The destruction

Hump day, hump day. But there's really not a hump day when you're on vacation. Every day's a great day during a vacation. :D

US House Rep. Jim Moran has a column at POLITICO and here's a taste of it:

During the Fourth of July weekend, hundreds of thousands of people visited the National Mall to watch fireworks, tour museums and monuments and revisit the story of our country’s founding and development as a beacon of democracy and freedom.

But the full narrative — who we are as a nation and the many vibrant ethnicities that make up the fabric of the American experience — remains incomplete. This story about the making of the American people — all the people — needs to be told in our nation’s capital.

And this is from the Center for Constitutional Rights:

FBI Views Secure Communities as First Step in “Next Generation Identification” (NGI) Surveillance Project to Amass Expansive Database of Personal Biometric Information

Opt-Out Policy for Secure Communities Set by Obscure FBI Panel, Not by Law

Contact: press@ccrjustice.org


July 6, 2011, New York and Washington – Documents obtained through Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) litigation by the National Day Laborer Organizing Network (NDLON), the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR), and the Cardozo Law School Immigration Justice Clinic show that the controversial Secure Communities deportation program (S-Comm), designed by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to target people for deportation, is also a key component of a little-known FBI project to accumulate a massive store of personal biometric information on citizens and non-citizens alike.

According to the documents, S-Comm is “only the first of a number of biometric interoperability systems being brought online by the FBI ‘Next Generation Identification’ (NGI) project.” NGI will expand the FBI’s existing fingerprint database to add iris scans, palm prints, and facial recognition information for a wide range of people.

Jessica Karp of NDLON explained: “NGI is the next generation Big Brother. It’s a backdoor route to a national ID, to be carried not in a wallet, but within the body itself. The FBI’s biometric-based project is vulnerable to hackers and national security breaches and carries serious risks of identity theft. If your biometric identity is stolen or corrupted in NGI, it will be hard to fix. Unlike an identity card or pin code, biometrics are forever.”

The misrepresentations ICE used to sell S-Comm to states have been well documented and are currently the subject of a DHS Office of the Inspector General investigation. But to date, the FBI’s role in S-Comm has not been scrutinized, although the FBI has come under fire recently for adopting new, generalized policies that permit intrusive, suspicionless surveillance without adequate oversight.

Said Bridget Kessler of the Cardozo Law School Immigration Justice Clinic: “These documents provide a fascinating glimpse into the FBI’s role in forcing S-Comm on states and localities. The FBI’s desire to pave the way for the rest of the NGI project seems to have been a driving force in the policy decision to make S-Comm mandatory. But the documents also confirm that, both technologically and legally, S-Comm could have been voluntary.”

Although the documents obtained raise many more questions than answers about the FBI’s involvement in S-Comm and S-Comm’s place in the broader NGI project, they do reveal the following key facts:

The CJIS Advisory Board, which oversees the FBI’s criminal databases, passed a motion in June 2009 to recommend that the FBI convert S-Comm from a voluntary to a mandatory program at the local level. At that time – and as much as one year later – ICE was still representing S-Comm as voluntary to state and local officials.

The FBI’s decision to support mandatory imposition of S-Comm was not driven by any legal mandate. In fact, the FBI considered making S-Comm voluntary, showing that it viewed opting out as both a technological possibility and a lawful option. The FBI chose the mandatory route not because of a statutory requirement, but for “record linking/maintenance purposes.” In focusing on mundane record-keeping issues, the agency failed to weigh any of the considerations that have driven states and localities across the country to withdraw from S-Comm, including the program’s impact on community policing, its association with an increased risk of racial profiling, and its failure to comply with its announced purpose of targeting dangerous criminals.

Both FBI and immigration officials have raised concerns internally that aspects of S-Comm may interfere with privacy and invade civil liberties. Notes from one meeting, for example, state that S-Comm “goes against privacy and civil liberties.” In another series of emails, FBI officials raised concerns that state and local users of the FBI databases would be surprised to learn that the FBI was using their data to perform searches that the users had neither requested nor authorized.

DHS may be using S-Comm to gather and store data about U.S. citizens, too. One of the newly obtained documents indicates that US-VISIT, a component of DHS may have considered storing certain information about individuals in violation of their own internal requirements and privacy laws. This may include the retention of data about the lawful activities of even natural-born U.S. citizens.

Said Center for Constitutional Rights attorney Gitanjali Gutierrez, “These revelations should disturb us on multiple levels: the lies, the shadowy role of the FBI, the threats to citizens and non-citizens alike, and the rampant potential violations of civil liberties. This goes far beyond the irreparable S-Comm program and opens a window onto the dystopian future our government has planned. With so much at stake, this process must at all costs be transparent going forward.”

To read our briefing guide, factsheet and related documents, please visit http://uncoverthetruth.org/foia-documents/foia-ngi/ngi-documents/. To read FOIA documents and information about the case NDLON v. ICE brought by CCR, the National Day Laborer Organizing Network and the Cardozo Law School Immigration Justice Clinic, visit CCR’s legal case page.



The Center for Constitutional Rights is dedicated to advancing and protecting the rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Founded in 1966 by attorneys who represented civil rights movements in the South, CCR is a non-profit legal and educational organization committed to the creative use of law as a positive force for social change.


I'm getting so damn sick of people running the government who do not respect the Bill of Rights, democracy or anything else. They all ought to be ashamed. There's a song Joni Mitchell's got, I'm forgetting the title right now but she sings about how "they're going to slam free choice behind us." And that describes the above.

Here's C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"

