A column published Monday in the New York Times by Jimmy Carter, the 39th president of the United States, constitutes an extraordinary indictment of the Obama administration for engaging in assassinations and other criminal violations of international law and the US Constitution.
Titling his column “A Cruel and Unusual Record,” Carter writes: “Revelations that top officials are targeting people to be assassinated abroad, including American citizens, are only the most recent, disturbing proof of how far our nation’s violation of human rights has extended.”
Referring to the infamous provisions of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), signed into law by Obama on December 31 of last year, Carter writes: “Recent legislation has made legal the president’s right to detain a person indefinitely on suspicion of affiliation with terrorist organizations or ‘associated forces,’ a broad, vague power that can be abused without meaningful oversight from the courts or Congress.” He goes on to refer to “unprecedented violations of our rights” through warrantless wiretapping and electronic data mining.
Elaborating on the US drone strikes, the former president adds, “Despite an arbitrary rule that any man killed by drones is declared an enemy terrorist, the death of nearby innocent women and children is accepted as inevitable… We don’t know how many hundreds of innocent civilians have been killed in these attacks, each one approved by the highest authorities in Washington. This would have been unthinkable in previous times.”
Carter’s column appeared on the same day that Pakistan’s ambassador to the United Nations testified before the UN Human Rights Commission, denouncing US drone attacks on his country in which “thousands of innocent people, including women and children, have been murdered.” He said that in 2010 alone, 957 Pakistanis were killed.
Domestically? I think this CNN article on ObamaCare.
Tomorrow, supposedly, we're supposed to find out what happens, what the Supreme Court verdict is.
I hope the mandate's killed. I loathe the entire thing but the mandate was such a clear overreach.
I find it hilarious that so many outlets lied and lied for years and now have to deal with the fact that, yeah, there were always legal problems with it even though you asses refused to report them.
CBS News outlined the legal problems in this video.
Again, I hope that at least the mandate is overturned. I'd cheer for the entire thing being overturned but I'll settle for the mandate being killed.
Here's C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"
That
was this morning where she presided over the Senate Veterans Affairs
Committee. There is a ton of stuff to cover in that hearing. Tonight
at her site, Kat's grabbing Ranking Member Richard Burr as usual, Ava's going to fill in at Trina's site and cover Scott Brown, Wally will fill in at Rebecca's
site to cover an aspect of the hearing which may be a cost issue but
he's also considering a Bill of Rights and doesn't know yet what he'll
go with. Again, it was a jam packed hearing. The purpose was to
review and/or advocate for proposed legislation so you saw many US
Senators not on the Committee appear before the Committee today. We'll
probably note the hearing in tomorrow's snapshot as well because so much
did take place but we'll focus on Chair Patty Murray today. If
Murray's actions since becoming chair of the Committee were boiled down
to one thing, I would argue she's been very firm that veterans have an
equal playing field. If they're promised something, it needs to be
delivered. If they're not promised something but civilians are,
Murray's advocating for equality. She has two bills she covered in the
hearing. We noted the mental health aspect. Her other bill is S. 3313,
The Women Veterans and Other Health Care Improvement Act of 2012.
This pulls the VA into 2012 by recognizing reproductive injuries among
other things. Tracy Keil appeared before the Committee and noted, "I'd
like to emphasize this statement: War time changes a family, it
shouldn't take away the ability to have one." But without the bill,
many veterans families won't have the opportunity because certain
procedures are not covered currenty. She explained what happened to her
and her husband, Iraq War veteran Matt Keil. This is from her written
statement.
My husband Matt was shot in
the neck while on patrol in Ramadi, Iraq on February 24, 2007 just 6
weeks after we were married. The bullet went through the right side of
his neck, hit his vertebral artery, went through his spinal cord and
exited through his left shoulder blade. Matt instantly because a
quadriplegic. When I first saw him 3 days after he was injured I was in
shock, they explained to me that he had a "Christopher Reeve type
injury." He would be on a ventilator for the rest of his life and would
never move his arms or legs.
Matt and I
looked at each other in his hospital room at Walter Reed and he asked me
if I still loved him? I said "baby you're stuck with me!" at that
moment we knew that we would be okay if we stayed in this together. I
knew that we just needed to work really hard to get Matt off his
ventilator to increase his life expectancy. Ultimately we moved to
Craigh Hospital in Denver to be closer to family support.
