The United States of Falluja

Tuesday. A lot to cover tonight. First, Leigh Ann e-mailed wondering what I took when I got a headache on Mondays? Nothing. Few things work and the ones that do work tend to make me sleepy. Since I'm already sleepy, that would mean no post on Mondays. So I just grit and peck through it.

Okay, I listened to Law and Disorder Radio on WBAI Monday so I heard the pledge drive stuff.
Marjorie Webb was their guest in the studio. She's an attorney in Canada and she was on to discuss the biometrics that are being gathered at the border by the US government and how they are creating a data pool that they are not going to purge.

They -- Heidi Boghosian, Michael S. Smith and Marjorie Webb -- talked about the police state. But I disagree with them.

When I was listening to them talk about the biometrics, I thought about how Falluja was bombed and destroyed and targeted with rage and hate by the US. And when the attempts to destroy it were over, they refused to let residents back in unless they gave their biometrics.

So we're not living in a police state, my opinion. We're living in a military state. We're living in the United States of Falluja.

And pretty soon, as part of the crackdown on dissent, we probably won't be allowed in our own neighborhoods unless we surrenderr our DNA.

They played an excerpt of their interview with Margaret Kunstler about grand juries. If you missed it, you can listen at the Law and Disorder Radio website. And you can also read about that segment in yesterday's snapshot. And, swiping from C.I., be sure to read the National Lawyers Guild's new report, Heidi Boghosian's [PDF format warning] "The Policing of Political Speech: Constraints on Mass Dissent in the US."

Now for how Dems screwed themselves in the mid-terms.

VOTE!

That's what they keep screaming.

And then they try to scare us and threaten us.

For Dems to win, the group that voted for Barack has to vote.

But mid-terms aren't usually a time when they do.

Take my group (I voted for Ralph Nader, I did not vote for Corporatist War Hawk Barack). My generation overwhelmingly voted for Barack.

And now Barry thinks he can do some get-out-the-vote appearances and his cult will come back out.

Tell me something, where are the 18-year-olds who voted for him?

Many are off in college now.

Campus Progress, Think Progress and all the others forgot about it. They were too busy doing celebrity videos to get the message out by registering.

So high schoolers who voted for him to be president are now in college and they can't vote for him because they have to drive home to vote. And it's too late for absentee ballots.

What about if you were already at college? Let's hope your college stayed the same.

But those primaries, those sure were tight battles, weren't they?

Cult of St. Barack did you vote at college or did you go home and try to sway there (or did you both in both primaries -- many Barackers did). If you voted at home in the primary, you may be registered there. You really want a road trip to vote for Barry?

Nope.

See, they didn't think about it. They didn't realize registration was an issue.

They really are idiots. With independents lost, it's thought that Barack has to turn out his core and there is every indication that many in his core won't be able to vote.

Ha!!!!!


(I'm voting Green.)

Now for NBC's Chuck. I really didn't think Casey would have made a Hillary joke. It seems against everything Casey is. (He wouldn't have made that joke while she was First Lady.) So I had that problem with that. Casey's just so anti-social that I really can't see him striving to fit in unless he's playing a character.

Other than that, it was a great episode and that's because it was about Casey. He really is the strongest part of the show.

Chuck and Sarah had some nice scenes.. But, except for one scene with Devin doing baby stuff,

Ellie (Chuck's sister) has decided she does want Chuck to play their mom. (Who is played by Linda Hamiton of Terminator fame.) But Chuck learns that she's running some bad guys so -- despite Sarah warning him it might not be what it seems -- he cuts her out and she comes calling on him. Over the phone.

Morgan had some nice scenes with Casey's daughter and because Morgan showed huge bravery or extreme stupidity on the mission (to take out some bad guys, he electroucted himself), Casey even fixed them back up at the end of the episode.

It was a huge, huge improvement over last week's episode.