Wednesday, July 6, 2011. Chaos and violence continue, Barack pretends to want to cut waste but continues to waste trillions on the wars, Iran and Iraq firm up their friendship, denials fly all over about the US military staying in Iraq beyond 2011, and more. Starting with Libya. Yesterday on Flashpoints (KPFA, Pacifica), guest host Kevin Pina spoke with Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya who has left Canada to report from Libya on the illegal war. Kevin Pina:The US Congress delayed a vote for a resolution supporting the NATO-led air campaign in Libya amidst reports of new bombing raids on Tripoli just this weekend. This comes on the heels of last week's revelations that France had flouted a UN resolution barring arm shipments to Libya by providing guns, ammunition and rocket launchers to Libyan forces opposed to Muammar Gaddafi The French government has since said that the armaments provided to elements aligned with the Libyan National Transitional Council were intended for defensive purposes only. However, no sooner had the French provided that qualifier, Libyan rebel commanders announced offensive military plans to take the capitol of Tripoli. And you're listening to Flashpoints on Pacifica Radio and now joining me from Tripoli, Libya is once again our special correspondent Mahdi Nazemroaya. Mahdi, welcome back to Flashpoints. Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya: Thanks for having me, Kevin. Kevin Pina: So I understand that the bombs fell again this weekend on the capitol Tripoli. Give us an update, what's going on on the ground there? Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya: Well the last time I talked to you, right after we finished our discussion, bombs had started falling and very close to me actually. I was in a civilian residential area at a fact-finding NGO, talking to the organizers there and during the middle of our conversation: Bombs. I've talked to foreigners living here. Italians, people from other Arab countries and Europe, even a Canadian who lives here. They've gotten so used to the bombs they can tell the difference between a missile and a bomb from the noise -- what's hitting what. Their lives have changed. The Italian lady I talked to who lives here, she was never into politics or the media or scrutinizing it until she lived here because she's saying what the media is reporting is her life and a total contradiction of reality. She can't get the reality of her life to-to correspond with what she's saying about Libya. She's totally disgusted about what's happening. So, yes, they've been bombing at night, they've been bombing during the day and there's been flights overhead on the hour almost. Kevin Pina; And so what are the effects of the bombings been? Have they been hitting military targets? Have they been -- saying they're hitting military targets but striking civilian neighborhoods again as they did in the past? Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya: They have not been hitting military targets. There's no more military targets to hit after the first two days. There's nothing military left. All they've been doing is carpet bombing this place. That's essentially what it's coming down to. It's a watered down form of carpet bombing and they've been giving aerial support to the forces opposed to the government and Col Gaddafi here. That's what they've been doing. They've been bombing places that have nothing to do with war, have nothing to do with commanding control, they've been bombing civilian areas. I've taken pictures of them, others have. They've bombed food storage facilities. They've bombed a place where bank notes are made. They've bombed the university -- one of the main universities. They've bombed medical facilities and hospitals. They bombed a place used to bring oxygen for people in the hospital. Like oxygen needed in hospitals. They haven't bombed any military -- Libya really doesn't have a strong military at all. In fact, I was telling somebody today, what we're seeing on the ground is mostly volunteers and semi-organized people, people of all walks of life. They're fighting against the Libyan people, they're not fighting against the Libyan military because all or most of these people are volunteers who are fighting for their country. Kevin Pina: Now we had talked about this last week, you had said that there was going to be a large demonstration in Tripoli against the war and against NATO's bombing campaign. We had this discussion about whether they were coming out pro-Gaddafi or whether they were coming out pro-Libya. And you had made it very clear that they were pro-Libya more than they were pro-Gaddafi. What happened with that demonstration? Did it happen? Did it occur? Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya: Let me point out that many of these people like Col Gaddafi, not all of them. It is pro-Libya first, yes. But a lot of them, they know or they see Col Gaddafi and Libya as being on the same line. And, yes, I was at the protest. It was remarkable, it was big. It was energized and no one forced these people to come. And I want to point something out, Kevin. All the people in Tripoli -- not just Tripoli, in Libya, the part of Libya that are not of the rebels are armed. The government's armed them. Every house is armed here. They have civilian defense contingency plans here that's been put into effect. It's not that organized but there's neighborhood watches, there's neighborhood armories, there's green tents in every neighborhood, every house has weapons that have been distributed. If these people wanted to get rid of Col Gaddafi, believe me, they could have. They all have arms -- Kevin Pina: So let me just interrupt real quick, Mahdi. So you're saying that there has been a campaign by the Libyan government to arm the population. And that if the population wanted to overthrow Gaddafi, they're armed and could do that now? Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya: 100% there have been independent journalist here who have verified this. And you can easily find this on the internet now with pictures, with descriptions of these civilian defense contingency plans. And it wasn't recently that this happened. Col Gaddafi said at the start that they were going to arm the people and if they wanted to get rid of him, they could have. Turning to the illegality of the LIbyan War, at Antiwar Radio, they've posted Horton's interview with Matthew Rothschild where they discuss his article "Stop the Bombing of Libya" (The Progressive). Excerpt. Scott Horton: You start out by describing the extent of the war going on over there --whatever the president wants to call it. And you know I think, gee there's so many wars for people to keep up with, it can be hard. I'm amazed when I saw your assertion here that NATO has conducted 11,500 sorties in Libya thus far. Matthew Rothschild: Isn't that amazing? I mean here we have a campaign that was started ostensibly to protect civilians and to impose a no-fly zone. Well it didn't take 11,500 sorties to impose a no-fly zone and to protect civilians in Libya from an imminent massacre -- that was what we were sold. No, this is a campaign that's entirely different from it's intentions right now. It may have been entirely different from the intentions that were sold to us at the very beginning because, look, there's no reason why these bombing raids should have continued after the no-fly zone was imposed because, at that point, Muammar Gaddafi could not have sent in his pitiful airforce to bomb those people who were supposed to be in such peril. So the no-fly zone and protection of civilians in Libya was accomplished really within 48 hours and everything else since then has been something designed to do quite a great deal more than what the UN signed off on and that was to protect civilians. Now what's going on now is a campaign to get rid of Gaddfi and seize the oil in Libya for US control of the oil supplies in the Middle East which is, of course, what the Iraq War was largely about to and what our connivance with Saudi Arabia's been all about for the last many decades. Scott Horton: Well now, there's so much there. I guess first of all, it's probably worthy of note that "no-fly zone"? It's been months since we even heard anybody talk about that. I kind of almost forgot it's supposed to be a no-fly zone. Matthew Rothschild: Yeah and it's certainly not applying to NATO. NATO's flying all over the place. And the amazing thing about Obama's doctrine here is that the War Powers Act doesn't apply. And the reason he's saying the War Powers Act doesn't apply -- and if Bush had said that I think the peace movement in the United States would be in the street in the tens of hundreds of thousands. Obama's reasoning just gives a justification for the next president to go in and attack any country that doesn't have a decent air force or surface to air missiles because what he is saying and what his lawyers are saying is that the War Powers Act doesn't apply right now because our military is not at risk of being killed because essentially we've so wiped out the Libyan air force and surface to air missiles that there's no chance that our bombers are going to be shot down -- or almost no chance -- and so they're not really in a zone of hostilities which is what the War Powers Act was dealing with. Well that's -- this is a crazy doctrine then because the United States now has carte blanche to go attack any weaker country as soon as its air force has been obliterated. Scott Horton: Well, yeah, and funny about that, the lawyer for the Pentagon and the lawyers at the Justice Dept, they didn't buy that argument for a minute. They were over-ruled by the president. Matthew Rothschild: Yeah, it's extraordinary when the president's own lawyers want to follow the law and the president of the United States doesn't. That gives you an idea of just how far out there Obama has gone in expanding presidential war powers. This from a presidential candidate who played footsie with the left, played footsie with the progressive peace movement, said he would never unilaterally engage the US military overseas unless there was an imminent threat against the United States which there wasn't. Gaddafi didn't attack the United States, he didn't represent a threat to the United States. [Former] Secretary [of Defense Robert] Gates even admitted that on TV. I saw him when he said it. And my jaw kind of drops because, you know, why are we there if he's not a threat to us? And yet Obama has expanded this idea that he, the president of the United States, and, of course, future presidents can go start a war or at least a bombing crusade anywhere they want without asking Congress' permission, without getting Congressional authorization. After all the Congress has the sole power to declare war under Article I, section 8 of the Constitution. And now he wants to completely violate the War Powers Act which he's violated three times now. He violated it at the beginning because the War Powers Act says a president can go in without Congressional permission at first if there's an imminent threat against the United States -- there wasn't an imminent threat. And then within 60 days of that the president has got to get approval from Congress -- Obama didn't get approval from Congress. And then 30 days after that the president is supposed to withdraw those troops if he hasn't gotten Congressional approval -- and, of course, Obama hasn't gotten Congressional approval and hasn't withdrawn the bombers. So he's really in illegal territory here and he's kind of gloating about it. Onto Iraq. Yesterday Lara Jakes (AP) reports 10,000 is the number of US soldiers the White House is floating to Iraq to keep with an understanding that Iraq will respond by September to the offer. Jakes reports, "Already, though, the White House has worked out options to keep between 8,500 and 10,000 active-duty troops to continue training Iraqi security forces during 2012, according to senior Obama administration and U.S. military officials in interviews with The Associated Press." Today David S. Cloud and Ned Parker (Los Angeles Times) add that the White House has "made its proposal now in hopes of spurring a request from Prime Minister Nouri Maliki's government, and to give the Pentagon time to plan, the officials [in the administration] said. The troops would be based around Baghdad and in a small number of other strategic locations around the country, the officials said." Dan Murphy (Christian Science Monitor) explains, "While that word 'offer' has been repeatedly used by US officials named and unnamed in recent months, a better word might be 'pleading'." ABC News Radio adds, "In Washington, D.C. keeping American support forces in Iraq past the deadline could start a mutiny in the president's own party." Zeke Miller (Business Insider) points out, "The plan would put Obama on the wrong side of his promise to remove all U.S. troops from the country by the end of 2011." Ryan Blethen (Seattle Times) observes, "We have no business staying in Iraq. We shouldn't have been there in the first place. Obama must live up to his campaign promise to get us out of Iraq. We have wasted too many lives and too much money. It is time to leave the rebuilding of Iraq to Iraqis and turn our attention to fixing our own country." Amy Goodman (Democracy Now!) notes that offer is being made "despite vows to bring U.S. forces home by the end of the year." She also notes Vice Adm William McRaven told Congress a "contingent of commando forces should remain in Iraq." Last Tuesday, McRaven appeared before the Senate Armed Services Committee and this was the exchange: Ranking Member John McCain: Adm McRaven, do you believe that the United States should have a residual force in Iraq in order to assist -- with particularly special operations, functions and intelligence? Vice Adm William McRaven: Sir, I think that it would be mutually beneficial to us and the Iraqis if in fact that was the case. Obviously, remains to be seen whether the Iraqis will want us to stay past the intended drawdown time. But clearly there is still a threat in Iraq. And a small, soft presence there I think would be advisable. Ranking Member John McCain: And if you look at recent US casulties, the situation -- at least in some respects -- politically as well as militarily has shown some deterioration. Would you agree? Vice Adm William McRaven: Sir, I would. Statistically that appears to be the case, yes, sir. And the denials grow even less believable. Pentagon spokesperson Col Dave Lapan declared today that stories about the US government having a number in mind that they would like to remain in Iraq? Untrue, huffs Lapan. "The process for troops to remain in the country after the date begins with an official request from the Iraq government and no such request has been made. Until the government of Iraq makes a request, there is no number." At the US State Dept, Victoria Nuland was in denial mode: QUESTION: With regards to Iraq situation, especially that they haven't requested officially for the U.S. troops to remain there, if it doesn't happen, what is the take on that? I mean, is there an action plan on the – Iran's effort to influence Iraq situation? MS. NULAND: Well, I think you know that we have grave concerns about what Iran has been doing in terms of supplying weaponry and trying to stir up violence in Iraq. Ambassador Jeffrey spoke to this yesterday, trying to exploit the current situation. That said, we have a lot of confidence in Iraqi security forces and in their ability to maintain security in Iraq. We continue to say that if Iraq were interested in some residual U.S. presence staying in Iraq, we would be willing to have that conversation. But at this point, we haven't had a request. QUESTION: But there is two key position in Iraq Government. Defense and internal ministry hasn't got any minister there. These are two key position. Are you confident within the – Iraq's government to handle their conflicts internally? Because they don't seem to be reaching any substantial unity amongst themselves. MS. NULAND: This is democracy in action in Iraq. They are involved in trying to take their internal situation to the next level. So from our perspective, we continue to work with them on the full range of issues, including the security situation today and the security situation as we head towards the end of the year and the withdrawal of the remainder of forces. Andy, did you have something? QUESTION: May I have one more question? MS. NULAND: I think we've done it on that subject. QUESTION: Thanks. MS. NULAND: Andy? QUESTION: A follow-up on Iraq? QUESTION: I've got an Iraq one. MS. NULAND: Lots of Iraq today. (Laughter.) While the relationship with the US remains in doubt, Xiong Tong (Xinhua) reports, "Iraq on Wednesday signed six agreements of cooperation with its neighbor Iran during an official visit of Iranian First Vice President Mohammad-Reza Rahimi to the Iraqi capital of Baghdad." Alsumaria TV adds, "Iranian First Vice President Mohamed Rida Rahimi arrived to Baghdad on Wednesday heading a senior delegation to discuss bilateral relations between both countries." Press TV notes, "Iraq is currently the third trading partner of Iran after the United Arab Emirates and China. Tehran seeks to turn Baghdad into its first trading partner, Rahimi told reporters ahead of his official visit to Iraq on Wednesday." And before that visit takes place, Aswat al-Iraq observes that Iraq has sent Rafi'e al-Issawi, Minister of Finance, to Tehran yesterday where he met with Mohammed Riza Rahimi. AAP notes of the Baghdad meeting that the two countries representatives made a promise "to strengthen ties and put the past behind them, even as Washington accuses Iran of supplying new and more lethal weapons to anti-US militias." Aswat al-Iraq reports former MP mithal al-Alousi decried the visit and deals stating, "Iran wants to compensate its loss in Syria by controlling Iraq. Signing these agreements proved that Iraq lost its independence before the Iranian regime." al-Alusi is a former Ba'athist who was already in Germany when Saddam Hussein put his name on a hit list. The US was happy to bring al-Alusi back to Iraq and happy to see him become part of the government. They weren't bothered at all that right before the war -- December 2002 -- he took part in the seizure of the Iraqi embassy in Germany. Even more interestingly, al-Alusi was a member of Parliament and on the de-Ba'athification committee until he visited Israel in the fall of 2004 at which point he was kicked out of Parliament and off the committee -- kicked off via a law outlawing contact with 'enemy states' -- the current Parliament and the de-Ba'athficiation committee used that 1969 law. From Saddam's era. While claiming to be against the Ba'ath Party and all it did, they used that law to get rid of al-Alusi in 2004. Asked by the press today about Iran and Iraq's relationship, the State Dept spokesperson Victoria Nuland begged off (link is text and video): QUESTION: Iranian vice president was visiting Iraq today, and he said that Iran is ready to build and provide security to Iraq. He added that the relation between the two countries has reached a very high level. Do you have any reaction to this? MS. NULAND: I don't. I don't. QUESTION: Why not? MS. NULAND: I think I've already spoken to our – (laughter) – I think I've already spoken to our concerns about Iran's intensions and Iran's activities in Iraq. Aswat al-Iraq notes today's violence includes a Baquba car bombing in which "a number of civilians and military personnel were injured" and last night the al-Buteira Military Airport was attacked with two rockets and, still last night, 3 Sahwa were shot dead in Kirkuk. Aswat al-Iraq notes that President Jalal Talabani met with thug and prime minister Nouri al-Maliki yesterday and quotes Kurdish MP Fuad Maasoum insisting it was a success and paves the way for a meet-up next week among all parties. Meanwhile Iraq remains without potable water and Al Rafidayn reports Iraqis are resorting to bottled water which are overpriced. The article estimates it will require $100 million to fix Iraq's water infrastructure alone. Despite the lack of potable drinking water, Iraq is moving forward with plans for an agricultural revival, Al Sabaah reports, including a major investment in livestock. Turning to the United States. Yesterday, Elaine Quijano followed up on her earlier CBS Evening News with Scott Pelley report. Last week, she reported on how, if your loved one takes their own life or dies in a training exercise, you receive no condolence letter from the president. Yesterday, Quijano reported that the White House announced they will do condolence letters to those whose loved ones take their own lives in a war zone. Dan Lothian (CNN) makes it more specific, "In the statement Tuesday, the White House official said a review had been completed, and the president will send condolence letters to families of service members who commit suicide while deployed to Iraq, Afghanistan and other combat operations" (and notes that CNN has been reporting on this issue since 2009). In her report last week, Elaine Quijano noted: Sara Conkling didn't receive one either, for her daughter, Jessica. "She was willing to put her life on the line and she did lose her life doing it," Sara says. "But it doesn't count as much to them." Conkling was a Marine Corps pilot training for deployment in combat when her helicopter crashed in San Diego. She was 27. Families of active duty military who die in stateside training accidents do not receive presidential condolence letters. But Sara Conkling says her daughter's sacrifice deserves that recognition. Sara says, "You'd like people to have appreciated and understand what she did, that she was important and her loss is a big loss." The policy change does nothing for Sara Conkling or others in similar situations. While it's good news for those who lose a loved one to suicide, it does nothing for those like Conkling. A change should have covered both. Julian E. Barnes (Wall St. Journal) notes that condolence letters will be sent out by both President Obama and US Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta. US President Barack Obama held a Twit-fest. He was allegedly talking about the economy and how to help improve it but the only time he mentioned 'war' at any real length was the war on drugs. (Click here for transcript.) This despite the fact that Kim Geiger (Chicago Tribune) reports "The House began debate Wednesday on a $650 billion spending bill to fund the Pentagon and continue paying for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The bill increases the Pentagon's budget by $17 billion for fiscal year 2012, a spending hike that comes at a time when Congress and the White House are in heated negotiations over the deficit and reigning in federal spending." $650 billion dollars. If you've forgotten last week's press conference (where Barack acted like a dick and bitchy), Ava and I noted: Take Barack Obama and his tantrum at the press conference last week (here for transcript). At the top, Barack declared that "$4 trillion in savings" had to be found and the best he could offer was apparently cutting the "tax break for corporate jet owners." So proud of this 'plan' was he that he mentioned it six times in his press conference. US House Rep. Eric Cantor responsed that cutting that tax break will save $2 billion and that he didn't see that as a big deal. Six times he boasted about this $2 billion 'saver.' But he wants to spend $650 on wars and that's a $12 billion increase. David DeGraw (at Pacific Free Press) explains: When Obama launched his re-election propaganda campaign to trick the American public into thinking that he intends to end the Af-Pak War, he said that the "War on Terror" has cost $1 trillion over the past decade. While that is a staggering amount of money, he was being deceitful once again. As you may have heard, a newly released study by the Eisenhower Research Project at Brown University revealed that the cost of the War on Terror is significantly greater than Obama has said. The little passing coverage the study received in the mainstream press cited $3.7 trillion as the total cost, which was the most conservative estimate. The moderate estimate, which the mainstream media ignored, was $4.4 trillion. In addition, interest payments on these costs will most likely exceed $1 trillion, which brings the total cost up to at least $5.4 trillion. Yesterday, by a 12 to 1 vote, the Los Angeles City Council passed a resolution calling on the White House to end the wars and to spend the money domestically instead. Council member Bill Rosendahl is quoted by Fox 11 News stating, "We're spending $1 trillion over there. We should be investing in education, health care and infrastructure. We need to focus on ourselves and stop playing big shot all over the earth." Council member Janice Hahn, who is running for Jane Harman's old set in the US Congress, states, "This country, I believe, is war-weary. It's time to invade this country with resources. We know that our schools need more resources. We need to spend more money creating jobs. We need to get our economy back up and running." But, again, Barack avoided the issues in his pretend press conference today. iraq antiwar radio scott horton matthew rothschild mahdi darius nazemroaya kpfa flashpoints the associated press lara jakes the los angeles times david s. cloud ned parker the atlantic conor friedersdrof fox 11 news salar jaff the wall st. journal julian e. barnes the cbs evening news with scott pelley elaine quijano cnn