Four
weeks to the day of arriving at Craig Hospital in Denver, Matt was
officially off of his ventilator and we could truly concentrate on him
doing physical rehabilitation. Matt has regained about 10% function of
his left arm but not his hand. He was feeling good and getting used to
his new normal of being in a wheelchair and asking for help for
everything.
It was while we were at Craigh
hospital that we started talking about having a family. Craig doctors
talked to us about invitro fertilzation and recommended some doctors for
us to speak to when we were ready tos tart a family. We started to get
really excited that even though so much had been taken away from Matt
physically that we could still have the future we always dreamed of.
My
husband is the msot amazing man I have ever met, he is strong, honest
and loyal and he wanted us to both have everything we always wanted
before his injury and we agreed that this injury wasn't the end, it was
the beginning of a new life, and we were in this together.
We
had our whole lives ahead of us. Matt was just 24 when he was injured
and I was 28. We are very fortunate that he survived his injuries that
day and we made a promise to each other on our wedding day "For better
or worse, in sickness and in health" I meant every word and still do
today. It is a challenge for my husband and I everyday but we knew we
still wanted to start a family. I remember back when he was in
rehabilitation at Craigh Hospital it's all we could talk about was when
we were going to be adjusted to our new normal and when we would we be
ready to have children. We always knew we had wanted children.
In
2008 we moved into a fully handicap accessible home built for us by
Homes For Our Troops. We were strating to feel like things were falling
into place in our lives. We felt like we were starting to get back on
track to where we were before Matt was injured.
His
injury unfortunately prvents him from having children naturally. In
mid 2008 I started asking the VA what services they could offer my
husband and I to assist us with fertility. I can remember hitting road
blocks at every turn. I decided to take things into my own hands and
write letters and make phone calls to try and get anyone to listen to us
that we needed help. Fertility treatments are very expensive and since
I had left my full time job we were still adjusting to living on one
income.
I felt helpless and hopeless and
thought that our dreams of having a family may never come true. The VA
finally said that they would cover the sperm withdrawal from my husband .
. . that costs $1,000 and that they would store the sperm for us at no
charge.
It was very difficult when I found
out there was no help available for us from the VA or Tricare. I felt
very defeated, sad, disappointed and in some ways I felt helpless. I
researched everything I could about how to get Tricare to cover some of
the costs but they couldn't because it was a direct result of my
husband's injury and that fell under the VA. The VA said that they had
no programs in place for this sort of thing. I even started asking non
profits to assist with the cost and they couldn't help due to the other
immediate needs of injured service members.
They had to jump through hurdles they never should have had to but , on November 9, 2010,
Tracy Keil gave birth to their twins Faith and Matthew.
Chair
Patty Murray: The Dept of Defense, as I mentioned earlier, provides
access to advanced reproductive treatments. And recently issued some
guidance on offering these services at no cost to severely injured
service members and their spouses. The VA on the other hand can't
provide these services and it's pretty clear that they don't meet the
reproductive health care needs of veterans who have experienced severe
trauma as you outlined to us in your testimony a few moments ago. When
you and your husband Matt were trying to conceive, you faced some very
substantial road blocks from both the Dept of Defense and VA. And since
that time, DoD has changed their policy. They now do offer fertility
services for severely injured veterans. I believe that veterans like
Matt have earned DoD and VA coverage and there should be no difference.
I assume you agree with that?
Tracy
Keil: I absolutely agree. My understanding is that you would need to
travel to a military treatment facility in order to receive those
services that the DoD is offering -- whether that be Fort Bragg or
Walter Reed. That's not an option for families of the most severely
injured such as my husband. There's no way that I could travel to one of
those treatment facilities and care for my husband. And I want him
there every step of the way. So that, for us, would not be an option. I
feel that he, with his service and sacrifice, I feel that he now falls
under the VA guidelines of care. He is a retired -- medically retired
-- service member. And he ultimately is the VA's responsibility. So I
feel that we fall under their responsibility.
A lot's going on in Iraq -- as usual -- so that's going to have to be it on the hearing for today.
