i was on the phone with elaine and she's feeling down as a result of the continued illegal war. she doesn't feel down very often so i was feeling like a failure as a friend because i was no help at all and i get low and down enough and she's always there for me. (i was there but she can usally snap me out of it and i wasn't able to do the same for her.)
i started thinking about how many people probably feel down this time of year and how much worse it would be if any of them had thought last year that when december 2007 rolled around that newly elected democratically controlled congress would have ended the illegal war.
they didn't.
and they really didn't do a damn thing.
they're spending days on an idiotic farm bill.
don't kid that this is about small farmers.
but they haven't done a damn thing all year.
they are the weakest, the most cowardly and the most ineffective congress.
they've pretty much sent out a message: 'vote third-party or even g.o.p. if you want anything to happen!'
i'm so embarrassed to be a democrat these days.
what a piece of trash party and at the top of the trash is nancy pelosi who played like she was left (though she wasn't) and made huge promises.
her ass needs to be run out of congress and hopefully cindy sheehan will win that seat in the 2008 elections.
nancy pelosi knew about the torture.
isn't that cute.
all her supporters and cheerleaders - including katha pollitt - are going to have to swallow that pill - as opposed to just pelosi's sh*t that they usually swallow gladly.
torture queen nancy pelosi.
the piece of trash who says impeachment is 'off the table'.
i think pelosi is 'off her rocker.'
so now we know.
so now we know that for all the talk - in elections - about the white house's abuses, the democratic party wasn't in the dark.
and that may be the most disgusting thing of all.
you know, when i was listening to elaine and trying to cheer her up, i really wasn't thinking about this. now i am and i think i'm depressed.
that really is depressing.
as useless as nancy pelosi is, as much of a betrayal as she is, i never would have guessed she'd be in on the torture. even i underestimated her on that.
let's close with c.i.'s 'Iraq snapshot:'
Tuesday, December 11, 2007. Chaos and violence continue, the targeting of officials continues, women in Iraq are under attack from the puppet government and the US, what's up with al-Sadr and more..
Starting with war resisters. So we are driving in to Canada as this is dictated hoping to catch the Parliament's hearing that will provide war resisters who went to Canada the opportunity to testify in public. And no one seems to know anything about today's hearing. It is taking place right? A call to the Parliament (613-992-3150) results in a nice man on the phone who is looking to find the hearing scheduled for the Citizenship and Immigration committee. "Don't seem to have anything to do" today he says of the committee while we're all wondering (Ava, Kat, myself and a friend), "Did the meeting get cancelled?" No. He finds it. It's been going on for "over an hour." So, fingers crossed for luck, it hasn't been cancelled and the reason members e-mailing can't find information on it is that the hearing's ongoing. (Although for all we know, we'll get there and it's been cancelled.)
What has taken place already, on December 6th was a meeting of thecommittee and we'll note the minutes of it in full.
The Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration met at 3:34 p.m. this day, in Room 269, West Block, the Chair, Norman Doyle, presiding.
Members of the Committee present: Dave Batters, Colleen Beaumier, Robert Carrier, Olivia Chow, Norman Doyle, Meili Faille, Nina Grewal, Hon. Jim Karygiannis, Ed Komarnicki and Hon. Andrew Telegdi.
Acting Members present: Lloyd St. Amand for Hon. Maurizio Bevilacqua and Bradley R. Trost for Wajid Khan.
Other Members present: Alex Atamanenko.
In attendance: Library of Parliament: Penny Becklumb, Analyst; Sandra Elgersma, Analyst.
Witnesses: Department of Citizenship and Immigration: Les Linklater, Director General, Immigration Branch; Micheline Aucoin, Director General, Refugees Branch. Mennonite Central Committee: William Janzen, Director. War Resisters' Support Campaign: Phillip McDowell. As an individual: Jeffry A. House. Canadian Friends Service Committee: Gay Anne Broughton, Program Coordinator.
Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motion adopted by the Committee on Thursday, November 22, 2007, the Committee commenced its study of Iraq war resisters.
Les Linklater made a statement and, with Micheline Aucoin, answered questions.
William Janzen, Philip McDowell, Jeffry A. House and Gay Anne Broughton made statements and answered questions.
Jim Karygiannis moved, -- The Committee recommends that the government immediately implement a program to allow conscientious objectors and their immediate family members (partners and dependents), who have refused or left military service related to the war in Iraq and do not have a criminal record and/or there has been no criminal or military warrants issued against them, to apply for permanent resident status and remain in Canada; and that the government should immediately cease any removal or deportation actions that may have already commenced against such individuals.
Olivia Chow moved, -- That the motion be amended by replacing the words "the war in Iraq" with the words "a war not sanctioned by the United Nations"; and by deleting the words "and/or there has been no criminal or military warrants issued against them".
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Olivia Chow and it was agreed to on the following recorded division: YEAS: Colleen Beaumier, Robert Carrier, Olivia Chow, Meili Faille, Jim Karygiannis, Lloyd St. Amand, Andrew Telegdi -- 7; NAYS: Dave Batters, Nina Grewal, Ed Komarnicki, Bradley R. Trost -- 4.
After debate, the question was put on the motion, as amended, and it was agreed to on the following recorded division: YEAS: Colleen Beaumier, Robert Carrier, Olivia Chow, Meili Faille, Jim Karygiannis, Lloyd St. Amand, Andrew Telegdi -- 7; NAYS: Dave Batters, Nina Grewal, Ed Komarnicki, Bradley R. Trost -- 4.
The motion, as amended, read as follows:
That the Committee recommend that the government immediately implement a program to allow conscientious objectors and their immediate family members (partners and dependents), who have refused or left military service related to a war not sanctioned by the United Nations and do not have a criminal record, to apply for permanent resident status and remain in Canada; and that the government should immediately cease any removal or deportation actions that may have already commenced against such individuals.
At 5:14 p.m., the Committee adjourned to the call of the Chair.
That was December 6th and, again, a hearing is supposed to be taking place right now.
Cindy Sheehan (OpEdNews) urges people to utilize Courage to Resist's easy to mail or e-mail resources to allow the Canadian government to know you are watching and to support organizations supporting war resisters as well as supporting war resisters:
Support actual war resisters in Canada by sending them expense money. From my friend Ryan (I gave him and his wife money to get to Canada over two years ago):
In light of the recent Supreme Court denial in Canada, I (Ryan Johnson), My wife (Jen Johnson) and Brandon Hughey need help raising funds to travel to Ottawa to attend hearings before the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, where War Resisters will be giving Testimony to the committee. At these hearings the committee will be deciding on whether or not to make a provision to allow war resisters to stay in Canada. This is one of our last chances to be able to continue living in Canada. We will be leaving December 7th because the hearings are December 11th, 2007 so we need to act fast. They may try to send guys back soon and we need to have a strong War Resister Presence. We appreciate all of the support and Want to thank all of you who can help.
Checks/money orders can be sent for Ryan, Jen and Brandon to: 312 Tower Rd Nelson, BC V1L3K6
Checks and money orders can continue to be sent. They obviously will not get their in time since the hearing is tomorrow but they will help with expenses. In addition, the links offered should continue to be used. No one expects the Parliament to listen to testimony and say, "Okay, then! Here's our decision."
There is a growing movement of resistance within the US military which includes James Stepp, Rodney Watson, Michael Espinal, Matthew Lowell, Derek Hess, Diedra Cobb, Brad McCall, Justin Cliburn, Timothy Richard, Robert Weiss, Phil McDowell, Steve Yoczik, Ross Spears, Peter Brown, Bethany "Skylar" James, Zamesha Dominique, Chrisopther Scott Magaoay, Jared Hood, James Burmeister, Eli Israel, Joshua Key, Ehren Watada, Terri Johnson, Carla Gomez, Luke Kamunen, Leif Kamunen, Leo Kamunen, Camilo Mejia, Kimberly Rivera, Dean Walcott, Linjamin Mull, Agustin Aguayo, Justin Colby, Marc Train, Abdullah Webster, Robert Zabala, Darrell Anderson, Kyle Snyder, Corey Glass, Jeremy Hinzman, Kevin Lee, Mark Wilkerson, Patrick Hart, Ricky Clousing, Ivan Brobeck, Aidan Delgado, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Stephen Funk, Blake LeMoine, Clifton Hicks, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Joshua Casteel, Katherine Jashinski, Dale Bartell, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell, Jimmy Massey, Chris Capps, Tim Richard, Hart Viges, Michael Blake, Christopher Mogwai, Christian Kjar, Kyle Huwer, Wilfredo Torres, Michael Sudbury, Ghanim Khalil, Vincent La Volpa, DeShawn Reed and Kevin Benderman. In total, at least fifty US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum.Information on war resistance within the military can be found at The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline [(877) 447-4487], Iraq Veterans Against the War and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters. Tom Joad maintains a list of known war resisters. In addition, VETWOW is an organization that assists those suffering from MST (Military Sexual Trauma).
The voice of war resister Camilo Mejia is featured in Rebel Voices -- playing now through December 16th at Culture Project -- that's ten more days -- and based on Howard Zinn and Anthony Arnove's best-selling book Voices of a People's History of the United States. It features dramatic readings of historical voices such as war resister Mejia, Sojourner Truth, Frederick Douglass, Malcom X and others will be featured. Musician Allison Mooerer will head the permanent cast while those confirmed to be performing on selected nights are Ally Sheedy (actress and poet, best known for films such as High Art, The Breakfast Club, Maid to Order, the two Short Circuit films, St. Elmo's Fire, War Games, and, along with Nicky Katt, has good buzz on the forthcoming Harold), Eve Ensler who wrote the theater classic The Vagina Monologues (no, it's not too soon to call that a classic), actor David Strathaim (L.A. Confidential, The Firm, Bob Roberts, Dolores Claiborne and The Bourne Ultimatum), actor and playwright Wallace Shawn (The Princess Bride, Clueless -- film and TV series, Gregory and Chicken Little), actress Lili Taylor (Dogfight, Shortcuts, Say Anything, Household Saints, I Shot Andy Warhol, Mrs. Parker and the Vicious Circle, State of Mind) and actor, director and activist Danny Glover (The Color Purple, Beloved, The Royal Tenenbaums, The Rainmaker, Places In The Heart, Dreamgirls, Shooter and who recently appeared on Democracy Now! addressing the US militarization of Africa) The directors are Will Pomerantz and Rob Urbinati with Urbinati collaborating with Zinn and Arnove on the play. Tickets are $41.. The theater is located at 55 Mercer Street and tickets can be purchased there, over the phone (212-352-3101) or online here and here. More information can be found at Culture Project.
Meanwhile IVAW is organizing a March 2008 DC event:
In 1971, over one hundred members of Vietnam Veterans Against the War gathered in Detroit to share their stories with America. Atrocities like the My Lai massacre had ignited popular opposition to the war, but political and military leaders insisted that such crimes were isolated exceptions. The members of VVAW knew differently.
Over three days in January, these soldiers testified on the systematic brutality they had seen visited upon the people of Vietnam. They called it the Winter Soldier investigation, after Thomas Paine's famous admonishing of the "summer soldier" who shirks his duty during difficult times. In a time of war and lies, the veterans who gathered in Detroit knew it was their duty to tell the truth.
Over thirty years later, we find ourselves faced with a new war. But the lies are the same. Once again, American troops are sinking into increasingly bloody occupations. Once again, war crimes in places like Haditha, Fallujah, and Abu Ghraib have turned the public against the war. Once again, politicians and generals are blaming "a few bad apples" instead of examining the military policies that have destroyed Iraq and Afghanistan.
Once again, our country needs Winter Soldiers.
In March of 2008, Iraq Veterans Against the War will gather in our nation's capital to break the silence and hold our leaders accountable for these wars. We hope you'll join us, because yours is a story that every American needs to hear.
Click here to sign a statement of support for Winter Soldier: Iraq & Afghanistan
March 13th through 15th are the dates for the Winter Soldier Iraq & Afghanistan Investigation.
"Has the US turned the tide in Baghdad?" wonders the Independent of London's Patrick Cockburn at CounterPunch before outlining the actual realities (and noting "American commentators are generally making the same mistake that they have made since the invasion of Iraq was first contemplated five years ago"). Cockburn -- a non-embedded reporter -- explains how the escalation ('surge') has little to do with what's going on in Iraq ("the battle for supremacy between the Sunni and Shia communities"): "The US military -- the State Department has been very marginalized in decision making in Baghdad -- does not want to emphasize that many of the Sunni fighters now on the US payroll and misleadingly called 'Concerned Citizens' until recently belonged to al Qa'ida and have the blood of a great many Iraqi civilians and US soldiers on their hands." Cockburn traces the exodus of Sunnis from the capital at the start of the "The Battle for Baghdad" (Feb. 22, 2006) which was a surprise in the Shi'ite response and the lack of support from "Sunni states like Saudi Arabia and Egypt" and led to the forming of the militias/thugs/'Awakening councils' which are now being hailed by the US as a 'success' but are the same cause of tension as the Shi'ite thugs the US armed: ". . . the creation of this force is a new stage in the war in Iraq rather than an end to the conflict." US trained and backed to fight foreign fighters in Iraq seen as alligned with al Qaeda, that wait to turn that training on Shi'ites and on the US itself. Cockburn notes Moqtada al-Sadr's cease fire could end at any point "if the Shia community came under attack or the Americans pressured it too hard" and that al-Sadr is attempting "to purge" his Mehdi Army "of elements he does not control". Cockburn's analysis comes as Sam Dagher (Christian Science Monitor) reports that Moqtada al-Sadr insiders say he "is anything but idle. Instead, he is orchestrating a revial among his army of loyalists entrenched in Baghdad and Shiite enclaves in the south -- from the religious centers of Karbala and Najaf to the economic hub of Basra" with retraining, safe houses and samaritan efforts (such as donating blood) to win over Iraqis the violence may have alienated while developing a stronger, more controlled force that can take on the US. Dagher quotes al-Sadr's statment last week, "I tell the evil Bush, leave our land, we do not need you or your armies. . . . I tell the occupiers . . . you have your democracy and we have our Islam; get out of our land."
Cockburn notes that an August poll found that more than a majority of Iraqis continue to support attacks on US forces. In another sign of sentiment against the illegal occupation, Peter Graff (Reuters) reports that Mowaffag al-Rubaie, Iraq's national security adviser, has declared that there will be no permanent US bases in Iraq, dubbed that an uncrossable "red line" and declared that "permanent forces or bases in Iraq for any foreign forces is a read line that cannot be accepted by any nationalist Iraqi."
Meanwhile, officials continue to be targeted in Iraq and Reuters notes that today: "A suicide car bomb exploded near the homes of senior Iraqi politicians in a heavily guarded neighbourhood of western Baghdad on Tuesday, killing two people and wounding 12, police said." CNN says that the attack took place just outside the Green Zone and that the "politicians" were Saleh Mutlaq and CIA asset and former Iraqi puppet prime minister Ayad Allawi. Jordan's Al Bawaba notes that Mutlaq is in Jordan presently and that the Baghdad bombing also left at least 12 wounded. Lori Hinnant (AP) reports that Allawi was also out of the country during the bombing and quotes Mutlaq declaring, "Everyone is vulnerable. We have been targeted by three groups -- the Americans, Iraqi forces and a suicide bomber. Everyone should wake up and do something to change the situation." Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) explains that the car exploded at "a check point at Zaitoon street of Harthiyah neighborhood." Tina Susman (Los Angeles Times) provides the context that, "The bombing came two days after the assassination of a prominent provincial police chief south of Baghdad whom U.S. officials credited with standing up to sectarianism and insurgents.
Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad roadside bombing that wounded one Iraqi soldier, three Iraqi police officers were wounded in a roadside bombing in Diyala province and, yesterday, a Kirkuk roadside bombing killed 4 Iraqi police officers and wounded four more. Reuters notes, "A bomb attached to a booby-trapped body killed one Iraqi solder and wounded seven others including two policemen in the Saidiya district of southern Baghdad, police said."
Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports the latest assassination in the continued targeting of officials in Iraq: Dr. Ibrahim Mohammed Ajeel Al-Shiqia was shot dead by two assassins on mortor cycles in Baghdad, in addition three Iraqi soldiers were wounded in a Baghdad shooting at a check point, Hassan Al-Jumaili was shot dead in Baquba and a woman was shot dead in Diyala province in the midst of a gun battle between the Iraqi army and unidentified others. Reuters notes A policeman was killed by a sniper in western Samarra, 100 km (68 miles) north of Baghdad, police said.
Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 4 corpses discovered in Baghdad and, yesterday, the corpses of two Iraqi Christians were discovered in Basra.
Turning to the topic of women in Iraq. Today on Democracy Now!, Amy Goodman noted: "A woman in Houston Texas has sued the company Halliburton and its former subsidiary KBR after she says she was gang raped by employees of the company in Baghdad. Jamie Leigh Jones, who was working for KBR at the time, says she was raped by multiple men at a KBR camp in the Green Zone. Jones accuses the company and the U.S. government of covering up the incident. Jones told ABC News that after she was raped, the company put her in a shipping container without food or water for at least 24 hours. She was also warned that if she left Iraq for medical treatment, she'd be out of a job. No one has been prosecuted for the rape. ABC News reported the alleged assailants will likely never face a judge and jury, due to a loophole that has effectively left contractors in Iraq beyond the reach of United States law."
Meanwhile the United Nation's IRIN reports on Nadira Habib, the deputy head of the Iraqi parliamentary committee for women and children's affairs, announcing the call for all female 'detainees' in US and Iraqi prisons throughout the country to be released stating: "The Iraqi government should expedite reviewing the files of these detainees by forming committees of lawyers, judges and prosecutors, as the majority of them [female detainees] are innocent." IRIN notes 199 women held in al-Adala prison and that the US refuses to release the number of women that they are hodling in prisons and IRIN also notes that a woman who was innocent but taken to prison by the Iraqi army when they couldn't find her brother (who was also innocent and would later receive an apology). If you're not grasping that these thugs were trained by the US (which has regularly -- against the Geneeva Convention -- targeted the wives and daughters of 'people of interest) then pay attention to what happened to her while she was held by Iraqis and wonder where the thugs learned these techniques: "they beat me during my nearly one month in prison and I was subjected to loud music, and the lights were never turned off in my cell." It's the torture the US has especially perfected during this illegal war and at Guantanamo and in Afghanistan. Meanwhile Tina Susman (Los Angeles Times) reports the central (puppet) government has decided that Iraqi female police officers will now be unarmed "thwarting a U.S. initiative to bring women into the nation's police force. The Interior Ministry, which oversees the police, issued the order late last month, according to ministry documents, U.S. officials and several of the women.. . .
Critics say the move is the latest sign of the religious and cultural conservatism that has taken hold in Iraq since Saddam Hussein's ouster ushered in a government dominated by Shiite Muslims. Now, that tendency is hampering efforts to bring stability to Iraq by driving women from the force, said U.S. Army Brig. Gen. David Phillips, who has led the effort to recruit female officers." For those who've forgotten, there have been repeated calls to disband the Iraqi police and the Interior Ministry is seen as lawless.
Finally, IVAW's Kelly Dougherty notes the November 28th passing of IVAW member Sammantha Owen-Ewing, "It is impossible to sum up the life of a person, their personality and how much they meant to the people who loved them, in a few short lines. In her obituary, Sammantha was described as 'sweet, thoughtful, and loving. She brought joy to the lives of those around her.' I'm sorry I will never meet Sammantha and my deepest condolences go out to her family. I know that many IVAW members have suffered through depression, PTSD, and other forms of internal anguish, and many of us still deal with these things on a daily basis. IVAW has set up a memorial fund on behalf of Sammantha Owen-Ewing to help her family offset her funeral costs. We will be accepting donations through the end of December, if you'd like to make a donation, go to www.ivaw.org/memorialfund."