Libya

Tuesday. Vacation week this week and next so probably doing light posting. Tonight really so because I'm rushing (I think everybody else is finished blogging) to be ready to go to a night club. The Libyan War continues, vacation or not, and this is

This is from Patrick O'Connor (WSWS):

Despite nearly four months of daily US-NATO bombing raids over Libya, so-called rebel fighters have failed to make any significant advance beyond the areas they controlled in March. Nor has the Gaddafi government disintegrated, as had previously been anticipated in Washington, London, and Paris. The stalemate in the oil-rich state has heightened the crisis confronting the imperialist powers engaged in the illegal regime-change operation.

On March 18, the day before the air strikes began, President Barack Obama reportedly declared that US involvement in the war would last for “days, not weeks.” More than 15 weeks later, Obama and his European counterparts face considerable domestic opposition to the war and growing pressure to resolve the situation. The Independent recently cited unnamed senior French and British military commanders who reported that French President Nicolas Sarkozy last month demanded a “successful ending” to the war in time for a victory announcement on Bastille Day, July 14.

Sections of the US and European press are alarmed over NATO’s inability to smash Libyan resistance to the intervention. Financial Times commentator Michael Peel yesterday warned: “While the regime is clearly being weakened by defections, economic sanctions and NATO air strikes, many Libya analysts say it is neither certain it will crack nor that it will do so quickly. Some observers suggest the worst case could be a ‘Fortress Tripoli’ scenario, in which Col Gaddafi pulls his forces back to the capital, holes up in his fortified compound and waits as Gotterdammerung unfolds in the streets around him.”

And KPFA's Flashpoints tonight had Kevin Pina back and a good, solid report on Libya. So check out KPFA or Flashpoints, to hear the report.

Here's C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"

