Wednesday, July 17, 2013

Adam Kokesh

Hump day.  Hope you're having a good week.  Like you, I'm concerned about Iraq War veteran Adam Kokesh.

This is from C.I.'s "The targeting of Adam Kokesh:"


Iraq War veteran Adam Kokesh must be made an example of because he is a free thinker who knows the Constitution and there's nothing more threatening to the government than that.
Adam was arrested at his home last night.  A friend called this morning about it.  He was babbling on and completely gripped by the propaganda our media is serving up.  I reminded him that in his days with his seventies supergroup (that still hits the road today), I once griped about having to step over one gun after another that he left on the floor and how we were through if he couldn't learn to put his guns away because,impressive though his cock may be, I wasn't going to be waking up every morning stepping over assorted pistols and rifles.   And don't get me started on his drugs.  I guess what others do always looks more shocking to us and we can always justify our own behavior.

I'm guessing Adam had weed, maybe something prescribed as well.  He's charged with guns and drugs.  I'm not really concerned or bothered by his or anyone else's use of drugs.  It's not like he's an Olympic athlete and, across America, kids are wondering if they should spark up because their sports hero does. I think pot should be legal.  That's said not as a pot head -- like most drugs, pot's never really had an effect on me.  So I'm not going to go into overdrive like the government wants you to and the media's trying to steer you to. Watch the idiot Delia Goncalves try to do just that on WUSA 9.  Someone tell the stupid idiot to dress professionally.  I'm far more offended by the crap  some idiots think they can get away with these days while presenting themselves as journalists.  Stop wearing your pajamas to work, stop wearing your sundresses.  Dress professionally if you're doing the news otherwise we're just laughing at you.  Professional dress for a female on air is business professional.  It's not, "Look at this dress I bought on the side of the road."  You really should be ashamed of yourself for your 'reporting' on Adam but if that's not enough, you should be ashamed of yourself for wearing that cheap ass, ten dollar dress while standing in front of a camera. Fox 8 quotes Pamela Smith, Parks Police spokesperson, insisting, "We did execute a search warrant on the residence."  Really? I love Berkeley.  It's a great place full of character.  But if Berkeley police came to my residence to "execute a search warrant," not only would they not be let in the gates, I'd be on the phone to San Francisco police alerting them to the fact that Berkeley police apparently thought it had the right to come into another municipality and seize control. Herndon, Virginia has its own police.  Now maybe Pamela Smith is a vain and vapid spokesperson who's such a glory hog that she won't share credit with the Herndon police.  Possibly.  But as it currently stands, the public record is that DC Parks Police went into Herndon as a vigilante mob.


Now this is a video press release issued minutes ago about what's going on now.





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

 
Wednesday, July 17, 2013.  Chaos and violence continue,rumors swirl that Nouri's hold on power is slipping, Barzani speaks of his two-year extension, Ayad Allawi calls for the government to protect the citizens of Diyala Province, the US House Judiciary Committee discusses spying, and more. 



This morning, US House Rep Ted Deutch noted he worries "about the balance between legitimate security needs and the constituationally protected rights of all Americans" and declared, "I believe it's time to rexemine the Patriot Act, insert greater accountability into the FISA court and ensure our laws cannot be interpreted behind the backs of the American public."

He was speaking at the House Judiciary Committee hearing on FISA.  The Committee Chair is Bob Goodlatte and the Ranking Member is John Conyers.  The first panel was made up of DoJ's James Cole, NSA's John C. Inglis, Office of Director of National Intelligence's Robert S. Litt and the FBI's Stephanie Douglas.  The second panel was Steptoe & Johnson, LLP's Stewart Baker, the ACLU's Jameel Jaffer and CNSS' Kate Martin.

Storyteller Stewart Baker  babbled before the House Judiciary Committee and made the claim that FISA was 'constrained' under Bill Clinton and this resulted in the "wall" between intelligence and law enforcement which prevented the capture of the 9-11 hijackers.  Jamie Gorelick, tear down this wall!  Are we really back to that nonsense?  (If there was a wall, it dates back to the Reagan era.)  Baker loves fairy tales.  Let's deal with how the so-called wall allegedly caused 9-11.  From SourceWatch:


Coleen Rowley, who served as chief counsel of the FBI's Minneapolis field office, "in a 13-page memo, outlined how FBI headquarters thwarted agents' attempts to investigate Zacarias Moussaoui, the alleged 20th hijacker. The 'bombshell memo' led bureau chief Robert Mueller to reorganize the agency. Rowley testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee in June about the FBI bureaucracy that frustrates agents' attempts at innovative investigation and mires them in paperwork." [1]

 From Rowley's May 21, 2002 letter to FBI Director Robert Mueller:

1) The Minneapolis agents who responded to the call about Moussaoui's flight training identified him as a terrorist threat from a very early point. The decision to take him into custody on August 15, 2001, on the INS "overstay" charge was a deliberate one to counter that threat and was based on the agents' reasonable suspicions. While it can be said that Moussaoui's overstay status was fortuitous, because it allowed for him to be taken into immediate custody and prevented him receiving any more flight training, it was certainly not something the INS coincidentally undertook of their own volition. I base this on the conversation I had when the agents called me at home late on the evening Moussaoui was taken into custody to confer and ask for legal advice about their next course of action. The INS agent was assigned to the FBI's Joint Terrorism Task Force and was therefore working in tandem with FBI agents.
2) As the Minneapolis agents' reasonable suspicions quickly ripened into probable cause, which, at the latest, occurred within days of Moussaoui's arrest when the French Intelligence Service confirmed his affiliations with radical fundamentalist Islamic groups and activities connected to Osama Bin Laden, they became desperate to search the computer lap top that had been taken from Moussaoui as well as conduct a more thorough search of his personal effects. The agents in particular believed that Moussaoui signaled he had something to hide in the way he refused to allow them to search his computer.
3) The Minneapolis agents' initial thought was to obtain a criminal search warrant, but in order to do so, they needed to get FBI Headquarters' (FBIHQ's) approval in order to ask for DOJ OIPR's approval to contact the United States Attorney's Office in Minnesota. Prior to and even after receipt of information provided by the French, FBIHQ personnel disputed with the Minneapolis agents the existence of probable cause to believe that a criminal violation had occurred/was occurring. As such, FBIHQ personnel refused to contact OIPR to attempt to get the authority. While reasonable minds may differ as to whether probable cause existed prior to receipt of the French intelligence information, it was certainly established after that point and became even greater with successive, more detailed information from the French and other intelligence sources. The two possible criminal violations initially identified by Minneapolis Agents were violations of Title 18 United States Code Section 2332b (Acts of terrorism transcending national boundaries, which, notably, includes "creating a substantial risk of serious bodily injury to any other person by destroying or damaging any structure, conveyance, or other real or personal property within the United States or by attempting or conspiring to destroy or damage any structure, conveyance, or other real or personal property within the United States") and Section 32 (Destruction of aircraft or aircraft facilities). It is important to note that the actual search warrant obtained on September 11th was based on probable cause of a violation of Section 32.1 Notably also, the actual search warrant obtained on September 11th did not include the French intelligence information. Therefore, the only main difference between the information being submitted to FBIHQ from an early date which HQ personnel continued to deem insufficient and the actual criminal search warrant which a federal district judge signed and approved on September 11th, was the fact that, by the time the actual warrant was obtained, suspected terrorists were known to have highjacked planes which they then deliberately crashed into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. To say then, as has been iterated numerous times, that probable cause did not exist until after the disasterous event occurred, is really to acknowledge that the missing piece of probable cause was only the FBI's (FBIHQ's) failure to appreciate that such an event could occur. The probable cause did not otherwise improve or change. When we went to the United States Attorney's Office that morning of September 11th, in the first hour after the attack, we used a disk containing the same information that had already been provided to FBIHQ; then we quickly added Paragraph 19 which was the little we knew from news reports of the actual attacks that morning. The problem with chalking this all up to the "20-20 hindsight is perfect" problem, (which I, as all attorneys who have been involved in deadly force training or the defense of various lawsuits are fully appreciative of), is that this is not a case of everyone in the FBI failing to appreciate the potential consequences. It is obvious, from my firsthand knowledge of the events and the detailed documentation that exists, that the agents in Minneapolis who were closest to the action and in the best position to gauge the situation locally, did fully appreciate the terrorist risk/danger posed by Moussaoui and his possible co-conspirators even prior to September 11th. Even without knowledge of the Phoenix communication (and any number of other additional intelligence communications that FBIHQ personnel were privy to in their central coordination roles), the Minneapolis agents appreciated the risk. So I think it's very hard for the FBI to offer the "20-20 hindsight" justification for its failure to act! Also intertwined with my reluctance in this case to accept the "20-20 hindsight" rationale is first-hand knowledge that I have of statements made on September 11th, after the first attacks on the World Trade Center had already occurred, made telephonically by the FBI Supervisory Special Agent (SSA) who was the one most involved in the Moussaoui matter and who, up to that point, seemed to have been consistently, almost deliberately thwarting the Minneapolis FBI agents' efforts (see number 5). Even after the attacks had begun, the SSA in question was still attempting to block the search of Moussaoui's computer, characterizing the World Trade Center attacks as a mere coincidence with Misseapolis' prior suspicions about Moussaoui.2
That's some of the letter.  It is not about a 'wall,' it is about people not doing their jobs.  That was too much reality for someone who chose to tell a fairy tale. 

