they were in poor health after going on hunger strike." April 8, 2011, Nouri again ordered an assault on Camp Ashraf (then-US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates was again on the ground in Iraq when the assault took place). Amnesty International described the assault this way, "Earlier this year, on 8 April, Iraqi troops took up positions within the camp using excessive, including lethal, force against residents who tried to resist them. Troops used live ammunition and by the end of the operation some 36 residents, including eight women, were dead and more than 300 others had been wounded. Following international and other protests, the Iraqi government announced that it had appointed a committee to investigate the attack and the killings; however, as on other occasions when the government has announced investigations into allegations of serious human rights violations by its forces, the authorities have yet to disclose the outcome, prompting questions whether any investigation was, in fact, carried out." Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) observesthat "since 2004, the United States has considered the residents of Camp Ashraf 'noncombatants' and 'protected persons' under the Geneva Conventions."


Yesterday afternoon, international law attorney Allan Gerson (Huffington Post) addressed the planned relocation of all Camp Ashraf residents to Camp Liberty:



In 1932, the eminent theologian Reinhold Niebuhr wrote "Moral Man and Immoral Society" warning of the tendency of institutions to lose their sense of humanity. How better to explain today's actions of the US State Department in toying with the lives and hopes of over 3000 Iranian dissidents being "voluntarily" relocated from Camp Ashraf , a small city 40 miles north of Baghdad, where they have lived for the last 25 years? From there they are being moved to a small isolated section of Camp Liberty, an abandoned American base, looted by the Iraqis, with no basic amenities and under the watchful eyes of Iraqi police who have viciously attacked them before.
In the State Department's view, they are doing these dissidents, members of the MEK (The Mujahedeen-e Khalq), a favor and are not dishonoring a solemn commitment made to them by the US Army in July 2004 when it promised that they would be treated as Protected Persons under the Geneva Conventions in return for the MEK's surrendering their means of self-protection. But, sad to say, the State Department's benevolent view is seriously flawed.
In reality, it has, as Niebuhr warned, lost its sense of humanity and has shown instead that US assurances of protection cannot be taken seriously in the face of institutional interests.


The British Parliamentary Committee for Iran Freedom issued the following today:


Press release
A letter signed by 110 cross-Party MPs and Peers was on Thursday delivered to UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in Lancaster House urging him to ensure United Nations protection for 3,400 Iranian dissidents in Camp Ashraf, Iraq.
A delegation led by David Amess MP (Con) delivered the letter which was supported by senior Parliamentarians including Former Home Secretary Lord Waddington QC, former Labour Party chairman Lord Clarke of Hampstead, former House of Commons Speaker Baroness Boothroyd, LibDem deputy leader Lord Dholakia, Lord Carlile of Berriew QC (former independent reviewer of terrorism legislation), former Lord Advocate for Scotland Lord Fraser of Carmyllie QC, Sir Roger Gale MP, Stephen McCabe MP, Brian Binley MP, and Sir Bob Russell MP. The Parliamentarians expressed "deep concern regarding the relocation of the first group of 400 residents of Camp Ashraf to Camp Liberty", a former US base near Baghdad airport now a de facto prison used by Iraq to house the dissidents.
The MPs and Peers' letter said: "A group of 400 residents showed utmost flexibility and prepared themselves to move to Camp Liberty on 17 February. This was at a time when many basic necessities at the new camp were clearly lacking. This gesture of goodwill by these residents was responded to by the Iraqi government ordering its police at the new camp to be offensive and hostile."
"Iraqi forces in the presence of UN monitors prevented the residents from transferring medication and medical supplies, a generator, office equipment including chairs, tables and photocopiers, a water heater and hygiene products. "
Camp Liberty, contrary to UNAMI's 31 January statement, does not conform to international standards from the point of view of infrastructure. Upon arrival residents found that there was no electricity or water and its hygienic services were filthy and unusable. "
With Mrs Rajavi having convinced the residents to accept this risky transfer, the current conditions at the camp are totally unacceptable. We expect the United Nations, with the support of the US government and the European Union to make a clear stand against the limitations that the Iraqi government is imposing on the residents. The UN, US and EU must ensure the human rights of the residents are met. UNAMI cannot justify a stance which is clearly not neutral as a result of Iraqi pressure.
"We urge you firstly to ensure that the Iraqi police station and its forces leave the camp and are stationed outside the perimeter of it. Furthermore, you must guarantee the safety and well being of the residents by ensuring they have direct and free access to medical services and that their freedom of movement is secured. UNAMI must keep the gates of Camp Liberty open to reporters, lawyers and the families of the residents. "
In such circumstances there can be no further transfer of residents to Camp Liberty until such time as the current 400 residents at Camp Liberty have been safely transferred to third party states", the letter said. The British Parliamentary Committee for Iran Freedom 23 February 2012



In other news, Al Mada reports an Iraqi exile -- one who left Iraq in the eighties -- recently returned from Paris for a visit, hoping to see the home he knew in Baghdad. Instead, what he found shocked him and he declared he was troubled to see Baghdad, the city of art and science, now become a city of sorrow and ignorance and the concept of flirtation has returned to the Dark Ages (in his time, he states, young women spoke throughout Baghdad, fanning themselves with fans in the doorways of restaurants and clubs). He is returning to Paris and states of Baghdad, 'This is not my city."



We'll close with this from John Glaser's "Extrajudicial Execution at President's Whim" (Antiwar.com):


The Obama administration's top Pentagon lawyer on Wednesday said that courtshave no business questioning executive branch decisions about whom to target for extra-judicial execution in the war on terror, even if that target is an American citizen.
"Belligerents who also happen to be U.S. citizens do not enjoy immunity where non-citizen belligerents are valid military objectives," said Jeh C. Johnson, the Defense Department general counsel, in a speech at Yale Law School.
Posted by at

2/22/2012

colbert

i'm not 1 of those people who blindly laughs at anything jon stewart or stephen colbert says. but i do laugh when it's funny. m.j. lee (politico) reports colbert offered a few funnies on barack-i-oppose-super-pacs-obama who has now embraced them:

Obama’s defense — that his campaign cannot simply “unilaterally disarm” — was a “very good explanation for this complete 180,” the comedian continued.

“Yes! No matter how morally wrong you believe a system is, you have to use it in order to defeat it! It’s like how Lincoln won the Civil War by buying a bunch of slaves,” he said, before dubbing the president “Darth-bama.”