Tuesday, July 5, 2011. Chaos and violence continue, twin bombings in Taji kill over 30, the White House continues to attempt to extend the US military stay in Iraq, the Los Angeles City Council says end the wars, Jalal Talabani plans another meet-up, and more. David Zahniser (Los Angeles Times) reports the vote was twelve for and one against today when, "The Los Angeles City Council called Tuesday for the federal government to end its wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, saying money for those foreign wars should be invested in cities and other domestic needs." This follows the June 20th by the Annual Conference of US Mayors, held in Baltimore, passing the resolution demanding the wars be brought to an end and the vast amounts of money spent on these wars be spent instead on domestic needs in the United States. The LA City Council's move comes as Lara Jakes (AP) reports 10,000 is the number of US soldiers the White House is floating to Iraq to keep with an understanding that Iraq will respond by September to the offer. Jakes reports, "Already, though, the White House has worked out options to keep between 8,500 and 10,000 active-duty troops to continue training Iraqi security forces during 2012, according to senior Obama administration and U.S. military officials in interviews with The Associated Press." This happening after Robert Gates has left his post as US Secretary of Defense may force even some members of the Cult of St. Barack to face the fact that Barack is the one pushing to extend the US military presence in Iraq, not Gates who, repeating, is gone. VoteVets' Ashwin Madia has not been among the foolish; however, today at Huffington Post, he writes, "Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid -- the president's top ally in the Senate -- came out forcefully today against a continued American presence in Iraq, which most observers believe President Obama is for. Senator Reid said, according to the Associated Press, "As Iraq becomes increasingly capable, it is time for our own troops to return home by the end of the year and for these precious resources to be directed elsewhere. There is no question that the United States must continue to provide support for the Iraqis as they progress, but now is the time for our military mission to come to a close." Madia links to an AP article (one that quotes Madia) and Reid's statment is actually about the 15 US soldiers who died last month. The idea that Harry Reid is going to lead the fight is hard to believe. He did lead the fight . . . against the House efforts to end the Iraq War when Bush occupied the White House. Madia sees Reid's statements as meaningful. Others could disagree. Reid's not saying anything. Reid's comments -- made in response to June's 15 deaths of US soldiers in the Iraq War -- are not inconsistent with Barack's (and Bush's) claims that "we will stand down as they stand up." Harry Reid didn't call for an end to the Iraq War or even that the SOFA be followed. He says "our military mission is over." How does that differ with Barack's (false) assertion August 31st that 'combat missions' were over? It doesn't. And on 'stand up' does no one follow the violence in Iraq? Here's Washington Post's Ed O'Keefe discussing it with Washington Week's Gwen Ifill on tonight's NewsHour (PBS -- link has text, video and audio): GWEN IFILL: Well, if the U.S. says the Iraqis should step up and do something about it, what does this tell us about the state of Iraqi security right now? ED O'KEEFE: Well, part of the reason -- or part of the frustration among American officials is that, while their pleased with how the Iraqi security forces have responded -- they have taken the lead in several counterterrorism measures -- they have targeted insurgent groups over the past several weeks and months -- they feel that perhaps they could be doing a little more. Part of it, the problem, is that the Iraqi prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki, still hasn't named a new defense minister and a new interior minister, and that, if there were leadership at the top of those two important ministries, perhaps there would be clearer direction given to the Iraqi security forces to go out and target these groups a little more. That said, for the most part, if you talk to military officials here, they say a lot of progress has been made, that, whether you're an infantry soldier in the Iraqi army or part of the special forces, you are better trained today than you were even just a year ago. Reid has issued a brief statement acknowledging 15 deaths where he states the US will 'stand down as Iraqis stand up' and that the US 'military mission is over.' That's perfectly in keeping with Barack's remarks. Wish it wasn't. Wish Harry Reid was finally going to find a spine and lead a mission worthy of the post of Senate Majority Leader. And it could happen but it doesn't seem likely. Reid was the stalling block for Democratic efforts in the House to put a minimum of restrictions on the Iraq War when Bush was in office. This isn't my hypothesis, this is fact. Nancy Pelosi has spoken publicly -- including to the San Francisco Chronicle's edtiorial board -- about Reid on the Iraq War. She got very angry when a reporter questioned her (rightly) about the refusal to end the Iraq War and began listing off what the House had attempted and told the reporter that people needed to ask Reid why the Senate refused to act. It makes for a novel twist in the 24-hour news cycle but it doesn't make for reality. Today at the White House, spokesperson Jay Carney was asked how the White House planned to pay for US troops in Iraq beyond 2011 if they were kept in Iraq? Jay Carney: I will have to bump that to the Defense Department. I don't have a specific answer for you on that. We are, as of now, on track to withdraw all of the U.S. forces in Iraq by the end of this year, as dictated by the agreement we have with the Iraqi government and as promised by the President of the United States. So we have said for a long time now if the Iraqi government asks us to maintain some level of troops beyond that end-of-the-year deadline, we would consider it. That doesn't necessarily mean we would do it. We would just consider it. And I really don't have any more information on that possible outcome, because, again, we haven't even gotten a request. There's Carney's lies and there's reality. Saturday Ed O'Keefe (Washington Post) reported US Ambassador to Iraq James Jeffery spoke with reporters today about the US mission in Iraq beyond 2011 and stated that "keeping thousands of troops in Iraq" after 2011 is a possibility. Also over the weekend, Tim Arango (New York Times) reported on the US Special Forces in Iraq and how they're training the Iraqi Special Operations forces to bash in the doors of suspect's homes in the middle of the night ("the sound of glass shattering and screams pierced the nighttime stillness" really doesn't sound like freedom or democracy) and quoted Iraqi Maj Gen Fadhel al-Barwari stating, "The Americans need to stay because we don't have control over our borders." On the Fourth, a US Senator weighed in. US Senator John McCain tells Anna Fifield (Finanical Times of London -- link has text and video) that the US neeeds to keep troops on the ground in Iraq, "I'm talking 10,000-13,000 specifically for intelligence capabilities, air capabilities and also as a peacekeeping force up in the disputed areas around Kirkuk and that area." McCain was visiting Afghanistan with (among others) Senators Joe Lieberman and Lindsey Graham. Also weighing in that day was Sabah Jawad of the London-based Iraqi Democrats Against Occupation who told Iran's Press TV (link has text and video): Yes it's quite obvious they don't want to withdraw, they don't even want to withdraw now more than before because of the uprisings that have taken place in the Arab world; they want to keep their military presence in Iraq. As you said they have the biggest embassy here in Iraq and also that this embassy is supposed to staff over 16,000 employees. I don't know of any other country where the Americans have a 16,000 staff in their embassies. This is an indication that these people will be in full control of the security situation in Iraq -- security operations. They will control Iraq's air space and the Iraqi economy. They will advise every important minister in Iraq and they will continue to interfere in the internal situation in Iraq for the foreseeable future. So these all are indications for the future that the US does not want to withdraw from Iraq. They have invested a lot of money in the occupation of Iraq and they continue the occupation of Iraq and they want to be there to steal even more oil and to tie up Iraq in its entirety to the so-called free market and to multinational oil companies. Al Mada reports that "well-informed sources" (unidentified by the paper) are stating that the discussions taking place between the government and the US Embassy on US troops staying beyond 2011 continue and that what is being discussed currently is a memorandum which would allow for US forces to remain in Iraq for another five years and it is thought that going that route (memorandum of understanding) would allow Nouri to bypass the Parliament. (Al Mada also does a write up of Tim Arango's NYT report on US Special Forces.) Al Rafidayn reports Ammar al-Hakim is calling for a series of "extended meetings" to discuss US troops remaining on the ground in Iraq beyond 2011. He wants the heads of all the political blocs to attend a general meeting to address the issue. On The NewsHour Ed O'Keefe offered a summary of the various talks going on: As one U.S. official joked to me a little while ago, he said, look, six months from now, one of these reports will have gotten it right. But, tonight, there is no discussion going on between U.S. officials and the Iraqis over how many troops might stay on beyond December. We had a conversation with the U.S. ambassador here over the weekend. And he said, look, if the Iraqis come to us with some kind of proposal for troops to stay, we will consider it. For us, it's not about the numbers. It's about what exactly U.S. troops would do. Most of them in the last year have focused on what is called advise-and-assist responsibilities. They essentially hang back when Iraqi forces go out to conduct counterterrorism measures or target other groups, and only jump into it if, for some reason, it's not going well. But you talk to military officials they say things are going pretty well. The problem is, Iraq still can't defend its skies, still can't defend its big port down in Basra, and military officials say that the Iraqi still want some more training, whether it's basic infantry training or more specialized training. So it's there that U.S. officials believe the Iraqis will come to them with some kind of a request. We're expecting the Iraqi president, Jalal Talabani, to meet with the prime minister, Maliki, and other political leaders as early as this week to once again talk about this. There have been several meetings, and no big conclusions just yet. But the thought is that perhaps we're getting much closer to some kind of a request that would be given to U.S. officials. And at that point, it lands back in the lap of President Obama and the Pentagon. They will have to discuss this, figure out what exactly they could do, how many more troops could stay here beyond December. CNN reports that the US opened a consulate in Basra today (and notes the last one shuttered its doors in 1967). Ed O'Keefe noted Monday that the US plan was 15 consulates around Iraq staffed by "roughtly 17,000 US diplomats, contractors and security personnel." Aswat al-Iraq adds that Joe Biden is supposed to be visiting Iraq shortly according to the Higher Islamic Council's Jalal al-Sagheer who states Biden is visiting "to resolve the questions related to the US withdrawal". Normally US visits are surprises and even the press is supposed to be hush-hush. It would appear some in Iraq who normally keep secrets are being rather talkative. Al Rafidayn reports Moqtada al-Sadr has heard of this visit "expected to take place over the next few days" and he's condemned it. The question Jay Carney should have been asked today is: (A) Will Joe Biden still be visiting Iraq, (B) Does the White House have any idea who in Iraq started leaking news of the visit and (C) Since the White House always makes 'surprise' visits, is it really safe for Biden to go to Iraq in the near future? Tony Blair, when he was prime minister of the UK, visited England and did so without secrecy. He also did the sort of well guarded walk through areas that US Senator John McCain did. So presumably a visit doesn't need to be kept in secret; however, the White House (under Bush and under Barack) has always treated it as a state secret and this time the secret got out and is now all over Iraq. Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports that Osama al-Nujaifi, Speaker of Parliament, released a statement decrying today's attack and insisting "that security forces reveal the outcome of an investigation into previous attacks." Rob Crilly (Telegraph of London) counts 35 dead from the two Taji bombings. Aswat al-Iraq quotes "a security source" who states that there was a bombing in a garage and "a booby-trapped car". Hurriyet notes that the "two bombs detonated near a government council building." The Washington Post's Ed O'Keefe told CBS Radio News that, "It was a booby-trapped vehicle followed pretty closely by some other kind of explosive charge that went off as people were headed for the first explosion." (That's from a friend with CBS Radio News -- and they don't have a link so I'll just note this link to CBS News website.) Yashir Ghazi and Tim Arango (New York Times) quote survivor Hesham Hasoon, "Why am I still alive? My brothers, friends, everyone left me. [. . .] When the first explosion happened, I saw the people and the kids start to gather near the car bomb and I knew something else would happen. I called on the stupid soldier to evacuate the place but he didn't care." Sinan Salaheddin (AP) quotes a police officer stating, "It was awful ... some of the lightly wounded people were running in all directions, either crying or screaming for help." Today Pacifica Evening News noted that the death toll had risen to 37 and that many of the dead and wounded had "lined up for national identity cards." (Pacifica Evening News has their own website, click here.) At the State Dept today, spokesperson Victoria Nuland handled the daily press briefing and was asked about the increased violence in Iraq. Victoria Nuland: I think you saw that Assistant Secretary Feltman is in Iraq today for the opening of our consulate in Basra. It gave him an opportunity to have some meetings with Iraqi officials. With regard to the uptick in violence, I would simply say that the people who are doing this are not only enemies of the United States, they're also enemies of the Iraqi people and their desire to live peacefully and have stability in their future. So we continue to work with the Iraqi security forces as they get ready for the full takeover of their own security. But obviously, we continue to work with the Iraqis on ensuring that they have a full and strong and stable government. The Taji bombings weren't the only violence reported today. Reuters notes 3 Sahwa were shot dead in Hawija, 1 man was shot oustide his Rashad home, and, dropping back to Monday, a Baghdad rocket attack claimed 5 lives, 1 police officer shot dead outside his Mussayab home and a Jurf al-Sakhar bombing injured one Sahwa. Last month Jalal's House Party accomplished nothing other than killing a Monday. June 20th, Jalal hosted political leaders in an attempt to get them to agree to return to the Erbil Agreement that ended the political stalemate and promised a security council would be created -- an independent body -- and it would be headed by Ayad Allawi whose political slate Iraqiya received the most votes in the March elections. Nouri's slate came in second. But, per the Erbil Agreement, he would be named prime minister-designate and given the 30 days to nominate a cabinet and have it approved by Parliament. Nouri got what he wanted and then broke the Erbil Agreement. Unless and until Nouri wants to follow it, it's not going to be followed. But Jalal issued statements after his House Party insisting the meeting was a success. Ayad Allawi skipped it but Jalal said it was a success. And Jalal insisted they'd be meeting again real soon. Dar Addustour reports Jalal is scheduling a new House Party for next week. Why bother remains a question. Nouri still can't put forward a full Cabinet -- which, were the Constitution followed, would mean he wouldn't be prime minister. There are no heads to the Ministry of Interior, the Ministry of Defense and the Ministry of National Security -- the three security ministries. Nouri claims he is heading all of them and bieng prime minister. That would explain the onslaught of violence Iraq is facing. By December 25th, those posts were supposed to be filled -- per the Iraqi Constitution. If they were not filled by then, Nouri was supposed to step down as prime minister-designate and someone else was supposed to be name. The Constitution was not followed and as 2010 drew to a close, Nouri was promising he would name heads to the security ministries in a matter of weeks. It's even months into 2011 and he's still not filled those posts. The day before Jalal Talabani's House Party, Fakhri Karim (Al Mada) reported that the meet up has to deal with several serious issues including: * Providing the foundation to end monopoly control of the government by Nouri or "whatever person would occupy the post" of prime minister * Work towards national partnership * Confirm the words of the Constitution (and reject Nouri's interpretation of it) with regards to the executive branch * End one party power. * Review the security appointments which are in violation of the Constitution (Nouri cannot be Prime Minister and Minister of National Security, Minister of the Interior and Minister of Defense as he's made himself for over six months now). The meet-up accomplished none of those items. As a result Jalal Talabani began issuing statements making fanciful claims. From the June 21st snapshot: Al Rafidayn offers that the meeting put an end to squabbles between Allawi and Nouri being played out in the media. That seems doubtful and not just because Allawi's very adept at manipulating the media (Nouri's a clumsy ox but he does have many flunkies he dispatches regularly). How can such an agreement be finalized when one of the two parties in the two party squabble is present? Hisham Rikabi (Al Mada) notes a majority present agreed to end to the media campaigns but, again, how can such an agreement honestly be made when one of the two parties engaging in the campaign is not present? Rikabi notes Talabani, Nouri, Ammar al-Hakim and Adel Abdul Mahdi were among those preent while Saleh al-Mutlaq was the most prominent member of Iraqiya present. Jamal Hashim and Mu Xuequan (Xinhua) quote Talabani stating, "The meeting was successful. We discussed the presence of the U.S. troops in details whether to stay or to leave (the country) and whether we need trainers and the number of them." "No more attacks on each other in the media!" That was the best Jalal could offer and even that claim seemed doubtful. It was doubtful. It was quickly broken. From the June 22nd snapshot, "Today the 'agreement' has already fallen apart. Al Mada reports Nouri's State Of Law is again attacking Allawi's Iraqiya to the media as they pin the 'crisis' in Iraq on Iraqiya and state that the political slate is what has prevented Nouri from filling the security ministries. It didn't even last a 24-hour news cycle and that does not bode well for the second meeting Talabni's been promoting." Nouri's State of Law slate also appears to have used the media to launch a disinformation campaign against Osama al-Nujaifi, Speaker of Parliament and member of Allawi's Iraqiya. Al Mada notes today that Ayad Allawi has stated Nouri's government has failed to provide security and has failed to deliver basic services. Alsumaria TV explains, "Allawi took the floor during the Middle East and North Africa Conference held in Italy and affirmed that certain regional countries are interfering in Iraq's internal affairs pointing out to pressures on the political process in what serves the interest of specified parties." Last week, we repeatedly highlighted Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya's Libyan War reports from Tripoli on KPFA's Flashpoints. He has an article up at Information Clearing House entitled "Journalism as a Weapon of War in Libya:" The truth has been turned on its head in Libya. NATO and the Libyan government are saying contradictory things. NATO says that the Libyan regime will fall in a matter of days, while the Libyan government says that the fighting in Misrata will end in about two weeks. During the night the sound of NATO jets flying over Tripoli can be heard in the Mediterranean coastal city. Tripoli has not been bombed for a few days, but the sound of the flyovers have been numerous. The Atlantic Alliance deliberately picks the night as a means to disturb the sleep of residence in an attempt to spread fear. Small children in Libya have lost a lot of sleep during this war. This is part of the psychological war being waged. It is meant to break the spirit of Libya. This is all additional to the severing wound imposed on Libya through trickery and sedition. In the same context, the media war against Libya has continued too. The Rixos Hotel in the Libyan capital of Tripoli, where the majority of the international press is located, is a nest of lies and warped narratives where foreign reporters are twisting realities, spinning events, and misreporting to justify the NATO war against Libya. Every report and news wire being sent out of Libya by international reporters has to carefully be cross-checked and analyzed. Foreign journalists have put words in the mouth of Libyans and are willfully blind. They have ignored the civilian deaths in Libya, the clear war crimes being perpetrated against the Libyan people, and the damage to civilian infrastructure, from hotels to docks and hospitals. One group of Libyan youth explained in a private conversation that when speaking to reporters they would interview in twos. One would ask a question followed immediately by another one. In the process the answer to the first question would be used as the answer for the second question. In the Libyan hospitals the foreign reports try not to take pictures of the wounded and dying. They just go into the hospitals to paint the image of impartiality, but virtually report about nothing and ignore almost everything newsworthy. They refuse to tell the other side of the story. Shamelessly in front of seriously injured civilians, the type of questions many foreign reporters ask doctors, nurses, and hospital staff is if they have been treating military and security personnel in the hospitals. CNN has even released a report from Misrata by Sara Sidner showing the sodomization of a woman with a broomstick which was conducted by Libyan soldiers (which it refers to as Qaddafi troops as a means of demonization). In reality the video was a domestic affair and from prior to the conflict. It originally took place in Tripoli and the man even has an accent from Tripoli. This is the type of fabrications that the mainstream media is pushing forward to push for war and military intervention. There are now investigations underway to show that depleted uranium has been used against Libyans. The use of depleted uranium is an absolute war crime. It is not only an attack on the present, but it also leaves a radioactive trace that attacks the unborn children of tomorrow. Future generations will be hurt by these weapons too. These generations of the future are innocent. The use of depleted uranium is the equivalent of the U.S. planting nuclear weapons in Germany or Japan during the Second World War and leaving timers for them to detonate in 2011. This is an important and newsworthy issue in Libya and all the foreign journalists have heard about it, but how many have actually covered it? iraq the washington post ed okeefe the new york times tim arango aswat al-iraq al mada al rafidayn reuters al sabaah the associated press lara jakes pbs the newshour gwen ifill mahdi darius nazemroaya kpfa flashpoints