In Iraq today a new development in the ongoing political crisis. Khalid Al Ansary and Nayla Razzouk (Bloomberg News) report,
"Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki will call for early elections if
dialogue fails to resolve a political crisis, his media adviser Ali
al-Moussawi said." Ahmed Rasheed (Reuters) notes
that Nouri is threatening to "call for early elections if other
political parties refuse to negotiate to end crisis over power-sharing
that threatens to revive sectarian tensions." To throw some reality at
the topic, the crisis could end at any time -- as Moqtada al-Sadr has
repeatedly noted -- by Nouri returning to the Erbil Agreement. I
realize that journalists are cowardly and stupid (friends excepted of
course) but do they realize how bad they look as they report on the
political crisis without addressing what's going on? Since last summer,
the Kurds, Iraqiya and Moqtada have been calling for a return to the
Erbil Agreement. For months now, as they have explored getting Nouri
out of office, it has been noted that Nouri can stop that effort at any
point by returning to the Erbil Agreement.
Now
Nouri's saying that he'll call for early elections if others -- If
others. So the news? If Nouri's making that threat it is reasonable to
conclude that he (still) will not return to the Erbil Agreement.
What's the Erbil Agreement?
In
March 2010, parliamentary elections were held. Despite Nouri's 'polls'
insisting his State of Lead would win by an overwhelming margin, they
didn't. They didn't even win. Ayad Allaw's Iraqiya won. Nouri refused
to allow the Constitution to be followed, he refused to step aside and
allow someone else to be named prime minister-designate. He refused for
over eight months. It was Political Stalemate I. The White House
backed Nouri. Otherwise he would have been forced out of office. In
November 2010, the US government negotiated an agreement, the contract
known as the Erbil Agreement. Nouri and the other leaders signed off on
it. In exchange for various concessions from Nouri, the blocs would
allow him a second term as prime minister.
The
tantrum throwing brat was appeased. Nouri grabbed the Erbil Agreement
and ran with it to have a second term as prime minister. But he refused
to honor the written promises he made in the contract. And the US
government was more than happy to play dumb.
As noted earlier, this is what the political crisis is about.
As
the calls to return to the Erbil Agreement increased and as Nouri
refused to do anything. People began to explore other possible actions
and outcomes. April 28th, Iraqiya, the Kurdisan Alliance and Iraqiya
met in Erbil to discuss withdrawing confidence from Nouri.
A
press conference followed that meeting as these participants attempted
to present a unified front. And certain questions remained not only
unanswered but also unasked. Mustafa Habib (Niqash) asked the questions when he interviewed MP Diaa N. al-Asadi of the Sadr bloc last week. For example:
NIQASH: Who came up with the idea of withdrawing confidence?
Al-Asadi:
In a meeting in Erbil attended by the leaders of various political
blocs and also by al-Sadr, the President [of Iraq] Jalal Talabani
suggested it because he felt there was a lot of support for the idea.
Talabani himself felt that his role was being marginalized and his
powers diminished. Those who met in Erbil concluded that al-Maliki
really had no intention to reform and that the best way change this
situation was to initiate a motion of no confidence. Al-Sadr said that
he was with them if they collected 124 votes [from MPs] supporting this
motion. In which case, he would join them and then there would be enough
votes [the Ahrar bloc have 40 votes, 163 were needed].
Iraqi President Jalal Talabani came up with the idea of a vote of no-confidence?
Very interesting.
For
those who've forgotten, Jalal was a big talker. He also told those
present that he could do a vote of no-confidence all by himself, without
any need for a petition or a for a call from the floor of Parliament.
But it was decided to go the petition for no confidence vote. And 176
signatures -- more than needed -- were collected.
It seemed a done deal.
Then
Jalal came up with a new 'power.' He could go through and authenticate
the signatures -- that's not in the Constitution. Per the
Constitution, he's merely to pass any such petition onto the
Parliament. But authenticity turned out not to be enough for Jalal.
He
eliminated signatures. How come? Because people said they signed it
but they'd changed their minds. That's not how a petition works. Once
you sign it, you've signed it. You can vote in Parliament anyway you
want but an MP who says, "Yes, I signed it but I've changed my mind"?