“Feel the power of the green side. Embrace your destiny,” he said. “Join me and together we will rule the galaxy! For four years — after that it will be somebody else, maybe Hillary — but in the meantime, the galaxy! You are now Darth-bama!”


darth-bama.

that is hilarious.

so is part about lincoln.



let's close with c.i.'s 'Iraq snapshot:'

Wednesday, February 22, 2012. Chaso and violence continue, the Committee to Protect Journalists releases a new report which ranks Iraq the third worst country in the world for journalists, the oil in the ground in Iraq needs to be extracted if Nouri's going to amass money, the US federal government sues Cindy Sheehan and more.
Arab News Blog provides this context for the 'progress' claims on Iraq, "One in six Iraqis live in poverty. This is in a nation with the second highest oil reserves in the world and a budget surplus of more than fifty billion US dollars in 2011. According to Transparency International, Iraq has one of the most corrupt governments in the world. Some of the wealth stays inside the country and is spread among the beneficiaries and clients of the new political elite. Much of it, however, is transferred outside and translated into real estate or other assets, or is often hard to trace. Not a year has passed without plunder in Iraq."
And of course, 2012 is the current year and yet, as Aswat al-Iraq notes, the government of Iraq is still at work on coming up with a 2012 budget. The 'good' news in 'free' Iraq never ends, Al Mada reports the judiciary and the Ministry of the Interior have charges against and plans to arrest several members of Parliament. Nothing says stability like being a dangerous place for reporting failure to come up with a budget for a year already underway and arresting elected officials, right?
February 12th, Ben Lando and Ali Abu Iraq (Iraq Oil Report) noted that Nouri tried to stage a photo-op at the floating port with assistants handing out flowers and flags right before the cameras started clicking. Let's hope it made for some pretty pictures. Ahmed Rasheed (Reuters) reports that the opening of the port has yet again been delayed with "bad weather" being given as the reason with one unidentified source stating, "Rough weather made it impossible for the crew to complete work at the floating terminal. We had to halt work in the past days."
In other bad oil news for Nouri, Hassan Hafidh (Dow Jones) notes the country's crude oil exports for the month of January decreased by 1.8%.
Meanwhile in the KRG, April Yee (The National Newspaper) reports, "Kurdistan's welcoming of foreign partners has raised tensions between the semi-autonomous region's seat of power in Erbil and Baghdad. This month, the Iraqi oil ministry warned Total against signing any agreements with Kurdistan and barred ExxonMobil from a forthcoming auction of exploration licenses." A lot of Iraqi politicians made a lot of noise last week but the Ministry of Oil was forced to clamp down on those threats. Monday, the Kurdish Globe translates a statement Mutasam Akram, Deputy Minister of Oil, issued which includes:

According to the Iraqi constitution, the oil and all the natural resources that exist in Iraq are national wealth that belongs to all Iraqi people, living in all of the regions and provinces of Iraq. This wealth should be used to increase the well-being and prosperity of all the people of Iraq. Therefore, such agreements should be a joint effort between everyone in Iraq and no individual group should single-handedly decide on how these resources are used.

In our view, these statements, especially those that threaten renowned international investment companies working in the Kurdistan Region, could lead to companies being reluctant to work in all of Iraq, and they will portray a negative image to investors across all sectors. This contradicts the general policies of economic openness, the promotion of trade and attracting foreign direct investment in order to provide better services to the people of Iraq, who have suffered for decades from closed centralized economic policies that have led to widespread poverty, destitution and deprivation.

In addition, such statements lead to increased disputes between the political parties and to the accumulation of new problems at a time when we need to think and work together in order to solve the problems that already exist--especially as we are building up a new democracy, which is what all the political and national components of Iraq want.


Yes, all those threats didn't play well to international corporations thinking about doing business in Iraq. In addition, Hevidear Ahmed (Rudaw) interviewed Matasam Akram on this topic:

Rudaw: Signing some contracts between the Kurdistan Region and ExxonMobil, an oil giant, has angered Baghdad and the capital has asked the company to cancel its deals. Where does this issue stand at the moment?

Mutasam Akram: Inside Iraq's Ministry of Oil, no actual step has been taken against ExxonMobil and what we see is only in the media. ExxonMobil is the biggest oil company in the world and, if they wanted to work in some part of the world, they would think it over a hundred times before making a decision. When they sign a contract, they know well what the results will be. If ExxonMobil had known it would lose by signing a contract with the Kurdistan Region, it would not have done it. The same goes for the French Total that is also one of the biggest oil companies now in Kurdistan. Both companies enjoy heavy economic and political weight in the world and they wouldn't have come to Kurdistan had they known they would lose

Back in the days of the non-stop threats, ExxonMobil and Total both faced threats of not being able to bid in the upcoming auction. Not much of a threat since most of the oil industry saw the offerings and the proposed contracts as "a dingo dog with fleas." Shwan Zulal (Niqash) pointed out earlier this month:
The fact that attracting international oil companies into Iraq will be an ongoing challenge is illustrated by the delay in the fourth round of bidding for oil contracts. The bidding was to take place in January but has been postponed until the end of May. The contract on offer is a sort of new, hybrid version of contract. Some have noted that the contract is something of a production sharing contract in disguise -- and the contract is disguised because of the general Iraqi public's belief that a production sharing contract is selling out their oil to foreign owners.
However for the oil companies themselves, if they are risking their money and going looking for oil, they find it difficult to quantify risks. Even if they did find oil, there's no guarantee that Iraq's infrastructure would be ready to help them begin pumping the oil out -- especially given Baghdad's poor past record for completing projects and building capacity.
In conclusion then, Iraq has had grand plans for its own oil industry as well as ambitions for the power and influence that its oil could give it upon the world stage. However procrastination and misguided thinking about the oil industry's most chronic problems seem to have made these ambitions impossible.
Ahmed Rasheed (Reuters) notes the oft postponed "auction is now scheduled for May 30-31" and quotes the head of Petrocluem Contracts and Licensing Directorate Sabah Abdul-Kadhim stating, "We have made major amendments to the initial contract, and all of them are positive and serve interests of foreign firms." They had to do something because there's been little industry interest and while Iraq may be one of the top oil reserves in the world, with the violence and the ongoing political crisis, a failed auction in May could do a great deal to damage the country's international business standing across the board. Daniel J. Graeber (Oil Price) notes that "Iraq gets in its own way" on the issue of oil and reminds:
The political circus in Iraq, however, suggests not much gets done in a country where oil can buy a lot of things, but does little to keep the lights on for most Iraqis.
Iraq, after a stormy 2010 parliamentary election, smashed the world record for the longest period between elections and the forming of a new government. Not exactly an accomplishment for a country that had democracy handed to them by the so-called standard bearer of participatory government. Baghdad politics have since been held together by the tiniest of threads, with various political factions storming out of the halls of government at various times for various reasons. Though the fight hasn't yet taken to the streets, the country's Shiite prime minister ordered his Sunni vice president arrested on terrorism charges.