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

Tuesday, October 19, 2010. Chaos and violence continue,two AP reporters are assaulted by Iraqi forces, the UN is targeted in Iraq as the country is slammed with bombings, refugees who return don't find peace or safety, and more. Today columnist Tony Norman (Pittsburgh Post-Gazette) writes: How is it possible for a country to be at war on two fronts for nearly a decade and not be plunged into constant fits of epic soul-searching? Whatever trick of light makes it possible to pretend "We, the People" have nothing to do with wars waged in our name overseas also blinds us to its tragic legacies at home. In a little more than two weeks, a nation suffering from willful amnesia about Iraq and Afghanistan will either vote for new representatives who share their myopia -- or retain those incumbents most skilled at exploiting it. If polls are to be believed, these wars are too low on the list of voter priorities to prompt much turnout on Election Day. Although more than a trillion dollars has been spent on the wars, that's an unthinkable abstraction to the vast majority of us. The column comes on the heels of Tom Brokaw's "The Wars That America Forgot About" (New York Times): Notice anything missing on the campaign landscape? How about war? The United States is now in its ninth year of fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq, the longest wars in American history. Almost 5,000 men and women have been killed. More than 30,000 have been wounded, some so gravely they're returning home to become, effectively, wards of their families and communities. In those nine years, the United States has spent more than $1 trillion on combat operations and other parts of the war effort, including foreign aid, reconstruction projects, embassy costs and veterans' health care. And the end is not in sight. So why aren't the wars and their human and economic consequences front and center in this campaign, right up there with jobs and taxes? So did the people forget or did the press forget? Jared Hunt's article (West Virginia's Daily Mail Capitol Reporter) on the US Senate race between Joe Manchin and Governor John Raese appears to indicate that, when asked, candidates will discuss the Iraq War. Manchin terms it a distraction "with a tremendous cost to human life, the personal tragedies that the families had to endure, and the financial cost of this mission." Raese speaks of his opposition to "adherence to rules of engagement in combat" (which would put him at odds with the Pentagon's official position) and asserts that the US military in Iraq has been forced to conduct "a politically correct war". The two columns argue a point similar to the one made last Friday on the second hour of The Diane Rehm Show (NPR): Gordon Lubold: Well I don't disagree but it's just that you are not hearing that as part of the conversation. Even the veterans who are running for seats in the House are not -- that's not resonating. People are not paying attention to the fact -- And this is different from two years ago, uh, when the surge in Iraq was-was topic A and everybody wanted to weigh in about it. It's just not as much of an issue. For more of that exchange, you can see Friday's snapshot. From Third's "Editorial: Media bites the people," "'It's just not as much of an issue.' The Iraq War vanished from TV. Most newspaper no longer have even a one-person Baghdad bureau. But somehow, Lubold wants you to know, the public just stopped thinking about the Iraq War. How strange that is? That the media creates a vacuum and, after time, the public goes along?" It's not strange at all, as a response from the public. It's very strange that the US media largelly withdrew from Iraq and now journalists want to act puzzled that people aren't focused on a war that few bother to report on. PEW doesn't even bother to do their yearly (at least yearly) report on how Iraq's fallen off the media radar. But if there's no coverage, there's little awareness. This is reflected in past PEW reports. Take March 12, 2008 when PEW found only 27% of adults surveyed were aware of the general number (4,000) of US service members who had died in Iraq -- down 26% from the previous year. What else was down during that time period? News coverage and, as PEW noted, "As news coverage of the war has diminished, so too has public interrest in news about Iraq." NPR is supposed to be reporting from Iraq. It's in the budget. They've had to justify that budget. So it's surprising that 'continuing' coverage translates these days into one or two reports a month. I don't think anyone thought 'continue' would mean one or two reports a month. Kelly McEvers last aired report was October 6th. That's 12 days ago. (And click here, an NPR friend says a report will air on All Things Considered today.) (McEvers and others have had reports from Iraq that were offered in tiny bits at the top of the hour news. There was one Monday, in fact, on Nouri going to Tehran.) The only significant thing since then has been Steve Inskeep's discussion on Iraq with Peter Kenyon (Morning Edition, October 8th). And look at the other programs NPR has. Where's Iraq? Where? And the programs they carry? On Point with Tom Ashbrook? It last covered Iraq when? What about To The Point? We can go through all the programs. The answers are not pretty. (PRI actually has covered Iraq, you can especially refer to PRI's The World this month.) It gets even uglier when you go to network so-called news and pick up nothing on Iraq but a bunch of crap like "car surfing" gets air time. It's disgusting. The American people can't follow what's not covered. Accusing them of disinterest when the press refuses to cover a topic is really sad and, honestly, weak. It, after all, takes some guts to call out the press but to attack 'we the people'? It's a breeze, it always has been which is why one blowhard after another hectors the people while refusing to call out the ones in charge of coverage. September 3rd, Poynter published an internal AP memo written by Tom Kent, the AP's Deputy Managing Editor for Standards and Production, Whatever the subject, we should be correct and consistent in our description of what the situation in Iraq is. This guidance summarizes the situation and suggests wording to use and avoid. To begin with, combat in Iraq is not over, and we should not uncritically repeat suggestions that it is, even if they come from senior officials. The situation on the ground in Iraq is no different today than it has been for some months. Iraqi security forces are still fighting Sunni and al-Qaida insurgents. Many Iraqis remain very concerned for their country's future despite a dramatic improvement in security, the economy and living conditions in many areas. As for U.S. involvement, it also goes too far to say that the U.S. part in the conflict in Iraq is over. President Obama said Monday night that "the American combat mission in Iraq has ended. Operation Iraqi Freedom is over, and the Iraqi people now have lead responsibility for the security of their country." However, 50,000 American troops remain in country. Our own reporting on the ground confirms that some of these troops, especially some 4,500 special operations forces, continue to be directly engaged in military operations. These troops are accompanying Iraqi soldiers into battle with militant groups and may well fire and be fired on. In addition, although administration spokesmen say we are now at the tail end of American involvement and all troops will be gone by the end of 2011, there is no guarantee that this will be the case. Our stories about Iraq should make clear that U.S. troops remain involved in combat operations alongside Iraqi forces, although U.S. officials say the American combat mission has formally ended. We can also say the United States has ended its major combat role in Iraq, or that it has transferred military authority to Iraqi forces. We can add that beyond U.S. boots on the ground, Iraq is expected to need U.S. air power and other military support for years to control its own air space and to deter possible attack from abroad. Unless there is balancing language, our content should not refer to the end of combat in Iraq, or the end of U.S. military involvement. Nor should it say flat-out (since we can't predict the future) that the United States is at the end of its military role. Other than AP, what outlet have you seen take those steps? And where are the watchdogs? At CJR they're writing defensive, bitchy posts about articles in Women's Wear Daily while wanting to pretend they're some sort of journalistic oversight body. Get real. They're nothing but another useless and mythical watercooler -- with half the intelligence and none of the pertinence. They haven't done a thing of value online that they can point to in the last two years. Though the coverage fades for many, the violence continues on in Iraq. Xinhua reports bombings in Diyala Province today have claimed at least 8 lives following the bombing of a police officer Major Qaid al-Rashid's home in Tikrit. So far the only known survivor is a six-month-old infant. Police Lt Col Khalid al-Baiyati's home was also bombed leaving two family members injured (the lieutenant wasn't home during the bombing), a Samarra roadside bombing claimed the lives of 2 police officers (four people left injured) and a Baiji bombing injured one Sahwa member. Reuters raised the death toll from 8 to 11. Reuters adds a Baghdad sticky bombing injured eight Iranian pilgrims and a second Baghdad roadside bombing wounded six Iranian pilgrims. Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad roadside bombing injured two people and another one claimed the life of 1 Sahwa with four more injured and a Najaf roadside bombing targeted the United Nations Special Representative to Iraq Ad Melkert. Alsumaria TV reports that Melkert was in Najaf to visit Grand Ayatollah Sayyed Ali Al Sistani at his home. Jane Arraf (Christian Science Monitor) explains, "Mr. Melkert [. . .] is one of the few Western officials with whome Ayatollah Sistani meets. The cleric, who does not appear in public, has played an influential role in Iraq." Ernesto Londono (Washington Post) notes the bombing claimed the life of 1 Iraqi police officer with two more injured while Ad Mlkert was not harmed. Londono adds, "Investigators suspect that the militant Shiite group Asaib Ahl-al-Haq carried out the attack, possibly assuming that the convoy included US military officials". United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon's office issued the following statement: The Secretary-General strongly condemns today's attack in Najaf, Iraq, on a UN convoy carrying his Special Representative for Iraq, Mr. Ad Melkert, his Deputy Special Representative, Mr. Jerzy Skuratowicz, and UNAMI staff. All UN staff escaped without injury. Regrettably one member of the Iraqi security forces was killed and several others injured. The Secretary-General sends his condolences to the family of the deceased and wishes a speedy recovery to those injured. The Secretary-General wishes to express his appreciation to his Special Representative and the staff of the United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq (UNAMI), who are working under difficult circumstances to implement the mandate of the United Nations in Iraq. This attack will not deter the UN from continuing its efforts to assist the Iraqi people on their path to reconciliation and prosperity. In addition, Al Jazeera reports that "an Iraqi military general said he will investigate his troops in connection with the alleged beating of two journalists a day earlier. Two AP journalists were among those assaulted by Iraqi soldiers while trying to cover a Monday morning