That's someone who needs to be told, "You can register that change when
the Parliament takes a vote." Under Jalal's 'rules' any petition you
signed for a stop sign? Call your local government. Explain to them
that you did sign the petition but now you've changed your mind and you
want your name off. See how long they laugh at you and grasp that Iraqi
-- especially in the KRG -- are laughing even longer and harder at
Jalal Talabani.
That's why he fled to Germany
for an 'emergency procedure' that required him ignoring the request not
to leave Iraq during this political crisis. (The 'emergeny procedure'?
Knee surgery.)
Nouri's threat to call early
elections is only the most recent tactic. Already, he's been rejecting
calls to appear before the Parliament. Kitabat reports
today that the Speaker of Parliament's office released a statement
noting that the Constitution outlines this process and that Parliament
is an equal partner in government. In addition, the statement notes
that the Parliament is the legitimate representatives of the people and
that must be recognized. Unlike the post of prime minister or the
Cabinet of Ministers, the people vote in Parliament elections. (It's a
bit more complicated than that in practice but we don't have time this
morning. Suffice is to say, most of the MPs were not voted on as
individuals.) Alsumaria notes
that the statement goes onto point out that the Parliament's
successfully passed "hundreds" of bills in the legislative session and
that they are doing the work of the people. The statement notes that
the Constitution must be respected.
Nouri's political slate State of Law came in second in the 2010 elections. That may explain the perpetual chip they have on their shoulder. Alsumaria notes they are saying Speaker of Parliament Osama al-Nujaifi made a "fatal error" by signing onto an agreement in Erbil. They're not clear on which agreement. It's a 2012 one and may mean the April 28th deal or something later. It's so very hard to tell what the half-wits of State of Law mean to say. They're also attacking Moqtada al-Sadr and stating now that his decision not to take part in questioning of Nouri (should Nouri appear before Parliament) indicates he's on their side. No, it indicates that Moqtada's acting consistent with what's he's stated for months now: This isn't about dumping Nouri, this is about returning to the Erbil Agreement. Al Rafidayn reports Ibrahim al-Jaafari has declared the Nationl Alliance will create a reform body. Talk about meaningless gesutres. A toothless body of Nouri supporters will 'oversee' Nouri? Already Alsumaria reports Iraqiya (who came in first in the 2010 elections) is calling the measure a non-starter that will not resolve the crisis. It's in that environment that Nouri threatened to call early elections. Hevidar Ahmed (Rudaw) quotes Kurdish MP Arif Tayfur (Kurdistan Democratic Party) offering of the chances of Nouri keeping political promises, "He has not done it for six years and he has constantly attempted to add to this crisis."
W.G. Dunlop (AFP) quotes
Nouri's website where a statement reads, "When the other side refuses
to sit at the table of dialogue and insists on the policy of provoking
successive crises in a way that causes serious damage to the supreme
interests of the Iraqi people, the prime minister found himself forced
to call for early elections." (Whether it was intended as an inside
joke or not, Dunlop's "President Jalal Talabani's position on the issue
was not immediately clear." made me laugh. And, intended joke or not,
Dunlop's report is the strongest factually of any on the topic. The
weakest? AP because, yet again, they treat an ongoing crisis as something that only started December 21st.)
Though it's in the news cycle today, early elections have long been floated by others. As we pointed out yesterday:
Some
might see that as a good way to go and possibly it is. But there is a
potential negative side. Parliament gets dissolved and Nouri rules
through the next elections. The next elections would not be in a
matter of weeks. The KRG is currently working on their laws ahead of
the 2013 provincial election. This could take months and the KRG runs
smoother than any other part of Iraq. Meaning parlimentary elections
are scheduled for 2014. The Nouri al-Maliki who let over 8 months of
gridlock pass following the March 2010 elections isn't necessarily
someone who feels pressure to move in a speedy manner. He could easily
stall and delay it so that there are no elections until 2014 when they
ae scheduled to take place.
Also, you
might remember that the 2010 parliamentary elections were supposed to
take place in 2009. But kept getting pushed back and pushed back.
Remember all of Chris Hill's assurance on them that ended up being
wrong? Chris hopes you don't, he's still pretending an expert on Iraq.