Ranking Members John Conyers was a rare bright spot on the hearing.  He noted, for example, of the secret spaying, "If it weren't for a couple of people leaking, we wouldn't know any of this, as far as I'm concerned."


His concerns included the legality of the collecting of data, more so than "the uses to which it is put."  He declared tracking everyone in the country "for at least six years" was "probably the most disturbing aspect."


As noted Jameel Jaffer (ACLU) testified.  He has posted his prepared testimony (opening remarks) and we'll note it:

Over the last six weeks it has become clear that the NSA is engaged in far-reaching, intrusive, and unconstitutional surveillance of Americans' communications.
  • Under Section 215 of the Patriot Act, the NSA is tracking every single phone call made by a resident of the United States—who they called, when they called them, for how long they spoke. Until recently it was tracking ordinary Americans' Internet activity as well.
  • Under Section 702 of FISA, and on the pretext of monitoring people outside the United States, the NSA is using Section 702 of FISA to build massive databases of Americans' domestic and international communications—not just so-called metadata, but content as well.
These programs have been made possible by huge advances in the technology of surveillance, but in many respects they resemble the generalized surveillance programs that led to the adoption of the Fourth Amendment more than two hundred years ago. The FISA court orders resemble general warrants, albeit general warrants for the digital age.
That the NSA is engaged in this unconstitutional surveillance is the result of defects both in the law itself and in the current oversight system.
  • The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act affords the government sweeping power to monitor the communications of innocent people.
  • Excessive secrecy has made congressional oversight difficult and public oversight impossible.
  • Intelligence officials have repeatedly misled the public, Congress, and the courts about the nature and scope of the government's surveillance activities.
  • Structural features of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court have prevented that court from serving as an effective guardian of constitutional rights.
  • And the ordinary federal courts have improperly used the "state secrets" and "standing" doctrines to place the NSA's activities beyond the reach of judicial review.
To say that the NSA's activities present a grave danger to American democracy is not an overstatement. Thirty-six years ago, after conducting a comprehensive investigation into the intelligence abuses of the previous decades, the Church Committee warned that inadequate regulations on government surveillance "threaten[ed] to undermine our democratic society and fundamentally alter its nature." This warning should have even more resonance today than it did in 1976, because in recent decades the NSA's resources have grown, statutory and constitutional limitations have been steadily eroded, and the technology of surveillance has become exponentially more powerful.
Because the problem Congress confronts today has many roots, there is no single solution to it. But there are a number of things that Congress should do right away:
  • It should amend Sections 215 and 702 to expressly prohibit suspicionless or "dragnet" monitoring or tracking of Americans' communications.
  • It should require the executive to release basic information about the government's use of foreign-intelligence-surveillance authorities, including those relating to pen registers and national security letters. The executive should be required to disclose, for each year:
    • How many times each of these provisions was used
    • How many individuals' privacy was implicated by the government's use of each provision
    • And, with respect to any dragnet, generalized, or bulk surveillance program, the types of information that were collected.
  • Congress should also require the publication of FISA court opinions that evaluate the meaning, scope, or constitutionality of the foreign-intelligence laws. The ACLU recently filed a motion before the FISA court arguing that the publication of these opinions is required by the First Amendment, but Congress need not wait for the FISA court to act. Congress has the authority and the obligation to ensure that Americans are not governed by a system of secret law.
  • Finally, Congress—and this Committee in particular—should hold additional hearings to consider further amendments to FISA, including amendments to make FISC proceedings more transparent.
Congress should not be indifferent to the government's accumulation of vast quantities of sensitive information about American's lives. This Committee in particular has a crucial role to play in ensuring that the government's efforts to protect the country do not compromise the freedoms that make the country worth protecting.
Thank you.


Many, like Chair  Gooelatte, didn't grasp why the officials continued to insist that thei was a foreign affairs matter when it came to spying on Americans making phone calls or sending e-mails to other Americans, and both parties being inside the United States?  Many words were used to justify that, none of which made sense.

What's the take away?  US House Rep Blake Farenthold noted that the Fourth Amendment was seen as not being violated by the spying and the First Amendment was not seen as being violated by the spying so possibly the only time he has a reasonable expectation of privacy is with "a letter i hand deliver to my wife in a schiff,"


The Glens Falls Post-Star reports  on Lt Gen Robert Caslen Jr becoming the "59th superintendent" at West Point in a recent ceremony  and notes, "Caslen is a 1975 West Point graduate who has commanded at every level from company through division. Most recently, he was the Chief of the Office of Security Cooperation for Iraq."

Yes, he was.

And what should he have been most famous for in that role?

For revealing that, in the fall of 2012, more US troops were being sent back into Iraq. September 25th, Tim Arango (New York Times) reported:

Iraq and the United States are negotiating an agreement that could result in the return of small units of American soldiers to Iraq on training missions.  At the request of the Iraqi government, according to [US] General [Robert L.] Caslen, a unit of Army Special Operations soldiers was recently deployed to Iraq to advise on counterterrorism and help with intelligence.


It should have caused outrage, it should have led to outcries.

Tom Hayden did call it out.  Otherwise?

Nobody.  They were happier, apparently, to call us out for repeatedly noting it or for taking writers to task -- left writers for left websites -- when they repeated the lie of all US troops being out of Iraq. Paraphrasing one e-mailer (who is with an 'organization' supposedly against war), "You know you're not really being helpful by attacking [name deleted].  And Iraq is not the only issue in the world."

Really?  It was the issue that put your laughable organization on the map.  And I guess you think it's helpful to ignore the fact that US troops are being sent back into Iraq?  That would explain your silence and that of your organization's as well, right?

We're half way through July.  Do you realize that in two months, we'll be at the one year anniversary of Arango's report and no one wants to deal with it on the left, no one wants to acknowledge it.

It's far more important to cover for Barack than it is to tell the truth, apparently.

Arango noted a new deal was expected.

It went through December 6, 2012, the Memorandum of Understanding For Defense Cooperation Between the Ministry of Defense of the Republic of Iraq and the Department Defense of the United States of America -- signed by both the US and Iraq.  We noted it that day and returned to the topic for the  December 10th and December 11th snapshots.  Among other things, it provides for joint-patrols (US and Iraq) in Iraq.