bombing that killed a Baghdad provincial council member. An AP Television News cameraman had his foot broken while soldiers punched and kicked an AP photographer." Staying with the United Nation, in Geneva today, UNHCR spokesperson Melissa Fleming addressed the issue of Iraqi returnees, "A poll of Iraqis who have returned to Baghdad from neighbouring countries found that physical insecurity, economic hardship and a lack of basic public services has led the majority to regret their decision to return to Iraq. The survey also found that 34 percent said they were uncertain whether they would stay permanently in Iraq and would consider seeking asylum in neighbouring countries once again if conditions do not improve." Fleming noted that the bulk of the returnees were unable to live in their own homes (presumably they were occupied by squatter and those who ran them off to begin with) and the bulk of those who returned did so due to economic conditions (the savings they'd been living on were gone). The University of Chicago's Will Taylor reports for Global Post on Iraqi refugees Mohammad and Marwa and their daughter Noor who have arrived in the US after fleeing Iraq for Syria. Mohammad is a journalist who covered politics and government in Iraq until "local hostilities and militia" forced them to leave the country. Mohammad explains, "I wrote about a high officer in Iraq. He is official officer and besides that he has a militia." As a result, the Mahdi militia visited Mohammad's home and "kidnapped Mohammed and his mother." Though they eventually released him, the whereabouts and status of his mother remain unknown. Of today's violence, Mohammed Tawfeeq and CNN observe, "The spurt of violence highlights U.S. and Iraqi worries over the tenacity of insurgents and anxieties that the parliament's political impasse is generating insecurity." Yesterday at the US State Dept, spokesperson Philip J. Crowley was asked about Iraq and his responses included, "Well, our message to Iraq has not changed at all. We want to see the formation of a new government expeditiously. And we also want to be sure that the new government is inclusive of all four winning blocs. So our message has not changed. And it has been more than six months since the election, but we do notice that the pace of political action to try to form a governing coalition has picked up in Iraq in recent months -- recent weeks. Prime Minister Maliki is visiting Iran today. I wouldn't over-interpret this. We understand that Iran and Iraq are neighbors. They have to have a relationship. But we certainly think that Iran can be a better neighbor by respecting Iraqi sovereignty and ending it support to those who use violence in Iraq. [. . .] Well, we are concerned about any neighboring country that would meddle in Iraq's affairs. Ultimately, this has to be an Iraqi decision as part of its own political process and we have every indication that Iraq's leaders are working to try to form a government. We just want to see that government be as inclusive as possible. Our concerns about Iraq and its -- I'm sorry, our concerns about Iran and its meddling in Iraq's affairs are longstanding, but that said, we would expect the Iraqi Government to work on behalf of its own citizens and not on behalf of another country." March 7th, Iraq concluded Parliamentary elections. The Guardian's editorial board noted in August, "These elections were hailed prematurely by Mr Obama as a success, but everything that has happened since has surely doused that optimism in a cold shower of reality." 163 seats are needed to form the executive government (prime minister and council of ministers). When no single slate wins 163 seats (or possibly higher -- 163 is the number today but the Parliament added seats this election and, in four more years, they may add more which could increase the number of seats needed to form the executive government), power-sharing coalitions must be formed with other slates, parties and/or individual candidates. (Eight Parliament seats were awarded, for example, to minority candidates who represent various religious minorities in Iraq.) Ayad Allawi is the head of Iraqiya which won 91 seats in the Parliament making it the biggest seat holder. Second place went to State Of Law which Nouri al-Maliki, the current prime minister, heads. They won 89 seats. Nouri made a big show of lodging complaints and issuing allegations to distract and delay the certification of the initial results while he formed a power-sharing coalition with third place winner Iraqi National Alliance -- this coalition still does not give them 163 seats. They are claiming they have the right to form the government. In 2005, Iraq took four months and seven days to pick a prime minister. It's seven months and twelve days and counting. Press TV notes, "Secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council (SNSC) Saeed Jalili stresses the importance of promoting mutual ties with Iraq, saying it would bring security to the region. The expansion of strategic relations between Iran and Iraq would play a leading role in establishing security and development in the region, IRNA quoted Jalili as saying in a meeting with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki in the Iranian capital of Tehran on Monday." Anne Barker (Australia's ABC) adds, "Iran's deputy foreign minister says Mr Maliki is one of the suitable choices to lead Iraq's next government, a strong signal that Tehran wants him to stay in power." Press TV quotes Ayatollah Khamenei stating, "Despite relative stability in Iraq, the country is still suffering from insecurity and part of this insecurity is resulted from the pressures that are exerted by some powers whose political interests lie in creating insecurity in Iraq." The Tehran Times notes Khamenei is calling for "the immediate formation of a government". Pepe Escobar (Asia Times) notes: All through these interminable seven months since the Iraq elections on March 7, the Barack Obama administration said it would "not interfere" in internal Iraqi politics. Even the ghosts of the whores of Babylon knew Washington wanted its own favored, slightly pro-Western "coalition" in power - a Maliki-Iyad Allawi "cohabitation", as the French put it, with that Arab version of Tony Soprano, former Central Intelligence Agency asset and former "butcher of Fallujah" Allawi as prime minister. (See The new Saddam, without a moustache Asia Times Online, July 16, 2004.) Now it turns out Washington is involved in - guess what? - a whole lot of interfering. Maliki is set to actually remain in power - thanks to support by the Sadrist bloc. Allawi's Iraqiya List had slightly more seats (91) than Maliki's list (89), but not enough to form a government. At the same time, the Sadrists became predominant over the Supreme Iraqi Islamic Council and the Iraqi National Alliance (10% of the 325 contested seats). Even said ghosts of the whores of Babylon also knew that after the elections the real kingmaker in Iraq would continue to be Muqtada. John Leland (New York Times' At War) reports that "huge banners" have gone up in the Iraqi Parliament noting Moqtada al-Sadr or his late father and a member of the Sunni alliance Tawfiq, Mohammed Gessim, states, "This is a government institution that should not have signs like this. The Sadrists want to show that they are in control and are taking control of the place." Meanwhile Nussaibah Younis (Guardian) zooms in on Nouri, pointing out that he is the cause of the stalemate having destroyed a coalition earlier with the Sadr-bloc and the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq (Amir's group) when the sticking point was no one wanted Nouri for prime minister, the same reason he was unable to move forward with Iraqiya. Younis observes: As he used his first term in office to build a formidable power base among supporters and in the military and intelligence establishments, many fear the level of power that Maliki may be able to accrue with another four years in office. Some Iraqis are even asking: is Maliki destined to be another Saddam? Perhaps most seriously, Maliki presided over a collapse of faith in Iraq's political system. The 2010 parliamentary elections were shambolic and the continued failure to form a government has undermined any remaining credibility. On the eve of the election, the Justice and Accountability Commission (JAC) -- headed by a Shia politician who was himself an electoral candidate -- disqualified 458 mostly Sunni and secular candidates from participation in the election. The JAC claimed that the candidates were Ba'athists, but failed to release the evidence on which these claims were based -- preventing those affected from mounting effective appeals. The debacle threatened to derail the entire election. Even after the election the JAC attempted to retrospectively ban candidates accused of having links to Ba'athism without even awarding the lost seats to the political party that they had represented -- thereby changing the results of an extremely close election after the event. External pressure forced the JAC to drop their case, but faith in the political process had been well and truly shaken. Please note that none of that was hidden. All she's writing about happened in plain sight and the US government did not give a damn. They just wanted to rush through Nouri's coronation because he's given his word that the SOFA will be renegotiated. It's not about stabililty or any other so-called concern for the White House. It's about extending the US military mission in Iraq. Everyone still awaits the latest release from WikiLeaks releases some of their Iraq War documents. The WikiLeaks home page reads (as it has since at least Friday): "WikiLeaks is currently under[g]oing scheduled maintenance. We will be back online as soon as possible." From their Twitter feed this morning, these were the five most recent Tweets: WikiLeaks is not the problem. Overclassification is! FP http://foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/10/15/telling_secrets less than 20 seconds ago via web Rather than apologizing for misleading the press, the Pentagon tries bully it into not reporting Reuters http://reut.rs/ce31jf about 5 hours ago via web @wired has spoken to no 'staffers'. No publication dates have slipped. @wired has agenda, doesn't check facts and is not to be trusted. about 5 hours ago via web WikiLeaks cut off from donations, denied extra shield AP/CBS http://bit.ly/bXyQAC about 6 hours ago via web WikiLeaks keynote, Washington DC, Oct 30 http://bit.ly/cO4nUz about 8 hours ago via web Hundreds of media giants fooled by not checking their facts Rixstep http://rixstep.com/1/1/20101018,00.shtml about 10 hours ago via web And we'll close with this from David Edwards and Muriel Kane's "Whistleblower Reveals Systematic Humiliation of Detainees" (World Can't Wait): Note -- On October 20, Ethan McCord will be joining World Can't Wait for a live webcast on the Collateral Murder video released by Wikileaks. Ethan is the soldier in video carrying the young girl from the van. Today, he has also just released some videos showing humiliation of detainees... A former US soldier in Iraq has come forward with video of his fellow soldiers subjecting Iraqi detainees to what he describes as "mental, emotional, degrading" abuse. US Army Specialist Ethan McCord was a member of Bravo Company, 2nd Battalion, 16th Infantry, the same unit that was involved in a 2007 helicopter attack in Baghdad shown in a leaked video released last April by WikiLeaks. iraq the pittsburgh post-gazette the new york times tom brokaw the daily mail capitol reporter jared hunt al jazeera the christian science monitor jane arraf mcclatchy newspapers laith hammoudi the washington post ernesto londono