12/11/2007
12/10/2007
snapshots, ron jacobs, out-fm, more
i was on the phone with c.i. this evening and heard about the problem and how it was going to have to be addressed in the snapshot. i had a contribution to the snapshot, by the way. the bbc thing was added. (i heard that call including c.i.'s opening, to a friend at bbc, of 'what!' and 'why would i want to note anything at the bbc after the non-stop lying about the iraqi refugees?') but it required reshaping the already written snapshot (which was already lengthy) and c.i. was saying 'pull, pull' into the other phone when it was s**t, did we pull abc's report? yes. so c.i. was doing a quick summary into 1 phone with me on the other and i said, 'use this web address' as i pulled up afterdowningstreet because i'd seen the abc report there. so that was my contribution (ha ha).
i do understand why members would wonder, at the very least, WTF when some 1 against the illegal war starts stating that there should be a draft. i do understand that. i wouldn't have been kind the way c.i. was but, having heard that section dictated and now read it, i think c.i. makes some solid points.
i'll note 1 thing that had to be pulled to make room for the bbc interview with war resisters, ron jacobs' 'The Conspiracy Continues: The Democrats and War Funding' (dissident voice):
Okay. I’m going to state the obvious here. After all, somebody needs to say it. In fact, everybody who sees it needs to say it. Are you ready? Then here goes. The men and women calling themselves Democrats and sitting in Congress are the biggest bunch of liars this country has ever seen. Given today’s political situation, what with Bush and Cheney running the White House, that’s a pretty big claim to make. Unfortunately for those who believed those men and women might actually stop the war in Iraq and begin getting the US military out of there, this is the only conclusion one can make.
I mean, take a look. There are more troops in Iraq now than there were when the Democrats won (yeh, won) both houses of Congress a little over a year ago. If my calculations are correct, more than $100 billion have been spent to keep those troops there, keep them in supplies both lethal and otherwise, and to top it off, more troops have died since those elected “representatives” took their places than in any other year of this loathsome war and occupation. Add to this list of calamities the untold numbers of Iraqis killed, wounded and uprooted from their homes. No matter how you look at it, there is no way this can be called ending the war. In fact, not only could it be called enabling this debacle to continue, the more truthful description would be to call what the Democrats have done is conspire to commit murder.
c.i. pulled a lot to make the snapshot the right amount of k (too much k and it won't end up getting e-mailed to the site, it will bounce back as undelivered). ron jacobs was 1 of the last things to go. there was a big sigh and then c.i. said, 'pull ron jacobs.' and whomever c.i. had dictated it to suggested something on bilal and c.i. said, 'no, nothing's getting pulled from bilal. i'll redicate the stephen farrell part to make it shorter but bilal stays as is.'
i'm mentioning that because 'Ruth's Report' and she quotes beth talking about watching the entries and snapshot come together. sherry e-mailed wondering if i'd write about that some time. i've been present many times and am often on 1 of c.i.'s 2 cell phones or on ava's cell while the snapshot is dictated so i do know a bit about them. and sherry's question comes at a good time because today's snapshot was a nightmare.
c.i. had dictated it earlier (i wasn't on a phone then) to a friend who records the dictation and then types it up. and shortly after, c.i. got a message from martha about an uproar in the community (the piece elsewhere about the draft) and so c.i. had to call back and say 'hold the snapshot!' c.i. had to speak to a group of students so the snapshot had to wait. after that, c.i. was returning my call and after i did my bit, c.i. explained what was going on in the community and why they were puzzled or mad about something and then tried out 2 points on me before the bbc friend was calling.
there's a reporter who is not credited. c.i. said 'spell her name.' c.i. then said, 'i'll never remember that. give me the transcript.' and that meant read it to me over the phone. after that was done, c.i. says to me 'hold on' and is calling the friend who says however many k the snapshot was and c.i. says, 'we've got 2 things to add.' then c.i., from memory, dictates the bbc report. then c.i. dictates the last paragraph in the snapshot. at which point, c.i. says 'save it so we can figure out how much needs to be pulled.'
a lot needed to be pulled. and c.i. started trimming stuff here and there.
robert parry also had a piece fall out. he and ron jacobs were after the ap report on the women which was where the abc report was and c.i. had said pull everything after the ap report on iraqi women and go straight to democracy now. that's when c.i. realized that the abc report had just been deleted and started summarizing it and i was able to help out a tiny bit by giving c.i. a web address over the phone.
not so much, but stuff like that happens all the time and the amazing thing there is that c.i.'s got the snapshot up in the head. c.i.'s on the phone but can remember (sometimes too late) that __ led to ___. so it's being edited quickly. that happens if something late breaking happens and it was dictated to the friend who records the dictation. most friends just type up the snapshot as c.i. dictates it.
ruth wrote about ballet's 'the war song' tonight and i told her that i'd look for some information and note the group or the song tonight. so i go to google and ruth's post is the 1st result! yea, for ruth but not a good sign that i'm going to find out much. it was featured on WBAI's out-fm today. ruth, what are you doing up so late! she just called. out-fm does have a website and someone e-mailed the public account to note that. she's going to note it tomorrow but called me to let me know. i'm not finding anything on the group ballet, by the way. it's a brooklyn group and i believe a transgender group if i remember today's show correctly. it is a great song and i can still hear the 'na, na, na' refrain in my head. out-fm is a pretty cool show. we catch that on mondays, ruth and i. recently they were discussing, on the annivesary of j.f.k.'s assassination, this friend of j.f.k.'s from college or prep-school days who was gay. it's always an interesting show and seems to be about 30 minutes, even though it's an hour, because it moves so quickly.
in case any 1 can't grasp from the title, it focuses on gay, lesbian and transgender issues. i'm sure bi-sexual as well but i've never caught any report on that. it's on each monday and i'll take ruth's word that it airs at 11:00 a.m. i only now it's on right after Law and Disorder. you've got 2 solid hours right there. (we usually go elsewhere after out-fm.) i watch democracy now on tv or i'd say 3 hours because it's on wbai before law and disorder.
i've got a young child (not even 1 year-old, if you didn't catch my mentioning that over and over already) and i hear from a lot of women (especially at t's salon) that i must be so bored. no, not at all. but we're generally not just staring into space. flyboy and i are playing with the baby and ruth's over a lot with her grandson elijah so we're playing with both kids. we've got something on the background that's interesting (like those programs) or some music. i'm always making phone calls (i lived on the phone as a teenager but it's also a hold over from when i ran my own business). we usually walk out to the shore in the afternoon if we're home. (the kids love the shoreline.) there are errands to run locally and we go into boston several times a week.
so i'm never bored. most days i'm looking at the clock and it's midnight. and i'm thinking, 'i just woke up!'
it all passes very quickly. if it doesn't for you, this isn't sarcasm, try finding something on the radio, tv or web that inspires you. on mondays, it's like we've just sat through some exciting college courses.
a guy named john e-mailed me to curse me out on friday about a post i had hear. i was wrong, he insisted, he'd read the article i linked to. i wasn't wrong. my commentary was based on the article and on what c.i. had told me. if you caught democracy now today (john did) i jumped the gun in talking about something that wasn't known thursday but i wasn't wrong and it is now known. john was kind enough to e-mail me and apologize. i e-mailed back and said 'no sweat' but i wanted to note it here in case john's thinking, 'she hates my ass.' i don't at all. i jumped ahead of what was then being reported. (and am still a little ahead of it, actually.)
that's going to be it for me tonight. hope every 1 had a great weekend. oh shoot! read 'Who's killing the peace movement?' because it's great. i was among the 1s helping and every 1's saying 'it's c.i.'s piece.' it is c.i.'s piece. but you'll piss of c.i. by saying that! seriously. c.i. started it. we all finished it. kat has a wonderful comparison on that where she compares it to a jam. regardless of credit (primary goes to c.i.) it's something i'm really proud of doing a tiny, small bit on.
let's close with c.i.'s 'Iraq snapshot:'
Monday, December 10, 2007. Chaos and violence continue, the US military announces another death, Bilal is not freed but has a day in what someone thinks is 'court,' tomorrow the Canadian Parliament holds hearing on war resisters and more.
Starting with war resisters, Stuart Neatby (The Dominion) reports "The Canadian Supreme Court refused to even hear the case of Jeremy Hinzman and Brandon Hughey, the first two war resisters to have publicly travelled to Canada in order to refuse to fight the war in Iraq. They are expected to face deportation proceedings. The War Resisters support campaign held protests in eight Canadian cities and is appealing to supporters to bombard Canadian MP's with letters and faxes asking for a parliamentary provision allowing Hughey and Hinzman to remain in Canada." Tomorrow the Canadian Parliament will hold hearings on the issue of war resisters.
BBC Radio One's Newsbeat explained of the US military "more and more of their soldiers say they're so disgusted with how innocent civilians are treated out there they've got no choice but to quit. Even if it means they're thrown into jail." Noting that "more than 4,500 troops have deserted this year," Newsbeat spoke with US war resisters Phil McDowell and Dean Walcott who are now in Canada.
Phil McDowell: We were in convoys we were being instructed to run civilian cars off the road. I refused to do that because it didn't seem right to invade another country under false prestense and say that you're there to help them and start running their cars off the road.
Newsbeat: Since the US invaded Iraq in 2003, there's been an 80% increase in soldiers quitting in combat.
Phil: The invasion was never approved by the United Nations. In terms of that Iraq was never threating the United States. The whole weapons of mass destruction argument was, uh, ceased to exist.
Newsbeat: If they're AWOL for more than 30 days soldiers are issued with an arrest warrant but for some, like Phil McDowell, they'd rather do time behind bars than go back to Iraq and see the mistreatment of civilians.
Phil: They would have them tied up and hooded and they were laying on the ground. And their required to let them use the washrooms but they would take them into the washrooms but a soldier would refuse to untie their hands or take off their blindfold.
Newsbeat: Another of the deserters is Dean Walcott, a corporal in the Marine Corps. He saw US forces destroy a tent they had suspected of harboring terrorists but the fire spread rapidly to other tents burning innocent people.
Dean Walcott: There's no way for me to accurately describe what a human being looks like when he's been set on fire. It's horrible and there's screaming that I can only compare to some of the things you hear in movies.
Newsbeat: We put the soldiers' claims to the US Defense Department and the Pentagon. They told Newsbeat many deserters are on the run because of their shame about abandoning comrades. As a result they now face spending the rest of their lives looking over their shoulders wondering when they'll be discovered.
Phil McDowell: It's an internationally condemned war
Newsbeat: But isn't it your job as a soldier to obey orders even if you don't like them?
Phil McDowell: It is absolutely but there comes a point when what you're being asked to do if it breaks the law, you're not supposed to do it.
Cindy Sheehan (OpEdNews) urges people to utilize Courage to Resist's easy to mail or e-mail resources to allow the Canadian government to know you are watching and to support organizations supporting war resisters as well as supporting war resisters:
Support actual war resisters in Canada by sending them expense money. From my friend Ryan (I gave him and his wife money to get to Canada over two years ago):
In light of the recent Supreme Court denial in Canada, I (Ryan Johnson), My wife (Jen Johnson) and Brandon Hughey need help raising funds to travel to Ottawa to attend hearings before the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, where War Resisters will be giving Testimony to the committee. At these hearings the committee will be deciding on whether or not to make a provision to allow war resisters to stay in Canada. This is one of our last chances to be able to continue living in Canada. We will be leaving December 7th because the hearings are December 11th, 2007 so we need to act fast. They may try to send guys back soon and we need to have a strong War Resister Presence. We appreciate all of the support and Want to thank all of you who can help.
Checks/money orders can be sent for Ryan, Jen and Brandon to: 312 Tower Rd Nelson, BC V1L3K6
Checks and money orders can continue to be sent. They obviously will not get their in time since the hearing is tomorrow but they will help with expenses. In addition, the links offered should continue to be used. Tomorrow is the hearing. No one expects the Parliament to listen to testimony and say, "Okay, then! Here's our decision."
There is a growing movement of resistance within the US military which includes James Stepp, Rodney Watson, Michael Espinal, Matthew Lowell, Derek Hess, Diedra Cobb, Brad McCall, Justin Cliburn, Timothy Richard, Robert Weiss, Phil McDowell, Steve Yoczik, Ross Spears, Peter Brown, Bethany "Skylar" James, Zamesha Dominique, Chrisopther Scott Magaoay, Jared Hood, James Burmeister, Eli Israel, Joshua Key, Ehren Watada, Terri Johnson, Carla Gomez, Luke Kamunen, Leif Kamunen, Leo Kamunen, Camilo Mejia, Kimberly Rivera, Dean Walcott, Linjamin Mull, Agustin Aguayo, Justin Colby, Marc Train, Abdullah Webster, Robert Zabala, Darrell Anderson, Kyle Snyder, Corey Glass, Jeremy Hinzman, Kevin Lee, Mark Wilkerson, Patrick Hart, Ricky Clousing, Ivan Brobeck, Aidan Delgado, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Stephen Funk, Blake LeMoine, Clifton Hicks, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Joshua Casteel, Katherine Jashinski, Dale Bartell, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell, Jimmy Massey, Chris Capps, Tim Richard, Hart Viges, Michael Blake, Christopher Mogwai, Christian Kjar, Kyle Huwer, Wilfredo Torres, Michael Sudbury, Ghanim Khalil, Vincent La Volpa, DeShawn Reed and Kevin Benderman. In total, at least fifty US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum.Information on war resistance within the military can be found at The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline [(877) 447-4487], Iraq Veterans Against the War and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters. Tom Joad maintains a list of known war resisters. In addition, VETWOW is an organization that assists those suffering from MST (Military Sexual Trauma).
The voice of war resister Camilo Mejia is featured in Rebel Voices -- playing now through December 16th at Culture Project -- that's ten more days -- and based on Howard Zinn and Anthony Arnove's best-selling book Voices of a People's History of the United States. It features dramatic readings of historical voices such as war resister Mejia, Sojourner Truth, Frederick Douglass, Malcom X and others will be featured. Musician Allison Mooerer will head the permanent cast while those confirmed to be performing on selected nights are Ally Sheedy (actress and poet, best known for films such as High Art, The Breakfast Club, Maid to Order, the two Short Circuit films, St. Elmo's Fire, War Games, and, along with Nicky Katt, has good buzz on the forthcoming Harold), Eve Ensler who wrote the theater classic The Vagina Monologues (no, it's not too soon to call that a classic), actor David Strathaim (L.A. Confidential, The Firm, Bob Roberts, Dolores Claiborne and The Bourne Ultimatum), actor and playwright Wallace Shawn (The Princess Bride, Clueless -- film and TV series, Gregory and Chicken Little), actress Lili Taylor (Dogfight, Shortcuts, Say Anything, Household Saints, I Shot Andy Warhol, Mrs. Parker and the Vicious Circle, State of Mind) and actor, director and activist Danny Glover (The Color Purple, Beloved, The Royal Tenenbaums, The Rainmaker, Places In The Heart, Dreamgirls, Shooter and who recently appeared on Democracy Now! addressing the US militarization of Africa) The directors are Will Pomerantz and Rob Urbinati with Urbinati collaborating with Zinn and Arnove on the play. Tickets are $41.. The theater is located at 55 Mercer Street and tickets can be purchased there, over the phone (212-352-3101) or online here and here. More information can be found at Culture Project.
Meanwhile IVAW is organizing a March 2008 DC event:
In 1971, over one hundred members of Vietnam Veterans Against the War gathered in Detroit to share their stories with America. Atrocities like the My Lai massacre had ignited popular opposition to the war, but political and military leaders insisted that such crimes were isolated exceptions. The members of VVAW knew differently.
Over three days in January, these soldiers testified on the systematic brutality they had seen visited upon the people of Vietnam. They called it the Winter Soldier investigation, after Thomas Paine's famous admonishing of the "summer soldier" who shirks his duty during difficult times. In a time of war and lies, the veterans who gathered in Detroit knew it was their duty to tell the truth.
Over thirty years later, we find ourselves faced with a new war. But the lies are the same. Once again, American troops are sinking into increasingly bloody occupations. Once again, war crimes in places like Haditha, Fallujah, and Abu Ghraib have turned the public against the war. Once again, politicians and generals are blaming "a few bad apples" instead of examining the military policies that have destroyed Iraq and Afghanistan.
Once again, our country needs Winter Soldiers.
In March of 2008, Iraq Veterans Against the War will gather in our nation's capital to break the silence and hold our leaders accountable for these wars. We hope you'll join us, because yours is a story that every American needs to hear.
Click here to sign a statement of support for Winter Soldier: Iraq & Afghanistan
March 13th through 15th are the dates for the Winter Soldier Iraq & Afghanistan Investigation.
IVAW's Michael Blake will speak on the harassment of anti-war service members at Fort Drum at the "Witness to War: U.S. Out of Iraq" Tuesday at 7:00 p.m., the Unitarian Church Annex, 208 E. Buffalo St. Also speaking will be Beth Harris (professor at Ithaca College) on the Iraqi refugees in Jordan and Syria, The Catholic Worker's Peter DeMott about civil disobedience and Finger Lakes for Peace in Iraq's Ellen Grady. That's Tuesday, December 11th. More information here at The Ithaca Journal.
On Sunday, the New York Times' Stephen Farrell reported on the realities of Kirkuk -- an oil rich city which both the central (puppet) government in Baghdad and the northern Kurdish region of Iraq would like to claim. Currently, it is under the control of Baghdad. The Iraqi constitution is supposed to guarantee an election on the issue, by the residents of Kirkuk, but the central government has noted earlier this fall that it will not take place. In anticipation of an election, the northern region has forced Kurds to move to Kirkuk and Kurdish militias have targeted Sunni and Shi'ites already living in Kirkuk. Farrell quotes Iraqi president, and Kurd, Jalal Talabani absurdly claiming that the Kurdish region has not displaced Kurds and ordered them to Kirkuk and Farrell also interviews many of the displaced Kurds who are now homeless in Kirkuk and were told that they had to leave the northern region and threatened with loss of employment, loss of food rations and violence. He also speaks with non-Kurds who explain that they were forced out of their homes in Kirkuks by the Kurdish gangs. The Kurdish region -- which has a lot of money to toss around, none of which goes to those they've evicted -- has repeatedly been cited -- and not just in the business press -- as the 'model' region which required ignoring the ethnic cleansing that goes on there as well as the non-stop attacks on religious minorities. Money bought a lot of easy press and a lot of advocates for the region. It has been repeatedly floated throughout the illegal war that Kirkuk would become part of the northern region and then the northern region would break off and become their own nation-state. Those US academics offering the partitioning of Iraq as a solution are frequently on the payroll of the Kurdish region -- a fact that's rarely disclosed.
Sunday also provided more reasons to Free Bilal.. Amy Goodman (Democracy Now!) notes today, "In other Iraq news, a criminal hearing was held on Sunday in Baghdad in the case of imprisoned Associated Press photographer Bilal Hussein, who has been held by the U.S. military without charge for nearly 20 months The hearing marked the first time that Hussein or his attorneys have seen any evidence in the case. No formal charges have been lodged yet against Hussein who was part of a team of AP photographers who won a Pulitzer Prize. Last week the Committee to Protect Journalists said Hussein is one of at least 127 journalists behind bars worldwide. China is currently jailing 29 journalists – more than any other country. The United States is jailing two journalists without charge – Bilal Hussein in Iraq and Al-Jazeera cameraman Sami al-Haj, who has been held at Guantanamo Bay for the past five years." The US military is targeting journalists but to stay on Bilal specifically, there is already a gag order in place. Daryl Lang (Photo District News) reports that yesterday's proceedings, the first time Bilal has appeared before the judiciary, is under wraps by court order: "Bilal Hussein, the Iraqi Associated Press photographer who has been held as a security detainee for nearly 20 months, was present for most of a seven-hour hearing Sunday in a Baghdad court. Beyond those basic facts, nothing else about the hearing was made public. A judge ordered the proceedings be kept secret." And AP has released the following statement from Paul Colford (Director of Media Relations):Bilal Hussein and his lawyers have finally had a chance to learn about the allegations that the U.S. military has withheld from them since they imprisoned Bilal 20 months ago. But, they were not given a copy of the materials that were presented today, and which they need to prepare a defense for Bilal. We would hope that we have an opportunity to review the material. There is still no formal charge against Bilal, and The Associated Press continues to believe that Bilal Hussein was a photojournalist working in a war zone and that claims that he is involved with insurgent activities are false. Bilal continues to be detained by the U.S. military.Because the judge ordered that the proceedings today be kept secret, we are restricted from saying anything further.Bilal's attorneys were not provided with court documents. Reuters notes that "Iraqi journalists working for Reuters have also been detained by the U.S. military for months and later released without charges." Bilal's lead attorney is Paul Gardephe and Kim Gamel (AP) reports that he "strongly protested the refusal of the U.S. military to allow him to meet with Hussein privately. Since the U.S. decided Nov. 19 to send the case to the criminal court, a U.S. soldier and a military interpreter have been in the room whenever Gardephe has seen Hussein, allowing no privacy to plan a defense." Gamel quotes Gardephe explaining, "You cannot prepare a defendant for a criminal trial with the prosecutor in the room." Earlier, similar nonsense was attempted on CBS camera operator Abdul Ameer Younnis Hussein whose 'crime' was also doing his job filming the aftermath of a bombing led to his being shot by US forces in Mosul and imprisoned for over a year when he finally got a day what in passes for 'court' in Iraq, the 'terrorist' was released because he was not a terrorist, he was a reporter. In April of 2006, Amy Goodman (Democracy Now!) interviewed attorney Scott Horton about the events:
AMY GOODMAN: So, you went to the gates of Abu Ghraib to free the CBS cameraman?