It would be nice if any of the above could be discussed.  Instead, our left 'independent' media that always wants you to send it money can't be bothered with covering these truths.  When it comes to Iraq, so much never gets covered.  For example, a new World Health Organization study side-steps a great deal.  IPS reports:

A long-awaited study on congenital birth defects by the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Ministry of Health (MOH) in Iraq is expected to be very extensive in nature. 
[. . .]
The report will not examine the link between the prevalence of birth defects and use of depleted uranium (DU) munitions used during the war and occupation in Iraq, according to WHO. A by-product of the uranium enrichment process, DU is prized by the military for its use in ammunition that can punch through walls and armoured tanks. The main problem, experts say, is that DU munitions vaporise on contact, generating dust that is easily inhaled into the lungs.
The WHO study will also not consider pollutants such as lead and mercury as factors or variables, Syed Jaffar Hussain, representative and head of mission for the WHO in Iraq, told IPS.
According to WHO, establishing a link between the prevalence of congenital birth defects and exposure to DU would require further research by competent agencies or institutions.
Discussion and preparation for the study that started in mid-2011 was conducted in the wake of reports and individual studies conducted in Iraq which found a significant increase in the prevalence of congenital birth defects, says WHO.
Previous studies also pointed at some kind of correlation between metal pollutants, possibly DU used in 2003 and 2004 during the U.S. military attacks in Fallujah, with congenital birth defects in the region.
However, the causes will not be part of the MOH and WHO study. And this is what has invited criticism from some health experts and scientists.


 Caslen had previously served as West Point's commandant, a top academy position in charge of day-to-day operations of the cadets.

Also under-covered has been the prostitution.  For years, the mainstream press insisted there were no brothels in Iraq, certainly not in Baghdad.  No brothels in a war zone?  That would be a modern first.  Of course, Off Our Backs wasn't afraid to report the truth and did report it.  There were brothels in Iraq, including Baghdad.   Wassim Bassem (Al-Monitor) reports:



Raed Qais, a worker in a nightclub, confirmed to Al-Monitor that the number of brothels in Baghdad has increased after being limited to certain areas such as Midan, Kamaliyah and Abu Ghraib. They have become active today in other areas in private homes that hold semi-discreet socializing and sex parties, frequented by clients via a network of relationships of “confidants,” their money and their entourage.
Karima Hatem admitted to Al-Monitor that she has "worked in the sex trade in Baghdad for around six years,” after a slump in demand for goods in Diwaniyah forced her to move to the capital.
Heifa Hamid also moved around five years ago from the Fawar area of Diwaniyah to Baghdad, where she works in a secret brothel in the Midan area as part of a “work team” with Hatem.
 
 

National Iraqi News Agency reports that the Kirkuk home of Ministry of Defense official Talib Mohammed was attacked leaving one of his bodyguards injured, a Baquba bombing left 3 people dead and three more injured, an armed clash in Tikrit left 3 police officers and 1 rebel dead (and one police officer injured), a bombing near a Mosul cafe left 3 people dead and twenty-one more injured, an armed attack in Ramadi left 3 rebels dead, a Ramadi atack left 2 Iraqi soldiers dead, a Mosul bombing claimed the lives of 2 police officers and left a third injured, an armed attack in Aljazeerah left 3 rebels dead and 2 Iraqi soldiers dead, and an attack on Sheikh Qadhban al-Jumanili's car left his wife dead and his son and another relative injured. Prensa Latina reports that the Sheik was also killed in the attack that claimed his wife and they report "three children died when a bomb exploded near the Al Suedi River, northeast of the city of Baqubah, in an attack that wounded five other children."  All Iraq News adds that a Muqdadiya bombing claimed 3 lives and left four more people injured.  Through Tuesday, Iraq Body Count counts 460 violent deaths in Iraq so far this month.

As Adam Schreck (AP) notes the violence is taking place during the holy month of Ramadan and that you have to drop back to 2007 to find more violent deaths during this month.  Deutsche Welle notes the violence aimed at religious minorities:

Churches are now regular recipients of bomb attacks - as they have been for years. When Patriarch Louis Raphael I Sako became head of the Chaldean Catholic Church in Iraq in March 2013, security authorities in parts of Baghdad were on high alert. The patriarch, however, is the leader of a congregation in decline.
In addition to many Catholics, Christians of other denominations are leaving Iraq. From what was once a group of roughly 1 million Christians in the biblical land of Babylon, a few hundred thousand remain. Iraq's other religious minorities have suffered a similar fate.
Day-to-day life is particularly difficult for Mandeans, whose religion accepts certain Old and New Testament figures - Adam, Noah, John the Baptist, for example - but rejects Abraham, Moses, and Jesus Christ. The religious community is based in southern Iraq, whence it traces its origins for over 2,000 years to John the Baptist. Mandeans argue that the Koran itself would define them as a "people of the book" - that is, as adhering to a religion worthy of protection. Many Iraqi Muslims see things otherwise.

Alsumaria reports that Thursday begins a three day Alkrsh, a holy time for Mandaeans which requires remaining indoors for 36 hours.  Behrooz Berenji (Mandaean in Chicago) offers more:


When it comes to the last day of the year Mandaean (Kinsa and Zhli), which means the meeting and cleansing, starting procedures and preparations are not familiar by those around sons of this community despite the fact that everyone living with each other within the unity of Iraqi society, you see their different reactions between the critic does not understand and collaborator or neutral, remains Alkrsh a mystery worthy of respect and clarity .. is the concept of social comes from the meaning of detention or i'tikaaf an Arabic term came from i'tikaaf Mandaeans in their homes 36 hours starting from sunset on the end of the year Mandaean (Kinsa and Zhli) until sunrise of the second day of the year Mandaean new, on any two nights, either the concept Mandean (Dhva Lord) Mendaúaan of the great feast that bears the stamp worldly and socially mean big event where the statement is contained (Dhva) with all the major events Mandaean (k Dhva Ed always, Dhva Hnina .... etc. ) denote the divine events make up the panel configuration and creation, and the word came specifically with the Lord on this occasion the sense of the great and great is attributed to the Lord Almighty. What is this event important to the Lord? Why is this i'tikaaf which is a feature of that event is very old, and why is a holiday for Mendaúaan? We will try to answer briefly by inference, religious texts in this regard, as stated in the Court (and two thousand Tersr Asvaks,, a thousand and twelve questions) of the preserves itself through thirty-six hours would be attributed to me I am Abu archaeologist.

As Deutsche Welle notes, many of Iraq's religious minorities flee to northern Iraq or flee Iraq period.  The refugee crisis has not disappeared just because the world's press has lost interest.  All Iraq News reports today that 1,000 Iraqi refugees arrived in Hanover, Germany today.  All Iraq News quotes Iraqiya leader Ayad Allawi stating:


The return of the extremism and displacing the citizens in Diyala province will result in the sectarian conflict and destroying the social texture in Iraq.  The weak governmental performance and the accurate mechanism of the Ministry of Interior to deal with the situation in addition to the lack of the national accord and the real partnership, are the main reasons behind the unstable security situation and the increase of the terrorist attacks in Ramadan. While condemning displacing the citizens in Diyala and the other provinces, we call the government to show its stance over this dangerous issue and to exert efforts to improve it.




NINA reports, "Speaker Osama Najafi called for holding a public hearing on Thursday in parliament in order to deter violators and terrorists in Diyala province and easing tensions to overcome the crisis and stop the forced displacement of citizens in a number of areas of the province."  Alsumaria adds that the Free Patriotic Movement is joining the call as explained by their leader Massoud Zangana who states that the citizens of Diyala are in need of help.