Norman strikes out, Danny gets a triple

Monday, Monday. Two programming notes, I'll blog about the Dems mistake they made -- including Think Progress, Campus Progress and the rest -- tomorrow. I also hope to blog about Law and Disorder tomorrow but that might not happen. Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "No Lift Off" went up last night.




Norman Solomon writes a column that almost hooks you in but if you're on to Norman, you'll enjoy this comment left at ZNet in reply to his article:

Re: Progressive Canaries in a Political Mine

By Samson, at Oct 18, 2010 17:33 PM

Classic Norman Soloman.

He can write well on the problems and issues of the left. But you can always count on Mr. Soloman telling us that we all have to go vote Democrat just before election day. Mr. Soloman may be suffering from his own enthusiasm gap as he whines about how the Democrats he supports act, but the message is a constant one from him ...... you must vote Democrat.

No you don't.

In fact, at this point, voting Democrat would be monumentally stupid.

Voting Democrat says you support Obama's not ending the Iraq war and keeping 50,000 troops, now re-branded as 'non-combat', there with our permanent bases and giant embassy for as long as anyone can say. In other words, voting Democrat now says you think Bush was write all along and the Obama is fantastic for continuing the Bush plan for Iraq without any change. Because what we have now is what Bush always promised us.

Voting Democrat says you support Obama's secret prisons. Voting Democrat says you think torture is just fine and dandy as long as the appropriate 'rendition' paperwork is filled out first.

Voting Democrat says you like Ronald Reagan's and Herbert Hoover's economic policies of giving all the money to wall street while lecturing Americans on how its our own responsibility to succeed even when being robbed.

Voting Democrat says you wanted all reform of health insurance blocked for the next four years. Voting Democrat says you agree that the profits of the health insurance corporations are more important than the health of Americans.

Voting Democrat says you approve of the government spying on Americans. Voting Democrat says you like having Obama's FBI kick in the doors of anti-war activists.

Voting Democrat says you agree that none of the Bush era criminals should have been investigated or prosecuted.

Voting Democrat says you agree that no one on wall street should do any prison time.


I tend to ignore Mr. Soloman between the elections. He sounds ok then. But, you always know that he'll come back to this same old tired line about how we all have to go vote Democrat. As I've watched him rail against the wars for the last year or so, I could never forget that Mr. Soloman was an Obama delegate and the DNC.

While the real anti-war movement was getting beaten and tear-gassed on the streets of Denver, Mr. Soloman was inside the hall or at a private party supporting the politician who was campaigning on raising defense spending, expanding the military, and calling the Afghanistan war 'the right war.'

Mr. Soloman makes at least a part of his living lecturing and writing to the left and the anti-war movement. But, then, on every single election, he tells us to go vote for pro-war politicians just because they have a (D) after their name. Well, I guess if nothing else that provides job security for his anti-war writings.

That really does say it all. And I'm sorry I have little to no use for Norman Solomon at present. Danny Schechter, however, has a good column at ZNet:

The gaggle of reporters that covered the mine rescue as a human-interest story—not a political issue—missed the back-story there, just as they miss our own here.

Far fewer reporters are covering this crisis?

Here in Floriduh, one epicenter of the housing catastrophe, homeowners were shell-shocked by the latest fraudclosure crime wave. Denise Richardson writes in the Sun Sentinel, “Last I knew, knowingly signing documents fraudulently and using them in a court of law is frowned on, right? It's criminal, isn't it? Or is it only criminal if you are a homeowner and not a bank? Seems we've gone to great lengths to create and then accept a double standard here.

Perhaps these financial crimes—yes, that’s what they are, crimes—continue to happen because we never addressed the real problems to begin with. You can’t fix a problem you don't acknowledge. Does anyone believe that was done to help protect the rights of homeowners? Let’s call it what it is: fraud.”

An attorney in Deerfield Beach Fla., representing 3000 foreclosure victims, has taken hundreds of depositions from Bank employees who admit they knew nothing about the details of the evictions they signed off on. Many are now being put down as “Burger King Kids” yet they know more about real whoppers than this lot knows about real estate. RealtyTrac reports that foreclosure and REO homes accounted for 24 percent of all residential sales during the second quarter? That is huge!

Here in relatively affluent Palm Beach County, homeowners are Number l in the state for the average number of loans in foreclosure that are delinquent. It has the fourth highest number of foreclosures, 45, 829 with an average delinquency of 623 days. You will recall that Bernie Madoff once turned Palm Beach into a hunting ground for his ponzi scheme.

This situation is worse than we realize, and not just for the people most directly affected. No one knows how much the banks will lose in the class action suits, fines and legal actions to come. Some think it could be tens of billions suggesting another bailout may be in the offing, probably by the Federal Reserve Bank.

That's near the middle. I stopped reading at the end of the above. It is a great column. I wanted it to stay one. I was so afraid that it would veer off into voting or something else. I'm so tired of people trying to tell me what to do. Just report on stuff that matters. (And if we're all lucky, Danny did that throughout. That not only would give us something worth reading, it would enrich our knowledge of the crisis.)

Okay, let's do Third. Along with Dallas, the following worked on the latest edition of Third:

The Third Estate Sunday Review's Jim, Dona, Ty, Jess, and Ava,
Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude,
Betty of Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man,
C.I. of The Common Ills and The Third Estate Sunday Review,
Kat of Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills),
Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix,
Mike of Mikey Likes It!,
Elaine of Like Maria Said Paz),
Ruth of Ruth's Report,
Wally of The Daily Jot,
Trina of Trina's Kitchen,
Marcia of SICKOFITRDLZ,
Stan of Oh Boy It Never Ends,
Isaiah of The World Today Just Nuts,
and Ann of Ann's Mega Dub.

And we came up with?

• Truest statement of the week

Cindy Sheehan's not Peace Mom for nothing.

• Truest statement of the week II

Justin Raimondo also had a really strong one.

• A note to our readers

Jim breaks down the edition. As my head breaks down. :( I don't know why I always have the worst headaches Monday nights, but I do.

• Editorial: Media bites the people

I like this. I wish it were longer but I do think it works. I also know, well I'll wait on that.

• TV: Crazy Thursday

Ava and C.I. wrote this mammoth piece. And it was so hard for them to write. They did a lot of backwork speaking to people at ABC and NBC and at 30 Rock. And then writing it was just really hard for them and they aren't usually. They got about a paragraph every 15 minutes which is so slow for them. But it reads amazing. They did a wonderful job.

• Revisionary, fear-based whoring

Jim left me out in the note! I was one of the leaders on this piece! (He actually e-mailed me Sunday night and said, "Mike, did I leave you out?" Yeah, but that's cool.) We'd done the editorial and there was talk about setting this topic aside for next week so we could just go to sleep but we all agreed this was too important an issue to shelve it for a week.

• Roundtable

An e-mail roundtable. The topics were raised in e-mails. C.I. doesn't speak once. How come? She really feels like she's got more than enough outlets (TCI, the newsletters) and doesn't want to hog space or time. I disagree with that idea -- that her sharing would be hogging anything. And Ty tells me a number of e-mails have come in asking why she didn't say anything -- this was like the second roundtable in a row where she hasn't said anything.