Al Rafidayn notes the Supreme Judicial Council has decreed that they will begin their trial of Vice President Tareq al-Hashemi in absentia on May 3rd. Nouri al-Maliki has accused al-Hashemi of terrorism and issued an arrest warrant for him. al-Hashemi is in the KRG and has maintained since December that he cannot receive a fair trial in Baghdad -- an assertion that was demonstrated to be true when a 9 member panel of judges held a press conference last Thursday and declared al-Hashemi guilty of terrorism before a trial had taken place and in violation of Article 19 of the Iraqi Constitution.

Al Mada reports on the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees announcement yesterday that most of Iraq's internal refugees do not feel that they can safely return to their homes. Aswat al-Iraq states UNHCR's Claire Bourgeois will give a press briefing on this topic Sunday. During 2006 and 2007, ethnic cleansing took place in Iraq. Whole neighborhoods were overturned. What was mixed became Shi'ite or Sunni, what was Sunni became Shi'ite, etc. Many had to flee their family homes to stay alive. Often they received a death threat prior to uprooting themselves. Iraq birthed the largest refugee crisis in the region since 1948. Over 4 million Iraqis became refugees -- either internal or external. Internal refugees moved to other neighborhoods. Some internal refugees moved close to their old ones. Some, like Christians who fled Iraq for northern Iraq, moved futher from their homes. Regardless, the ration cards were issued in certain neighborhoods and moving -- even a short distance away -- tended to result in Iraqis not being able to receive their rations (staples like sugar, flour and milk). External refugees largely fled to the surrounding countries. Some were able to go on to other host countries after but Jordan, Syria and Lebanon housed a large number of the refugees and Jordan and Lebanon continue to (Syria most likely does but the current conflict has dispersed some Iraqis along with some Syrians). Though Christians made up a small percentage of the Iraqi total population, they make up a significant amount of external refugees.
Binsal Abdul Kader (Gulf News) reports on an Iraqi mechanical engineer, Ayad Zaki, who fled Iraq in 2006 for his own safety:
Zaki is also a victim of the situation in post-war Iraq. His family confirmed what Zaki had told Gulf News -- that it was not safe for him to go to Baghdad.
"Even I have not gone back home during the past six years, being afraid of abduction and other crimes," Zaki's son who is studying in a south east Asian nation, told Gulf News over the phone yesterday.
Zaki's wife said the same from Baghdad but said she was ready to come to the UAE to take care of Zaki if there is any way they get any support. A prominent company which came forward to help Zaki following the Gulf News report said it would look into the possibility of offering him a job.
From leaving Iraq to visiting, Al Sabaah reports the Pope is planning a visit to the city of Ur shortly.
Turning to the topic of violence, Reuters notes a Baquba bombing targeting a police officer's home which injured his wife and their child, a Mosul roadside bombing injured one person and 1 person was shot dead in Mosul. Al Rafidayn notes a death yesterday Reuters never did, Skvan Jamil Mohammed, a college professor who was shot dead outside his Dohuk home. He was shot ten times by assailants in a car and he died en route to the hospital. The paper notes he was also active in the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KRG President Massoud Barzani's party). Aswat al-Iraq reports a police officer's Falluja home was bombed today and his wife and their three children were left wounded.
The Committee to Protect Journalists issued a new report entitled "Attacks on the Press in 2011." The report notes that, since 1991, 151 journalists have been killed in Iraq and five are known to have been killed last year:

Hadi al-Mahdi, freelance

September 8, 2011, in Baghdad, Iraq

Alwan al-Ghorabi, Afaq

June 21, 2011, in Diwaniyya, Iraq

Sabah al-Bazi, Al-Arabiya

March 29, 2011, in Tikrit, Iraq

Muammar Khadir Abdelwahad, Al-Ayn

March 29, 2011, in Tikrit, Iraq

Mohamed al-Hamdani, Al-Itijah

February 24, 2011, in Ramadi, Iraq



The report ranks the top three most dangerous places for journalists in 2011 as:

1) Pakistan
2) Libya
3) Iraq
In what might be a bit of good news for Iraqi journalists, Mariwan F. Salihi (Gulf News) reports that construction is ongoing on the first phase of the Erbil Media City which will include "two high-rises, studios and other services needed for broadcasting" while the later three phases will see businesses (hotels, retail outlets, etc) come on board and when "the TV production and studio buildings open by the end of 2014, a large TV network will be established which will have separate news and entertainment channels broadcasting from Arbil Media City."
Moving over to the topic of education, Aamer Madhani (USA Today) reports that Iraqis officials are speaking with US counterparts in DC to discuss programs for Iraqi students studying in the US. The US State Dept released the following statement today from the US-Iraq Joint Coordinating Committee for Cultural and Educational Cooperation:
The United States of America and the Republic of Iraq are committed to expanding and strengthening education and cultural cooperation. Pursuant to the 2008 Strategic Framework Agreement (SFA) between the United States and Iraq, the Joint Coordinating Committee for Cultural and Educational Cooperation met Monday, February 21, 2012 for the second time. The Committee last met in March 2011 in Baghdad. Since then, we have continued to expand our joint efforts in the areas of higher education, primary and secondary education, cultural heritage, and youth and sports initiatives.
This latest meeting of the JCC for Cultural and Educational Cooperation, hosted at the U.S. Department of State, was co-chaired by Iraqi Minister of Higher Education and Scientific Research Ali al-Adeeb and U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Educational and Cultural Affairs Ann Stock. The meeting of the JCC builds on efforts to strengthen the strategic partnership between the United States and Iraq through academic and cultural exchanges and shared efforts to preserve the unique archeological heritage of Iraq.
Citing significant opportunities to send Iraqi students for advanced studies in the United States, the two sides stressed the importance of increased academic linkages and exchanges between the United States and Iraq as a key element in building a strong, productive bilateral relationship. They also reaffirmed their commitment to strengthening ties between the Iraqi and American people through professional, educational and cultural exchanges and dialogue.
The delegations noted with satisfaction that the people-to-people ties between the U.S. and Iraq continue to grow stronger. Fulbright fellowships, the International Visitor Leadership Program, the Iraqi Young Leaders' Exchange Program and other initiatives bring hundreds of Iraqi scholars, students, youth and professionals to the U.S. each year. Seven university linkages have been finalized and are actively promoting academic collaboration. Opportunities to learn English in Iraq are increasing, with the establishment of an Iraqi chapter of Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL) in November 2011. Vital work to preserve the ancient site of Babylon continues through a major U.S. grant to the World Monuments Fund as well as support to education programs at the Iraqi Institute for the Conservation of Antiquities and Heritage, and bring a group of Iraqi graduate students to Washington, DC in the summer of 2012.
The U.S. side agreed to augment its student advising activities, including through EducationUSA college fairs modeled on the one held in Erbil in October 2011. These fairs support the Iraqi Government's goal of having at least 25 percent of the Iraqis studying abroad enroll in U.S. colleges and universities.
The delegations stressed the importance of ongoing consultation and information exchange at all levels, and pledged to reconvene the JCC again this year to assess progress on its shared priorities.
While some Iraqi students come to the US to learn, Abigail R. Esman (Forbes) observes that there is much Americans can learn from Iraqi artists:
My own first encounter with Iraqi art was five years ago, at the opening of an experimental exhibition in The Hague. I was, from the moment I arrived until the museum lights went dark, mesmerized, at once shaken and enchanted by the poignancy, the tenderness, the anger, the poetry, the melancholic dreams of these Iraqi visions: burned pages out of books from a bombed-out library in Baghdad; videos of children repeating words of hatred and of war; the remains of a car that had been blown up.
All of these reactions swept over me, too, the first time I saw the works of Ayad Alkadhi, an Iraqi artist now living in New York, whose first solo show runs through this week at Leila Heller Gallery's downtown (Chelsea) location.
I have known Ayad a while, and written of him before. His eloquence stretches beyond his canvases and his words into the very process of his toughts and understanding of the world in which he has made his place -- an Iraqi having escaped a war, a man who has spent his adult life in a culture far from the one to which he was born and raised: first in New Zealand and now in the USA. And from that process, too, he forms his paintings.
From the artistic response to war and destruction to the financial destruction the war has imposed upon the US, Bob Geary (Indy Week) reports:
War. Wars. Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The drumbeat for war in Iran.
"There is a tsunami coming to the United States," says Rep. Walter Jones, R-N.C., consisting of the trillions of dollars of debt and veterans' health care obligations for wars we cannot win and a military machine we cannot afford.
So Jones, no liberal and a lonely voice in the Republican Party (with his favored presidential candidate, Ron Paul), asks one simple question of Americans: "Where is the outrage?"
P. Solomon Banda (AP) reports US Senator Mark Udall declared ahead of a national security forum in Denver today that one of the biggest national security threats the US faces is the national debt -- to which the Iraq War has contributed so much. Brian Anderson (Digital Journal) adds, "Unless I'm living in some kind of community that is freakishly ignorant of these wars -- as an undergraduate surrounded by drunken fools, it is a real possibility -- there exists an eerie apathy that falls beautifully in line with Obama's coveted 'doctrine of silence.' I hope to remind all of these numerous wars we're in, lest we forget they're on our dollar, but, for now, we'll concentrate on Iraq and Afghanistan." Anderson observes of Iraq:
Two years later we saw no change from the neoconservatives' blueprint. Misleading notifications on the morning of August 19th, 2010 shouted that Operation Iraqi Freedom had ended and that combat soldiers were finally leaving Baghdad. Many people assumed we were finally leaving Iraq. The truth was that the Obama administration was still keeping around 50,000 troops in the country, and, as usual, it didn't even count government contractors. The Congressional Research Service estimated to have almost 10,000 troops less than that number anyway, so was difficult to imagine Obama keeping his newer promise through a 90% reduction by the end of 2011. But he managed to pull off appealing headlines in time for the up-coming election. "The Iraq War is Officially Over," announced the newspapers two months ago. Obviously not the first time it 'ended,' individuals were correct to be skeptical. The removal of troops from Iraq had nothing to do with the current president fulfilling a promise to end the occupation; it was a result of a deal cut by the Bush administration. So, in a way, no progress had been made at all since that deal three years ago. In fact, just the opposite had been occurring. Glenn Greenwald explains that the Obama administration had long lobbied to keep several thousand troops in the country, but the Iraqi government rejected demands to provide American soldiers with legal immunity and therefore a continued US presence became a non-option. A non-official presence is another story. Spencer Ackerman, senior reporter for Wired, stated in a recent interview that, in addition to 150-person training office for Iraqi soldiers who will be operating American-made weapon systems, the State Department "is going to leave behind the largest embassy that it has on the planet. All told, there are going to be 18,000 people who work for this embassy." There will be 3,500 to 5,500 armed private security contractors, too; I assume they'll be busy escorting useless diplomats around the country, but violence between Iraqis and Americans will be an inevitable consequence of an occupation gone awry to hell and back. And, more likely than not, the US military's acquisition of biometric data on three million Iraqis will be utilized throughout the next inevitable consequence: Iran swooping into a new anti-American Iraq in order to affect political influence.

Cindy Sheehan is someone who doesn't have the luxury of ignoring the costs of war, her son Casey died serving in Iraq. Meghan Keneally (Daily Mail) notes that since her son died in 2004, she has practiced tax resistance "and now the Internal Revenue Service is suing her for the fnancial records, which is the first step to claiming back taxes" and quotes Cindy stating to Sacremento's Channel 10 News, "I feel like I gave my son to this country in an illegal and immoral war and I'll never get him back. If they can give me my son back then I'll pay my taxes and that's not going to happen." At her website, Cindy notes she hasn't made her tax resistance a secret but was surprised to learn from Channel 10 News -- and not the US government -- that the IRS has filed against her in federal court:
I consider that my debt to this country was paid in full when my son, Casey, was recklessly with no regard for his safety (remember the rush to war with the "Army you have" which was not properly trained or equipped?) murdered for the lies of a regime whose members (Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, Yoo, Wolfowitz, Perle, etc.) roam around the world free and unfettered by threatening prosecutions or persecutions after committing war crimes, crimes against humanity, crimes against the peace, and high crimes and misdemeanors against our own Constitution.
After the interview with Cornell was over, he said to me, "you appear so calm, most people would be freaking out if the US Attorney filed a lawsuit against them." I replied, "Cornell, what are they going to do to me? Kill another one of my children (god forbid)? I had the worst thing happen to me that could happen to any mother and I am still standing."
Of the lawsuit, she notes, "I would say, 'Bring it on,' but I am not about to quote the barely functioning killer [Bush] that murdered my son and so many more and who is also being protected by the very same agency that is persecuting me -- Obama's DOJ."
Blogger/Blogspot was acting up this morning. I said in an entry that I'd note Wally and Cedric's joint-posts if they went up. They did and they are:
The Daily Jot
THIS JUST IN! CARNEY BREAKS IT DOWN!
5 hours ago
Cedric's Big Mix
Half an excuse? Try full on offensive!
5 hours ago