Laith Hammoudi is an Iraqi journalist who has long reported in Iraq.  He has worked for McClatchy Newspapers and AFP, among other outlets.  He also works with the Institute for War and Peace Reporting.  This is from his latest report:

The losses which Iraqi prime minister Nuri al-Maliki’s party suffered in the recent provincial elections stand as an indictment both of failed political alliances at national level, and also of poor economic and welfare delivery at local level, according to commentators interviewed by IWPR.
Elections were held in 12 governorates on April 20, while two more in Anbar and Nineveh were delayed to June 20 because of instability. No elections were held in the three Kurdish provinces or in disputed Kirkuk.
What really mattered to Maliki’s State of Law party was winning the nine mainly Shia governorates that constitute its power-base.
But in the event, its dominance was eroded by two other Shia parties – the Muwatin Coalition and the Sadrist Movement – plus a number of smaller groups. From a position where it controlled all nine councils through strong relative majorities – thus ensuring that its candidate was selected as provincial governor – Maliki’s party lost five and had a much reduced lead in the other four.

Nouri's power does appear to be slipping.  From yesterday's snapshot:

Nouri lives in denial and apparently cultivates it within State of Law.  All Iraq News quotes State of Law MP Sadiq al-Labban declaring that there will not be another crisis between Baghdad and Erbil.  Not only have the for-show meetings not ended the current crises between Baghdad and Erbil, but there are emerging problems.  NINA notes that Kurdistan Alliance MP Vian Dekeel is objecting to the push to pass "important and disputed laws in the House of Representatives in one basket deal." That puts them in direct opposition to State of Law.


Hurriyet reports:


The instability stems mainly from the sectarian and ethnic divides engulfing the country. The disputes between Sunnis and Shiites, as well as the Shiite-dominated central government and the Kurdish Regional Government (KRG), have been particularly tense over the last year. Yet, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki visited northern Iraq on June 10 for the first time in more than two years, and Masoud Barzani, president of the KRG, reciprocated on July 7 by visiting Baghdad. These are not just symbolic visits.
While al-Maliki’s move was considered a first step toward resolving a long-running dispute over oil and land as well as an attempt to secure Kurdish support to relieve some of the pressure his Shiite-led government is feeling from the Sunnis and the surge in sectarian violence spilling over from Syria, Barzani’s visit aimed at a much larger goal of “national reconciliation,” with an underlying strategy to move to Baghdad replacing Celal Talabani as president. Talabani’s term is finishing in April 2014, and he has been in intensive care in Germany since he suffered a stroke in December 2012.
The fact that the al-Maliki government lost its popularity after the provincial elections in April 2013 forces him to form new coalitions before the forthcoming elections in 2014. While Sunni groups accuse him because of his policies marginalizing Sunnis, mending ties with the Kurds would become the best alternative for al-Maliki.
Barzani’s term as the president of the KRG was extended two more years on June 30, with the cooperation of his Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP) and Talabani’s Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK), despite others opposed the extension. The future of this cooperation between the KDP and the PUK will depend on the result of upcoming parliamentary elections in September 2013 and the health of Talabani. Thus Barzani is focusing on working with the central government to strengthen his position.


Alsumaria reports that KRG President Massoud Barzani declared yesterday that he would continue on as president on a temporary basis while waiting for the KRG Parliament to vote on the amendments to the Constitution -- those amendments include adding two years on to Barzani's current term.  He states that the KRG will not permit a lifetime president.

 There are several issues at play here including the current instability of Iraq.  In addition, there is the issue of disputed Kirkuk (claimed by both the KRG and the central government out of Baghdad) and the issue of oil and gas.  There is also the matter of stature.  The KRG needs a prominent voice and Barzani's stature on the world stage has only grown in the last years.


The KRG's two main political parties are the PUK and KDP.  Barzani is a member of the KDP., the most prominent member of the PUK is Jalal Talabani, President of Iraq.  Last December,   Talabani suffered a stroke.   The incident took place late on December 17th (see the December 18th snapshot) and resulted in Jalal being admitted to Baghdad's Medical Center Hospital.    Thursday, December 20th, he was moved to Germany.  He remains in Germany currently.  His medical status is unclear and many are concerned that Kurdish power in Iraq hangs in the balance.

At a time like this, it's not a surprise that over 60% of Kurds are in favor of Jalal serving another term.  Another term is not what is being proposed.  The Constitution limits the presidents to two terms and Massoud Barzani is in his second term.  However, that was passed after he was elected to his first term and, in an attempt at fairness, the proposed amendment would give him two more years with the understanding that there will be no third term.  Al Mada notes that the PUK has called this a "reasonable move" and that Barzani will not seek a third term.




The issue of Iraq was raised today at the US State Dept press briefing which spokesperson Marie Harf handled.

QUESTION: Iraq?

MS. HARF: Yes.

QUESTION: The departing UN envoy, Martin Kobler, made a very sobering statement – that Iraq is sliding fast toward a civil war, and furthermore that the Iraq and Syria wars are merging together with combatants on both sides along sectarian lines taken. Do you have a comment on that?

MS. HARF: Well, we remain deeply concerned about the rise of violent extremism and how it further endangers the future of Iraq and all of Syria’s neighbors. We’ve spoken to that many times. The Government of Iraq has itself also expressed its deep concern about the level of violence in Syria and violent extremist elements who might seek to capitalize on the situation in Syria to foment violence in Iraq. So we would also like to make the point that the vast majorities of Iraqis – of the Iraqi people continue to reject this violence, that we are encouraged that many political and religious leaders have taken a strong stance against this violence, and that we have continued to explore ways to address these ongoing security issues going forward.


On Kobler, All Iraq News notes:

Iraq Permanent envoy to the UN, the Ambassador, Mohamed al-Hakim, said during the UNSC session held on last Tuesday to follow up the Secretary General's report on the UNAMI "I would like to convey the Iraqi government's request to prolong the UNAMI's mandate for one year according to the terms adopted in the Security Council's resolution No.1770 for 2007."  
"The Iraqi government called on the UNAMI to provide the logistic needs required to secure the adequate number of the observers to ensure transparent parliament elections scheduled in 2014," he added.
I stated this morning that we'd cover Kobler but we'll wait until either tomorrow or Friday.  There's not room today.  Back to the press conference, NSA whistle-blower Ed Snowden was briefly noted.


 QUESTION: New topic? Snowden?

MS. HARF: Okay.

QUESTION: Quick one. News reports allege that Mr. Snowden’s getting very close to getting asylum in Russia. Do you have any comment on that?

MS. HARF: Our position on Mr. Snowden has not changed --

QUESTION: Right.

MS. HARF: -- that he is a wanted felon of the United States, that he needs to be returned as quickly as possible. I don’t have any updates for you on any of those reports.

QUESTION: Have the Russians told you that they are getting close to granting him asylum?

MS. HARF: I don’t have anything for you on that. We continue to discuss with the Russian authorities our concerns about Mr. Snowden. We continue to say that he needs to be returned to the United States.


As US House Rep John Conyers noted today, were it not for the whistle-blowers like Ed Snowden, the spying on Americans would be unknown.  Secretly, without public discussion, the White House decides to override the First and Fourth Amendments and does so via a secret court ensuring further secrecy.  This was (and is) spying on Americans.  There's no 'foreign' aspect to it.  This is domestic spying, plain and simple.  












 
 the associated press

 

Tuesday, July 16, 2013

Norman Pollack

Tuesday! Norman Pollack has another great article at CounterPunch.  This one is called "Obama's Praetorian Guard of Capitalism" and here's the opening paragraph:

Obama’s “Hidden Hand” political strategy in his second term (Peter Baker, in NYT, July 16) merits notice for its utter phoniness (and NYT/Baker gullibility), as though a low profile, designed to convey the velvet glove of measured yet steady reform, has changed anything in his presidency, which from the start has raised sophisticated corporatism, with its full antiradical implications, policies, consequences, to a high art.  Obama’s legacy—it’s too late for him to worry about this now—will be defined by his treachery as a leader and putative tribune of the people.  In retrospect, Nixon and Bush 2 appear as mere choirboys in comparison, not because of Obama’s “smarts” (he has the brashness of a hustler, which passes in our day for intelligence), but because he can use liberalism as a backdrop for the pursuit of consistently reactionary policies, domestic as well as foreign.  Liberals and progressives, especially, have been taken in, the latest enormous crime being massive surveillance which, once revealed, is allowed to become yesterday’s news, attention shifting instead to Snowden’s apprehension—an example where the real criminal seeks to pin the label of “criminal” on the one who exposes the crime.  Liberals/ progressives sit on their hands (perhaps that’s where Obama’s team got the idea of the “hidden hand” as the latest selling point to cover up a record which hardly needs covering up, so far has radicals’ rigor mortis set in) while data mining, Espionage Act prosecutions, the whole range of civil liberties made mincemeat of, all constitute only one area of manifold and fundamental abuses: the liberalization of cynicism, to render it palatable to the groupies, while the haute crowd of bankers, militarists, defense contractors, national-security advisors, DOJ apologists for international war crimes, and, as they say in the Shakespeare plays, diverse and assorted other characters, laugh in their teeth.