• DVD set to watch

Parks & Recreation. They got the DVD set early. And they watched it -- and C.I. passed it on to me so we watched it. And we wanted to write this piece about a really funny show.

• Spanish Civil War

Socialist Worker repost.

• Highlights

And the best from the community sites all week.

Okay, that's it for me. Here's C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"

Monday, October 18, 2010. Chaos and violence continue, the US military announces a death, the political stalemate continues in Iraq, Nouri goes to Iran, Law & Disorder Radio addresses grand juries, and more. This morning the Defense Dept released the following: The Department of Defense announced today the death of a soldier who was supporting Operation New Dawn. Pfc. Dylan T. Reid, 24, of Springfield, MO, died Oct. 16 in Amarah, Iraq in a non-combat related incident. He was assigned to the 1st Battalion, 8th Infantry Regiment, 3rd Combat Team, 4th Infantry Division, Fort Carlson, Colo. For more information media may contact the Fort Carson public affairs office at 719-526-7525; after hours 719-526-5500. The announcement was made before DoD issued their totals [PDF format warning] so it currently reads 4428 but it should be (at least) 4429 at the next update. Dylan Reid becomes the 8th service member to die since the press declared the Iraq War "over." (Even Barack only falsely called it an end to "combat operations.") Press speculation swirled for most of the morning that today's the day WikiLeaks releases some of their Iraq War documents. The WikiLeaks home page reads (as it did on Friday): "WikiLeaks is currently under[g]oing scheduled maintenance. We will be back online as soon as possible." WikiLeaks spokesperson Kristinn Hrafnsson is quoted by AFP stating, "There are rumours that have been floating around for some time, there is nothing you can do about it, they're obviously not correct. I can confirm that there's nothing coming out today. I can say with certainty that WikiLeaks will publish something very soon." From their Twitter feed this morning, these were the five most recent Tweets: How propaganda is spread: WikiLeaks edition Salon http://bit.ly/a7Z9RY about 3 hours ago via web Read closely: NATO tells CNN not a single case of Afghans needing protection or moving due to leak http://bit.ly/dk5NZi about 9 hours ago via web FBI agent says WikiLeaks could have been used to stop 9/11 FOX http://bit.ly/dfSzyG about 17 hours ago via web Carefully the comments here to understand where Aftergood and his like are coming from http://bit.ly/9BEf84 about 19 hours ago via web Pentagon caught telling US Senate Committee Afghan leak "mostly harmless" back on Aug 16 http://n.pr/diE25e about 19 hours ago via web The fifth one above? Mary Slosson (Neon Tommy) reports, "A letter from Defense Secretary Robert Gates to Senate Armed Forces Committee chair Carl Levin (D-Michigan) leaked to members of the press over the weekend stated that a similar dump of 70,000 classified documents related to the war in Afghanistan by the site Wikileaks in July 'has not revealed any sensitive intelligence sources and methods compromised by this disclosure.' The letter, dated August 16, counters claims that the first leak seriously jeopardized US operations in Afghanistan." Currently CBC has an online poll as to whether or not WikiLeaks should release the documents and 84.62% say that the documents should be released. Deng Shasha (Xinhua) states, "Although the Iraq war has faded from public debate in the United States these years, the mass leak threatens to revive people's memories of some of the most trying times in the war." Which is probably why the Defense Dept is lodging demands with the press. Anne Flaherty (AP) reports that DoD has 'asked' news outlets to refrain from either publishing (print) or posting (web) the documents WikiLeaks publishes. Liz Sly (Los Angeles Times) reports that repeated cries of 'hurry up!' from the US government (which has included many dignitaries and officials visiting Iraq -- the biggest name being Vice President Joe Biden) have been replaced with a shrugged, 'Hey now, what's the rush?' Iraq's already achieved the 'record' as the government that's gone the longest between elections and the formation of a new government, so what 'records' are there left to achieve? Apparently none. Sly reports that the US government is very reluctant towards the proposed merger of Nouri and Moqtada al-Sadr. Sly explains that the US 'advocated' for a power-sharing deal between Nouri and Allawi and that they are very concerned about the Nouri and Moqtada alliance and that it might "marginalize Sunnis and is likely to [lead Iraq to] be more closely aligned with Tehran than Washington." Martin Chulov (Guardian) reports According to Guardian sources, Maliki's renewed grasp on power and the Sadrists' elevation as influence brokers have been brought about by a consortium of the Middle East's most-powerful Shia Islamic players, whose power bases are rooted in the region's other main player, arch US foe Iran. It has been spearheaded by the Islamic Dawa Party, which opposed Saddam Hussein from a base in Tehran during the Ba'athis years, as well as by Maliki's adviser, Tareq Najim Abdullah. Sadr and Ayatollah Kazem al-Haeri, a key exiled figure, who has acted as Sadr's godfather, also led the way." What's interesting in that quote -- and throughout the article -- is this notion that there is Dawa and there is Nouri. The two are one and the same. Chulov's is calling Abdul-Halim al-Zuhairi "the head of the Dawa party" later in the article. No. Nouri is the head of Dawa. The US government knows that, everyone knows that. Even Wikipedia knows that: "The party is led by Nouri al-Maliki, who is also current Prime Minister of Iraq." Go the party's website, the most prominent photo on the home page is of Nouri. At the Islamic Dawa Party's website, they offer a feature "Send your questions to Iraq's PM." On their about us page, they note: From 19-21st April 2007, the IDP held its biannual national party conference. It was the party's first ever conference to be held openly on Iraqi soil, a historic achievement. One important outcome of the conference was the voting of current PM Nouri Al-Maliki as the Party's first General Secretary. To read Chulov's article only is to be left with the impression that some political party -- one unconnected with Nouri -- worked with Nouri to secure al-Sadr's participation. Dawa is Nouri, Nouri is Dawa. Chulov notes that the US government supported Nouri for a second term and quotes an unnamed "western diplomat" stating, "That position only served to embolden Maliki and the Iranians. It was poorly conceived, poorly executed and utterly disastrous in its consequences." Yes, it was and the White House was repeatedly warned of that but chose to ignore the warnings. They knew best. Only they didn't and now it's all on them. What's on them? The stalemate for one. March 7th, Iraq concluded Parliamentary elections. The Guardian's editorial board noted in August, "These elections were hailed prematurely by Mr Obama as a success, but everything that has happened since has surely doused that optimism in a cold shower of reality." 163 seats are needed to form the executive government (prime minister and council of ministers). When no single slate wins 163 seats (or possibly higher -- 163 is the number today but the Parliament added seats this election and, in four more years, they may add more which could increase the number of seats needed to form the executive government), power-sharing coalitions must be formed with other slates, parties and/or individual candidates. (Eight Parliament seats were awarded, for example, to minority candidates who represent various religious minorities in Iraq.) Ayad Allawi is the head of Iraqiya which won 91 seats in the Parliament making it the biggest seat holder. Second place went to State Of Law which Nouri al-Maliki, the current prime minister, heads. They won 89 seats. Nouri made a big show of lodging complaints and issuing allegations to distract and delay the certification of the initial results while he formed a power-sharing coalition with third place winner Iraqi National Alliance -- this coalition still does not give them 163 seats. They are claiming they have the right to form the government. In 2005, Iraq took four months and seven days to pick a prime minister. It's seven months and eleven days and counting. Allawi's appeared Sunday on CNN's Fareed Zakaria GPS (video option at link). Fareed Zakaria: First tell me about this [Thursday] bomb blast. An associate of yours killed. Who are the people responsible for this attack do you think? Ayad Allawi: Well I think the whole unfortunate environment right now is quite helpful to terrorists and extremism to inflict as much damage on Iraq as possible. So really there is no indication who is behind it but definitely those who are