BORING Flashpoints

Happy Fourth. We're at C.I.'s. A number of us turned on the radio to listen to KPFA thinking -- WRONGLY -- that we'd be hearing about Libya. Instead it was Japan, Japan and a lot of bad speaking. I've never heard so many unpleasant voices (I mean the sounds of the voices) or so many run on speakers. Or cowards. It was cute to watch the first guest, a woman from a Bordello posing as an outlet, sidestep the issue of Barack's involvement even when directly asked about it and how he had gotten so much money in 2008 (donations) from the nuclear industry. She just blew it off, steamrolled over it. Because she's not about truth or information, she's about defending Barack. What a cheap little whore.

So for a whole hour, Project Censored bored the hell out of everyone with their bad program. If there was anything of interest in there, they'd have to shape it. They didn't. They let people drone on and on -- even after they'd said 'we're out of time' -- and seemed to think that just showing up at the mikes produced a show. It produced an hour. A really bad hour. And if you can't say "Sengetsu News Agency," why did you decide to highlight their story?

It did not make for good radio.

I like Project Censored. I didn't care for the broadcast. I didn't care for the bad speakers, I didn't care for the lack of preparation. And I don't give a damn about that topic. Not for an hour. You bore the hell out of people. "Serious concerns for most people" -- maybe if you made a listenable 15 minute report. But you didn't. You droned on and on for an hour boring everyone. Learn to condense and learn that nobody really gives a damn about an hour everytime you get the mike on Japan. That accident was months ago. The Libyan War is right now. The Iraq War is right now. I hate these little pricks who talk 'holistic coverage' to begin with -- they sounds like such assholes.

Hopefully, they'll be gone tomorrow and Kevin Pina will be on and we can hear about the Libyan War.