SCOTT HORTON: I did, yes. After the decision of the Iraqi court was handed down acquitting him, actually finding there was not a shred of evidence supporting the charges that were brought against him, they ordered his release, but he was still carried in manacles back to Abu Ghraib, because his release depended upon the U.S. forces. But fortunately, in this case, they acted very quickly, and within about a day, he was released.
AMY GOODMAN: Do you think it helped that you were there, that CBS was involved with this, as well, to get him out?
SCOTT HORTON: Well, I was told by a number of Iraqi lawyers and some of the judges that that made a critical difference.
AMY GOODMAN: He was held for a year?
SCOTT HORTON: That's correct.
AMY GOODMAN: Explain what happened the day he was shot by the U.S. forces and taken to prison.
SCOTT HORTON: Well, he was shot, and I think the immediate assumption was it was a mistaken shooting, that, you know, the sniper was aiming for or targeting perhaps another sniper or a gunman or something like that at the scene, and mistakenly hit this cameraman.
AMY GOODMAN: Now, he had just raced to the scene of this car bomb?
SCOTT HORTON: That's right. After he had gotten a tip from an A.F.P. reporter--
AMY GOODMAN: Agence France-Presse.
SCOTT HORTON: Exactly, that the event had occurred, and he got there about 30 minutes after the incident, and it's just as he picked up his camera and started to film that he was shot. Within about 48 hours, there were announcements made, basically saying, 'It was a mistake. We're very sorry about this. He is being treated and will be released shortly.'
But then, very disturbingly, about five or six days later, suddenly reports began to circulate, not in Iraq, but in Washington, D.C., amongst Pentagon correspondents for CNN and other major networks, FOX News, as well, quoting unnamed, unidentified official Pentagon spokesmen, saying that the Pentagon had extremely disturbing evidence that this man was a terrorist. And specifically, they said that he had on his videotape camera four separate incidents involving attacks on U.S. forces, where there was clear evidence of prior knowledge, that he was there before the attack itself actually occurred, filming.
If it sounds familiar, it should. It's the same nonsense that's led to Bilal being imprisoned for nearly 20 months (it will be 20 this week) for the 'crime' of reporting. Leila Fadel (McClatchy Newspapers) blogs at Baghdad Observer about the dangers of Iraqis being reporters in their country and notes the son of a female Iraqi journalist who must hide the fact that his mother is a journalist. Bilal is a news photographer. As such he is taking photos out the open. There was no way for him to hide his profession and, as such, he was at risk. This was not the 'cover' or secret identity for a 'terrorist.' Bilal is a reporter and needs to be freed immediately.
Also on Sunday, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown flew into Iraq. Adrian Croft (Reuters) reported that the 4,500 British troops currently station in Iraq were "a tenth of the force that Brown's predecessor Tony Blair dispatched in 2003" and that Brown will be cutting it down "to 2,500 by mid-2008". In an attempt to deal with the death squads/militias in Baghdad, Reuters noted :the central government in Baghdad was adding a new detail to the eternal crackdown the city's been under since June 2006, starting now there will be "a ban on official vehicles driving without number plates in a bid to counter death squads and gangs who use unmarked government vehicles in attacks." The vehicles are most often reported to be fake or stolen. Accepting that nonsense (which requires ignoring the thug militias in the Interior of Ministry) requires believing that vehicles can't even be kept track of. How the ban will add any security is something no one's supposed to notice. In many instances, including an attack on US forces, regardless of checkpoints, vehicles have been waived through by Iraqis. The ban will most likely have little effect.
Among the deaths reported in Iraq over the weekend, one has gotten more attention that most murdered Iraqis receive. Yesterday, Mohammed Al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reported on the continued targeting of officials and the roadside bombing in Hilla which claimed the life of the Babil province's police chief Brig. Gen. Qais Al Mamouri (two other people also died in the bombing). Adrian Croft (Reuters) noted that there have been multiple attempts on Mamouri's life over the years and quotes a historian specializing in Iraq's history, Reidar Visser, declaring, "For several years, Mamouri stood out as an honest figure of authority in the mixed governorate of Babel, and had fought hard against militias regardless of their sectarian affilaitons." In this morning's New York Times, Paul von Zielbauer noted this "assassination of the police chief, Brig. Gen Qais al-Mamori, who led the police forces in Babil Province, was the latest of several attacks against provincial leaders in the mainly Shiite Arab region in recent months. General Mamori, who was 48, had become known for cracking down on militia leaders. He and the two bodygruads were killed as their police convoy rolled past a gas station in Hilla, the provincial capital, a local police official said. The leader of the provincial council's security committee, Hassan Watwet, said an investigation into Sunday's explosion was under way." von Zielbauer also noted that Muhammad Ali al-Hassani and Khalil Jalil Hamza -- governors of the Muthanna Province and the Qadisiya Province respectively, were assassinated several months ago "in what appeared to be a power struggle among rival Shiite militias for control of the oil-rich region." CBS and AP note: "The death of Brig. Gen. Qais al-Maamouri, chief of Babil's provincial capital of Hillah, was the latest in a series of assassinations of provincial leaders in the mainly Shiite region. Hundreds marched along dusty roads in Babil to mourn al-Maamouri, chanting and firing guns into the air."
In some of the violence reported today . . .
Bombings?
Reuters reports a mortar attack on an Interior Ministry jail in Baghdad today that claimed the lives of 7 prisoners and left at least 21 prisoners and guards injured. CBS and AP note that the number wounded has climbed to 23 and "A hospital official said the inmates were still asleep when the mortars hit, one landing directly on a cell and two others nearby."
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad bombing that wounded five people ("targeting a patrol for the national police"), a Baghdad bombing that wounded two national police officers and a Salahuddin car bombing that injured one Iraqi soldier. Both McClatchy and Reuters note a fire at an oil refinery which some say was caused by a rocket attack but other sources insist was not caused by an attack. Reuters also notes 4 police officers killed in a Tuz Khurmato roadside bombing (seven more people wounded).
Shootings?
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 2 people were shot dead in Baghdad and a man wounded when he was shot in Kirkuk. Reuters notes: "Gunmen killed a Christian girl in a market in Mosul, 390 km (240 miles) north of Baghdad, on Sunday, police said." On the issue of Christian in Iraq, Ava and I addressed 60 Minutes' report on the issue Sunday. (As noted, all comments were held on that last week due to the fact that we would be reviewing 60 Minutes.)
Corpses?
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 6 corpses discovered in Baghdad and, in Basra, the corpse of a woman ("shot in different areas of her body"). Reuters notes a corpse was discovered in Ramadi.
Today the US military announced: "A Task Force Iron Soldier was killed from injuries sustained as a result of a suicide vehicle improvised explosive device explosion in Salah ad Din Province Dec. 10. Two soldiers were also wounded as a result of the attack near their vehicle."
Returning to the topic of the female corpse found in Basra, Sinan Salaheddin (AP) notes that, "Religious vigilantes have killed at least 40 women this year in the southern Iraqi city of Basra because of how they dressed, their mutilated bodies found with notes warning against 'violating Islamic teachings,' the police chief said Sunday. Maj. Gen. Jalil Khalaf blamed sectarian groups that he said were trying to impose a strict interpretation of Islam. They dispatch patrols of motorbikes or unlicensed cars with tinted windows to accost women not wearing traditional dress and head scarves, he added. 'The women of Basra are being horrifically murdered and then dumped in the garbage with notes saying they were killed for un-Islamic behavior,' Khalaf told The Associated Press. He said men with Western clothes or haircuts are also attacked in Basra, an oil-rich city some 30 miles from the Iranian border and 340 miles southeast of Baghdad."
Turning to the issue of the mercenary company Blackwater USA. Today on Democracy Now!, Amy Goodman conducted a discussion on the latest developments which included the topics of Cookie and Buzzy (brothers in arm), the use of Blackwater in the US and in other countries and more. From the discussion:
AMY GOODMAN: We're talking to Jeremy Scahill, author of the book Blackwater. Scott Horton also joins us. He teaches law at Columbia Law School. He participates in the blog "No Comment" at Harper's Magazine and was the chair of the International Law Committee at the New York Bar Association. What do you see as the issue of Blackwater here, the problem of Blackwater here?
SCOTT HORTON: Well, I think Jeremy puts his finger right on it. It really is--it's a massive privatization of national security operation, including intelligence operations. But we have a major aspect of it that's now in focus in Congress, and that's the accountability problem. If we look at the situation in Afghanistan and Iraq today, we see that US men and women in uniform, if they do something wrong, there's a proper accountability process for it, including discipline and court-martial. If it's Blackwater or if it's another contractor, nothing happens. It's effective impunity. And, in fact, we have thousands of recorded incidents out there that have gone without punishment of any kind. At most, the employee who's involved gets fired and sent back to the States. But then, frequently enough, they're back on another plane, back working for a different contractor in Iraq or Afghanistan within a matter of weeks.
AMY GOODMAN: And, Jeremy, the status of the September 16th killings that took place in Baghdad?
JEREMY SCAHILL: Where seventeen Iraqis were killed, twenty-four others wounded. And actually those--some of the victims' families and survivors are suing Blackwater, not just for wrongful death, but for war crimes under the Alien Tort Statute. And what's interesting now is that there is the federal grand jury that's been convened, and we understand it's looking at a number of cases, not just at this case. But some witnesses and potentially people who were involved with the shooting in Nisour Square have testified in front of the grand jury. And we understand from media reports--this is a grand jury that was convened in Washington, D.C.--we understand from media reports--and maybe Scott can add to this--that there potentially could be an attempt to prosecute as many as three of the Blackwater individuals involved at Nisour Square. And the way that they would most likely be prosecuted is under US civilian law, called the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act, essentially saying that contractors commit a crime abroad, they can be prosecuted criminally for that at home. The problem is, is that the law was written in a way that it applies only to contractors accompanying the Armed Forces or working directly for the Armed Forces. Blackwater works for the State Department. And so, some legal observers say it's like trying to cram a square into a circle, and if they go forward with this prosecution under a law that doesn't exactly appear to apply to Blackwater, that it ultimately could be a step backwards. Now, Congress is trying to amend that so that it would apply to Blackwater, but it can't be applied retroactively. And many of the legal experts I've talked to say there almost literally is no law that could be applied to Blackwater, except war crimes. And, I mean, that's something that Scott has been looking at.
AMY GOODMAN: Scott Horton?
SCOTT HORTON: Well, that's exactly correct. I'll just say, first, if they go forward with this prosecution, this will be the first time ever that the Department of Justice has prosecuted a security contractor in Iraq with respect to a crime involving violence against locals. That's never happened before, notwithstanding thousands of incidents. If they do it and they go forward with the prosecution on the basis of the MEJA alone, then I think there is--you know, there's a serious question as to whether or not it's going to apply. I'm not quite sure I come out exactly where Jeremy does. I think there is a basis for saying that it'll cover them. The question is not whether they're DOD contractors, but whether or not they're involved in the contingency operation. And there, of course, they're going to say that their function is just to provide security for Department of State personnel. I think you could look at it fairly and say, no, they're really a part of this overall operation in Iraq. But the bottom line is, really, it's a war crime question. There clearly is jurisdiction and a basis to act against them under the War Crimes Act. But the Bush administration doesn't want to go there, doesn't want to touch that. I think they've made that point clear.
In other contrator news, Jamie Leigh Jones has come forward to reveal she was gang-raped while in Iraq by KRB/Haliburton employees and the company then held her in a container to keep her from talking from which the US State Department rescued her; however, despite the fact that the State Department and the Justice Department were aware of the incident two years ago (as was at least one member of Congress) nothing has been done and Jones has now filed a lawsuit.
Lastly, an issue has come up in the e-mails according to Martha and Shirley. Let's use Jamie Leigh Jones, a victim of gang-rape. She should talk about what happened and not be silent. However, if she were to say that she wanted others to be gang-raped so that they could understand what she went through, it would be an indication that she had issues that needed to be addressed and she would be not be in place where she could be a public advocate. (Jamie Leigh Jones has said no such thing, she's being used an example.) The same would be true for someone tortured or the victim of any other crime or tragedy. So when someone makes comments that are similar, it needs to be remembered that he clearly needs help and that he's in no position to be a public advocate. The site he's posted over has no controls and no qualms. They rush anything up quickly -- which explains how, not that long ago, they thought it was 'cool' to post a hack actor making fun of mentally disabled children -- which is not funny and which never should have been posted. The man in question is on the road to finding himself and dealing with what he has experienced. He needs help. Clearly the answer to an illegal war is not to send more people over there. That is as much as we're going to note that subject. Again, that site has no built-in controls and regularly posts things that should never be posted. In this instance, we're talking about someone carrying a lot of issues and a lot of damage which he didn't ask for and is attempting to deal with. He's not to be pitied but he should be understood as coming from a lot of pain. And he's finding his way back from a devasting experience. It's also true that he, like many, are suffering from the mistaken impression (given them by 'elders' who continue to repeat the lie) that the draft stopped the war in Vietnam -- which it clearly did not. (One thing to add to the piece at Third, if the draft was what stopped Vietnam, it wouldn't have lasted so many damn years. There was a draft in place before Vietnam started -- which didn't end the Korean War -- and it operated throughout the Vietnam.)
i do understand why members would wonder, at the very least, WTF when some 1 against the illegal war starts stating that there should be a draft. i do understand that. i wouldn't have been kind the way c.i. was but, having heard that section dictated and now read it, i think c.i. makes some solid points.
i'll note 1 thing that had to be pulled to make room for the bbc interview with war resisters, ron jacobs' 'The Conspiracy Continues: The Democrats and War Funding' (dissident voice):
Okay. I’m going to state the obvious here. After all, somebody needs to say it. In fact, everybody who sees it needs to say it. Are you ready? Then here goes. The men and women calling themselves Democrats and sitting in Congress are the biggest bunch of liars this country has ever seen. Given today’s political situation, what with Bush and Cheney running the White House, that’s a pretty big claim to make. Unfortunately for those who believed those men and women might actually stop the war in Iraq and begin getting the US military out of there, this is the only conclusion one can make.
I mean, take a look. There are more troops in Iraq now than there were when the Democrats won (yeh, won) both houses of Congress a little over a year ago. If my calculations are correct, more than $100 billion have been spent to keep those troops there, keep them in supplies both lethal and otherwise, and to top it off, more troops have died since those elected “representatives” took their places than in any other year of this loathsome war and occupation. Add to this list of calamities the untold numbers of Iraqis killed, wounded and uprooted from their homes. No matter how you look at it, there is no way this can be called ending the war. In fact, not only could it be called enabling this debacle to continue, the more truthful description would be to call what the Democrats have done is conspire to commit murder.
c.i. pulled a lot to make the snapshot the right amount of k (too much k and it won't end up getting e-mailed to the site, it will bounce back as undelivered). ron jacobs was 1 of the last things to go. there was a big sigh and then c.i. said, 'pull ron jacobs.' and whomever c.i. had dictated it to suggested something on bilal and c.i. said, 'no, nothing's getting pulled from bilal. i'll redicate the stephen farrell part to make it shorter but bilal stays as is.'
i'm mentioning that because 'Ruth's Report' and she quotes beth talking about watching the entries and snapshot come together. sherry e-mailed wondering if i'd write about that some time. i've been present many times and am often on 1 of c.i.'s 2 cell phones or on ava's cell while the snapshot is dictated so i do know a bit about them. and sherry's question comes at a good time because today's snapshot was a nightmare.
c.i. had dictated it earlier (i wasn't on a phone then) to a friend who records the dictation and then types it up. and shortly after, c.i. got a message from martha about an uproar in the community (the piece elsewhere about the draft) and so c.i. had to call back and say 'hold the snapshot!' c.i. had to speak to a group of students so the snapshot had to wait. after that, c.i. was returning my call and after i did my bit, c.i. explained what was going on in the community and why they were puzzled or mad about something and then tried out 2 points on me before the bbc friend was calling.
there's a reporter who is not credited. c.i. said 'spell her name.' c.i. then said, 'i'll never remember that. give me the transcript.' and that meant read it to me over the phone. after that was done, c.i. says to me 'hold on' and is calling the friend who says however many k the snapshot was and c.i. says, 'we've got 2 things to add.' then c.i., from memory, dictates the bbc report. then c.i. dictates the last paragraph in the snapshot. at which point, c.i. says 'save it so we can figure out how much needs to be pulled.'
a lot needed to be pulled. and c.i. started trimming stuff here and there.
robert parry also had a piece fall out. he and ron jacobs were after the ap report on the women which was where the abc report was and c.i. had said pull everything after the ap report on iraqi women and go straight to democracy now. that's when c.i. realized that the abc report had just been deleted and started summarizing it and i was able to help out a tiny bit by giving c.i. a web address over the phone.
not so much, but stuff like that happens all the time and the amazing thing there is that c.i.'s got the snapshot up in the head. c.i.'s on the phone but can remember (sometimes too late) that __ led to ___. so it's being edited quickly. that happens if something late breaking happens and it was dictated to the friend who records the dictation. most friends just type up the snapshot as c.i. dictates it.
ruth wrote about ballet's 'the war song' tonight and i told her that i'd look for some information and note the group or the song tonight. so i go to google and ruth's post is the 1st result! yea, for ruth but not a good sign that i'm going to find out much. it was featured on WBAI's out-fm today. ruth, what are you doing up so late! she just called. out-fm does have a website and someone e-mailed the public account to note that. she's going to note it tomorrow but called me to let me know. i'm not finding anything on the group ballet, by the way. it's a brooklyn group and i believe a transgender group if i remember today's show correctly. it is a great song and i can still hear the 'na, na, na' refrain in my head. out-fm is a pretty cool show. we catch that on mondays, ruth and i. recently they were discussing, on the annivesary of j.f.k.'s assassination, this friend of j.f.k.'s from college or prep-school days who was gay. it's always an interesting show and seems to be about 30 minutes, even though it's an hour, because it moves so quickly.
in case any 1 can't grasp from the title, it focuses on gay, lesbian and transgender issues. i'm sure bi-sexual as well but i've never caught any report on that. it's on each monday and i'll take ruth's word that it airs at 11:00 a.m. i only now it's on right after Law and Disorder. you've got 2 solid hours right there. (we usually go elsewhere after out-fm.) i watch democracy now on tv or i'd say 3 hours because it's on wbai before law and disorder.
i've got a young child (not even 1 year-old, if you didn't catch my mentioning that over and over already) and i hear from a lot of women (especially at t's salon) that i must be so bored. no, not at all. but we're generally not just staring into space. flyboy and i are playing with the baby and ruth's over a lot with her grandson elijah so we're playing with both kids. we've got something on the background that's interesting (like those programs) or some music. i'm always making phone calls (i lived on the phone as a teenager but it's also a hold over from when i ran my own business). we usually walk out to the shore in the afternoon if we're home. (the kids love the shoreline.) there are errands to run locally and we go into boston several times a week.
so i'm never bored. most days i'm looking at the clock and it's midnight. and i'm thinking, 'i just woke up!'
it all passes very quickly. if it doesn't for you, this isn't sarcasm, try finding something on the radio, tv or web that inspires you. on mondays, it's like we've just sat through some exciting college courses.
a guy named john e-mailed me to curse me out on friday about a post i had hear. i was wrong, he insisted, he'd read the article i linked to. i wasn't wrong. my commentary was based on the article and on what c.i. had told me. if you caught democracy now today (john did) i jumped the gun in talking about something that wasn't known thursday but i wasn't wrong and it is now known. john was kind enough to e-mail me and apologize. i e-mailed back and said 'no sweat' but i wanted to note it here in case john's thinking, 'she hates my ass.' i don't at all. i jumped ahead of what was then being reported. (and am still a little ahead of it, actually.)
that's going to be it for me tonight. hope every 1 had a great weekend. oh shoot! read 'Who's killing the peace movement?' because it's great. i was among the 1s helping and every 1's saying 'it's c.i.'s piece.' it is c.i.'s piece. but you'll piss of c.i. by saying that! seriously. c.i. started it. we all finished it. kat has a wonderful comparison on that where she compares it to a jam. regardless of credit (primary goes to c.i.) it's something i'm really proud of doing a tiny, small bit on.
let's close with c.i.'s 'Iraq snapshot:'
Monday, December 10, 2007. Chaos and violence continue, the US military announces another death, Bilal is not freed but has a day in what someone thinks is 'court,' tomorrow the Canadian Parliament holds hearing on war resisters and more.