Posted by at

drones

i'm glad to know i'm not the only 1 furious that we've got to wait 2 more wednesdays until we get a new 'revenge.' that really pisses me off.


make a point to read ava and c.i.'s 'TV: Bypassing the Boiz Club' because they're reviewing 'revenge.' and noting how the terry gross crap (man, man, man) works against shows like 'revenge.'


and they're getting under terry's skin, if you didn't notice.


they knew exactly what they were doing with 2 pieces that they wrote (1 with ann) on sunday. they knew exactly what they were doing and they are getting results.




okay, Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Scaling Back The Years" went up earlier today.



scaling back the years



and Kat's "Kat's Korner: Absorb the Graffiti" went up last night and she was sweet enough to include me in her review.

in politics, need another reason not to vote for barack? bill van auken's drone article is pretty bleak:


Now this technology is coming home. The legislation signed last week by Obama requires the FAA, within 90 days, to expedite the process through which government agencies are able to secure permission to operate their own drones over US soil. Smaller drones must be cleared for operation by any “government public safety agency” almost immediately. Within six months, the FAA must establish a pilot program to integrate drones into the “national airspace system” in six test areas around the country.

By 2020 an estimated 30,000 drones could be operating in US skies—including military, police and corporate-owned UAVs. They are already in use by the Department of Homeland Security in monitoring US borders.

A key driving force behind the legislation was the Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International, whose members include such giants of the military-industrial complex as Lockheed Martin, Boeing, General Dynamics, Northrop Grumman and Raytheon, and whose lobbyists reportedly wrote the language of the bill. The market for drones already approaches $6 billion annually and is expected to double over the next ten years.

barack doesn't deserve a 2nd term. not unless he's running to represent right-wing america.


let's close with c.i.'s 'Iraq snapshot:'