Most are taking it easy today because of the holiday. I don't think anyone else is planning on posting today. C.I. posted today and yesterday:

• McCain and others talk continued Iraq War
• Another Iraqi prison abuse scandal
• Why are they still there?
• And the war drags on . . .
• Monday in the (Central) Park with Norman

And we worked hard at Third on Sunday:

• Truest statement of the week
• Truest statement of the week II
• A note to our readers
• Editorial: Why are they still there?
• TV: Who's the dick?
• Faux Wisdoms from the Glamour Queen
• Comic book round-up
• The economic comic book report
• The Homophobia of A&E
• Monday in the (Central) Park with Norman
• Supreme Court attacks women workers (Workers World...
• Anti-abortion Extremist Convicted of Stalking Doct...
• Bridesmaids review (GBSW)
• Highlights

So those are some things you can check out if you missed them.

Idiot of the Week

Friday. How are things in your state?

Patrick Martin (WSWS) reports:

The majority of US states begin their new fiscal year July 1, with budgets that impose crippling reductions in public services, particularly health care and education, and destroy hundreds of thousands of jobs. These state budget cuts are the spearhead of an offensive by the US financial aristocracy, which seeks to drive down working class living standards and create conditions of mass social distress.

In their budgets for the 2012 fiscal year, the governors of the 50 states—29 Republicans and 21 Democrats—proposed not only to spend less than in 2011, despite the increasing need for public social services due to the ongoing economic slump. They actually demanded that spending be reduced to below the level of 2008, a regression of at least four years.

Since the financial crisis exploded in September 2008, state and local governments in the United States have cut 535,000 jobs, more than half of them in education. The deliberate demolition of public social services is one of the largest single contributors to the ongoing jobs crisis in America.

Are you noticing it in your state yet?

Maybe not depending on your city or town.

But I'm sure you're noting some stuff. Libary hours cut, maybe. Or city swimming pool hour cuts. At a time when so many Americans are out of work, what are they supposed to do? Spend 20 bucks each day seeing a movie?

Libraries especially need to be open full time. People look for jobs there, type up resumes there, relax and check out a book for fun or read a book to learn a skill that they hope will make them marketable.

Okay, this is from CCR and after that we do IDIOT OF THE WEEK. CCR:

Criminal Accountability Pursued Abroad

Contact: press@ccrjustice.org

July 1, 2011, New York – Yesterday, the U.S. Justice Department announced that it will drop 99 out of 101 C.I.A. detainee torture cases that had been under preliminary review by Federal Prosecutor John Durham. While the deaths of only two detainees will lead to criminal investigations, the U.S. probe into the CIA’s interrogation, rendition and detention of detainees “is not warranted”, according to Attorney General Eric Holder. Attorney General Holder claimed that the Department of Justice has now “thoroughly examined the detainee treatment issue.” The Center for Constitutional Rights issued the following statement in response to the announcement:

“The Department of Justice’s announcement that it is closing investigations into nearly all the cases of CIA torture and abuse that were under review confirms that the United States is committed to absolving itself of any responsibility for its crimes over the past decade. And while it comes as no surprise by now, it is yet another instance where the Obama administration has given precedence to politics over principle and its domestic and international legal obligations, even for torture.

The Justice Department’s decision to open criminal investigations into the deaths of only two detainees does not suffice to demonstrate the United States’ willingness to hold American torturers accountable. Criminal as these deaths were, selecting two high-profile cases that received major media attention, while closing the book on all other cases, does not amount to justice, but rather to a public show.

In fact, the United States has actively and successfully blocked all forms of redress in U.S. courts for hundreds of victims of the U.S. torture program. To date, no victim of post-9/11 policies has been allowed his day in court. This past Monday, the Supreme Court refused to hear the case of Abu Ghraib torture survivors brought against private military contractors for their role in torture, upon the recommendation of the U.S. Acting Solicitor General. Canadian rendition victim Maher Arar was similarly denied the chance to have his claims of torture reviewed on the merits in a U.S. court. The United States is also actively fighting a civil lawsuit filed by relatives of the men who died in Guantánamo in 2006, where new evidence suggests an official cover-up of the cause and circumstances of the deaths.

The investigation led by Mr. Durham was already unacceptably narrow in scope. The investigation was limited to reviewing the conduct of low-level CIA agents who acted within the scope of the “torture memos” and other Office of Legal Counsel memoranda of the Bush administration, and explicitly excluded the chief architects of the torture program and other senior officials. The motto of American Chief Prosecutor of the Nuremberg Trials, Justice Robert Jackson: “We do not accept the paradox that legal responsibility should be the least where power is the greatest” clearly no longer holds within the Obama Department of Justice.

CIA Director and future Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta declared, “we are now finally about to close this chapter of our agency’s history.” If this is the case, then we can equally affirm that this marks an end to the U.S.’s claim that no other country may exercise jurisdiction over crimes of torture perpetrated by Americans. Where justice is denied in the Unites States, universal jurisdiction and the Convention Against Torture allow prosecutions in other nations. CCR is currently actively engaged in a case opened last April in Madrid, Spain on behalf of several former Guantánamo plaintiffs, investigating the U.S.’s “authorized and systematic plan of torture.” Try as it might, the United States will have a harder time making its case outside of this country. Impunity does not always cross borders."

The Center for Constitutional Rights is dedicated to advancing and protecting the rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Founded in 1966 by attorneys who represented civil rights movements in the South, CCR is a non-profit legal and educational organization committed to the creative use of law as a positive force for social change.

Idiot of the week: Barack.

Sorry, he won hands down. Did you see that Wednesday press conference? People think, he says, that all he does is golf. Well, isn't it?

He claimed he is a leader.

It was one laughable line after another.


Here's C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"