Starting with war resisters, Stuart Neatby (The Dominion) reports "The Canadian Supreme Court refused to even hear the case of Jeremy Hinzman and Brandon Hughey, the first two war resisters to have publicly travelled to Canada in order to refuse to fight the war in Iraq. They are expected to face deportation proceedings. The War Resisters support campaign held protests in eight Canadian cities and is appealing to supporters to bombard Canadian MP's with letters and faxes asking for a parliamentary provision allowing Hughey and Hinzman to remain in Canada." Tomorrow the Canadian Parliament will hold hearings on the issue of war resisters.
BBC Radio One's Newsbeat explained of the US military "more and more of their soldiers say they're so disgusted with how innocent civilians are treated out there they've got no choice but to quit. Even if it means they're thrown into jail." Noting that "more than 4,500 troops have deserted this year," Newsbeat spoke with US war resisters Phil McDowell and Dean Walcott who are now in Canada.
Phil McDowell: We were in convoys we were being instructed to run civilian cars off the road. I refused to do that because it didn't seem right to invade another country under false prestense and say that you're there to help them and start running their cars off the road.
Newsbeat: Since the US invaded Iraq in 2003, there's been an 80% increase in soldiers quitting in combat.
Phil: The invasion was never approved by the United Nations. In terms of that Iraq was never threating the United States. The whole weapons of mass destruction argument was, uh, ceased to exist.
Newsbeat: If they're AWOL for more than 30 days soldiers are issued with an arrest warrant but for some, like Phil McDowell, they'd rather do time behind bars than go back to Iraq and see the mistreatment of civilians.
Phil: They would have them tied up and hooded and they were laying on the ground. And their required to let them use the washrooms but they would take them into the washrooms but a soldier would refuse to untie their hands or take off their blindfold.
Newsbeat: Another of the deserters is Dean Walcott, a corporal in the Marine Corps. He saw US forces destroy a tent they had suspected of harboring terrorists but the fire spread rapidly to other tents burning innocent people.
Dean Walcott: There's no way for me to accurately describe what a human being looks like when he's been set on fire. It's horrible and there's screaming that I can only compare to some of the things you hear in movies.
Newsbeat: We put the soldiers' claims to the US Defense Department and the Pentagon. They told Newsbeat many deserters are on the run because of their shame about abandoning comrades. As a result they now face spending the rest of their lives looking over their shoulders wondering when they'll be discovered.
Phil McDowell: It's an internationally condemned war
Newsbeat: But isn't it your job as a soldier to obey orders even if you don't like them?
Phil McDowell: It is absolutely but there comes a point when what you're being asked to do if it breaks the law, you're not supposed to do it.
Cindy Sheehan (OpEdNews) urges people to utilize Courage to Resist's easy to mail or e-mail resources to allow the Canadian government to know you are watching and to support organizations supporting war resisters as well as supporting war resisters:
Support actual war resisters in Canada by sending them expense money. From my friend Ryan (I gave him and his wife money to get to Canada over two years ago):
In light of the recent Supreme Court denial in Canada, I (Ryan Johnson), My wife (Jen Johnson) and Brandon Hughey need help raising funds to travel to Ottawa to attend hearings before the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, where War Resisters will be giving Testimony to the committee. At these hearings the committee will be deciding on whether or not to make a provision to allow war resisters to stay in Canada. This is one of our last chances to be able to continue living in Canada. We will be leaving December 7th because the hearings are December 11th, 2007 so we need to act fast. They may try to send guys back soon and we need to have a strong War Resister Presence. We appreciate all of the support and Want to thank all of you who can help.
Checks/money orders can be sent for Ryan, Jen and Brandon to: 312 Tower Rd Nelson, BC V1L3K6
Checks and money orders can continue to be sent. They obviously will not get their in time since the hearing is tomorrow but they will help with expenses. In addition, the links offered should continue to be used. Tomorrow is the hearing. No one expects the Parliament to listen to testimony and say, "Okay, then! Here's our decision."
There is a growing movement of resistance within the US military which includes James Stepp, Rodney Watson, Michael Espinal, Matthew Lowell, Derek Hess, Diedra Cobb, Brad McCall, Justin Cliburn, Timothy Richard, Robert Weiss, Phil McDowell, Steve Yoczik, Ross Spears, Peter Brown, Bethany "Skylar" James, Zamesha Dominique, Chrisopther Scott Magaoay, Jared Hood, James Burmeister, Eli Israel, Joshua Key, Ehren Watada, Terri Johnson, Carla Gomez, Luke Kamunen, Leif Kamunen, Leo Kamunen, Camilo Mejia, Kimberly Rivera, Dean Walcott, Linjamin Mull, Agustin Aguayo, Justin Colby, Marc Train, Abdullah Webster, Robert Zabala, Darrell Anderson, Kyle Snyder, Corey Glass, Jeremy Hinzman, Kevin Lee, Mark Wilkerson, Patrick Hart, Ricky Clousing, Ivan Brobeck, Aidan Delgado, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Stephen Funk, Blake LeMoine, Clifton Hicks, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Joshua Casteel, Katherine Jashinski, Dale Bartell, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell, Jimmy Massey, Chris Capps, Tim Richard, Hart Viges, Michael Blake, Christopher Mogwai, Christian Kjar, Kyle Huwer, Wilfredo Torres, Michael Sudbury, Ghanim Khalil, Vincent La Volpa, DeShawn Reed and Kevin Benderman. In total, at least fifty US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum.Information on war resistance within the military can be found at The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline [(877) 447-4487], Iraq Veterans Against the War and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters. Tom Joad maintains a list of known war resisters. In addition, VETWOW is an organization that assists those suffering from MST (Military Sexual Trauma).
The voice of war resister Camilo Mejia is featured in Rebel Voices -- playing now through December 16th at Culture Project -- that's ten more days -- and based on Howard Zinn and Anthony Arnove's best-selling book Voices of a People's History of the United States. It features dramatic readings of historical voices such as war resister Mejia, Sojourner Truth, Frederick Douglass, Malcom X and others will be featured. Musician Allison Mooerer will head the permanent cast while those confirmed to be performing on selected nights are Ally Sheedy (actress and poet, best known for films such as High Art, The Breakfast Club, Maid to Order, the two Short Circuit films, St. Elmo's Fire, War Games, and, along with Nicky Katt, has good buzz on the forthcoming Harold), Eve Ensler who wrote the theater classic The Vagina Monologues (no, it's not too soon to call that a classic), actor David Strathaim (L.A. Confidential, The Firm, Bob Roberts, Dolores Claiborne and The Bourne Ultimatum), actor and playwright Wallace Shawn (The Princess Bride, Clueless -- film and TV series, Gregory and Chicken Little), actress Lili Taylor (Dogfight, Shortcuts, Say Anything, Household Saints, I Shot Andy Warhol, Mrs. Parker and the Vicious Circle, State of Mind) and actor, director and activist Danny Glover (The Color Purple, Beloved, The Royal Tenenbaums, The Rainmaker, Places In The Heart, Dreamgirls, Shooter and who recently appeared on Democracy Now! addressing the US militarization of Africa) The directors are Will Pomerantz and Rob Urbinati with Urbinati collaborating with Zinn and Arnove on the play. Tickets are $41.. The theater is located at 55 Mercer Street and tickets can be purchased there, over the phone (212-352-3101) or online here and here. More information can be found at Culture Project.
Meanwhile IVAW is organizing a March 2008 DC event:
In 1971, over one hundred members of Vietnam Veterans Against the War gathered in Detroit to share their stories with America. Atrocities like the My Lai massacre had ignited popular opposition to the war, but political and military leaders insisted that such crimes were isolated exceptions. The members of VVAW knew differently.
Over three days in January, these soldiers testified on the systematic brutality they had seen visited upon the people of Vietnam. They called it the Winter Soldier investigation, after Thomas Paine's famous admonishing of the "summer soldier" who shirks his duty during difficult times. In a time of war and lies, the veterans who gathered in Detroit knew it was their duty to tell the truth.
Over thirty years later, we find ourselves faced with a new war. But the lies are the same. Once again, American troops are sinking into increasingly bloody occupations. Once again, war crimes in places like Haditha, Fallujah, and Abu Ghraib have turned the public against the war. Once again, politicians and generals are blaming "a few bad apples" instead of examining the military policies that have destroyed Iraq and Afghanistan.
Once again, our country needs Winter Soldiers.
In March of 2008, Iraq Veterans Against the War will gather in our nation's capital to break the silence and hold our leaders accountable for these wars. We hope you'll join us, because yours is a story that every American needs to hear.
Click here to sign a statement of support for Winter Soldier: Iraq & Afghanistan
March 13th through 15th are the dates for the Winter Soldier Iraq & Afghanistan Investigation.
IVAW's Michael Blake will speak on the harassment of anti-war service members at Fort Drum at the "Witness to War: U.S. Out of Iraq" Tuesday at 7:00 p.m., the Unitarian Church Annex, 208 E. Buffalo St. Also speaking will be Beth Harris (professor at Ithaca College) on the Iraqi refugees in Jordan and Syria, The Catholic Worker's Peter DeMott about civil disobedience and Finger Lakes for Peace in Iraq's Ellen Grady. That's Tuesday, December 11th. More information here at The Ithaca Journal.
On Sunday, the New York Times' Stephen Farrell reported on the realities of Kirkuk -- an oil rich city which both the central (puppet) government in Baghdad and the northern Kurdish region of Iraq would like to claim. Currently, it is under the control of Baghdad. The Iraqi constitution is supposed to guarantee an election on the issue, by the residents of Kirkuk, but the central government has noted earlier this fall that it will not take place. In anticipation of an election, the northern region has forced Kurds to move to Kirkuk and Kurdish militias have targeted Sunni and Shi'ites already living in Kirkuk. Farrell quotes Iraqi president, and Kurd, Jalal Talabani absurdly claiming that the Kurdish region has not displaced Kurds and ordered them to Kirkuk and Farrell also interviews many of the displaced Kurds who are now homeless in Kirkuk and were told that they had to leave the northern region and threatened with loss of employment, loss of food rations and violence. He also speaks with non-Kurds who explain that they were forced out of their homes in Kirkuks by the Kurdish gangs. The Kurdish region -- which has a lot of money to toss around, none of which goes to those they've evicted -- has repeatedly been cited -- and not just in the business press -- as the 'model' region which required ignoring the ethnic cleansing that goes on there as well as the non-stop attacks on religious minorities. Money bought a lot of easy press and a lot of advocates for the region. It has been repeatedly floated throughout the illegal war that Kirkuk would become part of the northern region and then the northern region would break off and become their own nation-state. Those US academics offering the partitioning of Iraq as a solution are frequently on the payroll of the Kurdish region -- a fact that's rarely disclosed.
Sunday also provided more reasons to Free Bilal.. Amy Goodman (Democracy Now!) notes today, "In other Iraq news, a criminal hearing was held on Sunday in Baghdad in the case of imprisoned Associated Press photographer Bilal Hussein, who has been held by the U.S. military without charge for nearly 20 months The hearing marked the first time that Hussein or his attorneys have seen any evidence in the case. No formal charges have been lodged yet against Hussein who was part of a team of AP photographers who won a Pulitzer Prize. Last week the Committee to Protect Journalists said Hussein is one of at least 127 journalists behind bars worldwide. China is currently jailing 29 journalists – more than any other country. The United States is jailing two journalists without charge – Bilal Hussein in Iraq and Al-Jazeera cameraman Sami al-Haj, who has been held at Guantanamo Bay for the past five years." The US military is targeting journalists but to stay on Bilal specifically, there is already a gag order in place. Daryl Lang (Photo District News) reports that yesterday's proceedings, the first time Bilal has appeared before the judiciary, is under wraps by court order: "Bilal Hussein, the Iraqi Associated Press photographer who has been held as a security detainee for nearly 20 months, was present for most of a seven-hour hearing Sunday in a Baghdad court. Beyond those basic facts, nothing else about the hearing was made public. A judge ordered the proceedings be kept secret." And AP has released the following statement from Paul Colford (Director of Media Relations):Bilal Hussein and his lawyers have finally had a chance to learn about the allegations that the U.S. military has withheld from them since they imprisoned Bilal 20 months ago. But, they were not given a copy of the materials that were presented today, and which they need to prepare a defense for Bilal. We would hope that we have an opportunity to review the material. There is still no formal charge against Bilal, and The Associated Press continues to believe that Bilal Hussein was a photojournalist working in a war zone and that claims that he is involved with insurgent activities are false. Bilal continues to be detained by the U.S. military.Because the judge ordered that the proceedings today be kept secret, we are restricted from saying anything further.Bilal's attorneys were not provided with court documents. Reuters notes that "Iraqi journalists working for Reuters have also been detained by the U.S. military for months and later released without charges." Bilal's lead attorney is Paul Gardephe and Kim Gamel (AP) reports that he "strongly protested the refusal of the U.S. military to allow him to meet with Hussein privately. Since the U.S. decided Nov. 19 to send the case to the criminal court, a U.S. soldier and a military interpreter have been in the room whenever Gardephe has seen Hussein, allowing no privacy to plan a defense." Gamel quotes Gardephe explaining, "You cannot prepare a defendant for a criminal trial with the prosecutor in the room." Earlier, similar nonsense was attempted on CBS camera operator Abdul Ameer Younnis Hussein whose 'crime' was also doing his job filming the aftermath of a bombing led to his being shot by US forces in Mosul and imprisoned for over a year when he finally got a day what in passes for 'court' in Iraq, the 'terrorist' was released because he was not a terrorist, he was a reporter. In April of 2006, Amy Goodman (Democracy Now!) interviewed attorney Scott Horton about the events:
AMY GOODMAN: So, you went to the gates of Abu Ghraib to free the CBS cameraman?
SCOTT HORTON: I did, yes. After the decision of the Iraqi court was handed down acquitting him, actually finding there was not a shred of evidence supporting the charges that were brought against him, they ordered his release, but he was still carried in manacles back to Abu Ghraib, because his release depended upon the U.S. forces. But fortunately, in this case, they acted very quickly, and within about a day, he was released.
AMY GOODMAN: Do you think it helped that you were there, that CBS was involved with this, as well, to get him out?
SCOTT HORTON: Well, I was told by a number of Iraqi lawyers and some of the judges that that made a critical difference.
AMY GOODMAN: He was held for a year?
SCOTT HORTON: That's correct.
AMY GOODMAN: Explain what happened the day he was shot by the U.S. forces and taken to prison.
SCOTT HORTON: Well, he was shot, and I think the immediate assumption was it was a mistaken shooting, that, you know, the sniper was aiming for or targeting perhaps another sniper or a gunman or something like that at the scene, and mistakenly hit this cameraman.
AMY GOODMAN: Now, he had just raced to the scene of this car bomb?
SCOTT HORTON: That's right. After he had gotten a tip from an A.F.P. reporter--
AMY GOODMAN: Agence France-Presse.
SCOTT HORTON: Exactly, that the event had occurred, and he got there about 30 minutes after the incident, and it's just as he picked up his camera and started to film that he was shot. Within about 48 hours, there were announcements made, basically saying, 'It was a mistake. We're very sorry about this. He is being treated and will be released shortly.'
But then, very disturbingly, about five or six days later, suddenly reports began to circulate, not in Iraq, but in Washington, D.C., amongst Pentagon correspondents for CNN and other major networks, FOX News, as well, quoting unnamed, unidentified official Pentagon spokesmen, saying that the Pentagon had extremely disturbing evidence that this man was a terrorist. And specifically, they said that he had on his videotape camera four separate incidents involving attacks on U.S. forces, where there was clear evidence of prior knowledge, that he was there before the attack itself actually occurred, filming.
If it sounds familiar, it should. It's the same nonsense that's led to Bilal being imprisoned for nearly 20 months (it will be 20 this week) for the 'crime' of reporting. Leila Fadel (McClatchy Newspapers) blogs at Baghdad Observer about the dangers of Iraqis being reporters in their country and notes the son of a female Iraqi journalist who must hide the fact that his mother is a journalist. Bilal is a news photographer. As such he is taking photos out the open. There was no way for him to hide his profession and, as such, he was at risk. This was not the 'cover' or secret identity for a 'terrorist.' Bilal is a reporter and needs to be freed immediately.
Also on Sunday, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown flew into Iraq. Adrian Croft (Reuters) reported that the 4,500 British troops currently station in Iraq were "a tenth of the force that Brown's predecessor Tony Blair dispatched in 2003" and that Brown will be cutting it down "to 2,500 by mid-2008". In an attempt to deal with the death squads/militias in Baghdad, Reuters noted :the central government in Baghdad was adding a new detail to the eternal crackdown the city's been under since June 2006, starting now there will be "a ban on official vehicles driving without number plates in a bid to counter death squads and gangs who use unmarked government vehicles in attacks." The vehicles are most often reported to be fake or stolen. Accepting that nonsense (which requires ignoring the thug militias in the Interior of Ministry) requires believing that vehicles can't even be kept track of. How the ban will add any security is something no one's supposed to notice. In many instances, including an attack on US forces, regardless of checkpoints, vehicles have been waived through by Iraqis. The ban will most likely have little effect.
Among the deaths reported in Iraq over the weekend, one has gotten more attention that most murdered Iraqis receive. Yesterday, Mohammed Al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reported on the continued targeting of officials and the roadside bombing in Hilla which claimed the life of the Babil province's police chief Brig. Gen. Qais Al Mamouri (two other people also died in the bombing). Adrian Croft (Reuters) noted that there have been multiple attempts on Mamouri's life over the years and quotes a historian specializing in Iraq's history, Reidar Visser, declaring, "For several years, Mamouri stood out as an honest figure of authority in the mixed governorate of Babel, and had fought hard against militias regardless of their sectarian affilaitons." In this morning's New York Times, Paul von Zielbauer noted this "assassination of the police chief, Brig. Gen Qais al-Mamori, who led the police forces in Babil Province, was the latest of several attacks against provincial leaders in the mainly Shiite Arab region in recent months. General Mamori, who was 48, had become known for cracking down on militia leaders. He and the two bodygruads were killed as their police convoy rolled past a gas station in Hilla, the provincial capital, a local police official said. The leader of the provincial council's security committee, Hassan Watwet, said an investigation into Sunday's explosion was under way." von Zielbauer also noted that Muhammad Ali al-Hassani and Khalil Jalil Hamza -- governors of the Muthanna Province and the Qadisiya Province respectively, were assassinated several months ago "in what appeared to be a power struggle among rival Shiite militias for control of the oil-rich region." CBS and AP note: "The death of Brig. Gen. Qais al-Maamouri, chief of Babil's provincial capital of Hillah, was the latest in a series of assassinations of provincial leaders in the mainly Shiite region. Hundreds marched along dusty roads in Babil to mourn al-Maamouri, chanting and firing guns into the air."
In some of the violence reported today . . .
Bombings?
Reuters reports a mortar attack on an Interior Ministry jail in Baghdad today that claimed the lives of 7 prisoners and left at least 21 prisoners and guards injured. CBS and AP note that the number wounded has climbed to 23 and "A hospital official said the inmates were still asleep when the mortars hit, one landing directly on a cell and two others nearby."