Tuesday, February 21, 2011. Chaos and violence continue, veterans issues in the US include a call to suicide prevention which then resulted in criminal charges against the veteran, Iraqi Vice President Tareq al-Hashemi delivered a speech yesterday on the charges against him, ane more.
Last night, Hal Bernton (Seattle Times) reported on the US Army Medical Command launching an investigation in Washington state's Madigan Healthcare System, specifically investigating "complaints by soldiers that their PTSD diagnoses were improperly reversed and into comments a Madigan psychiatrist made about how costly PTSD diagnoses were for taxpayers." As part of the investigation, Col Dallas Homas was "administratively removed from command" -- that's as part of the investigation and standard procedure which does not mean that he's guilty of anything or suspected of being guility of anything. ABC News (link is video) reports, "Tomorrow 14 soldiers from Joint Base Lewis McCord will receive the results of their PTSD re-evauations" as a result of the complaints.
PTSD is one of the many important issues the veterans community is facing today. Another one is suicide. If you call the VA's suicide hotline, you have a right to believe your call is confidential. Christian Daventport (Washington Post) reported yesterday on Gulf War veteran Sean Duvall's troubles caused by seeking help. He called the hotline and now he's facing criminal charges and, if convicted of them, could spend as many as 40 years in jail. Sean Duvall called because he wanted to take his own life. The homeless man had a gun he'd made himself. He called for help and got that to a degree immediately (or that's how the story is being told). What happened after that is that he found himself charged for the homemade gun. That's what he could face up to 40 years in prison for.
So you save someone's life to throw them in prison? The case can be dismissed and should be dismissed. If it's being done to 'protect' anyone then the answer is clearly to provide Sean Duvall with therapy because he's the one who needs protection. He was contemplating self-harm, he wasn't stating he would harm others. To put him beind bars for this is ridiculous and will also, as many are noting, make veterans less likely to use the hotline. Let's pretend I'm a veteran (I'm not). I'm depressed and I'm considering killing myself and I decide a gun's the way I want to go but I don't have one and I don't want for any waiting period. So I buy a gun from something other than 'direct channels.' I then decide maybe I don't want to take my life and call the VA hotline. I get help and I feel like maybe life is worth living, maybe things weren't as bad as I thought and then, knock-knock-knock, it's the police arresting me for the way I purchased the gun.
Or I decide I want to do it with pills and swipe some from a friend of a hospital tray from a nurse's cart. Then I call the VA hotline because I think I might want to live. I decide not to take my life but then learn that I'm being prosecuted for having those prescription drugs that weren't my prescription.
This is nonsense that is neither therapeutic nor helpful. In the article, a family connection is noted. I'm not interested in that. If they were calling it a conflict of interest, I might be. But a son-in-law (or daughter-in-law) rarely can be called off (prosecution in this case) by a relative. I think the attempt to prosecute is a huge mistake. I think bringing in the family connection to Eric Shinseki, Secretary of the VA, is besides the point. (Unless the point is to humiliate Shinseki.) It is wrong to presume that Shinseki can 'call it off' because people don't know the relationship between the two for starters. It's legally wrong to try to get Shinseki to call it off because someone took an oath not to Eric Shinseki but to uphold the laws. I would hope that the decision to prosecute or not would be resolved (and quickly) by the AG grasping that prosecution did not serve either justice or the interests of the state. If the person can't grasp that, I would hope that a judge would and that he or she would toss the case out when the defense noted the events that led up to the arrest. But while we might hope that everyone related to Eric Shinseki by blood, adoption or marriage thought as he did, that's never going to be the case and to ask someone to disregard what they feel their responsibility is because of the family they married into is a lousy argument and one that most people -- if it were argued to them -- would reject.
Focusing on Shinseki -- who has no role in this at present -- also distracts from the main issue that if the suicide hotline is going to be effective, it's going to require that veterans have trust in it.
Another issue facing the veterans community is unemployment. Sunday, Steve Vogel (Washington Post) reported, "It is against federal law for employers to penalize service members because of their military service. And yet, in some cases, the U.S. government has withdrawn job offers to service members unable to get released from active duty fast enough; in others, service members have been fired after absences." Those Vogel spoke with included people who felt that since the federal government, if caught and prosecuted, doesn't have to pay fines -- the way a civilian company would -- a number of federal employers feel they can risk it.
February 2nd, the House Veterans Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity held a hearing. The witnesses (government workers) as well as those on the Committee gave no indication that they knew it was against the law to fire someone because they were called up to active duty. As I noted then, I stepped out the second time this came up in the hearing to call a friend with the Justice Dept and make sure the law hadn't changed. (Again, I never assume I'm the smartest in the room, I start with the premise that I'm the least informed. And if House Reps are saying, 'Golly, we should pass a law to stop this,' I'm going to assume that the existing law must have been overturned because surely these law makers know more than I ever could. So I called and asked and, no, the law hadn't been overturned and it was still on the books.) Another reason that this is happening may be because there is so little education on this law. Maybe it's time for the Pentagon and VA to do one of those PSA they love and bombard it over the airwaves. It's one of the few times that a PSA getting information out there might actually work -- especially if combined with serious law enforcement and with federal supervisors ensuring that those under them who broke this law didn't get promoted, didn't get a pay raise and maybe even lost their job over it. If ignorance of the law is no excuse when you're before the court, why are we retaining federal workers who are breaking the law? Whether they know the law or not, if they break this law, they should be fired.
Monday afternoon in Lacey, Washington, Senator Patty Murray held a listening session with veterans. Senator Murray is the Chair of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee. Matt Batcheldor (The Olympian) reports on that session and quotes Murray explaining afterwards about asking the veterans if they were putting their military experience on the job applications:
The reason I asked the question about whether or not they put veteran on their employment when they apply for a job is because I'm hearing so many veterans quietly tell me that they never do. We need to call this out; people need to know this is happening, and it needs to be fixed. That's just wrong.
A number of veterans, Guard and Reserve and active-duty service members are following the US presidential primaries. Of those choosing to donate, they've repeatedly donated the most to US House Rep Ron Paul. Veterans for Ron Paul staged an event yesterday. Julie Ershadi (Reason) reports:
On February 20, libertarian activist and Iraq War veteran Adam Kokesh, and Nathan Cox, co-founder with Kokesh of Veterans for Ron Paul, hosted a rally and march for veterans and active duty service members who support the Texas Congressman for the 2012 Republican nomination. The "Ron Paul Is the Choice of the Troops" rally began at noon in the Sylvan Theater by the Washington Monument in Washington, D.C.. Troops marched on the White House in a 48 x 8 formation, totaling 384, and they were joined by roughly a hundred supporters and observers.
Many people at the event were new to politics, yet they had traveled from out of state to participate in the rally. I spent some time with John, a teacher from Long Island, who told me that he came to support Ron Paul because of the financial meltdown of 2008. "I worked for Morgan Stanley in 2007. That's how I saw it coming. All that reckless betting." He said that in the aftermath of September 11, he supported the Iraq War. "I was eighteen. My dad is a fireman. But I got duped in the Iraq War. Most of us did. The same thing is happening now with Iran." He cited the rational self interest of Iranian authorities as reason to discount them as a threat to the United States, a much more powerful entity capable of causing disproportionate damage in response to any provocation. "That's what I try to teach my students. I say, they're crazy, but they're not stupid. You don't get to be a dictator by being stupid." John said he won't vote for any candidate who supports war at this point. "Look, I don't want to fight, so why am I going to vote for someone who's going to make someone else go and fight?"
Samantha Wagner (Hearst Newspapers) explains, "A crowd of more than a thousand people met alongside the Washington Monument Monday afternoon and marched to the White House in a demonstration of support for Ron Paul. With an "about face," veterans and active duty service members turned their backs to the White House and sent a message to the President: Ron Paul is the choice of the troops." Matthew Larotonda (ABC News) adds, "The demonstration was a mostly silent affair, with the veterans standing calmly at attention in rows. An organizer bellowed that each second of quiet was for every military suicide since President Obama took office. A second moment of silence was for each soldier to die abroad under the current commander in chief." Andrew Moran (Examiner) notes:
Paul, who has received a lot of criticism from the Republican base for his stances, is a non-interventionist that opposes pre-emptive war, wants to bring troops home from Germany, South Korea, Japan, Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere and supports defense spending over military spending.
Instead, the bestselling author wants to apply the "golden rule" to foreign policy, which was actually disapproved as some Republican voters booed the Texas Congressman during a debate held in South Carolina last month. However, the voters did cheer when former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich said to "kill them," referencing enemies of the U.S. government.
February 9th, Human Rights Watch noted that Iraq had executed at least 65 people.
AFP notes at least 4 more people were executed this week bringing the grand total to 69. Al Rafidayn reports that Iraq's presidency council signed off on 33 more executions Sunday. If all are conducted in the next weeks, Iraq will have executed close to 100 people before 2012's half-year mark and AFP notes the 4 this week mean that Iraq has already executed more people in 2012 than it did in 2011. Observing the high rate of executions back in January, former UK Ambassador Craig Murray noted that the judicial killings were only the tip of the ice berg:
Extra-judicial killings by state sponsored actors are much higher, and still higher are killings by various violent factions.
Meantime there are less than a third as many operational hospital beds as before the invasion, and less than 20% of the doctors. There are three million maimed people in Iraq. Available electricity in MW/h is about 30% of pre-invasion levels.
January 24th, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights spokesperson Rupert Colville (link is video and text) explained, "Thirty-four individuals, including two women, were executed in Iraq on 19 January following their conviction for various crimes. Even if the most scrupulous fair trial standards were observed, this would be a terrifying number of executions to take place in a single day. Given the lack of transparency in court proceedings, major concerns about due process and fairness of trials, and the very wide range of offences for which the death penalty can be imposed in Iraq, it is a truly shocking figure. The High Commissioner is calling on the Government of Iraq to implement an immediate moratorium on the institution of death penalty, around 150 countries have now either abolished the death penalty in law or in practice, or introduced a moratorium." That moratorium never took place. Iraq wants the UN to remove it from Chapter VII and has been lobbying for that for years. Apparently Nouri wants to kill Iraqis more than he wants Iraq to be truly independent and sovereign.
In other 'great moments' in Nouri leadership, al-Maliki still can't provide a national conference still -- despite Speaker of Parliament Osama al-Nujaifi and President Jalal Talabani calling for one since December 21st. Aswat al-Iraq reports that Moqtada al-Sadr's bloc states it has prepared an agenda for the national conference -- to deal with Iraq's ongoing political crisis -- which is scheduled to be discussed today in yet another prep-meeting. The agenda is said to "start with the topics that were not implemented from the Arbil agreement and the joint issues between Iraqiya and the Kurdish blocs." The Erbil Agreement ended Political Stalemate I in November 2010. Following the March 2010 elections, Nouri at first disputed the results, demanded a recount and then refused to abide by the results. This created Political Stalemate I. Though his State of Law came in second, the US-brokered Erbil Agreement found the other political blocs (including Iraqiya which came in first) agreeing to allow Nouri to remain as prime minister. As a result of that aspect of the Erbil Agreement, the political blocs were supposed to get various things. What happened was after Nouri was named prime minister-designate, he refused to follow the Erbil Agreement. This starts the ongoing Political Stalemate II which can be said to have begun at the end of December when Nouri refused to name the Minister of Defense, the Minister of Interior and the Minister of National Security. The nominees for the post were reportedly agreed on and in the Erbil Agreement. Nouri refused to fill the positions. He lied and stated he would shortly. Critics of Nouri insisted he was refusing to name the positions because it was part of his power-grab. The US press largely ran with Nouri's claim as reality and either ignored the critics or else chided them. All these months later, it's the critics and not the US press that were correct. For a year and two months now Nouri has refused to name the posts. (Per the Constitution, he should not have been transferred from "prime minister-designate" to "prime minister" as a result of this. Per the Constitution, Talabani should have named a new prime minister-designate at the end of December 2010.) Ayad al-Tamimi (Al Mada) reports that sources in the National Alliance (which State of Law is a part of) state that they want the security ministries to remain empty until the next prime minister is elected.