I saw Peter Baker's article this morning and was going to call it out here but I wouldn't have done anywhere near the job Norman's done so hats off for Norman.  He really is becoming one of the best writers we have on the left.  He really is something.

We need real voices.  We lost a lot of voices in 2008 and we haven't gotten them back.  I don't know that I would ever want them back.

These are the people who used to talk about how drones were wrong, spying was wrong, the wars were wrong.

Then Barack gets into the primaries and they lie to defend him and justify him and when he gets into the White House, it's even worse.

There are some who have awoken.  Norman Solomon, Marjorie Cohn and David Lindorff, for example, appear to have sworn off the Kool-Aid but that's just three.

I think it takes real integrity to be a voice worth listening to.  Norman Pollack's demonstrating that integrity.  Once upon a time, a lot of other left writers did.  These days, it's a tiny handful.

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


Tuesday, July 16, 2013.  Chaos and violence continue, Kirkuk contemplates a moat, Ed Snowden applies for temporary asylum in Russia, the State Dept continues to act as if they are the Justice Dept providing updates on Snowden (and their focus on Snowden may go a long way towards explaining why the State Dept appears to be accomplishing so little currently), a new lawsuit is filed against the government for the NSA spying, Congress holds a hearing on wartime contracting,  veterans speak out, and more.


Starting with NSA whistle-blower Ed Snowden. Eyder Peralta (NPR) reports, "Edward Snowden, the former NSA contractor who leaked a cache of classified documents about U.S. surveillance programs, officially filed for temporary asylum in Russia on Tuesday, a human rights lawyer and WikiLeaks say."  Why temporary?  He may be planning on leaving Russia shortly.  Or he may be wanting a quick answer.  The process for temporary asylum is much quicker than if he would apply for permanent asylum.  If granted, it would provide him with a one-year temporary asylum which would give him the same standing -- during that year -- as a citizen of Russia. At the end of that year, he could apply for an extension or he could apply for permanent asylum.  That information is from a State Dept friend and goes a bit beyond what is offered by attorney Anatoly Kucherena who spoke with RIA Novosti today:

The lawyer said Snowden had chosen to apply for temporary asylum in Russia because he was tired, having been in the airport transit zone for about a month now. He added that if the leaker’s application for asylum is successful, he will get refugee status for one year, which will allow him to work and move around freely, and that status can be prolonged indefinitely.
Snowden would also need legal status in Russia in order to secure eventual passage to Latin American countries that have offered him asylum.


 The UK Register notes, "Russian president Vladimir Putin has described NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden as an unwanted 'Christman present' from America."  Putin wouldn't have a formal voice in temporary asylum.  In fact, he should have no role in the decision.  Again, that's per State Dept friend, however, that's how the process is supposed to work and government processes don't always work as they are supposed to.

At today's US State Dept press briefing by Patrick Ventrell, the topic of Ed Snowden came up.


QUESTION: Patrick, new topic. Snowden?

MR. VENTRELL: Okay.

QUESTION: So the U.S. has exhausted all options with Snowden and Russia with the extradition? Right?

MR. VENTRELL: Well, again, we don’t have an extradition treaty with Russia. Broadly speaking, our policy remains the same, that we’d like him returned based on previous law enforcement cooperation we’ve had with Russia. We think there’s a basis to do that, and we’d like to see him come home to face justice. He should have the courage to come home to the United States and face the criminal charges against him.

QUESTION: But I mean, what’s left? How are you going to convince the Russians that he should come home?

MR. VENTRELL: Well, we’ll continue to make, through law enforcement and diplomatic channels, our policy well known, and we have done so with the Russians, including up to the level of President Obama. So we’ll continue to make that case.

QUESTION: The Chinese got a kind of a free pass when they let him leave, go to Russia. We didn’t do anything and now what’s to say --

MR. VENTRELL: We expressed our very deep concern and I refer you to some of the remarks we made, indeed, during the S&ED about our deep concern about what the Chinese did. But --

QUESTION: But outside of a deep concern, what can the U.S. do to get Snowden back, besides asking?

MR. VENTRELL: I mean, again, we look toward Russia – look to Russia for law enforcement cooperation based on some of the excellent law enforcement cooperation we’ve had in the past.

QUESTION: Is there any indication that they’re going to be cooperative in the future?


MR. VENTRELL: Again, I don’t have any public readout of their thinking. I’ll let them speak for themselves.

QUESTION: But are – is the U.S. satisfied with the kind of cooperation it is getting from the Russians on the issue of Snowden?

MR. VENTRELL: Again, I --

QUESTION: Are you dissatisfied with them?


MR. VENTRELL: The sooner we can get him home to face justice, the better.

QUESTION: Do you know about a lawyer, a Russian lawyer today – we saw him last week – saying that he has applied – requested temporary asylum in Russia. Do you have any confirmation?

MR. VENTRELL: Again, I don’t have any confirmation on that one way or another. But we’ve said that he should come home and have the courage to come face the charges against him.

QUESTION: What would the U.S. response be if Russia does accept Snowden’s asylum request?

MR. VENTRELL: Again, I don’t want to get into a hypothetical, but I think the Russians know how strongly we feel on this case and how important it is for him to come home and face justice from our vantage point.

QUESTION: And what would they do if they didn’t accept it?

MR. VENTRELL: Again, I’m not going to get into a hypothetical.




While the State Dept and the White House and much of the US Congress works overtime to trash Ed Snowden, RT reports former US Senator Gordon Humphrey (New Hampshire, Republican) had e-mailed Snowden to pass on, "you have done the right thing in exposing what I regard as massive violation of the United States Constitution."  When Glenn Greenwald (Guardian) contacted Humphrey to verify he had sent the earlier e-mail to Ed Snowden, he got a reply noting:

Yes. It was I who sent the email message to Edward Snowden, thanking him for exposing astonishing violations of the US Constitution and encouraging him to persevere in the search for asylum,” Humphrey wrote Greenwald. To my knowledge, Mr. Snowden has disclosed only the existence of a program and not details that would place any person in harm's way. I regard him as a courageous whistleblower,” he continued.
I object to the monumentally disproportionate campaign being waged by the US government against Edward Snowden, while no effort is being made to identify, remove from office and bring to justice those officials who have abused power, seriously and repeatedly violating the Constitution of the United States and the rights of millions of unsuspecting citizens.”
Americans concerned about the growing arrogance of our government and its increasingly menacing nature should be working to help Mr. Snowden find asylum. Former Members of Congress, especially, should step forward and speak out,” he concluded.


It's good to see people standing up for Ed.  He is under attack.  Mike observed last night, "I'm getting really tired of the people who can't focus on Ed Snowden.  They can't support him, they can't realize he was trying to help all of us. If you're not interested in Ed Snowden and you're on the left, it feels like, to me, you're not interested in saving yourself."  Melissa Harris Lacewell-Perry-for-now used her low rated MSNBC talk show to attack Ed (but she did get his name right, to her credit) with an embarrassing hectoring she passed off as an "open letter."