trying to sabotage the political process which is already stalled. Fareed Zakaria: But one would have to imagine -- There have been two sets of groups active in Iraq. One have tended to be extreme Sunni organzations affiliated loosely with al Qaeda in some cases and the other have been the Shia militias often financed or armed by Iran. Since you are seen as a moderate Shi'ia who has often made common cause with Sunnis, is it fair to assume that this is an Iranian-backed militia that probably planted these bombs? Ayad Allawi: Well again, Fareed, it's immaterial whether it's Iranian-backed or non-Iranian backed. But we know that, unfortunately, Iran is trying to wreak havoc on the region and trying to destabilize the region, by destabilizing Iraq, and destabilizing Lebanon and destabilizing the Palestinian issue and this is where unfortunately Iraq and the rest of the greater Middle East is falling victim to these terrorists who are definitely Iran-finaced, supported by various governments in the region. Richard Spencer (Telegraph of London) adds, "Mr Allawi is currently fighting for his political life. After winning 91 seats out of 325 in the election, two more than the State of Law coalition of the prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki, he insisted on the right to try to form a government. However, State of Law, a largely secular Shia grouping, turned instead to other Shia parties. Last month, it announced an alliance with the Sadrist block, the violently anti-American religious party led by a radical cleric, Moqtada al-Sadr." An Iraqi correspondent for McClatchy Newspapers reports at Inside Iraq: Almost eight months passed since the parliamentary election and the winning parties did not form the new government and DEMOCRACY is the main reason. Although our GREAT POLITICAL LEADERS always confirm that they do not accept any interference in the Iraqi affairs, they continuously visit the neighboring countries asking for the support for their parties to form the government. Each group wants to satisfy the governments of the neighboring countries and to convince them that they are best to lead Iraq. During their competition to win more political positions and gains, our politicians completely forgot one fact. Democratic politicians are those who can satisfy their people not the neighboring countries. Nouri, meanwhile, is in Tehran. Thomas Erdbrink (Washington Post) reports, "Iranian state television showed Maliki meeting with Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Neither man explicity said he supported Maliki, but both urged closer ties and the speedy formation of a government in Iraq, seven months after elections ended in a political stalemate." Turning to a major article on Iraq, Timothy Williams and Duraid Adnan's "Sunnis in Iraq Allied With U.S. Rejoin Rebels" (New York Times). The reporters describe what a functioning Thomas E. Ricks once called "the unraveling." (These days he links to bad Laura Rozen gossip where Rozen 'forgets' that one big problem with Barack nominating Colin Powell for Secretary of Defense would be what Collie calls his "blot" and others note are his lies in the lead up to the Iraq War including that infamous United Nations' testimony.) "Awakenings" or "Sons Of Iraq" or Sahwa are fighters the US put on the US tax payer payroll because, as Gen David Petraeus and former US Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker explained repeatedly to Congress one week in April 2008, that would get the fighters to stop attacking US military equipment and US service members. (That order -- equipment and the people -- is the order Petraeus used repeatedly. He also testified that they weren't all Sunni, that some were Shi'ite.) Paid by the US tax payer. Williams and Adnan wrongly state that they were paid by the US military. No. The US military had no money to pay them. It's not a profit-making enterprise for the US government. It brings in no dollars and is totally dependent upon tax payer handouts to continue. The US military paid out US tax payer dollars to the Sahwa and anyone present for the April 2008 hearings is fully aware of that fact and that both parties in the Senate were very troubled by the large pay outs. (They were then also troubled by the CERP funds but with the death of US House Rep John Murtha, no one appears willing to lead on that issue these days, and should US House Rep Ike Skelton lose his seat, no one probably will.) Williams and Adnan note that estimates are "hundreds" have rejoined al Qaeda in Mesoptamia and that those who haven't include a number who are, however, tipping of the domestic group. Sahwa was started and sputtered out quickly. That's part of the Sahwa history no longer told. When it was initially started it was small and sputtered to the point that reports being filed on this 'new trend' were already out of date. The US used various sheiks and, yes, Iraqi mobsters (concrete is, apparently, a universal mafia business no matter the country) and others. When they finally got it to take, they were convinced the problems were over. (Mohammed Tawfeeq, CNN, reports on the denials by Sahwa leaders that there are any defections -- whether the denials are true or not, you'd say so if your 'power' was based on the perception that you can corral others.) The problems were only beginning. You can't pay off a bully and expect to be in the clear unless you're prepared to pay forever or switch locations. Yeah, Nouri dropped the ball completely. That was always going to happen. Nouri was making statements to the effect that he didn't trust Sahwa and would only bring a tiny fraction of them into the Iraqi forces. Under US pressure, he began to allow that he could find civilian jobs -- non-security, non-police -- for some of the others. But it was said under duress and that was rather obvious as well. (He did, however, say it -- regardless of why -- and Iraqis who heard his statements have every right to expect him to honor them.) When you pay a bully, you either agree to pay forever or you do one of two things: a) you switch locations where they're no longer near you or b) you prepare for what happens when you stop paying. Nouri's shorted them on pay checks and had the police target them. He's antagonized them. And these are people whose egos were stroked and tended to by the US military. The US puppet aided in this problem, to be sure, but this is another US-created problem in Iraq. It was a stupid idea and a huge waste of tax payer money. It did allow violence levels to drop. While money was being paid. But the protection racket is never a good one for any government to be in. Turning to some of today's reported violence . . . Bombings? Reuters notes a Mosul suicide car bombing claimed the life of 1 Iraqi soldier, the driver of the suicide car and left seven people wounded, a Baghdad sticky bombing claimed the life of 1 Ministry of Oil employee and left a second person injured, a Baghdad mortar attack injured two people and a Baghdad roadside bombing claimed the life of Jassem Moahmmed and injured eight other people. Shootings? Reuters notes 1 Iraqi soldier was shot dead in Mosul, 1 man was shot dead in a Mosul home raid, Turning to the 'pranking' of Iraqis by US soldiers. We covered this last month and, on this week's best of War News Radio segment (from last month), they speak with a 'pranker.' Excerpt: Kyle Crawford: The video which was posted in April begins with American soldiers from the 172nd Stryker Brigade stopping an Iraqi driver at a routine checkpoint outside of Mosul in northern Iraq. After quickly planting a grenade in the man's car without his knowledge, Dunson and his partner repeatedly demand an explanation. US miilitary voice 1: What the f---? US military voice 2: What's that? What's that? What is that? What is that? What is that? Kyle Crawford: The Iraqi gestures in denial and after about 30 seconds Dunson announces that it was all a joke and shakes hands with the relieved man. Dunson says he was surprised by the attention his video produced Sgt Leo Dunson: I was pretty shocked. I mean I was -- I woke up -- Honestly, I woke up to like uhm all these calls and a lot messages, you know, a lot of messages. And I had no idea what was going on. Kyle Crawford: Although War News Radio first reported on the video in July, it wasn't until Gawker.com and CNN reported on the prank last week that Dunson's video drew national attention. Gawker wrote, "It's hard to believe Iraqis really appreciate having a grenade stuck in their trunk by US soldiers no matter how well intended. Sgt Leo Dunson: What they had to say in the article was pretty shocking as well. I didn't think so many people would take it so offensive. Kyle Crawford: In the wake of prisoner abuses in Iraq, the US military has operated under the microscope of global criticism but Dunson suggests his detractors are misinterperting the video of the incident. Sgt Leo