Hossam Acommok (Al Mada) reports that KRG President Massoud Barzani stated on Sunday that he hopes the national conference ends the political crisis and that Baghdad decides to abide by the Erbil Agreement including the issue of Kirkuk. Al Rafidayn notes that the spokesperson for the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, Hamid Maaleh, states that his party is working with various components of the National Alliance including the Sadrists and are striving for a way to move the political process forward. In addition, the Adel Abdul Mahdi has recevied a delegation from the Sadr bloc and discussed the situation and what can be done. Adel Abdul Madhi isn't just a high ranking member of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, he's also the former vice president of Iraq. He was v.p. from 2006 through the summer of 2011 when he resigned due to the corruption in the government and the refusal of 'leadership' to address it. Aswat al-Iraq, citing the Chair of Parliament's Human Rights Commission, reports Iraqiya's calling for the national conference to limit the three presidencies (Iraq's President, Prime Minister and Speaker of Parliament) to two terms.


The big news yesterday was Iraq's Sunni Vice President delivered a speech from Erbil denouncing charges against him and stating he would not be tried in Baghdad, that the trial should be moved to Kirkuk and that, if it wasn't, international observers should take over. Sky News observes, "It now also threatens to draw a new wedge between Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, a Shi'ite, and Kurdish leaders in Iraq's north who refuse to hand over al-Hashemi for trial."
In December, after multiple photo-ops with US President Barack Obama, Nouri returned to Iraq and quickly ordered the homes of his political rivals circled by tanks -- a detail the US press 'forgot' to report for at least 24 hours (most estimates are 48 hours). The bulk of US forces had left Iraq when Nouri made his move (a detail international observers are stressing). He began calling for Deputy Prime Minister Saleh al-Mutlaq to be stripped of his office. Like al-Hashemi, al-Mutlaq is also Sunni and also a member of Iraqiya. In October, Nouri had begun ordering the mass arrests of Sunnis on the pretext that he had information of an impending coup attempt. There was no attempted coup and none planned. Those inside Nouri's Cabinet have been loudly whispering to the press about that.

Sunday December 18th, Tareq al-Hashemi and Saleh al-Mutlaq, along with bodyguards, attempted to leave out of Baghdad International Airport for the KRG (Kurdistan Regional Government -- three semi-autonomous provinces in Iraq). Nouri's forces pulled all off the plane and detained them for approximately an hour before allowing some bodyguards and al-Hashemi and al-Mutlaq to reboard. The next day, December 19th, Nouri issued an arrest warrant for al-Hashemi whom he charged with 'terrorism.'

al-Hashemi did not 'flee' to the KRG. He went there on business and could have been stopped if Nouri wanted tos top him. A day after he arrived, an arrest warrant was issued and he elected to remain in the KRG. He has been the guest of Iraqi President Jalal Talabani and KRG President Massoud Barzani. He has noted that many believe Nouri controls the Baghdad judiciary and first asked that the case be moved to the KRG (refused) and then that it be moved to Kirkuk. He's also been stating that international observers were needed. And despite the inept reporting today of a lazy and uninformed press, that call didn't initiate today -- as this February 10th Alsumaria TV report indicates.

Thursday the 'independent' Supreme Court in Baghdad issued a finding of guilt against Tareq al-Hashemi. Was a trial held? Because Article 19 of Iraq's Constitution is very clear that the accused will be guilty until convicted in a court of law. No. There was no trial held. But members of the judiciary -- who should damn well know the Constitution -- took it upon themselves not only to form an investigative panel -- extra-judicial -- but also to hold a press conference and issue their findings. At the press conference, a judge who is a well known Sunni hater, one with prominent family members who have demonized all Sunnis as Ba'athists, one who is currently demanding that a member of Iraqiya in Parliament be stripped of his immunity so that the judge can sue him, felt the need to go to the microphone and insist he was receiving threats and this was because of Tareq al-Hashemi, that al-Hashemi was a threat to his family.

Having already demonstrated that they will NOT obey the Constitution, the judiciary then indicated -- via the judge's statement -- a personal dislike of Tareq al-Hashemi. What they did Thursday was demonstrate that Tareq al-Hashemi had always been correct in his fear that he would not receive a fair trial in Baghdad.
Pakistan's Daily Times noted the speech was a half-hour and that he called on "all honest Iraqi people" to join him in rejecting the charges. Yara Bayoumy, Ashmed Rasheed, Patrick Markey and Alastair Macdonald (Reuters) quote al-Hashemi declaring, "All of these accusations against members of my protection detail are a black comedy." He repeated his belief that a trial should be held in Kirkuk and stated if that did not happen the his next move would be to "turn immediately to the international community." He also spoke of forced confessions. Al Jazeera quotes him stating, "We have pictures of bruises on their faces and bodies." AFP gives the full quote as, "All the arrested people from my bodyguards and the employees of my office are being held in secret prisons over which the ministry of justice has no authority, and confessions are being taken from them through torture. We have pictures and evidence proving that the bodyguards were tortured, physically and psychologically." CNN's Mohammed Tawfeeq reports:

Al-Hashimi criticized the investigation, saying, "How come they finished investigating 150 cases against me and my bodyguards within a few days?
"Where did my bodyguards plan for these 150 attacks? On the surface of the moon?" he asked.