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad bombing that wounded five people ("targeting a patrol for the national police"), a Baghdad bombing that wounded two national police officers and a Salahuddin car bombing that injured one Iraqi soldier. Both McClatchy and Reuters note a fire at an oil refinery which some say was caused by a rocket attack but other sources insist was not caused by an attack. Reuters also notes 4 police officers killed in a Tuz Khurmato roadside bombing (seven more people wounded).
Shootings?
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 2 people were shot dead in Baghdad and a man wounded when he was shot in Kirkuk. Reuters notes: "Gunmen killed a Christian girl in a market in Mosul, 390 km (240 miles) north of Baghdad, on Sunday, police said." On the issue of Christian in Iraq, Ava and I addressed 60 Minutes' report on the issue Sunday. (As noted, all comments were held on that last week due to the fact that we would be reviewing 60 Minutes.)
Corpses?
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 6 corpses discovered in Baghdad and, in Basra, the corpse of a woman ("shot in different areas of her body"). Reuters notes a corpse was discovered in Ramadi.
Today the US military announced: "A Task Force Iron Soldier was killed from injuries sustained as a result of a suicide vehicle improvised explosive device explosion in Salah ad Din Province Dec. 10. Two soldiers were also wounded as a result of the attack near their vehicle."
Returning to the topic of the female corpse found in Basra, Sinan Salaheddin (AP) notes that, "Religious vigilantes have killed at least 40 women this year in the southern Iraqi city of Basra because of how they dressed, their mutilated bodies found with notes warning against 'violating Islamic teachings,' the police chief said Sunday. Maj. Gen. Jalil Khalaf blamed sectarian groups that he said were trying to impose a strict interpretation of Islam. They dispatch patrols of motorbikes or unlicensed cars with tinted windows to accost women not wearing traditional dress and head scarves, he added. 'The women of Basra are being horrifically murdered and then dumped in the garbage with notes saying they were killed for un-Islamic behavior,' Khalaf told The Associated Press. He said men with Western clothes or haircuts are also attacked in Basra, an oil-rich city some 30 miles from the Iranian border and 340 miles southeast of Baghdad."
Turning to the issue of the mercenary company Blackwater USA. Today on Democracy Now!, Amy Goodman conducted a discussion on the latest developments which included the topics of Cookie and Buzzy (brothers in arm), the use of Blackwater in the US and in other countries and more. From the discussion:
AMY GOODMAN: We're talking to Jeremy Scahill, author of the book Blackwater. Scott Horton also joins us. He teaches law at Columbia Law School. He participates in the blog "No Comment" at Harper's Magazine and was the chair of the International Law Committee at the New York Bar Association. What do you see as the issue of Blackwater here, the problem of Blackwater here?
SCOTT HORTON: Well, I think Jeremy puts his finger right on it. It really is--it's a massive privatization of national security operation, including intelligence operations. But we have a major aspect of it that's now in focus in Congress, and that's the accountability problem. If we look at the situation in Afghanistan and Iraq today, we see that US men and women in uniform, if they do something wrong, there's a proper accountability process for it, including discipline and court-martial. If it's Blackwater or if it's another contractor, nothing happens. It's effective impunity. And, in fact, we have thousands of recorded incidents out there that have gone without punishment of any kind. At most, the employee who's involved gets fired and sent back to the States. But then, frequently enough, they're back on another plane, back working for a different contractor in Iraq or Afghanistan within a matter of weeks.
AMY GOODMAN: And, Jeremy, the status of the September 16th killings that took place in Baghdad?
JEREMY SCAHILL: Where seventeen Iraqis were killed, twenty-four others wounded. And actually those--some of the victims' families and survivors are suing Blackwater, not just for wrongful death, but for war crimes under the Alien Tort Statute. And what's interesting now is that there is the federal grand jury that's been convened, and we understand it's looking at a number of cases, not just at this case. But some witnesses and potentially people who were involved with the shooting in Nisour Square have testified in front of the grand jury. And we understand from media reports--this is a grand jury that was convened in Washington, D.C.--we understand from media reports--and maybe Scott can add to this--that there potentially could be an attempt to prosecute as many as three of the Blackwater individuals involved at Nisour Square. And the way that they would most likely be prosecuted is under US civilian law, called the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act, essentially saying that contractors commit a crime abroad, they can be prosecuted criminally for that at home. The problem is, is that the law was written in a way that it applies only to contractors accompanying the Armed Forces or working directly for the Armed Forces. Blackwater works for the State Department. And so, some legal observers say it's like trying to cram a square into a circle, and if they go forward with this prosecution under a law that doesn't exactly appear to apply to Blackwater, that it ultimately could be a step backwards. Now, Congress is trying to amend that so that it would apply to Blackwater, but it can't be applied retroactively. And many of the legal experts I've talked to say there almost literally is no law that could be applied to Blackwater, except war crimes. And, I mean, that's something that Scott has been looking at.
AMY GOODMAN: Scott Horton?
SCOTT HORTON: Well, that's exactly correct. I'll just say, first, if they go forward with this prosecution, this will be the first time ever that the Department of Justice has prosecuted a security contractor in Iraq with respect to a crime involving violence against locals. That's never happened before, notwithstanding thousands of incidents. If they do it and they go forward with the prosecution on the basis of the MEJA alone, then I think there is--you know, there's a serious question as to whether or not it's going to apply. I'm not quite sure I come out exactly where Jeremy does. I think there is a basis for saying that it'll cover them. The question is not whether they're DOD contractors, but whether or not they're involved in the contingency operation. And there, of course, they're going to say that their function is just to provide security for Department of State personnel. I think you could look at it fairly and say, no, they're really a part of this overall operation in Iraq. But the bottom line is, really, it's a war crime question. There clearly is jurisdiction and a basis to act against them under the War Crimes Act. But the Bush administration doesn't want to go there, doesn't want to touch that. I think they've made that point clear.
In other contrator news, Jamie Leigh Jones has come forward to reveal she was gang-raped while in Iraq by KRB/Haliburton employees and the company then held her in a container to keep her from talking from which the US State Department rescued her; however, despite the fact that the State Department and the Justice Department were aware of the incident two years ago (as was at least one member of Congress) nothing has been done and Jones has now filed a lawsuit.
Lastly, an issue has come up in the e-mails according to Martha and Shirley. Let's use Jamie Leigh Jones, a victim of gang-rape. She should talk about what happened and not be silent. However, if she were to say that she wanted others to be gang-raped so that they could understand what she went through, it would be an indication that she had issues that needed to be addressed and she would be not be in place where she could be a public advocate. (Jamie Leigh Jones has said no such thing, she's being used an example.) The same would be true for someone tortured or the victim of any other crime or tragedy. So when someone makes comments that are similar, it needs to be remembered that he clearly needs help and that he's in no position to be a public advocate. The site he's posted over has no controls and no qualms. They rush anything up quickly -- which explains how, not that long ago, they thought it was 'cool' to post a hack actor making fun of mentally disabled children -- which is not funny and which never should have been posted. The man in question is on the road to finding himself and dealing with what he has experienced. He needs help. Clearly the answer to an illegal war is not to send more people over there. That is as much as we're going to note that subject. Again, that site has no built-in controls and regularly posts things that should never be posted. In this instance, we're talking about someone carrying a lot of issues and a lot of damage which he didn't ask for and is attempting to deal with. He's not to be pitied but he should be understood as coming from a lot of pain. And he's finding his way back from a devasting experience. It's also true that he, like many, are suffering from the mistaken impression (given them by 'elders' who continue to repeat the lie) that the draft stopped the war in Vietnam -- which it clearly did not. (One thing to add to the piece at Third, if the draft was what stopped Vietnam, it wouldn't have lasted so many damn years. There was a draft in place before Vietnam started -- which didn't end the Korean War -- and it operated throughout the Vietnam.)
12/07/2007
women and 'ladies'
sherry e-mailed to ask for a favor. she said she knows c.i. doesn't like to have 'a truest statement' of the week at the third estate sunday review but if there was any way ('your long, long friendship?') that i could get something from 'And the war drags on . . .' included, could i? could i please try?
sherry, i will try. no promises. c.i. really hates, hates getting 'truest.' if it helps any, liza also wrote me to say how much c.i.'s entry spoke to her. i think it's due to the fact ...
this is probably going to be my topic. i'll include a highlight or 2 but this will probably be my topic. i just realized that.
the reason the entry resonates (and it resonated with me) goes to the fact that women are not using their power. for every c.i., we've got a dozen gail collins acting foolish, weak and simpering. c.i. stands at full height. there's no cowering.
that is an amazing post. it's a short 1 as well. that was my fault because i had problems with blogdrive and had c.i. on the phone for an hour and half trying to figure out what was going on. (it was blogdrive's problem. they've finally fixed it.)
and c.i. was just so tired. i said, 'i'll stay on the phone with you.' because i knew c.i. just wanted to crawl into bed. so c.i.'s on the phone with me and going through the e-mails trying to figure out what to write. there's a highlight (the 1 that opened the piece) and it's from a member who doesn't highlight that often. he said he wasn't clear about the column but he wanted to like it - really wanted to - but kept not.
so c.i.'s trying to read the column and starts talking to me and i'm hearing the keyboard tap-tap-tap. and i really didn't say anything for the longest and finally c.i. asks, 'is something wrong?' i said, 'no. i'm just amazed and hope you wrote about what you were just saying on the phone.' c.i. played it off noting 'i'm tired, i'll write anything just to get to bed.'
but i've read it 3 times and it really is amazing.
a man is writing against the illegal war and then saying that war is what a nation is about and blah, blah, blah. your typical masculinist b.s.
and i went to common dreams today (where it posted) to see if anyone called him out on his sh*t.
you've got what appears to be a lot of men dickering back and forth over the number of dead iraqis. not 1 person leaving a comment bothered to call the writer out on his nonsense that war is a natural part of a nation.
it's not natural. nor is it natural for a man or a woman to make that claim.
but the writer's carrying around a lot of baggage and he unloads it on the readers who may think that is the way it is.
it's not. and if women won't call this crap out, the world's never going to be any better.
i'm sure the mud flap gals had a ton to offer yesterday on push-up bras, how the latest van fair cover is a set back for women's rights and what their weekend bar plans were.
but there is a war going on. there's 1 going on in iraq, obviously, and there is a war going on for public understanding.
women who whine that they aren't taken seriously as columnists might want to examine their output because most are too busy trying to be 'cute' in print or they're coming on all soft and dew-eyed.
where are the strong women who will call this crap out? who will call this illegal war out and call out any man who tries to suggest that war is natural.
c.i. noted that this 'natural characteristic' is not true of every nation and that if you're going to argue that is, you have to then argue that peace making would be a natural characteristic of nations because when war's end, peace has to be made in most cases.
but these men today come on with their heavy hitter attitudes and women play meek and stupid. i'm sick of it.
if there's a female columnist worth reading (which would mean that their column generates more than a smile), let me know. there's robyn blumer (hope i spelled that right) and i used to see her online but she's not in any paper i read. she does write strong.
but there are far too many gail collins and ruth conniffs.
it amazes me that women will not engage in this topic when they have the position to do so. it amazes me that they would rather turn out superficial chatter about the elections where they try to make jokes. women are stereotyping themselves in those columns. they are saying, 'i can't handle big ideas but i can be bitchy. watch, i'll be bitchy here!'
i have no problem with being bitchy. i'll use the word. and i'll apply it to myself.
but i think i have that and other things to offer.
and i also think i can turn bitchy onto some very important topics.
but the 'lady' columnists all seem to be attempting to win the title of most beautiful on campus and limit themselves to beauty queen platitudes.
if you're not angry as the illegal war gets closer to the 5 year mark, and you're an adult, that's pretty sad.
promoting her amazing new book, the terror dream, susan faludi has been sharing a story about how on 9-11 a (male) journalist called her for a reaction for his story and he tells her after that 9/11 is the death of feminism.
because in the face of mass brutality, apparently, feminism goes shrieking for cover.
men can't kill feminism. please, they've tried to in earlier generations.
but women can clamp down on it, they can slow it. (it's a revolution and it won't be stopped.)
they can do that by refusing to be a feminist, obviously. (think of all the women who've said, 'i'm not a feminist but ...')
and part of the refusal to be a feminist is refusing to tackle the big subjects because, believe it or not, war is very much a feminist issue.
women are always targeted in wars. they are victims of sexual assualts, they see their rights destroyed. they see their families destroyed.
and if their families include children of their own, they have to struggle to feed and care for those children in the middle of a war.
they also take up arms. some join the military, some join a resistance.
but there's no indication of that in the bulk of the 'ladies' columing or blogging today.
in 10 or so years, women will be whining that they aren't (still aren't) invited to the chat & chews as guests to talk about the 'big topics.' well some of that fault lies with women who think it's more important to be 'cute' than to risk some 1 calling you a bitch or anything else if you don't smile or, heaven forbid, if you actually show your anger.
anger and brains remain the 2 things that our 'ladies' of the press run from.
and it's really disgusting.
women are serious all over the world and that includes in this country.
but most of the 1s who are given a platform or create 1 for themselves are too damn busy being likeable and writing silly little pieces on silly little topics and, in doing that, they hurt all women because by refusing to use their positions to show how strong we are, they re-inforce that we're not capable of addressing the serious subjects. they say we're a 'niche thinker.'
sherry wondered how c.i. could write like that?
i can answer specifically because i was on the phone while that was written. to a degree, c.i. is telling the truth about something had to go up and c.i. just wanted to get to bed. no question. that is true to a degree.
but it's also true that c.i. doesn't give a f**k about being 'likeable' or considered 'cute' or 'loved.'
it's not about a 'fan club' or anything like that. it's about making those moments count to the best of your ability. and c.i. can hit harder than any 1.
i remember a moot court excercise (is 'excercise' the right word?) in college. if i've told this story before (i don't think i have) forgive me. but it applies. c.i. was on a group with a bunch of men. they were assigned a position and they had to prepare a friend of the court brief (amicus?) and to present their argument to a mock supreme court and take questions from the jury. the issue, by the way, was religion. it was about allowing religion in school.
i think most of you would gather that c.i. firmly believes in a wall between church and state.
but this was the position assinged. there was 1 lefty male and the rest were centrists and they were all against the position they were supposed to argue from. c.i. was as well but this was an excercise (project) they were being graded on.
the men used the fact that they weren't for the position they'd been assigned to claim they couldn't do the research. so c.i. ends up stuck with that and going through all these legal cases. then the man who is supposed to write the brief bails out.
c.i. writes the brief. there are now 3 people on the team. c.i. and 2 men. 1 of the men is supposed to type and present it. he types it. he mis-types it. the typing was a joke and the brief is wrecked. the man did that on purpose (i believe) because he didn't like the side they'd been assigned. before the arguments are supposed to take place, he bails.
i'm there because c.i. and i were going to a rally right after and we were going to leave together. so i'm thinking when is this going to end. and noting that c.i. is getting up and making the argument.
and doing an incredible job. the 'supreme court' was against it. they were for a wall.
but c.i. chipped away at them enough to get it down to a 5 to 4 vote at the end (5 in favor of the wall). it was amazing to watch because c.i. is for a wall between church and state but c.i. gave an incredible argument. i can think of 3 examples that really drove the point home. (i won't point them out because i won't give the 'vangicals' ammo for their next fight.)
but all 9 of the 'justices' were big liberals. and c.i.'s argument managed to chip away 4.
by the way, i should note that the side wanting to end the wall, the 1s who weren't friends of the court, gave a dull presentation and didn't know their facts when the justices questioned them. nothing threw c.i. c.i. was pulling cases out 1 after the other. 'yes, but the ___ court found ...'
it was just amazing.
afterwards, we were headed to the rally. (we didn't even wait for the decision.) and i was honestly thinking c.i. must believe in that argument because c.i. made it (and did so wonderfully). c.i. cleared that up for me and said, 'becky, that was the side i was assigned. i'm not going to stand there and do it half-assed.'
and i always think about that when i'm reading the common ills and thinking, 'did c.i. just say that?'
c.i.'s writing about things that are believed in, obviously. but it's the same 'i'm not going to do it half-assed.' the war hawks hit hard and c.i. can hit back just as hard. c.i. doesn't cower.
ava was telling me about 'outreach thursday.' that's what she's calling it. 7 military officers (lowest ranking a major, highest ranking a lt. general) wrote in to scream at c.i. for things at the common ills. the major was whining about something 1 and 1/2 years ago (when c.i. was told about it, c.i. said, 'that was a front page story on the new york times, on a sunday in the summer of 2006). he didn't provide a link, he didn't say when it went up, he just wanted to whine.
they were all saying 'you need to watch it or you will blow your credibility.'
maybe that's what the 'ladies' worry about?
c.i. doesn't give a damn.
and doesn't have to because c.i.'s been proved right far too many times. (most recently on the refugees which was a topic that men and women of the left and 'left' sat out on. too afraid to make a call in case this was for real.)
c.i. writes at the common ills the same way as when speaking to a group of students (or other groups). ideally, others will be talking. these days, that's not very difficult. in the earlier days, it was, c.i. will tell you, standing in front of a group of students and speaking for 30 minutes before it could become a conversation. that had to do with people being hyped and with people waiting for leaders to tell them what to do.
but c.i. gives these amazing speeches and never knows where it's going. they aren't written out. there's not a stump speech. c.i.'s speaking (and happiest if it only takes 5 minutes to start the conversation) and looking at the reactions and tailoring it to that.
on fridays, i get to go along. they're hitting middle schools and high schools in my state. and i've learned a lot and can now do it. it's really freeing to just speak your mind without notes.
i'm the type of person who feared speaking in college. elaine and c.i. would have to say, 'rebecca, we need you to speak' to get me to. (and i would.) but for classes and everything else, i needed my index cards from a speech that i had written out and practiced in front of the mirror for hours.
i'm not putting down professional speakers who are good and do it that way. good for them.
but a lot of so-so speakers exist. and maybe it's time they freed themselves.
i think in their case, they're too worried about how they come off and not the topic at hand. 'will they like me?'
and i see that approach in too many 'ladies' writing today.
if you talk to ava, she'll speak about how she's doing this because she wants the illegal war to end. it's the same as with c.i. there's no vanity there. there's no, 'does my hair look good? do you have a brush?' (c.i. doesn't even carry a brush on the road, or a blow dryer. nor does ava. and their hair, fyi, does look fantastic.) they hit the road each week, go all over the country, speak to students, women's groups, active duty service members, and many other people. and it's about the war.
it's taken me forever to grasp to that in my life.
c.i. is some 1 who would never answer the phone unless you begged. when we were in college and shared an apartment (elaine, c.i. and i). the phone could ring forever. if something was planned for that day, c.i. might pick it up. otherwise c.i. would ignore it. c.i. hated talking on the phone. and if it was some stupid class excercise of 'speak for 5 minutes to introduce yourself,' c.i. could be very, very uncomfortable.
if it was a party, c.i. could go through the entire closet looking for something to wear. you'd go into the room see everything that had been in the closet on the floor. but if it was about our earlier illegal war or something political, it didn't matter. 'you've got a stain on __' whatever. c.i. didn't care.
and if some 1 was angry and pissed because they were pro-war, c.i.'s attitude would always be, 'it's not about me, it's about the war.'
i think too often we, women, see it as about us.
i think we silence ourselves too often because we're afraid we won't be liked or likeable.
we're conditioned to expect the judgement and we're conditioned to seek the approval.
and i think some of us (and you can include me on that list for many years) can't draw the line.