Bare minimum for early elections: all voting laws must be in compliance
and be fair (the KRG is addressing a law that reads so that Christians
can only vote for other Christians, that's the law they're trying to
amend currently), a law for the election must be passed -- which
requires agreement (one big sticking point in 2009 was the issue of how
many external refugees Iraq had and whether or not they were properly
represented -- remember that, we'll come back to it) and you need to
print up the ballots and have the election centers in place. The
ballots is with the help of the United Nations. As November progressed
in 2009, the UN announced there would be no 2009 elections because
there was no longer enough time to print the ballots. For the March 7,
2010 election ballots, the UN began printing those on January 21, 2010
and they were pressed but managed to do it in 45 days.
Here's the Iraqi Constitution's Article 61:
Article 61:
First:
The Council of Representatives may dissolve itself with the consent of
the absolute majority of its members, upon the request of one-third of
its members or upon the request of the Prime Minister and the consent of
the President of the Republic. The Council may not be dissolved during
the period in which the Prime Minister is being questioned.
Second:
Upon the dissolution of the Council of Representatives, the President
of the Republic shall call for general elections in the country within a
period not to exceed sixty days from the date of its dissolution. The
Cabinet in this case is considered resigned and continues to run
everyday business.
Remember
the refugee issue and how we were talking about how it was part of the
delay in 2009 on parliamentary elections? Sunnis make up a larger
number of external refugees than do Shi'ites (and refugees are allowed
to vote in Iraqi elections, they do not have to be living in Iraq). And
this was among the reasons that Vice President Tareq al-Hashemi wanted
them to be represented properly (a quota is set aside). When he didn't
get what he wanted, he vetoed the proposed law as was his right.
What
our 'constitutional' experts who've never studied a Constitution don't
understand is that a Constitution has stated powers and implied powers.
In addition, there are powers that become powers via custom. In the
US, for example, the failure to hold Barack Obama accountable for the
same crimes that Bush committed? A legal argument can now be made that
those powers exist for the presidency now via custom. You have had a
Republican do it and now a Democrat do it and the Congress never
bothered to outlaw it or challenge it. So, it can be argued, it's now a
power of the office via custom.
All the Nir
Rosens and his circle jerk buddies cheering on Nouri's authoritarian
stance never seemed to grasp that in a country with a new Constitution,
it was not only important that the Constitution be followed, it was
vital that it be followed.
But here's where
Nouri's power grabs could potentially bite him in the butt. Nouri's
refused to name the security ministries. He's refused to nominate
anyone and send them to the Parliament for a vote. He's instead created
'acting' ministers -- a term that doesn't exist in the Constitution.
But he's done that for some time now. Jalal Talabani, as we noted last
week, in what was probably a pathetic bid for sympathy, floated the
notion that when he returned to Iraq after his 'delicate' surgery, he
would step down as president.
If that happens,
who's president of Iraq? Until one's electing, it can be argued that a
vice president becomes 'acting.' Article 69 makes no mention of this
and outlines how the Parliament would begin to elect a president if one
resigned. But there's no mention of 'acting' ministers in the Cabinet
either and the Parliament might have other things to do or might be on a
break.
Were that to happen -- and this will
shock some -- the 'acting' president of Iraq would be Tareq al-Hashemi.
Some will gasp, "He's on trial!" Check the Constitution. He's not
been removed from his office. And to be removed the Speaker of
Parliament would have to go along with it. That's Osama al-Nujaifi.
Like al-Hashemi, al-Nujaifi is both Sunni and a member of Iraqiya.
During
Nouri's first term as prime minister (beginning in 2006), Vice
President Adil Abdul-Mahdi and Vice President Tareq al-Hashemi were
Iraq's two vice presidents. In early 2011, there was a move towards
upping it to three vice presidents and it would have gone through at
that time but, among other reasons, sexism prevented it. The three
would have been Adil Abdul-Mahdi, Tareq al-Hashemi and female Turkman.
Sexism doomed that. But the idea of three wasn't dropped and the
male Khudair Khuzaie was quickly named to the spot along with
Abdul-Mahdi and al-Hashemi. This caused the leader of the Iraqi Turkmen Front issued the following statement February 14, 2011:
We,
as the Iraqi Turkmen Front, as a political organization defending the
legal national rights of the Turkmen nation, thank the President of Iraq
for his request for a fourth vice presidency and for the candidate to
be a Turkmen. However, we would have wished that the third vice
presidency position be offered to the Turkmen and we would like to take
the opportunity to ask the distinguished Presidenty why the third vice
presidency was not offered to a Turkmen candidate.