Aswat al-Iraq notes that the Baghdad judiciary is making noises about trying the vice president in abstentia and Lara Jakes and Yahya Barzanji (AP) offer, "Al-Maliki and Kurdish regional President Massoud Barzani have had a rocky relationship for years over how to share disputed land, oil revenues and federal funding. Barzani has shown no indication that he plans on handing over al-Hashemi to Baghdad, and officials in Irbil say doing so could worsen sectarian tensions between Sunnis and Shiites."

On this week's Law and Disorder Radio -- a weekly hour long program that airs Monday mornings at 9:00 a.m. EST on WBAI and around the country throughout the week, hosted by attorneys Heidi Boghosian, Michael S. Smith and Michael Ratner (Center for Constitutional Rights) -- topics explored include why guest Chris Hedges was suing the White House. Excerpt.
Michael Smith: The National Defense Authorization Act was signed by President Obama on December 31st of last year and takes effect this coming March. The act authorizes the military to begin domestic policing. The military can detain indefinitely without trial any US citizen deemed to be a terrorist or an accessory to terrorism. Vague language in the bill such as "substantially supported" or "directly supported" or "associated forces" is used. We're joined today by returning guest Chris Hedges in his capacity as a plantiff in a lawsuit that he's just filed against President Barack Obama with respect to the National Defense Authorization Act and its language about rounding up even American citizens and salting them away forever.
Heidi Boghosian: Chris, welcome to Law and Disorder.
Chris Hedges: Thank you.
Heidi Boghosian: Can you talk about the significance of codifying the NDAA into law essentially several over-reaching practices that the executive has been implementing for awhile now?
Chris Hedges: That's correct but it's been implementing those practices through a radical interpretation of the 2001 law, The Authorization to Use Military Force Act. You remember old John Yoo was Bush's legal advisor. It was under the auspices of this act that Jose Padilla who is a US citizen was held for three and a half years in a military brig. Remember, he was supposedly one of the other hijackers that never made it to a plane. Stripped of due process. And it's under that old act that the executive branch, Barack Obama, permits himself to serve as judge, jury and executioner and order the assassination of a US citizen, the Yemeni cleric Anwar al-Awlaki.
Michael Smith: Two weeks later his 16-year-old son.
Chris Hedges: Yes, exactly. So what this does is it essentially codfies this kind of behavior into law. It overturns over 200 years of legal precedent so that the military is allowed to engage in domestic policing and there are a couple of very disturbing aspects in the creation of this legislation. One of them is that [US Senator] Dianne Feinstein had proposed that US citiens be exempt from this piece of legislation and both the Obama White House and the Democratic Party rejected that. Now Obama issued a signing statement saying that this will not be used against American citizens but the fact is legally it can be used against American citizens. There was an opportunity for them to protect American citizens and to protect due process and they chose not to do that.
Michael Smith: Well he also announced that he was going to close Guantanamo.
Chris Hedges: Right, so it's very disingenous.
Heidi Boghosian: And signing statements really carry no legal force.
Chris Hedges. Right. And if they wanted to protect basic civil liberties, they certainly had a chance to do so and it was there decision not to do that. I mean, the other thing that's disturbing is that it expands this endless war on terror. So the 2001 act is targeted towards groups that are affiliated or part of al Qaeda. Now it's groups that didn't even exist in 2001. There are all sorts of nebulous terms like "associated forces," "substantially supported." When you look at the criteria by which Americans can be investigated by our security and surveillance state, it's amorphus and frightening: People who have lost fingers on the hand, people who hoard more than seven days worth of food in their house, people who have water-proof ammunition. I mean, I always say I come from rural parts of Maine. That's probably most of my family.
[Laughter.]
Chris Hedges: It's a very short step to adding the obstructionist tactics of the Occupy movement.
Michael Smith: Well that's what we've wanted to ask you because we've thought all along with the beginning of this war on terrorism that ultimately these laws stripping us of our Constitutional rights would be used against the social protest movements at home and the latest development is absolutely chilling and we wanted to ask you about that.
Chris Hedges: We don't know what the motives are. We do know that all the intelligence agencies as well as the Pentagon opposed this legislation. Robert Muller, the head of the FBI, actually went before Congress and said that if it was passed it would make the FBI's work in terms of investigating terrorism harder because it would make it harder to get people to cooperate once you hand the military that power. So I think it's interesting, to say the very least, that the various agencies that are being pulled into domestic policing -- especially the Pentagon -- didn't push for the bill. I don't know what the motives are but I know what the consequences are and that is that it hands to the corporate state weapons, the capacity to use the armed forces internally in ways that we have not seen for over two centuries. That is the consequence of the bill. What are the motives? You know I haven't gone down and reported it in Washington.
Heidi Boghosian: Chris, you know I'm thinking of the Supreme Court Case Humanitarian Law Project and the notion "providing material support." [Center for Constitutional Rights analysis here -- text and video.] And in that case it was also very vague and things that seemed benign could be construed as providing support but it strikes me that under this piece of legislation also the notion of associating with others that the government may deem terrorists becomes possibly vague.
Chris Hedges: Well it is vague. And that's what's so frightening. And the lawsuit was proposed by Civil Rights attorneys Carl Mayer and Bruce Afran who approached me and said that I needed a credible plantiff. Now because I had been the Middle East bureau chief for the New York Times and because I was in the Middle East for seven years I spent considerable time with both individuals and organizations that are considered by the US State Dept to be either terrorists or terrorist groups. That would include Hamas, Islamic Jihad in Gaza, the Kurdistan Workers Party -- or the PKK as it's known in southeastern Turkey, northern Iraq. All of these organizations -- I mean, I used to go to Tunis and have dinner with Yasser Arafat [President of the Palestinian National Authority from 1996 until his death in 2004] and Abu Jihad [the PLO's Khalil al-Wair] when they were branded as international terrorists. And there are no exemptions in this piece of legislation for journalists. And the attorneys felt that I was a credible plantiff because of that. We have already seen under the 2001 law, a persecution of not only Muslim Americans in this country but Muslim American organiations -- in particular charity organizations and mostly charity organizations that support the Palestinians. And under this legislation, it is certainly conceivable that not only -- many of these organizations have been shut down, their bank accounts have been frozen, their organizers have been persecuted -- but under this legislation they're essentially able to be branded as terrorists, stripped of due process, thrown into a military brig and held, in the language of the legislation, until the end of hostilities -- whenever that is.
Posted by at
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)