'it's about the work.' i've heard that from c.i. over the years more times than i can count. negative attacks never bothered or left a blow. c.i. would always say, 'at the end of the day, they don't know me.' and i know that has to do with growing up in a press family and being able to draw a line between what appeared in a paper and what was reality.
there's a story i want to tell here that really points this out but i think c.i. would be upset.
i'll try to do it without making the point obvious. c.i. came from a political family and was expected to be political.
before c.i. could vote, c.i. was making speeches. c.i.'s mother had a scrap book of some of these things. and when i met her, she showed me the scrap book and it was fun to look through it (i don't think c.i. looks through it - i know c.i. didn't back in the day.) but there was a newspaper clipping from 10th grade in high school, i believe it was 10th grade, and c.i. was speaking a week or 2 before an election to a nursing home. c.i.'s surrounded by these 2 well groomed, boring looking high school boys.
c.i. hated that picture and it was the only time c.i. ever paid attention to personal press. (this story was told to me by c.i.'s mother.) it was raining and c.i. was rushing to get there. so c.i. shows up in a sweater. think about it, think about being caught in a rain downpour. obviously your hair gets wet but think about why you wouldn't want to be caught in a downpour in a sweater. most women will get what i'm saying.
so the picture runs and c.i. looks great in it. but c.i.'s ticked off. (think about it, you'll know why.) and c.i.'s attitude is that it's ridiculing the politics by running what is now a cheesecake photo (due to the downpour making the sweater soaking wet). c.i.'s uncle says, 'it's a sexy photo and that's why it ran. it had nothing to do with you. they just wanted an eye catching photo that would make people stop a second and not just turn the page.'
and that's what it was. but c.i. had been really bothered by the photo (because c.i. doesn't try to trade on sex and the photo seemed to imply otherwise). when c.i.'s uncle explained it that way, it wasn't an issue for c.i. anymore. and that's why c.i. has never made a point to read the press. or even look at the photos. because that moment brought home that it never has anything to do with you. it has to do with a paper or a magazine trying to sell copies, it has to do with a program trying to up their audiences.
i spent the bulk of my adult life worrying what people thought. afraid i might not be liked.
take my mother-in-law. we are tremendous friends now. we are so close. but when flyboy and i were married the 1st time, she hated me. she will tell you that herself.
now part of it is that a 2nd marriage makes it clear that this is more than just a passing thing, true. but it's also true that i stopped caring.
c.i. would tell me not to let it bother me. i would want to work out an understanding with my mother-in-law and basically grovel. (c.i.'s mother and my mother-in-law were very close friends.) even though i knew c.i. had a good take on the woman (they get along very well and always have), it didn't matter, i just wanted to be liked. i wanted so badly to be liked that i was about 8 million different people, all of them trying so hard to please.
when my marriage to flyboy ended, it was just a disaster for me personally. and i went through a very dark phase. for those who don't know, i was pregnant and the fetus was not going to live a normal life or a long life. i made the decision to have an abortion and that was the right thing to do but it really did a number on me. while i don't regret the decision and while i think it was best for the fetus, it was hard because i had a long history of miscarriages and always wanted to have a child. so after the abortion, i just didn't give a damn.
flyboy and i had both been playing roles - even while the marriage was collapsing.
and it was only after that darkness that i really found myself. or at least my strength.
so it's not that my mother-in-law mellowed or anything like that. it's that i finally grew up and realized my role in life was not to spend every hour figuring out how to please others. or that the world didn't end because some 1 said they didn't like me.
so when i'm criticizing the 'ladies,' understand i was 1 of them. i was obsessed with not being controversial, with blending and being likeable.
and throughout all of that, i wasn't being me because i was being 8 million other people.
my story has a happy ending. after i started being myself, i went through my dark phase. i slowly started dating. and flyboy and i ended up dating (after c.i. nudged him) and then we ended up married again. now, finally, i have a child and that was so wonderful because i thought i was too old and with my history of pregnancies ...
all of that's great and wonderful and, i would argue, it all comes from letting go. i didn't need to hold my power and hide it. i didn't need to hide myself. when i stopped hiding who i was, when i stopped thinking my life ended if some 1 didn't like me or didn't like what i wore or didn't like, heaven forbid, something i said, i finally started feeling not just like an adult but like a developing person.
i think i would have been a very loving mother back then. i think i would have given love. that is important. i think i also would have been very damaging because i would have passed on my need to please. i would have instilled it in my child.
i think women need to work to break this conditioning that so many of us suffer from.
at the end of the day, it's not about you. it's never about you.
unless you make it about you because you're either scared of who you are or may be.
we need to accept our power. we need to acknowledge it and let it go. not let it go in the sense of being weak. but let it go in the sense that it is power. it is our power. let it out, release it and watch it grow. when we free ourselves by being ourselves, we're even stronger and we're also happier.
i'm tired and elaine just asked me, 'how long have you been writing?' forever! so let me cheat and do links this way:
The Third Estate Sunday Review's Ava
C.I. of The Common Ills and The Third Estate Sunday Review,
Elaine of Like Maria Said Paz,
let's close with c.i.'s 'Iraq snapshot:'
Friday, December 7, 2007. Chaos and violence continue, the Canadian parlaiment's December 11th hearings on war resisters approach, IVAW's Justin Cliburn speaks in Dallas Sunday, Buzzy and Cookie remain brothers but one is now unemployed (don't cry, Blackwater will probably officially hire him now), bombings in Iraq get some media attention and more.
Staring with war resistance. November 15th, Iraq War resisters Jeremy Hinzman and Brandon Hughey learned that the nation's Supreme Court would not hear their appeals. As a result, the focus is now on getting the Canadian Parliament to address the situation. On December 11th, the parliament will hear testimony from war resisters. Dustin Langley (Workers World) notes Hinzman's statements on the illegal war, "They said there were weapons of mass destruction. They haven't found any. They said Iraq was linked to international terrorist organizations. There haven't been any links. This was a criminal war. Any act of violence in an unjustified conflict is an atrocity." Cindy Sheehan (OpEdNews) urges people to utilize Courage to Resist's easy to mail or e-mail resources to allow the Canadian government to know you are watching and to support organizations supporting war resisters as well as supporting war resisters:
Support actual war resisters in Canada by sending them expense money. From my friend Ryan (I gave him and his wife money to get to Canada over two years ago):
In light of the recent Supreme Court denial in Canada, I (Ryan Johnson), My wife (Jen Johnson) and Brandon Hughey need help raising funds to travel to Ottawa to attend hearings before the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, where War Resisters will be giving Testimony to the committee. At these hearings the committee will be deciding on whether or not to make a provision to allow war resisters to stay in Canada. This is one of our last chances to be able to continue living in Canada. We will be leaving December 7th because the hearings are December 11th, 2007 so we need to act fast. They may try to send guys back soon and we need to have a strong War Resister Presence. We appreciate all of the support and Want to thank all of you who can help.
Checks/money orders can be sent for Ryan, Jen and Brandon to:312 Tower Rd Nelson, BC V1L3K6
There is a growing movement of resistance within the US military which includes James Stepp, Rodney Watson, Michael Espinal, Matthew Lowell, Derek Hess, Diedra Cobb, Brad McCall, Justin Cliburn, Timothy Richard, Robert Weiss, Phil McDowell, Steve Yoczik, Ross Spears, Peter Brown, Bethany "Skylar" James, Zamesha Dominique, Chrisopther Scott Magaoay, Jared Hood, James Burmeister, Eli Israel, Joshua Key, Ehren Watada, Terri Johnson, Carla Gomez, Luke Kamunen, Leif Kamunen, Leo Kamunen, Camilo Mejia, Kimberly Rivera, Dean Walcott, Linjamin Mull, Agustin Aguayo, Justin Colby, Marc Train, Abdullah Webster, Robert Zabala, Darrell Anderson, Kyle Snyder, Corey Glass, Jeremy Hinzman, Kevin Lee, Mark Wilkerson, Patrick Hart, Ricky Clousing, Ivan Brobeck, Aidan Delgado, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Stephen Funk, Blake LeMoine, Clifton Hicks, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Joshua Casteel, Katherine Jashinski, Dale Bartell, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell, Jimmy Massey, Chris Capps, Tim Richard, Hart Viges, Michael Blake, Christopher Mogwai, Christian Kjar, Kyle Huwer, Wilfredo Torres, Michael Sudbury, Ghanim Khalil, Vincent La Volpa, DeShawn Reed and Kevin Benderman. In total, at least fifty US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum.Information on war resistance within the military can be found at The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline [(877) 447-4487], Iraq Veterans Against the War and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters. Tom Joad maintains a list of known war resisters. In addition, VETWOW is an organization that assists those suffering from MST (Military Sexual Trauma).
The voice of war resister Camilo Mejia is featured in Rebel Voices -- playing now through December 16th at Culture Project -- that's ten more days -- and based on Howard Zinn and Anthony Arnove's best-selling book Voices of a People's History of the United States. It features dramatic readings of historical voices such as war resister Mejia, Sojourner Truth, Frederick Douglass, Malcom X and others will be featured. Musician Allison Mooerer will head the permanent cast while those confirmed to be performing on selected nights are Ally Sheedy (actress and poet, best known for films such as High Art, The Breakfast Club, Maid to Order, the two Short Circuit films, St. Elmo's Fire, War Games, and, along with Nicky Katt, has good buzz on the forthcoming Harold), Eve Ensler who wrote the theater classic The Vagina Monologues (no, it's not too soon to call that a classic), actor David Strathaim (L.A. Confidential, The Firm, Bob Roberts, Dolores Claiborne and The Bourne Ultimatum), actor and playwright Wallace Shawn (The Princess Bride, Clueless -- film and TV series, Gregory and Chicken Little), actress Lili Taylor (Dogfight, Shortcuts, Say Anything, Household Saints, I Shot Andy Warhol, Mrs. Parker and the Vicious Circle, State of Mind) and actor, director and activist Danny Glover (The Color Purple, Beloved, The Royal Tenenbaums, The Rainmaker, Places In The Heart, Dreamgirls, Shooter and who recently appeared on Democracy Now! addressing the US militarization of Africa) The directors are Will Pomerantz and Rob Urbinati with Urbinati collaborating with Zinn and Arnove on the play. Tickets are $41.. The theater is located at 55 Mercer Street and tickets can be purchased there, over the phone (212-352-3101) or online here and here. More information can be found at Culture Project.
Meanwhile IVAW is organizing a March 2008 DC event:
In 1971, over one hundred members of Vietnam Veterans Against the War gathered in Detroit to share their stories with America. Atrocities like the My Lai massacre had ignited popular opposition to the war, but political and military leaders insisted that such crimes were isolated exceptions. The members of VVAW knew differently.
Over three days in January, these soldiers testified on the systematic brutality they had seen visited upon the people of Vietnam. They called it the Winter Soldier investigation, after Thomas Paine's famous admonishing of the "summer soldier" who shirks his duty during difficult times. In a time of war and lies, the veterans who gathered in Detroit knew it was their duty to tell the truth.
Over thirty years later, we find ourselves faced with a new war. But the lies are the same. Once again, American troops are sinking into increasingly bloody occupations. Once again, war crimes in places like Haditha, Fallujah, and Abu Ghraib have turned the public against the war. Once again, politicians and generals are blaming "a few bad apples" instead of examining the military policies that have destroyed Iraq and Afghanistan.
Once again, our country needs Winter Soldiers.
In March of 2008, Iraq Veterans Against the War will gather in our nation's capital to break the silence and hold our leaders accountable for these wars. We hope you'll join us, because yours is a story that every American needs to hear.
Click here to sign a statement of support for Winter Soldier: Iraq & Afghanistan
March 13th through 15th are the dates for the Winter Soldier Iraq & Afghanistan Investigation.
IVAW's South Central Region Coordinator Justin Cliburn will be speaking this Sunday in Dallas, Texas at the First Unitarian Church of Dallas, Raible Chapel (4015 Normandy Avenue, Dallas, TX 75205) at 10:30 am. Cliburn served in Iraq (2005-2006) and this event is free and open to the public.
In yet another sign of the failures of the puppet government, Eric Westervelt (NPR's Morning Edition) reports that the health ministry does not have a program to care for the wounded civilians or even to track how many there are. The illegal war hits the five-year mark in March. Puppet of the occupation Nouri-al Maliki and his initial cabinet were all in place by May of 2006. And there is no system in place to track the wounded let alone to treat them. Westervelt tells of 36-year-old, father of five Majid Hameed -- a victim of a bombing targeting his work place in March 2004 that left him burned and then, lack of treatment, left him with gangrene in both hands which spread and his arms were amputated to "just above the elbow" who must now attempt to provide for his family by hawking "trinkets" on the streets of Baghdad. He had been a blacksmith and a security guard prior to the bombing. The failed system really depends on international aid. Westervelt doesn't make that point but that is what's going on. Just as, in the US, Wal-Mart doesn't provide for their employees and expects government services to subsidize them, the Iraqi government leaves it to the NGOs to 'handle' the situation. Hammed got the run around at the various government ministries, a private organization told him they would need both medical and police reports to treat him and the police station refused to assist him with those forms while the local council "laughed at me saying, 'We don't give letters to disabled people confirming they were hit by a car bomb. We know nothing about it. This is not our business'." It's no one's business because the failed puppet government of Nouri al-Maliki is not one that serves Iraqis. Why should the puppets show interest in the Iraqi people when the US government never has?
Big Oil's enable Iraq Development Program is announcing "positive signs" in Iraq's economy and sourcing it to Bayan Jubur al-Zubaydi (Iraq's Minister of Finance). It's silly nonsense from a silly 'organization' that quotes the minister stating "the new budget allocated $10 billion dollars to subsidise ration card items and the salaries of government employees and pensioners." Yes, we are back to the subsidies. Note the amount. How much of that alleged ten billion goes to saleries? It's worth pondering because Reuters reports Abdul Falah al-Sudany (Iraq's Trade Minister) asserts that the massive reduction in subsidies that will kick in next month stem from a request for "$7 billion in next year's budget to distribute 10 basic items but received only $3 billion." If both officials are telling the truth that would mean seven billion dollars was required to pay the puppet government. That's a big payroll (especially when government workers make so little that IDP is trumpeting the fact that they've been granted income tax waivers) especially when you consider that "more than 60 percent of Iraq's population rely on the rations." Actually, that's the candied number, United Nation's agencies were estimating it was 80 percent and that was before the vast refugee (internal and external) began. Sameer N. Yacoub (AP) explains, "The system under which all Iraqis are issued ration cards allowing them to buy 10 items -- sugar, flour, rice, powdered milk, cooking oil, tea, beans, baby milk, soap and detergent -- for a nominal fee". The issue isn't money, the issue is the White House's lust for privatization that led to a tag sale in Iraq. It's nothing but the (PDF format warning) same crap the US has been pushing for some time in the name of "economic rehabilitation and reform for Iraq." This despite the fact that Steven Mann, Paul Bremer's boy, was more interested (November, 2003) in "Building the market structure that promotes private business." In September 2003, the United Nations' World Food Programme was sounding alarms over the crisis in Iraq and noting, "Any significant disruption of the public distribution system would have a severe negative impact on food access." That was 2003. Things have not gotten better and anyone who has trouble grasping that can just focus on the numbers then for external refugees (100,000) and internal ones (200,000). Both categories are now in the millions (and combined account for over 4 million people). The food program is not 'less needed' today, it's more needed.
But the tag sale on Iraq is more important to the puppet government which works for the US government which -- apparently -- works for big business. Hence, Amy Goodman (Democracy Now!) notes today, "UPI is reporting Iraq's Oil Ministry is preparing to sign deals for the country's largest oil fields even though the Iraqi government has failed to pass an Iraq oil law. BP, Shell, ExxonMobil, Conoco Phillips and other oil companies are all attempting to win contracts in Iraq. Executives from BP and Shell are expected to be meeting soon with Iraq's Oil Minister. Under Iraqi law, the Oil Ministry can sign service contract deals on its own. But any production-sharing contracts would need parliamentary approval." This follows Selina Williams reporting (for MarketWatch) earlier this week that BP PLC and Royal Duth Shell PLC were to meet Wednesday with Hussein al-Shahristanti (Iraqi oil minister) for oil discussions. UPI's Ben Landon offers "Big Oil's big dreams are close to coming true as Iraq's Oil Ministry prepares deals for the country's largest oil fields with terms that aren't necessarily what companies were hoping for but considered a foot in the door of the world's most promising oil sector." Now who could have added additional strong-arming on that? Has any US official recently visited Iraq?
Robert Gates holds the title of US Secretary of Defense. Spinning the illegal war apparently comes under his job description (and comes naturally but who other than Robert Parry stepped up to call the nomination out when it mattered?). Gates has left Iraq after his photo-op. Thom Shanker (New York Times) quotes Gates declaring he was "encouraged" and that he was "feeling very good abou tthe direction of things in the security arena". Gates was greeted with bombings and bombings continued through his brief stay. Of course, bombings followed his exit. Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports, "A suicide woman wearing an explosive belt detonated herself among the civilians near the center of the local committees in Al Mu'alimeen nieghborhood in Muqdadiyah town east of Baquba city around 9,30 am. 16 civilians were killed in the explosion (8 men, 5 women and 3 children) and 27 others were wounded (19 men, 4 children, 2 Sahwa members and 2 women)." CNN, citing the police, identifies the bomber as Suhaila Ali and notes the bombing "took place outside a building that hosts meetings for local members of a so-called awakening council, whose members are opposed to al Qaeda and have formed an alliance with U.S. and Iraqi forces. . . . More than half of the dead and wounded in Friday's bombing were members of the awakening council, the Interior Ministry said." CBS and AP note that two of Suhaila Ali's sons "were killed by Iraqi security forces" and quotes Ibrahim Bajalan ("head of Diyala provincial council") stating, "She wanted to avenge the killing of her two sons." Alaa Shahine (Reuters) pieces together the immediate lead up to the bombing, "Witnesses said a woman walked up to the building, in a street full of shops, and began asking questions. She detonated the vest she was wearing when people out shopping before Friday prayers began gathering around her." UK's In The News notes, "In April the town was hit by another female suicide bomber who killed over 12 people at a police recruitment centre." The Belfast Telegraph observes it was "the second [attack] in the space of 10 days carried out by female suicide bombers." That refers to a November attack summarized then by M-NF as: "A female suicide bomber detonated an explosive laden suicide-vest, wounding seven U.S. soldiers and five Iraqi citizens in Baqubah, Nov. 27." That was only one of the bombings in the Diyala Province. AFP informs, "Hours later, a suicide car bomber rammed his vehicle into an army checkpoint at the nearby town of Al-Mansuriyah, killing 10 people and wounding eight, among them soldiers and members of another Awakening group, security officials said." Alaa Shahine (Reuters) places the death toll at 10 ("seven Iraqi troops and three members of a local neighbourhood patrol") and eight injured. New York Times' Cara Buckley (at the company's International Herald Tribune) notes that the "three volunteers . . . had been working with the U.S. forces." CBS and AP note that two bombings were "about 10 miles apart". Cami McCormick (CBS News) interviews the newly returned to Fort Hood Army 3rd Brigade Combat Team who had been stationed in Diyala for fifteen months.
McCormick: Many say they were stunned by how dangerous their deployment became.
Spc. Cory Barton: I'd always heard from the guys that had been previous deployed and, you know, family members and friends that had been deployed before, they'd always tell me about the major hot spots -- like Falluja, Najaf, Baghdad, Mosul and places like that -- I've never heard anything about Baquba and then when we touched down, we touched ground in there and it was like an epiphany.
McCormick: It was scary?
Barton: Oh, it was a bad dream.
It's not 'safer' in Iraq. In other violence . . .
Shootings?
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports that today two police officers wounded in a Baghdad gun battle and Jabbar Khalaf ("chief of Rabi'aa police station") was shot dead in Mosul along with 4 other police officers and that yesterday a farmer was shot dead outside Kirkuk, 1 Beshmarga Kurdish force intel officer was wounded (by "a pistol with a silencer) while 1 person was shot dead in Kirkuk and another wounded.
Corpses?
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 3 corpses discovered in Baghdad.
If you missed it, it was time for the laughable Nation magazine to do another editorial on the illegal war. Why they bothered is anyone's guess. They accepted (without question) the bulk of the spin regarding the latest wave of Operation Happy Talk. By contrast, the US Socialist Worker demonstrates needed common sense in their "Editorial: 'Mission Accomplished' again?" noting: "A new U.S. war lie -- concocted by the Bush administration, endorsed by the Democrats, embraced by the mainstream media -- has been deployed to justify continuing the occupation in Iraq. The claim is that the Bush 'surge' of 30,000 U.S. troops to Iraq worked -- and is, at long last, bringing 'peace' and 'stability.' . . . . But lurking behind the hype is a different reality -- one that reporters working in Iraq readily admit. A Pew Research Center poll of U.S. reporters working in Iraq found that '[n]early 90 percent of U.S. journalists in Iraq say much of Baghdad is still too dangerous to visit' -- and that many believe U.S. media 'coverage has painted too rosy a picture of the conflict'." As the editorial notes, imperialism is a bi-partisan goal with Republicans and Democrats embracing one another from across the aisle. Which is why CBS and AP's bulletin should come as no surprise: "Democrats controlling Congress sent the most explicit signals yet on Thursday that they are resigned to providing additional funding for the war in Iraq before Congress adjourns for the year." They're preparing to cave again. And as CBS reports that $1 billion in equipment is missing in Iraq. There for-show stunt that found US Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid claiming they woulnd't budge has collapsed. As the Socialist Worker concludes, "The bipartisan Washington establishment is rallying around the consensus that the surge worked because it provides the excuses for continued occupation. Opponents of the war need to expose this new war lie -- and insist that life in Iraq will only really improve when the U.S. gets out."