The
distinguished President could have requested the fourth vice presidency
position and refrained from disclosing the names of the three other
vice presidents and sending them to the Iraqi parliament before this
position was approved.
The names of the
three vice presidents presented to the Iraqi Parliament in a single list
and a request to the same parliament for a fourth vice presidency
position is just a ruse thrown in front of those who obstruct the
Turkmen and their legal rights. Those segments have resisted the
deputizing of a Turkmen vice president from the beginning.
For
this reason, we request that after the fourth vice presidency is
approved, the names of all four vice presidents are presented to the
Iraqi Parliament together. Otherwise, we must accept that the proposal
was not serious and just an incident targeting the rights and
jurisprudence of the Turkmen.
Dr. Sadettin Ergec
Leader of Iraqi Turkmen Front
In
May of 2011, when the 100 days Nouri asked the protesters for (give him
100 days and he would address the lack of public utilities, the issue
of unemployment, the issue of the missing in Iraq, etc. and all the
corruption) expired and Nouri hadn't done anything, Adil Abdul-Mahdi
announced government was not serving the Iraqi people and he was
resigning. That makes Tareq al-Hashemi the senior vice president. He
remains in office. By the rules Nouri's created over the years for
acting ministers -- including in 2010 when he forced the Minister of Oil
off as also being the Minister of Energy when the latter minister quit
-- Tareq al-Hashemi can assume the presidency if Jalal steps down. He
can be 'acting' president until the time comes that Parliament votes in a
new president.
There is nothing in the
Constitution -- read it -- that says the president must be in Baghdad.
In fact, as written, al-Hashemi could be president of Iraq -- 'acting'
president -- from Saudi Arabia if he wanted. So if Jalal does make good
on his threat and Nouri tries to make good on his, there is a chance
that Tareq al-Hashemi could announce himself 'acting president.' And
you can be sure Osama al-Nujaifi, in his role of Speaker of Parliament,
would recognize al-Hashemi as that.
That would
mean no consent for early elections and that would also mean al-Hashemi
would immediately call for a withdrawal of confidence vote.
The
Constitution needs to be followed. Nouri's lived outside it for two
terms now. In doing so, he's created powers that don't exist but have
remained unchallenged.
Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) notes that Iraq experiences bombings again today. Lu Hui (Xinhua) counts
two bombings which left 11 dead and twelve injured with one of the
bombings targeting the home of a Sahwa and, when people arrived on the
scene, another bomb went off. Alsumaria notes that another house was also bombed killing 3 women in one family. While some outlets are counting three bombings, AFP and BBC count two. In addition, Alsumaria reports a Babel sticky bombing which claimed 1 life and left another person injured.
|
Lastly, despite reports yesterday ("The
body of an American contractor who was found dead in Baghdad was flown
back to the U.S. on Tuesday after a two-week bureaucratic debate over
whether the Iraqi government would perform an autopsy on his remains."),
Michael David Copeland's body was not flown to the US. The body of the
Iraq War veteran who died June 9th, shortly after retutning to Iraq as a
worker for DynaCorp, was in Kuwait as of Tuesday night according to his
family. His father Mike Copeland tells Jamie Oberg (News9 -- link is text and video) that,
"We are very pleased to know that the long struggle as far as that
goes is over, he's not home yet of course he's got a long ways to go and
we still don't know what the cause of his death was." Victoria Maranan (KXII -- link is text and video) adds, "He
died 17 days ago while working for a contractor in Iraq. His family has
been fighting to have his body brought home to Oklahoma ever since.
Mike Copeland said they were notified yesterday by DynCorp that
arrangements had been made to send Michael David's body back to the U.S.
He said the Iraqi government did not perform the autopsy, but instead
it will be performed by the Armed Forces Medical Examiner when Michael's
body arrives in Delaware." Bryan Dean (News OK) quotes Michael David Copeland's cousing Brent Barry stating, "He will be flown to Dover, Del., arriving on Thursday."