Dunson: It was all in fun and even the guy he laughed with me and then that was it, you know? It wasn't that big of a deal. I remember the day like it was yesterday. I remember not like he was petrified of his life situation. I was there. I mean it might look to them like he was but he was not petrified of his life. Kyle Crawford: As a guest on Russia Today, an English language Russian TV network. American army Col Joel Hamilton vehemently criticized Dunson's actions stating that the behavior was unacceptable and it would not be tolerated in his battalion but Dunson has strong words in response. Sgt Leo Dunson: The Lt Col that goes on TV and attempts -- attempted to bash me or slam me -- I can't think of his name. But he said I would never let somebody under my -- in my unit act that way and I'm thinking to myself, 'Well, sir, you're not even out in the field so you don't know what those guys are doing. Kyle Crawford: Dunson explains that people don't understand the pressure weighing on soldiers in Iraq. He says joking around is one way to relax and pass the time. Sgt Leo Dunson: I'm here for a year and a half. You want me to be serious the entire time? Do you want me to sit here with my gun pointed at everybody and shoot and kill everybody I come across? Those are the choices? Really? You get to goof on duty while you're supposed to be working -- not in your down time, let's be clear -- or you're going to "shoot and kill everybody I come across"? That service member needs some help, some serious help and a serious talk for that reason only. Do I want him to be serious the whole time? I don't want him or any US service member over there. As for how he conducts himself on duty, that's a code of conduct and, unless he's attempting to resist that code of conduct, he needs to follow it. Foreign occupiers -- we covered this before -- do not get to 'prank' the occupied. It's dangerous in many ways -- including the Iraqi could panic and run off, end up seen as a 'fleeing suspect' (and suspects get shot in Iraq) and end up dead or wounded or the US military could 'prank' the wrong people and find themselves being assaulted with AK-47s or they could give a person a heart attack or even just a panic attack. There's no reason for it. It's dangerous. It's not part of the code of conduct. It's not funny, it's not right and it shouldn't be happening. Leo Dunson clearly needs a sit-down with superior officers because he's just not getting it. And, in fact, if he's still not getting it, the problem may well be superior officers above him. Today on Law and Disorder Radio (WBAI -- airs on other stations throughout the week and streams online) attorney Margaret Ratner-Kunstler discussed the FBI raids and the issues of grand juries. If you're asking what FBI raids (because you missed it or because there are so many FBI raids), Friday, September 24th raids took place in at least seven homes -- the FBI admits to raiding seven homes -- and the FBI raided the offices of Anti-War Committee. The same day the raids took place the National Lawyers Guild issues a new report, Heidi Boghosian's [PDF format warning] "The Policing of Political Speech: Constraints on Mass Dissent in the US." Heidi is one of Law and Disorder's three co-hosts, the other two are Michael S. Smith and Michael Ratner. And they addressed the raids on the program that began broadcasting September 27th. Excerpt: Heidi Boghosian: You are our resident expert in grand juries and you've been doing this kind of work for decades so you've seen the historical impact especially in the wake of 9-11. Can you talk generally -- and we'll be talking a little bit about the raids that happened to activists -- but can you talk generally how grand juries have been misused historically to target activists? Margaret Ratner-Kunstler: Well the threat of a grand jury subpoena, just the mere threat of a subpoena, has been used since 1968 when the immunity law changed -- and I'll explain that a little bit later -- to threaten activists with incarceration. The grand jury functions in a very insidious way. Before 1968, if you were subpoenaed before a grand jury and you asserted your Fifth Amendment right then that really was the end of your participation in the grand jury because you asserted immunity and if you were given immunity, you couldn't be indicted so -- Michael Ratner: Now by immunity you mean we have a Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate ourselves and you're asked to speak before a grand jury or answer questions, you say 'I have a Fifth Amendment right not to say anything and I'm not going to say anything' and that would be the end of the matter. Now why was that the end of the matter? Margaret Ratner-Kunstler: Why was it the end of the matter? Because if you were given immunity than that was the end of the potential for indictment. Michael Ratner: Because immunity meant that you no longer? Margaret Ratner-Kunstler: That nothing you say not only could not be used against you, but anything you testified about could not be the subject of a criminal indictment against you. Michael Ratner: So they really couldn't indict you anymore. Margaret Ratner-Kunstler: They really couldn't indict you anymore. What happened subsequent to that, it didn't prove to be a good tool obviously for getting or testimony for people so immunity was changed. And the immunity that was once a full immunity became a transactional immunity. And your testimony then was only if you asserted your Fifth Amendment right before the grand jury, then you were given immunity. But the immunity was so tiny, it only covered what you said. Your very words could not be held against you or the fruits of those words. But it was so easy to get around that just by a prosecutor saying, 'Well this didn't come from that, it came from something else.' If you then refused to testify once you were given this kind-of minor immunity, you could be subject to imprisonment. Michael Ratner: So let me give you an example. I'm sitting at home one day -- and maybe something like the activists who were given subpoenas for a grand jury in Minneapolis or Chicago. And I'm given a piece of paper served by an FBI agent but it comes from a United States Attorney and it says, 'Michael Ratner, you have to go down to wherever the courthouse is and you have to go into a room with 23 jurors or something -- grand jurors, all in secret, and I don't have my attorney in there, my attorney -- let's say it's you, Margie, -- can stand outside but I have to go in the room. And I'm there with the US Attorney and these 23 grand jurors and they ask me questions. And they say, "Michael Ratner, what's your name?" I say, "My name is Michael Ratner." They say, "Were you in Chicago on such-and-such a date?" And I say, "Well I'm not going to testify because that might incriminate me if I testify." Then they say, "Okay, don't answer. We'll get you immunity." Then they get me immunity, they drag me in again, and then they say, "What's your name -- were you In Chicago on such-and-such date?" And I say, "I take the Fifth Amendment." And they say, "Well you can't anymore because you've been given immunity." And I mess around and say something about the First Amendment right of association but, at that point, they can haul me before a judge and do what with me? Margaret Ratner-Kunstler: This is assuming that you didn't use certain procedures that are available to you before that. But at that point, they haul you before a judge and you have a contempt hearing. The judge says, "What are your reasons for refusing to testify?" And listens to them. Generally, people assert the First Amendment claims which are not deemed sufficient to overcome the immunity issues so the judge then orders you to testify. You go back into the grand jury room if you testify, that's one thing. If you refuse to testify, your brought back before the judge and the judge then holds you in what is known as civil contempt. That means that whatever length of the grand jury -- Normal grand juries are 18 months. The grand jury that we're concerned about today is a grand jury that's a federal grand jury in Chicago that was impaneled in August and it's a special grand jury which means that it's twice as long -- it's a thirty-six month grand jury -- and can be extended because it's called "special." Now that's significant because the time you can -- If you are held in civil contempt, it's so-called, the keys to the jail are in your pocket. You're in jail for as long as you refuse to testify. It used to be that we would stal and stall and stall so that if a person refused to testify, there was only three months left for the life of a grand jury and the person would only have to do three months. But since grand jury lives are longer and since this is the beginning of a grand jury, people who refuse to testify and are held in contempt can easily face thirty-six months in jail, something near that. Michael