And those enlisting to assist don't just include The Nation but also NPR. As Ruth noted yesterday, the public radio network "did 'investigative journalism' . . . They discovered that the American people have lost interest in ending the illegal war. How did they unearth this questionable claim? They spoke to Congressional staffers. They spoke to staffers of Congress members, the same Congress that has refused to end the illegal war. It is truly a shock, at least to NPR, that said staffers might lie to take the heat off the people who sign their pay checks." NPR's Day to Day wants you to believe that "Iraq has become less of an issue in the presidential campaign." They need you to believe it having offered a two-hour Democratic presidential hopefuls 'debate' this week where, despite the US being engaged in a war, the 'moderators' never asked about the Iraq War. As noted in Wednesday's snapshot, that 'reality' is far from reality: "In fact the latest poll found it the issue most noted by respondents -- you could take the second and third most cited issues (economy and healthcare), add them together and Iraq would still outrank them. But the media has lost interest. Add another poll to the mix. Faye Fiore (Los Angeles Times) reports on the Los Angeles Times - Bloomberg News poll which found, "Nearly six of every 10 military families disapprove of Bush's job performance and the way he has run the war, rating him only slightly better than the general population does." Was the illegal war "worth it"? All poll respondents state no by 60%, respondents from homes "with active military/vets" said no by 57% and homes "with military in Iraq/vets" said no by 60%. Translation: America says the illegal war was not worth it. To anser the Clash's musical question -- "Should I Stay or Should I Go" -- 23% polled said bring them home "right away" (21% for homes with active military/vets and 27% for homes with military in Iraq/vets) while 41% say bring them home "within next year" (37% and 42% in the previous breakdown). Bring the troops home? 64% say YES! It's only in the lame media that wants to pretend the issue is no longer an issue. And of course the media includes some on the 'left' because you can't pimp the war supporter Barack Obama so hard and still call for an end to the illegal war. (LAT piece is also at Common Dreams.)
Turning from the mercenaries in Congress to the mercenaries of Blackwater. When last we checked in on Buzzy and Cookie (November 19th snapshot), Howard Cookie Krongard was remaining the US State Dept's inspector general but stated he was going to remove himself from pretending to provide oversight of Blackwater due to the fact that his brother A. B. Buzzy Krongard serves on the advisory board of Blackwater. Previously, Cookie had tried to deny that Buzzy was working with Blackwater, deny in a Congressional hearing, but admitted it was true after requesting a break. Despite Cookie's claims, Buzzy told Scott Shane (New York Times) that he had told his brother he was on the advisory board "a few weeks ago." In an update, Reuters reports today that Cookie has announced he will resign from the State Department. Jeremy Scahill (Common Dreams) provides an update on the latest to do with Blackwater and he will be back on Democracy Now! next week to discuss the latest regarding the mercenaries (I believe Monday). Scahill concludes in his latest piece: "In short, Blackwater is moving ahead at full steam. Individual scandals clearly aren't enough to slow it down. The company's critics in the Democratic-controlled Congress must confront the root of the problem: the government is in the midst of its most radical privatization in history, and companies like Blackwater are becoming ever more deeply embedded in the war apparatus. Until this system is brought down, the world's the limit for Blackwater Worldwide--and as its rebranding campaign shows, Blackwater knows it."
sherry, i will try. no promises. c.i. really hates, hates getting 'truest.' if it helps any, liza also wrote me to say how much c.i.'s entry spoke to her. i think it's due to the fact ...
this is probably going to be my topic. i'll include a highlight or 2 but this will probably be my topic. i just realized that.
the reason the entry resonates (and it resonated with me) goes to the fact that women are not using their power. for every c.i., we've got a dozen gail collins acting foolish, weak and simpering. c.i. stands at full height. there's no cowering.
that is an amazing post. it's a short 1 as well. that was my fault because i had problems with blogdrive and had c.i. on the phone for an hour and half trying to figure out what was going on. (it was blogdrive's problem. they've finally fixed it.)
and c.i. was just so tired. i said, 'i'll stay on the phone with you.' because i knew c.i. just wanted to crawl into bed. so c.i.'s on the phone with me and going through the e-mails trying to figure out what to write. there's a highlight (the 1 that opened the piece) and it's from a member who doesn't highlight that often. he said he wasn't clear about the column but he wanted to like it - really wanted to - but kept not.
so c.i.'s trying to read the column and starts talking to me and i'm hearing the keyboard tap-tap-tap. and i really didn't say anything for the longest and finally c.i. asks, 'is something wrong?' i said, 'no. i'm just amazed and hope you wrote about what you were just saying on the phone.' c.i. played it off noting 'i'm tired, i'll write anything just to get to bed.'
but i've read it 3 times and it really is amazing.
a man is writing against the illegal war and then saying that war is what a nation is about and blah, blah, blah. your typical masculinist b.s.
and i went to common dreams today (where it posted) to see if anyone called him out on his sh*t.
you've got what appears to be a lot of men dickering back and forth over the number of dead iraqis. not 1 person leaving a comment bothered to call the writer out on his nonsense that war is a natural part of a nation.
it's not natural. nor is it natural for a man or a woman to make that claim.
but the writer's carrying around a lot of baggage and he unloads it on the readers who may think that is the way it is.
it's not. and if women won't call this crap out, the world's never going to be any better.
i'm sure the mud flap gals had a ton to offer yesterday on push-up bras, how the latest van fair cover is a set back for women's rights and what their weekend bar plans were.
but there is a war going on. there's 1 going on in iraq, obviously, and there is a war going on for public understanding.
women who whine that they aren't taken seriously as columnists might want to examine their output because most are too busy trying to be 'cute' in print or they're coming on all soft and dew-eyed.
where are the strong women who will call this crap out? who will call this illegal war out and call out any man who tries to suggest that war is natural.
c.i. noted that this 'natural characteristic' is not true of every nation and that if you're going to argue that is, you have to then argue that peace making would be a natural characteristic of nations because when war's end, peace has to be made in most cases.
but these men today come on with their heavy hitter attitudes and women play meek and stupid. i'm sick of it.
if there's a female columnist worth reading (which would mean that their column generates more than a smile), let me know. there's robyn blumer (hope i spelled that right) and i used to see her online but she's not in any paper i read. she does write strong.
but there are far too many gail collins and ruth conniffs.
it amazes me that women will not engage in this topic when they have the position to do so. it amazes me that they would rather turn out superficial chatter about the elections where they try to make jokes. women are stereotyping themselves in those columns. they are saying, 'i can't handle big ideas but i can be bitchy. watch, i'll be bitchy here!'
i have no problem with being bitchy. i'll use the word. and i'll apply it to myself.
but i think i have that and other things to offer.
and i also think i can turn bitchy onto some very important topics.
but the 'lady' columnists all seem to be attempting to win the title of most beautiful on campus and limit themselves to beauty queen platitudes.
if you're not angry as the illegal war gets closer to the 5 year mark, and you're an adult, that's pretty sad.
promoting her amazing new book, the terror dream, susan faludi has been sharing a story about how on 9-11 a (male) journalist called her for a reaction for his story and he tells her after that 9/11 is the death of feminism.
because in the face of mass brutality, apparently, feminism goes shrieking for cover.
men can't kill feminism. please, they've tried to in earlier generations.
but women can clamp down on it, they can slow it. (it's a revolution and it won't be stopped.)
they can do that by refusing to be a feminist, obviously. (think of all the women who've said, 'i'm not a feminist but ...')
and part of the refusal to be a feminist is refusing to tackle the big subjects because, believe it or not, war is very much a feminist issue.
women are always targeted in wars. they are victims of sexual assualts, they see their rights destroyed. they see their families destroyed.
and if their families include children of their own, they have to struggle to feed and care for those children in the middle of a war.
they also take up arms. some join the military, some join a resistance.
but there's no indication of that in the bulk of the 'ladies' columing or blogging today.
in 10 or so years, women will be whining that they aren't (still aren't) invited to the chat & chews as guests to talk about the 'big topics.' well some of that fault lies with women who think it's more important to be 'cute' than to risk some 1 calling you a bitch or anything else if you don't smile or, heaven forbid, if you actually show your anger.
anger and brains remain the 2 things that our 'ladies' of the press run from.
and it's really disgusting.
women are serious all over the world and that includes in this country.
but most of the 1s who are given a platform or create 1 for themselves are too damn busy being likeable and writing silly little pieces on silly little topics and, in doing that, they hurt all women because by refusing to use their positions to show how strong we are, they re-inforce that we're not capable of addressing the serious subjects. they say we're a 'niche thinker.'
sherry wondered how c.i. could write like that?
i can answer specifically because i was on the phone while that was written. to a degree, c.i. is telling the truth about something had to go up and c.i. just wanted to get to bed. no question. that is true to a degree.
but it's also true that c.i. doesn't give a f**k about being 'likeable' or considered 'cute' or 'loved.'
it's not about a 'fan club' or anything like that. it's about making those moments count to the best of your ability. and c.i. can hit harder than any 1.
i remember a moot court excercise (is 'excercise' the right word?) in college. if i've told this story before (i don't think i have) forgive me. but it applies. c.i. was on a group with a bunch of men. they were assigned a position and they had to prepare a friend of the court brief (amicus?) and to present their argument to a mock supreme court and take questions from the jury. the issue, by the way, was religion. it was about allowing religion in school.
i think most of you would gather that c.i. firmly believes in a wall between church and state.
but this was the position assinged. there was 1 lefty male and the rest were centrists and they were all against the position they were supposed to argue from. c.i. was as well but this was an excercise (project) they were being graded on.
the men used the fact that they weren't for the position they'd been assigned to claim they couldn't do the research. so c.i. ends up stuck with that and going through all these legal cases. then the man who is supposed to write the brief bails out.
c.i. writes the brief. there are now 3 people on the team. c.i. and 2 men. 1 of the men is supposed to type and present it. he types it. he mis-types it. the typing was a joke and the brief is wrecked. the man did that on purpose (i believe) because he didn't like the side they'd been assigned. before the arguments are supposed to take place, he bails.
i'm there because c.i. and i were going to a rally right after and we were going to leave together. so i'm thinking when is this going to end. and noting that c.i. is getting up and making the argument.
and doing an incredible job. the 'supreme court' was against it. they were for a wall.
but c.i. chipped away at them enough to get it down to a 5 to 4 vote at the end (5 in favor of the wall). it was amazing to watch because c.i. is for a wall between church and state but c.i. gave an incredible argument. i can think of 3 examples that really drove the point home. (i won't point them out because i won't give the 'vangicals' ammo for their next fight.)
but all 9 of the 'justices' were big liberals. and c.i.'s argument managed to chip away 4.
by the way, i should note that the side wanting to end the wall, the 1s who weren't friends of the court, gave a dull presentation and didn't know their facts when the justices questioned them. nothing threw c.i. c.i. was pulling cases out 1 after the other. 'yes, but the ___ court found ...'
it was just amazing.
afterwards, we were headed to the rally. (we didn't even wait for the decision.) and i was honestly thinking c.i. must believe in that argument because c.i. made it (and did so wonderfully). c.i. cleared that up for me and said, 'becky, that was the side i was assigned. i'm not going to stand there and do it half-assed.'
and i always think about that when i'm reading the common ills and thinking, 'did c.i. just say that?'
c.i.'s writing about things that are believed in, obviously. but it's the same 'i'm not going to do it half-assed.' the war hawks hit hard and c.i. can hit back just as hard. c.i. doesn't cower.
ava was telling me about 'outreach thursday.' that's what she's calling it. 7 military officers (lowest ranking a major, highest ranking a lt. general) wrote in to scream at c.i. for things at the common ills. the major was whining about something 1 and 1/2 years ago (when c.i. was told about it, c.i. said, 'that was a front page story on the new york times, on a sunday in the summer of 2006). he didn't provide a link, he didn't say when it went up, he just wanted to whine.
they were all saying 'you need to watch it or you will blow your credibility.'
maybe that's what the 'ladies' worry about?
c.i. doesn't give a damn.
and doesn't have to because c.i.'s been proved right far too many times. (most recently on the refugees which was a topic that men and women of the left and 'left' sat out on. too afraid to make a call in case this was for real.)
c.i. writes at the common ills the same way as when speaking to a group of students (or other groups). ideally, others will be talking. these days, that's not very difficult. in the earlier days, it was, c.i. will tell you, standing in front of a group of students and speaking for 30 minutes before it could become a conversation. that had to do with people being hyped and with people waiting for leaders to tell them what to do.
but c.i. gives these amazing speeches and never knows where it's going. they aren't written out. there's not a stump speech. c.i.'s speaking (and happiest if it only takes 5 minutes to start the conversation) and looking at the reactions and tailoring it to that.
on fridays, i get to go along. they're hitting middle schools and high schools in my state. and i've learned a lot and can now do it. it's really freeing to just speak your mind without notes.
i'm the type of person who feared speaking in college. elaine and c.i. would have to say, 'rebecca, we need you to speak' to get me to. (and i would.) but for classes and everything else, i needed my index cards from a speech that i had written out and practiced in front of the mirror for hours.
i'm not putting down professional speakers who are good and do it that way. good for them.
but a lot of so-so speakers exist. and maybe it's time they freed themselves.
i think in their case, they're too worried about how they come off and not the topic at hand. 'will they like me?'
and i see that approach in too many 'ladies' writing today.
if you talk to ava, she'll speak about how she's doing this because she wants the illegal war to end. it's the same as with c.i. there's no vanity there. there's no, 'does my hair look good? do you have a brush?' (c.i. doesn't even carry a brush on the road, or a blow dryer. nor does ava. and their hair, fyi, does look fantastic.) they hit the road each week, go all over the country, speak to students, women's groups, active duty service members, and many other people. and it's about the war.
it's taken me forever to grasp to that in my life.
c.i. is some 1 who would never answer the phone unless you begged. when we were in college and shared an apartment (elaine, c.i. and i). the phone could ring forever. if something was planned for that day, c.i. might pick it up. otherwise c.i. would ignore it. c.i. hated talking on the phone. and if it was some stupid class excercise of 'speak for 5 minutes to introduce yourself,' c.i. could be very, very uncomfortable.
if it was a party, c.i. could go through the entire closet looking for something to wear. you'd go into the room see everything that had been in the closet on the floor. but if it was about our earlier illegal war or something political, it didn't matter. 'you've got a stain on __' whatever. c.i. didn't care.
and if some 1 was angry and pissed because they were pro-war, c.i.'s attitude would always be, 'it's not about me, it's about the war.'
i think too often we, women, see it as about us.
i think we silence ourselves too often because we're afraid we won't be liked or likeable.
we're conditioned to expect the judgement and we're conditioned to seek the approval.
and i think some of us (and you can include me on that list for many years) can't draw the line.
'it's about the work.' i've heard that from c.i. over the years more times than i can count. negative attacks never bothered or left a blow. c.i. would always say, 'at the end of the day, they don't know me.' and i know that has to do with growing up in a press family and being able to draw a line between what appeared in a paper and what was reality.
there's a story i want to tell here that really points this out but i think c.i. would be upset.
i'll try to do it without making the point obvious. c.i. came from a political family and was expected to be political.
before c.i. could vote, c.i. was making speeches. c.i.'s mother had a scrap book of some of these things. and when i met her, she showed me the scrap book and it was fun to look through it (i don't think c.i. looks through it - i know c.i. didn't back in the day.) but there was a newspaper clipping from 10th grade in high school, i believe it was 10th grade, and c.i. was speaking a week or 2 before an election to a nursing home. c.i.'s surrounded by these 2 well groomed, boring looking high school boys.
c.i. hated that picture and it was the only time c.i. ever paid attention to personal press. (this story was told to me by c.i.'s mother.) it was raining and c.i. was rushing to get there. so c.i. shows up in a sweater. think about it, think about being caught in a rain downpour. obviously your hair gets wet but think about why you wouldn't want to be caught in a downpour in a sweater. most women will get what i'm saying.
so the picture runs and c.i. looks great in it. but c.i.'s ticked off. (think about it, you'll know why.) and c.i.'s attitude is that it's ridiculing the politics by running what is now a cheesecake photo (due to the downpour making the sweater soaking wet). c.i.'s uncle says, 'it's a sexy photo and that's why it ran. it had nothing to do with you. they just wanted an eye catching photo that would make people stop a second and not just turn the page.'
and that's what it was. but c.i. had been really bothered by the photo (because c.i. doesn't try to trade on sex and the photo seemed to imply otherwise). when c.i.'s uncle explained it that way, it wasn't an issue for c.i. anymore. and that's why c.i. has never made a point to read the press. or even look at the photos. because that moment brought home that it never has anything to do with you. it has to do with a paper or a magazine trying to sell copies, it has to do with a program trying to up their audiences.
i spent the bulk of my adult life worrying what people thought. afraid i might not be liked.
take my mother-in-law. we are tremendous friends now. we are so close. but when flyboy and i were married the 1st time, she hated me. she will tell you that herself.
now part of it is that a 2nd marriage makes it clear that this is more than just a passing thing, true. but it's also true that i stopped caring.
c.i. would tell me not to let it bother me. i would want to work out an understanding with my mother-in-law and basically grovel. (c.i.'s mother and my mother-in-law were very close friends.) even though i knew c.i. had a good take on the woman (they get along very well and always have), it didn't matter, i just wanted to be liked. i wanted so badly to be liked that i was about 8 million different people, all of them trying so hard to please.
when my marriage to flyboy ended, it was just a disaster for me personally. and i went through a very dark phase. for those who don't know, i was pregnant and the fetus was not going to live a normal life or a long life. i made the decision to have an abortion and that was the right thing to do but it really did a number on me. while i don't regret the decision and while i think it was best for the fetus, it was hard because i had a long history of miscarriages and always wanted to have a child. so after the abortion, i just didn't give a damn.
flyboy and i had both been playing roles - even while the marriage was collapsing.
and it was only after that darkness that i really found myself. or at least my strength.
so it's not that my mother-in-law mellowed or anything like that. it's that i finally grew up and realized my role in life was not to spend every hour figuring out how to please others. or that the world didn't end because some 1 said they didn't like me.
so when i'm criticizing the 'ladies,' understand i was 1 of them. i was obsessed with not being controversial, with blending and being likeable.
and throughout all of that, i wasn't being me because i was being 8 million other people.
my story has a happy ending. after i started being myself, i went through my dark phase. i slowly started dating. and flyboy and i ended up dating (after c.i. nudged him) and then we ended up married again. now, finally, i have a child and that was so wonderful because i thought i was too old and with my history of pregnancies ...
all of that's great and wonderful and, i would argue, it all comes from letting go. i didn't need to hold my power and hide it. i didn't need to hide myself. when i stopped hiding who i was, when i stopped thinking my life ended if some 1 didn't like me or didn't like what i wore or didn't like, heaven forbid, something i said, i finally started feeling not just like an adult but like a developing person.
i think i would have been a very loving mother back then. i think i would have given love. that is important. i think i also would have been very damaging because i would have passed on my need to please. i would have instilled it in my child.
i think women need to work to break this conditioning that so many of us suffer from.
at the end of the day, it's not about you. it's never about you.
unless you make it about you because you're either scared of who you are or may be.
we need to accept our power. we need to acknowledge it and let it go. not let it go in the sense of being weak. but let it go in the sense that it is power. it is our power. let it out, release it and watch it grow. when we free ourselves by being ourselves, we're even stronger and we're also happier.
i'm tired and elaine just asked me, 'how long have you been writing?' forever! so let me cheat and do links this way:
The Third Estate Sunday Review's Ava
C.I. of The Common Ills and The Third Estate Sunday Review,
Elaine of Like Maria Said Paz,
let's close with c.i.'s 'Iraq snapshot:'
Friday, December 7, 2007. Chaos and violence continue, the Canadian parlaiment's December 11th hearings on war resisters approach, IVAW's Justin Cliburn speaks in Dallas Sunday, Buzzy and Cookie remain brothers but one is now unemployed (don't cry, Blackwater will probably officially hire him now), bombings in Iraq get some media attention and more.