Friday, July 1, 2011. Chaos and violence continue, protests continue in Baghdad, the US government continues to target an Iraq War veteran, Iraq scores poorly on the State Dept's report of human trafficking, and more. Starting with Libya. Yesterday on Flashpoints (KPFA, Pacifica), guest host Kevin Pina spoke with Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya who has left Canada to report from Libya on the illegal war. Michael Birnbaum (Washington Post) reported, "French officials announced Wednesday that they had armed rebels in Libya, marking the first time a NATO country has said it was providing direct military aid to opponents of the government in a conflict that has lasted longer than many policymakers expected." Actually, they didn't just 'announce' it was taking place. Philippe Gelie (Le Figaro) reported that France was dropping weapons to the 'rebels.' Only after Gelie's report got traction and the pressure was on the French government to answer the charge did they 'announce' -- which most of us would call "admit" -- that this had happened. Nick Hopkins (Guardian) explained, "The revelation surprised officials in Nato's headquarters in Brussels and raised awkward questions about whether the French had broken international law -- UN resolution 1973 specifically allows Nato nations to protect civilians in Libya, but appears to stop short of permitting the provision weapons." This is the topic Kevin Pina and Madhi Nazemoroaya are discussing at the start of the excerpt. Kevin Pina: So let's talk about this. Has the word reached there in Libya that France has openly flaunted the UN resolution? Madhi Nazemroaya: Yes, yes, it has. And it's no surprise in Tripoli that the French have been involved with this breach of the United Nations resolution. Kevin Pina: And so what has the reaction been? Has there been any official reaction from the Gaddafi government? Madhi Nazemroaya: I was at the Rixos Hotel which as your listeners might know is the media center where the government spokesman is. There's been no official statements yet but speaking to the people there at the media center, as I said, they're not surprised. But they are outraged. I'm sure that tomorrow the manifestation of this outrage will appear in Triopli because there is a major protest -- a major protest that is going to take place. Kevin Pina: And you're listening to Flashpoints on Pacifica Radio and that's the voice of Madhi Nazemroaya coming to us direct from Tripoli in Libya. Madhi, have there been any other sorties of NATO bombers within the last 24 hours? Madhi Nazemroaya: Well in Tripoli there have been no bombings that I know of but I can tell you that NATO jets have been flying robustly over Tripoli and there noises can be heard to the point where at some points I think I've been woken up to this very moment by them. They've been flying a lot during the day. Most likely going south towards Fezzan bombing God knows what because there are no military sites south of here. But there have been robust flights, that's for sure. Kevin Pina: And what about actual battles between the so-called rebels and the forces of the Libyan Army? Madhi Nazemroaya: Well I could tell you this in regards to the front between -- between both sides, between the Benghazi based Transitional Council forces and the military of -- the Libyan miltary of Col Gaddafi . In regards to the front, it was announced yesterday that one city fell. Now I know this because I was witness to the official government spokesperson, Dr. Moussa Ibrahim -- Kevin Pina: This is a city that fell back to Gaddafi forces? Madhi Nazemroaya: No, it was said to have fallen to the rebel forces. Now this is reported by the rebels and by the mainstream media but Dr. Moussa Ibrahim and the Libyan government, the Libyan regime, have contradicted it and denied it. And what they have dones is actually taken international press with them to this city to prove that it did not fall as was reported. Now I bared witness to them leaving on a shuttle towards the city and they returned this morning. I actually talked to some of the reporters before they left. They came from places such as France, Britian and Hong Kong. So we have misinformation being given about the front when one city's been reported to have fallen when, reality, it hasn't. So this I can tell you right now about the front. Kevin Pina: Now you've also spoken about the psychological warfare that's been used by NATO and its allies against the people of Libya. Give us a sense of where that's at now. You said there were still fly-bys and they were making a lot of noise over the capitol. Obviously, that's got to make the people very nervous. Madhi Nazemroaya: Yes, these flights -- these flights are a daily event here in Tripoli and in the districts around Tripoli. And it does make them -- it does make the citizens here think of NATO on a constant basis. This has become a part of their lives. Now I said before too that they're trying to live normal lives and I'm actually very impressed with their efforts to live normal lives here in Tripoli and the districts around Tripoli. But the facts are that these flights make one really nervous and especially at night. Even I myself have trouble sometimes sleeping at night because sometimes these noises wake you up and you might have a problem, like a fear and mistake even a car noise for these flights over Tripoli. It's very disturbing and I have to point out that I've come at a time where the bombings in this area have been reduced compared to what they were. The war is nothing like it was -- the bombings are nothing like it was prior to my arrival. Still, it's a very scary thing, Kevin, it's a very scary thing. Kevin Pina: It seems like the bombings really fell off after it became clear that NATO was responsible for killing civilians -- that they were claiming they were bombing military targets but civilians were being killed at the same time. And there was an incident that happened about a week ago, right, where it was really clear and they could no longer deny it and it seems that they have fallen off since then. Right? Madhi Nazemroaya: Well in Tripoli, like I've said, the bombings have been reduced, they're far less [unknown word] to the citizens than before but other places are being bombed. Like these planes are flying south of Tripoli. God knows where they are bombing because there's nothing of military value in Fezzan. And south of Tripoli, I can't imagine what they're bombing down there except for small cities and villages and the desert. But they are bombing south of here, they're bombing places. And we have reports of them bombing the areas in [. . .] south of here. These things are of no military value at all which actually is an indicator that this war is wrong and that NATO is involved in War Crimes, bombing civilian structures. Kevin Pina: Now you had also said in a previous interview that there was evidence of depleted uranium in bombing -- in the bomb casings that were being dropped on the population. Where's that at now? I understand there's some evidence that's going to be released soon. Madhi Nazemroaya: That evidence will come forward. It's something that's being waited on. The machinery here -- There is machinery here that's been ordered that will detect radioactivity levels. It's only a matter of time before it comes. I don't know exactly when it will come up but the machinery is here and there would have actually been more machinery had it not been for the disaster in east Asia, in Japan specifically, because a lot of this machinery ended up going there. But I spoke to an American gentlemen the other day about it and they will be using this machinery to prove to the world that depleted uranium has been used here. And not only have I mentioned this but so have others and so has the Stop the War coalition in the United Kingdom. Kevin Pina: Well Madhi, this is the voice of Madhi Nazemroaya our special correspondent on the ground in Tripoli, Libya. This is Flashpoints on Pacifica Radio. In related news, AFP reported this week that the 'rebels' (National Transitional Council) has received the equivalent of $100 million in "international donations" according to England's Foreign Secretary William Hague who was speaking to the House of Commons. Former US house Rep Cynthia McKinney is attempting to raise awareness of the illegal war and this is from her "What America Stands For In Libya" (Information Clearing House): At a time when the American people have been asked to tighten their belts, teachers are receiving pink slips, the vital statistics of the American people reveal a health care crisis in the making, and the U.S. government is in serious threat of default, our President and Congress have decided that a new war, this time against the people of Libya, is appropriate. This comes at a time when the U.S., by one estimate, spends approximately $3 billion per week for war against Iraq and Afghanistan. Today protests continued in Iraq. This was "Grandchildren of the 1920 Rebels" -- a not to the Iraq Revolution of 1920 in which the Iraqis -- Shia and Sunni -- protested the British occupation and the policies put in place by British Bwana Arnold Wilson. It kicked off in May 1920 and saw 6,000 Iraqis and 500 British and Indian forces killed from May to October. To avoid further risk, the British handed control over to Faisal bin Hussein bin Ali al-Hashemi who ruled as the King of Iraq from August 1921 to September 1933. Revolution of Iraq features videos of the Baghdad protests filmed by Rami Hayali. During the demonstration, they burned to the United States flag to show their rejection of the occupation. A characteristic of the Baghdad protests are the women with photos of their loved ones who are missing -- some lost in the Iraqi 'justice' system and there are least two such women (plus other women as well) in this video. Families have no idea where their loved ones are. They just disappear one day. Maybe they're seen being hauled away by Iraqi forces, maybe that's not seen. But they disappear and the government is of no use to them, provides no assistance to find them. Southern Iraq protests in the last months have also noted the difficulties in visiting imprisoned/detained Iraqis that the system seems to practice intentionally by repeatedly swapping prisons and by keeping them far from their home base where family would be closer. In this video, the protesters wash their hands of Ayad Allawi and Nouri al-Maliki stating that both men are useless and two-of-a-kind, thieves unwilling to help Iraq. Alsumaria TV reports that they called for Nouri's government to be toppled and to end corruption and that they were joined by "employees from the branch centers of the Independent High Electoral Commission rallied for the second time in Tahrir Square calling to be employed as fixed term employees." Protests have continued every Friday despite the attacks on the peaceful protesters. Dan Murphy (Christian Science Monitor) reports: Human Rights Watch charges today that Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki appears to have ordered the beating, stabbing, and sexual assault of protesters earlier this month. "It's pretty worrying," says Joe Stork, the head of the Middle East department at Human Rights Watch. "There are a few things that we hadn't seen before, like the sexual molesting, that kind of thing. The pattern of using plain clothes people who to all appearances were working with the connivance of the security people, that's certainly not new … we saw that when the so-called Arab spring protests started in Baghdad in February. This use of 'thugs' who may or may not be security is itself not unique to Iraq; in fact, it seems to be right out of the Egyptian playbook." In other news out of Iraq, Alaa Fadel (Dar Addustour) reports that Nouri's spokesperson, Ali al-Dabbagh, announced that the increase in oil prices (meaning more income for Iraq) will be used to increase the payment for wheat and barley to Iraqi farmers. The government is planning to spend trillions of dinars on these crops. While that takes place, Al Mada reports UNICEF is calling on Iraq's government to invest some of the money into a one billion a year fund to assist Iraq's disadvantaged children. There are an estimated 4 million severely disadvantaged children thought the number could be much higher and Iraq's estimated to have 15 million children. 15 million children is a large number by itself but especially when you consider that population estimates for Iraq are generally somewhere between 25 million and 30 million. Iraq is a young country, a country of widows and orphans thanks to the illegal war. And the protests that take place in Iraq are about these issues, the war, the effects of the war, the occupied government's refusal to provide basic services such as potable water, the lack of jobs and much more. Iaq needs housing and every six months or so Nouri shows up at a newly built housing project for a photo-op. Iraq needs many things. So there should be more than enough jobs to go around. Somehow that's not the case. (Also true, a lot of the government funded projects never see the funds because someone uses the money to line their own pockets.) Al Mada reports on the Iraqi government's reaction to the US State Dept's annual human rights report on human trafficking which finds being put on the "watchlist" good news. Hassan Rashed explains it's so much better to be on the watchlist than on the blacklist. They have no reason to be proud, the report notes: Protection The Iraqi government demonstrated minimal efforts to protect victims of trafficking during the reporting period. Government authorities continued to lack a formal procedure to identify victims of trafficking among vulnerable groups, such as women arrested for prostitution or foreign workers, and did not recognize that women in prostitution may be coerced. As a result, some victims of trafficking were incarcerated, fined, or otherwise penalized for acts committed as a direct result of being trafficked, such as prostitution. Some victims of forced labor, however, were reportedly not detained, fined, or jailed for immigration violations, but they were generally not provided protection services by the government. Some Iraqi police centers have specialists to assist women and children who are victims of trafficking and abuse; the number of victims assisted and the type of assistance provided is unclear. The government neither provided protection services to victims of trafficking nor funded or provided in-kind assistance to NGOs providing victim protection services. All available care was administered by NGOs, which ran victim-care facilities and shelters accessible to victims of trafficking. However, there were no signs that the government developed or implemented procedures by which government officials systematically referred victims to organizations providing legal, medical, or psychological services. Upon release from prison, female victims of forced prostitution had difficulty finding assistance, especially in cases where the victim's family had sold her into prostitution, thereby increasing their chances of being re-trafficked. Some child trafficking victims were placed in protective facilities, orphanages, and foster care, while others were placed in