Ratner: They don't get a fixed sentence, they go to jail and the judge says, as you said Margie -- Margaret Ratner-Kunstler: Until you -- until you agree. Michael Ratner: -- you have the keys to the jail. If you agree to talk, you can get out. Margaret Ratner-Kunstler: Right. Michael Ratner: They ask you, name all of your friends. That's the kind of thing they'll ask you. Heidi Boghosian: But this is called coercion. The point of incarceration is to coerce the person to change their mind. Margaret Ratner-Kunstler: Right. And that's why it's civil. Michael S. Smith: But isn't it punative? Michael Ratner: Yeah. Margaret Ratner-Kunstler: Of course it's punative. It's punative because if a person is going in saying "I know I am not going to testify," then there's no coercion and it's all 100% punative. Michael Ratner: You're not allowed to torture people anymore now, you just go to jail. Margaret Ratner-Kunstler: But that's all you do, you go to jail. Michael Ratner: Right, it's not like -- Heidi Boghosian: But they say theoretically it's not supposed to be punative. Margaret Ratner-Kunstler: But you know at that point, after you have served your civil contempt time, you are still, you are still potentially subject to criminal contempt and that has happened. Michael Ratner: To some of your clients. Puerto Rican clients, right? Margaret Ratner-Kunstler: Yes. After they were held in civil contempt and did their civil contempt time, they were indicted for criminal contempt. And a criminal contempt trial is a joke because you've already been held civilly, you've been in a court room refusing to testify so the evidence against you is quite simple so there is very little you can do in terms of adjustification. Heidi Boghosian: Now I remember I went to a training that you did a couple of years ago that you did with Bob Boyle and I remember the advice, "Do not say anything." Even sometimes admitting your address or your name -- Michael Ratner: This is in the grand jury, Heidi? Heidi Boghosian: This is in the grand jury. Is it true that somehow that could be manipulated? That one really shouldn't say anything? Margaret Ratner-Kunstler: Well there is the potential of waiving. If you say something, you could waive your Fifth Amendment right by already participating in the conversation. So if you talk, then you might lose the ability to assert your Fifth Amendment and go through the immunity process. Michael S. Smith: So, Margaret, what's at stake now with these various people in Chicago and Minneapolis being subpoenaed to the grand jury, the FBI going into their homes and taking their computers and their records and everything. What's goin on? Margaret Ratner-Kunstler: Well I think it's really interesting what's going on. I mean it really represents the tremendous sea change we have in this country in terms of the ability of people to actively oppose this government's policy. This is a situation that, if it happened in 1983, for example, with the groups that were opposing the US intervention in Central America and the propping up of various dictators, there were many groups in this country who were joining forces with the progressive groups in Central America and aiding them in various ways. You had the Committee of Solidarity with the People of El Salvador, you had the people working with the Nicaraguans, you had a whole host of people supporting the progressive movements in Central America. Now if that happened today, these people would be subject to -- as the people who have been subpoenaed to these grand juries -- would be subject to very serious criminal actions against them based on the Patriot Act that now is in existence. Iraq War veteran and IVAW member Adam Kokesh has a radio show that airs daily on KIVA -- streams live online -- from 9:00 pm to 11:00 pm Mountain Time (which is 11:00 pm to 1:00 am EST) and is entitled Adam vs The Man. Video archives of the radio show are here. Adam is part of the Campaign for Liberty and, of course, ran for the Republican nomination for the US House District 3 race in New Mexico where he received 29% of the vote in the GOP primary which is a more than respectable showing for a first time run. There are a lot of things we ignore because (a) they're not related to Iraq and (b) they're inaccurate. And, in the case of someone's attack on Angelina Jolie, it was both of those plus I've known Angelina since she was a little girl. But we will stop to note Jessica Simpson's latest mess (because it is related to the wars and because a friend at US asked if I could work it in). US magazine reports that 4Troops -- Iraq War and Afghanistan War veterans who have formed a signing troop -- were scheduled to be a part of Jessica Simpson's upcoming Christmas show for Detroit Public Television but they were cut at the last minute and they've been told it was because Simpson's manager father didn't like the costumes they were performing in (camouflage fatigues). Joe Simpson would be the bad guy in this story but Jessica's not 14-years-old and she can't hide behind Daddy her whole life. More importantly, she and ex-husband Nick Lachey had the gall to call their non-special in 2005 Nick & Jessica's Tour of Duty. When you've tried to hawk your bad film (Dukes of Hazzard) on the backs of service members, you damn well make sure they appaear. Which defeats the newest spin an unnamed spokesperson offers for Jessica, lack of time. You don't cut 4 Troops after you've used the service members as props in your previous special. 4 Troops has more information about their performances, recordings and news at their site and their Twitter feed is here. This isn't meant to excuse Simpson but 4 Troops is lucky to miss out. She's a faded non-star without talent or looks and she peaked some time ago. More importantly, her 'specials' are embarrassments. As Ava and I noted of the 2005 one: As the "special" continued, the entertainment casualities continued to pile up, far too many to mention. (Maybe Nightline can do a special on that?) But among the more noteable fatalities would have to be Simpson's laughable attempt to cover Nancy Sinatra's "These Boots Are Made For Walking." While stamping across the stage and sticking out her nothing to brag about ass, Simpson managed to chirp each word correctly even while never demonstrating that she had the first inkling as to what the song was actually about. It was as though you were watching a five-year-old scuffle around in Mommy's high heels. Which is puzzling when you consider another fatality -- "God Bless America." Who knew it was an ode to orgasms? Watching little Jessie wet her lips and tousle her mane (as a person she makes a great little pony), we were left to wonder what that or heaving bossoms had to do with either God or a country. Simpson apparently learnt the song at Our Lady of Lap Dance. [. . .] It takes tremendous vanity or stupidity to dub an "entertainment special" a "Tour of Duty." We're guessing it took equal parts stupidity and vanity on the part of of the couple front and center. Both continue to push themselves as "stars" when the reality is that Krista and Ryan qualify for that honor far more than Simpson and Lachey. Having achieved little but magazine covers fretting over the state of their business merger, er, marriage, we're guessing that the star system has so imploded that soon Kathie Lee Gifford will be spoken of with the sort of awe usually reserved for Meryl Streep. Journalist Ron Brynaert has posted "I'm Back And I Still Got A Sledgehammer Break!" at his old website Why Are We Back In Iraq? and he has a longer post which is an introduction to his earlier reporting on spikes of activity. So a Blogspot/Blogger welcome back to Ron, you have been missed at Good Intentions Paving Company. I don't know how long he'll be blogging at his own site. You'd be smart to check it out now while he is. And we'll close with this from David Edwards and Muriel Kane's "Whistleblower Reveals Systematic Humiliation of Detainees" (World Can't Wait): Note -- On October 20, Ethan McCord will be joining World Can't Wait for a live webcast on the Collateral Murder video released by Wikileaks. Ethan is the soldier in video carrying the young girl from the van. Today, he has also just released some videos showing humiliation of detainees... A former US soldier in Iraq has come forward with video of his fellow soldiers subjecting Iraqi detainees to what he describes as "mental, emotional, degrading" abuse. US Army Specialist Ethan McCord was a member of Bravo Company, 2nd Battalion, 16th Infantry, the same unit that was involved in a 2007 helicopter attack in Baghdad shown in a leaked video released last April by WikiLeaks. iraq the los angeles times liz sly the new york times timothy williams duraid adnan ron brynaert cnn wikileaks cnn fareed zakaria gps the telegraph of london richard spencer law and disorder radio wbai michael ratner heidi boghosian michael smith