Fits of madness, pools of grief
Fevers of desire
How peculiar these remain
Salvaged from the fire

For some I crumpled
Some I burned
Some I tore to shreds
Lifetimes later, here they are
The ones I saved instead
Letters never sent to you
Letters never sent to you
Letters I never sent
Letters never sent to you

-- "Letters Never Sent," lyrics by Carly Simon and Jacob Brackman, music by Carly, first appears on Carly's Letters Never Sent album


Gary Leupp (CounterPunch) responds to Melissa's open letter with one of his own (this is his third open letter to Melissa) and his response includes:


Do you not understand that, in the first few days following his revelations, the spin-doctors incensed at his whistle-blowing, searching around in their fevered minds, opted to portray this very low-key guy as an ego-driven publicity seeker?
I mean, you seem to be asking, by default: why else would a person in a position to know about what you yourself call “information…about surveillance [that] raises serious issues about the behaviors of our leaders and how they justify and hide those practices from the public” reveal that information, other than to draw attention to himself?
Is there no such thing as old-fashioned morality? And selfless attention to what’s right? And in this case, doing the right thing at colossal personal cost?
You’re not making sense, Melissa. All you’re doing is swearing a loyalty oath to people who do not deserve your loyalty. You’re known for fighting against harmful stereotypes of black women that make it difficult for them to assert their political rights. (Bravo.) But you are using your own rights and privileged access to the camera to promote the character assassination of a young man whose sole crime has been to offend “your” president—the one who has now eight times invoked the World War One-era “espionage” act to punish whistle-blowers.
You’re the bully here. Snowden’s not picking on you; you’re picking on him, and apparently relishing it. Feels so good, doesn’t it, standing up for the system like that, being so safe?



Last night, Ann noted Norman Solomon's latest column and she offered:

We can only do so much when the MSNBC whores who pretend to be left make a point of attacking him.  The airwaves are filled with attacks on Ed. So we need to make part of our effort in exposing these hypocrites like Melissa Harris Perry. She -- and people like her -- are ensuring that no real movement is going to take place.  Now or ever. These people need to be exposed for the frauds they are.


So let's again note that (Rebecca noted this) that Vanity Fair calls Ed Snowden a "turncoat" and that In These Times published Louis Nayman's crap ("In Defense of PRISM") which argues, as all the politically closeted must, that to call out Blessed Barack is to do the work of the Republicans.  In other words, there are whores and then are used up, worn out whores like Louis Nayman.  In These Times readers need to seriously consider whether the rag is worth anything anymore. 
Melissa also felt the need to attack Glenn Greenwald:

We could be talking about whether accessing and monitoring citizen information and communications is constitutional, or whether we should continue to allow a secret court to authorize secret warrants using secret legal opinions. But we’re not. We’re talking about you! And flight paths between Moscow and Venezuela, and how much of a jerk Glenn Greenwald is.

We could also be talking about what kind of a mother Melissa Harris-Lacewell-Perry is.  That makes about as much sense, right?  Understand,  Ava and I were very kind at Third:

Melissa, especially needs stability.  Her family life is falling apart and if she doesn't like that being known she might ask her daughter not to talk so much at school about what goes on in the house.  We'll be really kind and leave it at that.


If Melissa wants to start a bitch-fest, we don't have to be kind and, warning to Lie Face Melissa, we will always out bitch her.  We've already sent her packing from Princeton does she really want us bending the ear of her MSNBC boss as well?

In fact, Lie Face Melissa probably shouldn't go after Glenn or anyone because she inhabits the ultimate glass house.  She began working on Barack's campaign in 2007 but went on Democracy Now! in January 2008 as an 'independent analyst' who 'forgot' to disclose that she was working on a campaign.  You're required to disclose.  In March 2008, she went on Charlie Rose to participate in a 'journalist' panel and all the other journalists weren't backing anyone -- only Melissa was working for a campaign -- a fact she 'forgot' to disclose -- and she also attacked Tavis Smiley and insisted to Charlie that people were attacking him -- forgetting to disclose that 'people' was Melissa with her bad blog post and her myriad of sock puppets. 

She may think Glenn's "a jerk" and she's entitled to her opinion but if she wants to express it, she should realize that her unethical behavior has already cost her and she's damn lucky that for three years only Ava and I were calling her out.  Not on opinion, calling her out for ethical violations (we also shared with Princeton her public remarks about the students she was teaching -- her insulting public remarks about the students she was teaching). 

I don't doubt that Glenn can have his "jerk" moments.  (I have mine and worse.  Most of us do.)  But that's really not an issue.  The issue is he broke the story that still stays in the news cycle all these weeks later.  Brendan Sasso (The Hill) reports, "A Unitarian church, a gun rights group and a host of other activist organizations on Tuesday sued to end the National Security Agency's massive phone record collection program."  The Electronic Freedom Foundation issued the following:



San Francisco - Nineteen organizations including Unitarian church groups, gun ownership advocates, and a broad coalition of membership and political advocacy organizations filed suit against the National Security Agency (NSA) today for violating their First Amendment right of association by illegally collecting their call records. The coalition is represented by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), a group with years of experience fighting illegal government surveillance in the courts.
"The First Amendment protects the freedom to associate and express political views as a group, but the NSA's mass, untargeted collection of Americans' phone records violates that right by giving the government a dramatically detailed picture into our associational ties," said EFF Legal Director Cindy Cohn. "Who we call, how often we call them, and how long we speak shows the government what groups we belong to or associate with, which political issues concern us, and our religious affiliation. Exposing this information – especially in a massive, untargeted way over a long period of time – violates the Constitution and the basic First Amendment tests that have been in place for over 50 years."
At the heart of First Unitarian Church of Los Angeles v. NSA is the bulk telephone records collection program that was confirmed by last month's publication of an order from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC). The Director of National Intelligence (DNI) further confirmed that this formerly secret document was legitimate, and part of a broader program to collect all major telecommunications customers' call histories. The order demands wholesale collection of every call made, the location of the phone, the time of the call, the duration of the call, and other "identifying information" for every phone and call for all customers of Verizon for a period of three months. Government officials further confirmed that this was just one of series of orders issued on a rolling basis since at least 2006.
"People who hold controversial views – whether it's about gun ownership policies, drug legalization, or immigration – often must express views as a group in order to act and advocate effectively," said Cohn. "But fear of individual exposure when participating in political debates over high-stakes issues can dissuade people from taking part. That's why the Supreme Court ruled in 1958 that membership lists of groups have strong First Amendment protection. Telephone records, especially complete records collected over many years, are even more invasive than membership lists, since they show casual or repeated inquiries as well as full membership."
"The First Unitarian Church of Los Angeles has a proud history of working for justice and protecting people in jeopardy for expressing their political views," said Rev. Rick Hoyt. "In the 1950s, we resisted the McCarthy hysteria and supported blacklisted Hollywood writers and actors, and we fought California's 'loyalty oaths' all the way to the Supreme Court. And in the 1980s, we gave sanctuary to refugees from civil wars in Central America. The principles of our faith often require our church to take bold stands on controversial issues. We joined this lawsuit to stop the illegal surveillance of our members and the people we serve. Our church members and our neighbors who come to us for help should not fear that their participation in the church might have consequences for themselves or their families. This spying makes people afraid to belong to our church community."
In addition to the First Unitarian Church of Los Angeles, the full list of plaintiffs in this case includes the Bill of Rights Defense Committee, Calguns Foundation, Greenpeace, Human Rights Watch, People for the American Way, and TechFreedom.
EFF also represents the plaintiffs in Jewel v. NSA, a class action case filed on behalf of individuals in 2008 aimed at ending the NSA's dragnet surveillance of millions of ordinary Americans. Last week, a federal court judge rejected the U.S. government's latest attempt to dismiss the case, allowing the allegations at the heart of the suit to move forward under the supervision of a public federal court.
For the full complaint in First Unitarian v. NSA:
https://www.eff.org/node/75009

Contacts:
Rebecca Jeschke
   Media Relations Director
   Electronic Frontier Foundation
   press@eff.org

Dave Maass
   Media Relations Coordinator
   Electronic Frontier Foundation
   press@eff.org

Had Congress -- Senator Dianne Feinstein, to name but one -- done their jobs, provided oversight, maybe the spying on Americans wouldn't have happened.  Certainly, if they'd respected the oaths to uphold the Constitution, the spying never would have happened.  Congress attempted to provide oversight today.