juvenile detention centers. Since trafficking is not established as a crime in Iraq, the government did not encourage victims to assist in investigations or prosecutions or provide legal assistance or legal alternatives to removal to countries in which they may face hardship or retribution for foreign victims of trafficking into Iraq. Prevention The Government of Iraq did not report efforts to prevent trafficking in persons. The government has not conducted any public awareness or education campaigns to educate migrant workers, labor brokers, and employers of workers' rights against forced labor. There were also no reported efforts to reduce the demand for commercial sex acts beyond enforcing anti-prostitution laws. The Iraqi government does not consistently monitor immigration and emigration patterns for evidence of trafficking, but there are reports of isolated instances in which Iraqi border security forces prevented older men and young girls traveling together from leaving Iraq using fake documents. Their fallback position was to do nothing. When pressed, they did the "minimal." The report also notes: Iraq is a source and destination country for men, women, and children subjected to sex trafficking and forced labor. Iraqi women and girls are subjected to conditions of trafficking within the country and in Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Turkey, Iran, Yemen, and Saudi Arabia for forced prostitution and sexual exploitation within households. Women are lured into forced prostitution through false promises of work. Women are also subjected to involuntary servitude through forced marriages, often as payment of a debt, and women who flee such marriages are often more vulnerable to being subjected to further forced labor or sexual servitude. One NGO reports that recruiters rape women and girls on film and blackmail them into prostitution or recruit them in prisons by posting bail and then holding them in situations of debt bondage in prostitution. Some women and children are forced by family members into prostitution to escape desperate economic circumstances, to pay debts, or to resolve disputes between families. NGOs report that these women are often prostituted in private residences, brothels, restaurants, and places of entertainment. Some women and girls are trafficked within Iraq for the purpose of sexual exploitation through the use of temporary marriages (muta'a), by which the family of the girl receives money in the form of a dowry in exchange for permission to marry the girl for a limited period of time. Some Iraqi parents have reportedly collaborated with traffickers to leave children at the Iraqi side of the border with Syria with the expectation that traffickers will arrange for them forged documents to enter Syria and employment in a nightclub. The large population of internally displaced persons and refugees moving within Iraq and across its borders are particularly at risk of being trafficked. Women from Iran, China, and the Philippines reportedly may be trafficked to or through Iraq for commercial sexual exploitation. Iraq is also a destination country for men and women who migrate from Bangladesh, India, Indonesia, Nepal, the Philippines, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Pakistan, Georgia, Jordan, and Uganda and are subsequently subjected to involuntary servitude as construction workers, security guards, cleaners, handymen, and domestic workers. Such men and women face practices such as confiscation of passports and official documents, nonpayment of wages, long working hours, threats of deportation, and physical and sexual abuse as a means to keep them in a situation of forced labor. Some of these foreign migrants were recruited for work in other countries such as Jordan or the Gulf States, but were forced, coerced, or deceived into traveling to Iraq, where their passports were confiscated and their wages withheld, ostensibly to repay labor brokers for the costs of recruitment, transport, and food and lodging. Other foreign migrants were aware they were destined for Iraq, but once in-country, found the terms of employment were not what they expected or the jobs they were promised did not exist, and they faced coercion and serious harm, financial or otherwise, if they attempted to leave. In addition, some Iraqi boys from poor families are reportedly subjected to forced street begging and other nonconsensual labor exploitation and commercial sexual exploitation. Some women from Ethiopia, Indonesia, Nepal, and the Philippines who migrated to the area under the jurisdiction of the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) experienced conditions of domestic servitude after being recruited with offers of different jobs. An Iraqi official revealed networks of women have been involved in the trafficking and sale of male and female children for the purposes of sex trafficking. The Government of Iraq does not fully comply with the minimum standards for the elimination of trafficking, but is making significant efforts to do so. The government did not demonstrate evidence of significant efforts to punish traffickers or proactively identify victims; therefore, Iraq is placed on Tier 2 Watch List for a third consecutive year. Iraq was not placed on Tier 3 per Section 107 of the 2008 Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act, however, as the government has a written plan that, if implemented, would constitute making significant efforts to bring itself into compliance with the minimum standards for the elimination of trafficking and is devoting sufficient resources to implement that plan. Nonetheless, the government did not enact its draft anti-trafficking legislation and has reported no other efforts to prosecute or punish traffickers. The Government of Iraq continues to lack proactive victim identification procedures, persists in punishing victims of forced prostitution, and provides no systematic protection services to victims of trafficking. The report can be found here. Hillary Clinton, US Secretary of State, held a briefing earlier this week on the report (link is text and video). Violence has increased in the last months in Iraq. Aswat al-Iraq reports that MP Hakim al-Zamili has declared, "The premier [Nouri al-Maliki] is the first responsible for the deterioration in the security situation. He has to solve this question by appointing the security miniters who should be specialized and knowledgeable." Turning to some of today's reported violence, Reuters notes 2 police officers "and a Kurdish security force member" were shot dead in Mosul last night, that 1 "Iraqi oil police" killed a suspected smuggler last night outside Mosul and that, today, 1 Sahwa was shot dead in Khaldiya.On the Mosul attack, Aswat al-Iraq noted that the assailants wore military uniforms. They also note that a Baghdad attack led to the death last night of a police officer and an Iraqi officer. Meanwhile the Director-General of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) has issued a statement. Irina Bokova has called out the recent deaths of journalists in Iraq, Congo and Mexico. We'll note the Iraq aspect. Ms. Bokova also deplored the death on 21 June of cameraman Alwan al-Ghorabi, who died in a car bomb explosion in the southern Iraqi city of Diwaniyya, becoming the fourth journalist to be killed in that country this year. Mr. al-Ghorabi, who worked for the Afaq satellite television channel, was reportedly with several other journalists at the entrance of a Government building when the bomb exploded. Ms. Bokova said this latest death is a reminder of how precarious the security situation still is in Iraq. "Media professionals, working to keep citizens informed, are particularly exposed," she noted. In other news of violence, Ed O'Keefe and Tim Craig (Washington Post via Boston Globe) note the US officials and military 'chatter' that Iran is behind June's deadly attacks on US soldiers: "Those weapons include powerful rockets, armor-piercing grenades, and jamming-resistant roadside bombs, military officials say. Officials caution that they do not have evidence that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran or his government is ordering Shi'ite militias to strike US forces in Iraq." Michael S. Schmidt (New York Times) reports the US military is happy that Nouri al-Maliki has "unleashed a sweeping crackdown on Iranian-based Shiite militias" and that they feared this wouldn't happen due to the fact that "[m]any of the militant groups have ties to the radical cleric Moktada al-Sadr" so it's relief to them that Nouri's sent soldiers and police officers into Maysan Province. Really? Moqtada didn't have a stronghold in the Maysan Province. The closest he is supposed to have had was a toe-hold in Amarah and that toe-hold fell apart during Basha'ar al-Salam in 2008 when Sadr's sole office in the province, in Amarah, was shut down. Now that's 2008. Two years prior to that, Moqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi milita was supposed to have seized control of the city of Amarah briefly (for one day in October). Where they do have control, Sadr supporters (militia or not) is in the province's government and that's due to Nouri al-Maliki who handed the province over to Moqtada to garner al-Sadr's support for his 2010 prime minister bid. Since Sadrists control the government in the province (including the post of governor) and since there were other militias in the province (going back for years and years) what might be taking place is that Moqtada al-Sadr is using his sway with Nouri to have Nouri take out rivals -- militia and political? -- in the province. Moqtada and his followers did't win control of the province via elections, they won it via a graft with Nouri. This may be an attempt at taking out enemies and 'purifying' the region. In which case, Nouri would be doing Moqtada's bidding and the US military brass would have jumped the gun in its praise for Nouri. If you're wondering what the other 'name' militia in the province is, it's the Badr Organization. If Moqtada was able to knock them out, he might neverhave to worry about control of the province or having to wrestle with Ammar al-Hakim over who's going to run it. He had to repeatedly wrestle with Ammar's father, Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, over just that until Abdul Aziz al-Hakim passed away in 2009. Ammar al-Hakim being rather popular with US government officials, now would be the perfect time for Moqtada to work on weakening al-Hakim's support since a number of foreigners think, should Nouri be recalled or forced out, Ammar al-Hakim would be the perfect choice for prime minister. 15 US soldiers have died in the Iraq War during the month of June. Wednesday was the most recent deaths when a missile hit a US military vehicle killing three soldiers. The Intelligencer reports one of them was 29-year-old David VanCamp whose survivors include his wife Chelsea, his parents and his three brothers. David VanCamp first deployed to Iraq in the fall of 2005 and was awarded "the Purple Heart and Bronze Star after being injured in 2006 by a suicide bomber." The State Journal notes his passing and has a photo of him here. Another of the 15 fallen for the month of June is Dylan Johnson. KJRH (link has text and video) speaks to his father Jeff Johnson who explains his son was known for his sense of humor, "I got a recent message from one of his buddies there and they're still finding remnants of practical jokes that he played on them, that was just the type of guy he was, he enjoyed life to it's fullest." Dylan Johnson was 20-years-old and on his 25th day in Iraq when he died in a bombing. Staying with the United States, Elisha Dawkins is an Iraq War veteran. He remains a member of the military who was serving until the government recently decided that he had falsified a passport application by saying he'd never applied for one before when, a few years prior, he'd started an application but not finished it. On the basis of that, they have threatened and bullied Elisha. US Senator Bill Nelson has called the treatment outrageous. He's been offered the option of taking probation and the charges against him would be dropped. Probation would not be a felony conviction which would allow him to apply for citizenship. (There's confusion on citizenship. Elisha was raised believing he was a US citizen. He has a birth certificate from the state of Florida. But there's a deportation order from when he was a small child for him and for his mother.) Carol Rosenberg (Miami Herald) reports that his case has now caught US House Rep Federica Wilson's attention and that Wilson has written Janet Napolitano, US Homeland Security Secretary, asking for assistance and noting, "Mr. Dawkins is not someone who should find imself in a detention center. His situation is more than unfortunate, it is inexplicable. I am asking, earnestly, for your help. I am asking that Mr. Dawkins be allowed to continue to be the type of role model he has always been -- here, on American soil." US House Rep Federica Wilson's office has released the following statement: Washington, DC -- Congresswoman Frederica Wilson (FL-17) today sent a letter to Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano to request a removal of detainer on former Petty Officer 2nd Class, Elisha Leo Dawkins, who has been held for the past month in a Miami federal detention facility. Officer Dawkins was originally detained for an alleged passport violation. Even if he is released from detention, he is still at risk of deportation based on an order issued in 1992. Mr. Dawkins was brought to the U.S. as a baby from The Bahamas and was raised believing he was a U.S. citizen, eventually rising to serve in our military with distinction. He grew up in the heart of Florida's 17th District, attending Poinciana Park Elementary and Miami Central Senior High School. "This is a man we should be celebrating, not deporting," said Congresswoman Wilson. "He has bravely and heroically fought for our country and deserves our utmost gratitude. His situation is more than unfortunate; it is inexplicable. I am asking that Mr. Dawkins be allowed to continue to be the type of role model he has always been -- here, on American soil. "This is precisely why we need to pass the DREAM Act. We need comprehensive immigration reform to fix our broken immigration system and ensure that incidents like this never happen again to our brave men and women who served in uniform." In addition to awaiting a response from Homeland Security Secretary Napolitano, Congresswoman Wilson's district office is working closely with all relevant authorities to resolve the case. Free Elisha Dawkins is a Facebook page which has been started by friends of Elisha who goes by "Leo" his friend and Jake Birchfield reveals to Ted Hall (11 Alive -- link has video and text) and.Birchfield explains of the friend he served with, "He has done more for this country than most people will in their lifetimes and he's a young man. The fact that he has gone to the front lines to fight for our country. The government needs to say this is a mistake." iraq kpfa flashpoints pacifica radio iraqi revolution the christian science monitor dan murphy dar addustour alaa fadel al mada the washington post ed okeefe tim craig kjrh