Staring with war resistance. November 15th, Iraq War resisters Jeremy Hinzman and Brandon Hughey learned that the nation's Supreme Court would not hear their appeals. As a result, the focus is now on getting the Canadian Parliament to address the situation. On December 11th, the parliament will hear testimony from war resisters. Dustin Langley (Workers World) notes Hinzman's statements on the illegal war, "They said there were weapons of mass destruction. They haven't found any. They said Iraq was linked to international terrorist organizations. There haven't been any links. This was a criminal war. Any act of violence in an unjustified conflict is an atrocity." Cindy Sheehan (OpEdNews) urges people to utilize Courage to Resist's easy to mail or e-mail resources to allow the Canadian government to know you are watching and to support organizations supporting war resisters as well as supporting war resisters:
Support actual war resisters in Canada by sending them expense money. From my friend Ryan (I gave him and his wife money to get to Canada over two years ago):
In light of the recent Supreme Court denial in Canada, I (Ryan Johnson), My wife (Jen Johnson) and Brandon Hughey need help raising funds to travel to Ottawa to attend hearings before the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, where War Resisters will be giving Testimony to the committee. At these hearings the committee will be deciding on whether or not to make a provision to allow war resisters to stay in Canada. This is one of our last chances to be able to continue living in Canada. We will be leaving December 7th because the hearings are December 11th, 2007 so we need to act fast. They may try to send guys back soon and we need to have a strong War Resister Presence. We appreciate all of the support and Want to thank all of you who can help.
Checks/money orders can be sent for Ryan, Jen and Brandon to:312 Tower Rd Nelson, BC V1L3K6
There is a growing movement of resistance within the US military which includes James Stepp, Rodney Watson, Michael Espinal, Matthew Lowell, Derek Hess, Diedra Cobb, Brad McCall, Justin Cliburn, Timothy Richard, Robert Weiss, Phil McDowell, Steve Yoczik, Ross Spears, Peter Brown, Bethany "Skylar" James, Zamesha Dominique, Chrisopther Scott Magaoay, Jared Hood, James Burmeister, Eli Israel, Joshua Key, Ehren Watada, Terri Johnson, Carla Gomez, Luke Kamunen, Leif Kamunen, Leo Kamunen, Camilo Mejia, Kimberly Rivera, Dean Walcott, Linjamin Mull, Agustin Aguayo, Justin Colby, Marc Train, Abdullah Webster, Robert Zabala, Darrell Anderson, Kyle Snyder, Corey Glass, Jeremy Hinzman, Kevin Lee, Mark Wilkerson, Patrick Hart, Ricky Clousing, Ivan Brobeck, Aidan Delgado, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Stephen Funk, Blake LeMoine, Clifton Hicks, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Joshua Casteel, Katherine Jashinski, Dale Bartell, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell, Jimmy Massey, Chris Capps, Tim Richard, Hart Viges, Michael Blake, Christopher Mogwai, Christian Kjar, Kyle Huwer, Wilfredo Torres, Michael Sudbury, Ghanim Khalil, Vincent La Volpa, DeShawn Reed and Kevin Benderman. In total, at least fifty US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum.Information on war resistance within the military can be found at The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline [(877) 447-4487], Iraq Veterans Against the War and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters. Tom Joad maintains a list of known war resisters. In addition, VETWOW is an organization that assists those suffering from MST (Military Sexual Trauma).
The voice of war resister Camilo Mejia is featured in Rebel Voices -- playing now through December 16th at Culture Project -- that's ten more days -- and based on Howard Zinn and Anthony Arnove's best-selling book Voices of a People's History of the United States. It features dramatic readings of historical voices such as war resister Mejia, Sojourner Truth, Frederick Douglass, Malcom X and others will be featured. Musician Allison Mooerer will head the permanent cast while those confirmed to be performing on selected nights are Ally Sheedy (actress and poet, best known for films such as High Art, The Breakfast Club, Maid to Order, the two Short Circuit films, St. Elmo's Fire, War Games, and, along with Nicky Katt, has good buzz on the forthcoming Harold), Eve Ensler who wrote the theater classic The Vagina Monologues (no, it's not too soon to call that a classic), actor David Strathaim (L.A. Confidential, The Firm, Bob Roberts, Dolores Claiborne and The Bourne Ultimatum), actor and playwright Wallace Shawn (The Princess Bride, Clueless -- film and TV series, Gregory and Chicken Little), actress Lili Taylor (Dogfight, Shortcuts, Say Anything, Household Saints, I Shot Andy Warhol, Mrs. Parker and the Vicious Circle, State of Mind) and actor, director and activist Danny Glover (The Color Purple, Beloved, The Royal Tenenbaums, The Rainmaker, Places In The Heart, Dreamgirls, Shooter and who recently appeared on Democracy Now! addressing the US militarization of Africa) The directors are Will Pomerantz and Rob Urbinati with Urbinati collaborating with Zinn and Arnove on the play. Tickets are $41.. The theater is located at 55 Mercer Street and tickets can be purchased there, over the phone (212-352-3101) or online here and here. More information can be found at Culture Project.
Meanwhile IVAW is organizing a March 2008 DC event:
In 1971, over one hundred members of Vietnam Veterans Against the War gathered in Detroit to share their stories with America. Atrocities like the My Lai massacre had ignited popular opposition to the war, but political and military leaders insisted that such crimes were isolated exceptions. The members of VVAW knew differently.
Over three days in January, these soldiers testified on the systematic brutality they had seen visited upon the people of Vietnam. They called it the Winter Soldier investigation, after Thomas Paine's famous admonishing of the "summer soldier" who shirks his duty during difficult times. In a time of war and lies, the veterans who gathered in Detroit knew it was their duty to tell the truth.
Over thirty years later, we find ourselves faced with a new war. But the lies are the same. Once again, American troops are sinking into increasingly bloody occupations. Once again, war crimes in places like Haditha, Fallujah, and Abu Ghraib have turned the public against the war. Once again, politicians and generals are blaming "a few bad apples" instead of examining the military policies that have destroyed Iraq and Afghanistan.
Once again, our country needs Winter Soldiers.
In March of 2008, Iraq Veterans Against the War will gather in our nation's capital to break the silence and hold our leaders accountable for these wars. We hope you'll join us, because yours is a story that every American needs to hear.
Click here to sign a statement of support for Winter Soldier: Iraq & Afghanistan
March 13th through 15th are the dates for the Winter Soldier Iraq & Afghanistan Investigation.
IVAW's South Central Region Coordinator Justin Cliburn will be speaking this Sunday in Dallas, Texas at the First Unitarian Church of Dallas, Raible Chapel (4015 Normandy Avenue, Dallas, TX 75205) at 10:30 am. Cliburn served in Iraq (2005-2006) and this event is free and open to the public.
In yet another sign of the failures of the puppet government, Eric Westervelt (NPR's Morning Edition) reports that the health ministry does not have a program to care for the wounded civilians or even to track how many there are. The illegal war hits the five-year mark in March. Puppet of the occupation Nouri-al Maliki and his initial cabinet were all in place by May of 2006. And there is no system in place to track the wounded let alone to treat them. Westervelt tells of 36-year-old, father of five Majid Hameed -- a victim of a bombing targeting his work place in March 2004 that left him burned and then, lack of treatment, left him with gangrene in both hands which spread and his arms were amputated to "just above the elbow" who must now attempt to provide for his family by hawking "trinkets" on the streets of Baghdad. He had been a blacksmith and a security guard prior to the bombing. The failed system really depends on international aid. Westervelt doesn't make that point but that is what's going on. Just as, in the US, Wal-Mart doesn't provide for their employees and expects government services to subsidize them, the Iraqi government leaves it to the NGOs to 'handle' the situation. Hammed got the run around at the various government ministries, a private organization told him they would need both medical and police reports to treat him and the police station refused to assist him with those forms while the local council "laughed at me saying, 'We don't give letters to disabled people confirming they were hit by a car bomb. We know nothing about it. This is not our business'." It's no one's business because the failed puppet government of Nouri al-Maliki is not one that serves Iraqis. Why should the puppets show interest in the Iraqi people when the US government never has?
Big Oil's enable Iraq Development Program is announcing "positive signs" in Iraq's economy and sourcing it to Bayan Jubur al-Zubaydi (Iraq's Minister of Finance). It's silly nonsense from a silly 'organization' that quotes the minister stating "the new budget allocated $10 billion dollars to subsidise ration card items and the salaries of government employees and pensioners." Yes, we are back to the subsidies. Note the amount. How much of that alleged ten billion goes to saleries? It's worth pondering because Reuters reports Abdul Falah al-Sudany (Iraq's Trade Minister) asserts that the massive reduction in subsidies that will kick in next month stem from a request for "$7 billion in next year's budget to distribute 10 basic items but received only $3 billion." If both officials are telling the truth that would mean seven billion dollars was required to pay the puppet government. That's a big payroll (especially when government workers make so little that IDP is trumpeting the fact that they've been granted income tax waivers) especially when you consider that "more than 60 percent of Iraq's population rely on the rations." Actually, that's the candied number, United Nation's agencies were estimating it was 80 percent and that was before the vast refugee (internal and external) began. Sameer N. Yacoub (AP) explains, "The system under which all Iraqis are issued ration cards allowing them to buy 10 items -- sugar, flour, rice, powdered milk, cooking oil, tea, beans, baby milk, soap and detergent -- for a nominal fee". The issue isn't money, the issue is the White House's lust for privatization that led to a tag sale in Iraq. It's nothing but the (PDF format warning) same crap the US has been pushing for some time in the name of "economic rehabilitation and reform for Iraq." This despite the fact that Steven Mann, Paul Bremer's boy, was more interested (November, 2003) in "Building the market structure that promotes private business." In September 2003, the United Nations' World Food Programme was sounding alarms over the crisis in Iraq and noting, "Any significant disruption of the public distribution system would have a severe negative impact on food access." That was 2003. Things have not gotten better and anyone who has trouble grasping that can just focus on the numbers then for external refugees (100,000) and internal ones (200,000). Both categories are now in the millions (and combined account for over 4 million people). The food program is not 'less needed' today, it's more needed.
But the tag sale on Iraq is more important to the puppet government which works for the US government which -- apparently -- works for big business. Hence, Amy Goodman (Democracy Now!) notes today, "UPI is reporting Iraq's Oil Ministry is preparing to sign deals for the country's largest oil fields even though the Iraqi government has failed to pass an Iraq oil law. BP, Shell, ExxonMobil, Conoco Phillips and other oil companies are all attempting to win contracts in Iraq. Executives from BP and Shell are expected to be meeting soon with Iraq's Oil Minister. Under Iraqi law, the Oil Ministry can sign service contract deals on its own. But any production-sharing contracts would need parliamentary approval." This follows Selina Williams reporting (for MarketWatch) earlier this week that BP PLC and Royal Duth Shell PLC were to meet Wednesday with Hussein al-Shahristanti (Iraqi oil minister) for oil discussions. UPI's Ben Landon offers "Big Oil's big dreams are close to coming true as Iraq's Oil Ministry prepares deals for the country's largest oil fields with terms that aren't necessarily what companies were hoping for but considered a foot in the door of the world's most promising oil sector." Now who could have added additional strong-arming on that? Has any US official recently visited Iraq?
Robert Gates holds the title of US Secretary of Defense. Spinning the illegal war apparently comes under his job description (and comes naturally but who other than Robert Parry stepped up to call the nomination out when it mattered?). Gates has left Iraq after his photo-op. Thom Shanker (New York Times) quotes Gates declaring he was "encouraged" and that he was "feeling very good abou tthe direction of things in the security arena". Gates was greeted with bombings and bombings continued through his brief stay. Of course, bombings followed his exit. Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports, "A suicide woman wearing an explosive belt detonated herself among the civilians near the center of the local committees in Al Mu'alimeen nieghborhood in Muqdadiyah town east of Baquba city around 9,30 am. 16 civilians were killed in the explosion (8 men, 5 women and 3 children) and 27 others were wounded (19 men, 4 children, 2 Sahwa members and 2 women)." CNN, citing the police, identifies the bomber as Suhaila Ali and notes the bombing "took place outside a building that hosts meetings for local members of a so-called awakening council, whose members are opposed to al Qaeda and have formed an alliance with U.S. and Iraqi forces. . . . More than half of the dead and wounded in Friday's bombing were members of the awakening council, the Interior Ministry said." CBS and AP note that two of Suhaila Ali's sons "were killed by Iraqi security forces" and quotes Ibrahim Bajalan ("head of Diyala provincial council") stating, "She wanted to avenge the killing of her two sons." Alaa Shahine (Reuters) pieces together the immediate lead up to the bombing, "Witnesses said a woman walked up to the building, in a street full of shops, and began asking questions. She detonated the vest she was wearing when people out shopping before Friday prayers began gathering around her." UK's In The News notes, "In April the town was hit by another female suicide bomber who killed over 12 people at a police recruitment centre." The Belfast Telegraph observes it was "the second [attack] in the space of 10 days carried out by female suicide bombers." That refers to a November attack summarized then by M-NF as: "A female suicide bomber detonated an explosive laden suicide-vest, wounding seven U.S. soldiers and five Iraqi citizens in Baqubah, Nov. 27." That was only one of the bombings in the Diyala Province. AFP informs, "Hours later, a suicide car bomber rammed his vehicle into an army checkpoint at the nearby town of Al-Mansuriyah, killing 10 people and wounding eight, among them soldiers and members of another Awakening group, security officials said." Alaa Shahine (Reuters) places the death toll at 10 ("seven Iraqi troops and three members of a local neighbourhood patrol") and eight injured. New York Times' Cara Buckley (at the company's International Herald Tribune) notes that the "three volunteers . . . had been working with the U.S. forces." CBS and AP note that two bombings were "about 10 miles apart". Cami McCormick (CBS News) interviews the newly returned to Fort Hood Army 3rd Brigade Combat Team who had been stationed in Diyala for fifteen months.
McCormick: Many say they were stunned by how dangerous their deployment became.
Spc. Cory Barton: I'd always heard from the guys that had been previous deployed and, you know, family members and friends that had been deployed before, they'd always tell me about the major hot spots -- like Falluja, Najaf, Baghdad, Mosul and places like that -- I've never heard anything about Baquba and then when we touched down, we touched ground in there and it was like an epiphany.
McCormick: It was scary?
Barton: Oh, it was a bad dream.
It's not 'safer' in Iraq. In other violence . . .
Shootings?
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports that today two police officers wounded in a Baghdad gun battle and Jabbar Khalaf ("chief of Rabi'aa police station") was shot dead in Mosul along with 4 other police officers and that yesterday a farmer was shot dead outside Kirkuk, 1 Beshmarga Kurdish force intel officer was wounded (by "a pistol with a silencer) while 1 person was shot dead in Kirkuk and another wounded.
Corpses?
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 3 corpses discovered in Baghdad.
If you missed it, it was time for the laughable Nation magazine to do another editorial on the illegal war. Why they bothered is anyone's guess. They accepted (without question) the bulk of the spin regarding the latest wave of Operation Happy Talk. By contrast, the US Socialist Worker demonstrates needed common sense in their "Editorial: 'Mission Accomplished' again?" noting: "A new U.S. war lie -- concocted by the Bush administration, endorsed by the Democrats, embraced by the mainstream media -- has been deployed to justify continuing the occupation in Iraq. The claim is that the Bush 'surge' of 30,000 U.S. troops to Iraq worked -- and is, at long last, bringing 'peace' and 'stability.' . . . . But lurking behind the hype is a different reality -- one that reporters working in Iraq readily admit. A Pew Research Center poll of U.S. reporters working in Iraq found that '[n]early 90 percent of U.S. journalists in Iraq say much of Baghdad is still too dangerous to visit' -- and that many believe U.S. media 'coverage has painted too rosy a picture of the conflict'." As the editorial notes, imperialism is a bi-partisan goal with Republicans and Democrats embracing one another from across the aisle. Which is why CBS and AP's bulletin should come as no surprise: "Democrats controlling Congress sent the most explicit signals yet on Thursday that they are resigned to providing additional funding for the war in Iraq before Congress adjourns for the year." They're preparing to cave again. And as CBS reports that $1 billion in equipment is missing in Iraq. There for-show stunt that found US Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid claiming they woulnd't budge has collapsed. As the Socialist Worker concludes, "The bipartisan Washington establishment is rallying around the consensus that the surge worked because it provides the excuses for continued occupation. Opponents of the war need to expose this new war lie -- and insist that life in Iraq will only really improve when the U.S. gets out."
And those enlisting to assist don't just include The Nation but also NPR. As Ruth noted yesterday, the public radio network "did 'investigative journalism' . . . They discovered that the American people have lost interest in ending the illegal war. How did they unearth this questionable claim? They spoke to Congressional staffers. They spoke to staffers of Congress members, the same Congress that has refused to end the illegal war. It is truly a shock, at least to NPR, that said staffers might lie to take the heat off the people who sign their pay checks." NPR's Day to Day wants you to believe that "Iraq has become less of an issue in the presidential campaign." They need you to believe it having offered a two-hour Democratic presidential hopefuls 'debate' this week where, despite the US being engaged in a war, the 'moderators' never asked about the Iraq War. As noted in Wednesday's snapshot, that 'reality' is far from reality: "In fact the latest poll found it the issue most noted by respondents -- you could take the second and third most cited issues (economy and healthcare), add them together and Iraq would still outrank them. But the media has lost interest. Add another poll to the mix. Faye Fiore (Los Angeles Times) reports on the Los Angeles Times - Bloomberg News poll which found, "Nearly six of every 10 military families disapprove of Bush's job performance and the way he has run the war, rating him only slightly better than the general population does." Was the illegal war "worth it"? All poll respondents state no by 60%, respondents from homes "with active military/vets" said no by 57% and homes "with military in Iraq/vets" said no by 60%. Translation: America says the illegal war was not worth it. To anser the Clash's musical question -- "Should I Stay or Should I Go" -- 23% polled said bring them home "right away" (21% for homes with active military/vets and 27% for homes with military in Iraq/vets) while 41% say bring them home "within next year" (37% and 42% in the previous breakdown). Bring the troops home? 64% say YES! It's only in the lame media that wants to pretend the issue is no longer an issue. And of course the media includes some on the 'left' because you can't pimp the war supporter Barack Obama so hard and still call for an end to the illegal war. (LAT piece is also at Common Dreams.)
Turning from the mercenaries in Congress to the mercenaries of Blackwater. When last we checked in on Buzzy and Cookie (November 19th snapshot), Howard Cookie Krongard was remaining the US State Dept's inspector general but stated he was going to remove himself from pretending to provide oversight of Blackwater due to the fact that his brother A. B. Buzzy Krongard serves on the advisory board of Blackwater. Previously, Cookie had tried to deny that Buzzy was working with Blackwater, deny in a Congressional hearing, but admitted it was true after requesting a break. Despite Cookie's claims, Buzzy told Scott Shane (New York Times) that he had told his brother he was on the advisory board "a few weeks ago." In an update, Reuters reports today that Cookie has announced he will resign from the State Department. Jeremy Scahill (Common Dreams) provides an update on the latest to do with Blackwater and he will be back on Democracy Now! next week to discuss the latest regarding the mercenaries (I believe Monday). Scahill concludes in his latest piece: "In short, Blackwater is moving ahead at full steam. Individual scandals clearly aren't enough to slow it down. The company's critics in the Democratic-controlled Congress must confront the root of the problem: the government is in the midst of its most radical privatization in history, and companies like Blackwater are becoming ever more deeply embedded in the war apparatus. Until this system is brought down, the world's the limit for Blackwater Worldwide--and as its rebranding campaign shows, Blackwater knows it."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)