Chair Clair McCaskill:  It is hard to believe that I've been at this for over six years -- working on wartime contracting.  It has been, in many ways, a roller coaster ride.  There have been days that I thought that there was no hope and then there are other days when we were able to get so many of these provisions into law that I thought we were really rounding the corner.  And today we are here to find out if in fact we are rounding a corner of if we still have a lot of work to do.  We're going to today review the implementation of the wartime contracting reforms mandated in last year's National Defense Authorization Act and to address a couple of current contracting issues that have come up.

Senator Claire McCaskill is the Chair of  Homeland Security's Subcommittee on Financial and Contracting Oversight which held a hearing today.  The hearing mainly served to underscore how frustrating attempting oversight can be.  Appearing before the Subcomittee were DoD's Richard Ginman, the State Dept's Patrick Kennedy and USAID's Aman Djahanbani.  Each managed to play dumb in their own way.

As per usual, Patrick Kennedy spent the hearing hedging on everything as though he were a student who had stumbled into the classroom to discover a pop test as opposed to an official who was summoned before a committee to testify on set topics.  Under questioning from Senator Kelly Ayotte (about funds ending up in the hands of terrorists), Kennedy was able to give one firm answer: He was against terrorism.  What a relief! (That was sarcasm.)

All the witnesses were disappointing, in fact.  Let's note this exchange.

Senator Kelly Ayotte:  Well do you vet  existing contractors and existing subcontractors? USAID?

Aman Djahanbani:  We do in Afghanistan.

Senator Kelly Ayotte:  And do you compare it to known intelligence with insurgents?

Aman Djahanbani: Uh,  there's a very vigorous process that we go through, Senator.

Senator Kelly Ayotte:  Well if it's so rigorous and you have the authorities that you think you have now then why did the Commission on Wartime Contracting that Afghan subcontractors on a USAID community project in Kunar Province were paying up to 20% of their total subcontractor value to insurgents for "protection" and that USAID Inspector General estimated over $5 million of program funding was at risk of falling into insurgents' hands?  In fact, one of the recommendations that comes from the Wartime Commission on Contracting is that there be greater authorities given -- not only has DoD requested but this also applies across the State Dept and USAID.  So I find it hard to believe you have the authorities you need right now to address this problem.

He went on to babble about wait and see and fears of impact blah, blah, blah.  But if he has the power he thinks he has (as Ayotte put it), why hasn't he addressed the issues raised already?

Even more importantly, USAID is spending vast sums of money in Iraq.

Senator Kelly Ayotte:  Well do you vet  existing contractors and existing subcontractors? USAID?

Aman Djahanbani:  We do in Afghanistan.

 And in Iraq?

As always a question that there will be no rush to answer (or ask).

Chair McCaskill voiced her concerns to the Pentagon's Richard Ginman that audits were not being read and that, as with the failed Afghanistan project, there was a feeling of "it's only 34 million dollars."  A very unconvincing reply was issued.  Ranking Member Ron Johnson observed, "What we have is a basic lack of accountability in government."


Senator McCaskill's office issued the following after the hearing:


July 16, 2013 WASHINGTON - Six months after passage of her historic wartime contracting reforms, U.S. Senator Claire McCaskill today chaired a hearing to evaluate the progress of federal agencies in implementing the legislation.
McCaskill also used the hearing to question federal officials on a recent report finding that the U.S. government constructed a new 64,000-square-foot military headquarters worth $34 million in Afghanistan, even after commanders in the area insisted that they did not need the building. The facility has never been occupied and may have to be destroyed by the U.S. government during the drawdown of American troops.
"How in the world did this thing get built when the people on the ground were saying ‘stop, stop, don't do this-we don't need it and it won't be used,'" asked McCaskill, Chairman of the Subcommittee on Financial & Contracting Oversight.
"I don't have an explanation," said Richard Ginman, the Director for Defense Procurement and Acquisition Policy. "It's very difficult to sit here and say, as it's been reported, that we now have a building that we do not know how it will be disposed of."
"I think you know this without me saying it, but I'm not going to stop on this until I know who it was that authorized this contract," McCaskill concluded.
Today's hearing included representatives from the U.S. Defense Department, State Department, and U.S. Agency for International Development.
Today's hearing also allowed McCaskill-a former Missouri State Auditor-to assess the progress of her wartime contracting provisions that were adopted by Congress and signed into law by the President as part of the National Defense Authorization Act. The provisions build upon recommendations issued by the U.S. Commission on Wartime Contracting-a panel created through legislation by McCaskill and former Senator Jim Webb of Virginia-which identified at least $60 billion in waste of taxpayer dollars.
The federal officials testified that, while they are still "ironing out" challenges, their respective agencies are making headway implementing McCaskill's reforms-progress that McCaskill highlighted.
"It is much better than it was in 2007 in every single one of your agencies," McCaskill said. "Everyone is making progress."
Read more about McCaskill's fight for stronger accountability in Washington, HERE.
###



Ruth was at the hearing today and she'll be covering it at her site tonight with regards to Benghazi.


Tomorrow is the National Day of Iraq. Possibly to note this, CNN provides a few 'fast facts' about politician (and former prime minister) Ibrahim al-Jaafari.  al-Jaafari was the Iraqi Parliament's choice for prime minister in 2006 but the White House wouldn't allow it and instead insisted Nouri al-Maliki be named prime minister.   In 2010, the White House would again insist upon Nouri as prime minister -- despite the fact that Iraqiya (not Nouri's State of Law) came in first in the elections.

The Daily Star reports, "Iraq's cabinet sent a draft law to parliament on Tuesday that would bar top government officials and officers in the security forces from holding dual citizenship, Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's spokesman said."   If Nouri really cared about this, he could start by refusing to nominate people for his Cabinet if they held dual citizenship. 
"

Through Monday, Iraq Body Count count 452 violent deaths in Iraq so far this month.  Today, National Iraqi News Agency reports the corpse of a 10-year-old child was discovered 2 weeks after the child was kidnapped, Nouri's forces killed 1 man in Tikrit,  a Mosul bombing claimed the life of 1 Iraqi soldier and left two more injured, a mortar attack on military headquarters outside of Mosul left 1 civilian dead and seven more injured, a Basra cafe bombing left two people injured, 1 military officer was shot dead outside of Kirkuk, a Muqdadiya bombing claimed 3 lives and left eleven injured, 1 government employee was shot dead in Basra, and 2 police officers were shot dead in Mosul.  Meanwhile Alsumaria reports a fire has broken out in the Ministry of Industry and Minerals.

We don't generally include fires in the violence section but this is a government building.  It's said to be resulting from 'electrical issues' and that may well be true.  But government buildings should be up to code and if Nouri has failed at something even that basic . . .  Nouri has repeatedly ignored basic public service issues.  In contrast, All Iraq News reports that the Kurdistan Regional Government has allocated 9 billion dollars to address the water problems.

Nouri lives in denial and apparently cultivates it within State of Law.  All Iraq News quotes State of Law MP Sadiq al-Labban declaring that there will not be another crisis between Baghdad and Erbil.  Not only have the for-show meetings not ended the current crises between Baghdad and Erbil, but there are emerging problems.  NINA notes that Kurdistan Alliance MP Vian Dekeel is objecting to the push to pass "important and disputed laws in the House of Representatives in one basket deal." That puts them in direct opposition to State of Law.

On the violence, ABC News Radio quotes Baghdad University professor Nabil Mohammed stating, "People can’t say that things are getting better or are going to be better in the near future.  People are just looking for something to help them survive."


Hence the return of the proposed 'moats.'  This time the 'protective trench' would be around dispute Kirkuk.  Yerevan Saeed (Rudaw) reports:


Two months ago Kirkuk’s Provincial Council decided in a majority vote to dig a 58-kilometer security trench around the city, in a controversial decision to control entrance into the oil-rich and violence-wracked area which is at the center of a dispute between Iraq’s different ethnic and religious groups.
This plan would leave the city with four main entrances, which are to be monitored by surveillance cameras. The trench itself is to be reinforced with barbed wire and regular police patrols.
Hassan Turhan, a Turkmen official in Kirkuk’s provincial council, first proposed a security trench in 2012. But Kirkuk officials only put the plan into action this year, particularly after a series of deadly bombings that killed dozens and wounded hundreds.



Nouri began proposing the idea of a moat around Baghdad to protect the city.  That idea never took off.  Whether or not it will take off this time remains to be seen.    World Bulletin notes:

 
Iraqi Turkmens are the third-largest ethnic group in Iraq and live primarily in Kirkuk and Tuzhurmatu. Kirkuk Province is a historically diverse area; in addition to ethnic Turkmens, there are also many Arabs and Kurds. Friday's blast in the city took place in an area of previous ethnic, sectarian and political clashes.
Mehmet Tütüncü, the general director of the İstanbul-based Iraqi Turks Culture and Mutual Aid Society (ITKYD), told Today's Zaman that there is a bomb blast every day of the week in Iraq and pointed out that there are many more attacks occurring in predominately Turkmen areas as compared to other ethnic groups in Iraq.
“It is very hard to say who is behind the attack in Kirkuk, but I can easily say that there are many attacks directed at areas where Turkmens live,” Tütüncü said, underlining the fact that the Turkmen community is the only unarmed ethnic group in Iraq.



Today on Breakfast with Jacquie Mackay (Australia's ABC, link is audio), Iraq War veteran Vince Emanuele talked about how he went from serving in Iraq to becoming part of Veterans for Peace and Iraq Veterans Against the War.  Excerpt.

Vince Emanuele:  Well it was two-fold.  Some was anecdotal some of these things I had testified to Congress about in 2008 so yeah this ranged from torturing prisoners such as we saw with Abu Ghraib, the indiscriminate shooting of women, children, men and so forth.  You know, we had Marines who took it upon themselves to take pictures with dead bodies, mutilated, dead bodies, all of these grotesque sort of things.  And, none the less, the combination of that and all the experiences on the ground speaking with the people of Iraq and them telling us that "we don't want you here, go home."  For me, it became blatantly clear that we shouldn't be occupying the country anymore.  And then I came home and tried to contextualize that experience, reading about American foreign policy -- particularly in the region, the Middle East but even more specifically in Iraq.  So through both of those experiences, being on the ground and experiencing those things and then also coming home and researching, reflecting and reading, I came to the conclusion that I wasn't going to deploy for the third deployment and so I refused to deploy for a third time.  I told my command that I was putting down my weapon and that I was no longer fighting and they administratively discharged me.

And Vince Emanuele wasn't the only veteran speaking out today,  Iraq War veteran Brandon M. Toy announced his resignation from the military in a letter at Common Dreams which includes:

At the time of my enlistment, I believed in the cause. I was ignorant, naïve, and misled. The narrative, professed by the state, and echoed by the mainstream press, has proven false and criminal. We have become what I thought we were fighting against.
Recent revelations by fearless journalists of war crimes including counterinsurgency “dirty” wars, drone terrorism, the suspension of due process, torture, mass surveillance, and widespread regulatory capture have shed light on the true nature of the current US Government. I encourage you to read more about these topics at the links I have provided below.


















 

Monday, July 15, 2013

Ed Snowden, Third

Monday, Monday.  How are you doing this fine summer day?

Let me note something serious first,  Eric London (WSWS) reports:

NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden met with human rights officials in Sheremetyevo airport in Moscow yesterday to consider his options for safe asylum, while the Obama administration intensified its campaign of international thuggery against the former Booz Allen Hamilton contractor.
Snowden, who has been forced to seek refuge for weeks in an airport transit zone, announced that he had accepted asylum offers from Venezuela, Bolivia, Nicaragua, and Ecuador. He also announced that he had requested temporary asylum in Russia in order to facilitate passage to Latin America, which the US government has relentlessly blocked. (See full remarks.)

But today Putin appeared to be saying that Russia wanted Snowden out.

(He also appeared to argue against that.)

I'm getting really tired of the people who can't focus on Ed Snowden.  They can't support him, they can't realize he was trying to help all of us.

If you're not interested in Ed Snowden and you're on the left, it feels like, to me, you're not interested in saving yourself.

Okay, Third.  Dallas and the following worked on the latest edition:


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),
Mike of Mikey Likes It!,
Elaine of Like Maria Said Paz),
Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix,
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 the following:

We could have done two but went with one because we were sick of the edition.
Jim still hasn't written it.

Three editorial fell through.  C.I. brought this topic over -- we all loved the topic -- and we wrote it quickly.

Ava and C.I. did a good job with their media coverage as usual.  A great job, in fact.
This was the only short story that benefitted from added input.  At one point, this wasn't even about a pet store.  This went through 10 rewrites.  

A poem.  I like this.  
This was a piece that went through too many drafts and was saved by having most of it stripped out.  
This is really C.I. -- with a few changes from the rest of us.  She's explaining that the summer editions are over and why.  It's too difficult to write fiction with this many people.  I would agree with that and the constant drafts issue.  This really was a rough edition and when C.I. came back with this (she extracted it from a piece at her site -- she didn't publish is there), we all felt like, "yes, please, end it all."

Another poem.
A repost from Workers World.
And a look at the week's best.  That's what we came up with.


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


Monday, July 15, 2013.  Chaos and violence continue, a mosque is targeted with a suicide bomber, NSA whistle-blower Ed Snowden remains in Russia, Bradley Manning's defense argues with the prosecution, and more.

Friday, NSA whistle-blower Ed Snowden addressed the world and met with representatives from various human rights groups.  While he continues to seek sanctuary, he remains in Russia.  BBC News reports, "The US authorities have in effect trapped fugitive intelligence leaker Edward Snowden in Russia, President Vladimir Putin has said."  RT notes:

The president stressed that the US basically trapped ex-CIA employee Snowden in Russia while he was in transit to other countries.
"He arrived on our territory without an invitation, he was not flying to us - he was flying in transit to other countries. But as soon as he got in the air it became known, and our American partners, in fact, blocked his further flight," Putin said, meaning that the US government revoked Snowden’s passport shortly after he arrived at Moscow Sheremetyevo Airport. 

"They scared other countries. No one wants to accept him,” he added. 
When asked about what was next for Snowden, Putin replied: “How should I know? That’s his life, his fate.” 


Reuters quotes Putin stating, "As soon as there is an opportunity for him to move elsewhere, I hope he will do that. The conditions for granting political asylum are known to him. And judging by his latest actions, he is shifting his position. But the situation has not been clarified yet."  RIA Novosti adds:



On Monday, Putin added that Russia would not give permanent asylum to Snowden because he refused to stop a “fight for human rights” that may strain Moscow’s ties with Washington.
The Russian leader cited Snowden as saying, “I want my work to go on. I want to fight for human rights. I think the US is breaking certain legal standards, international [rules], and is intruding into private lives. My aim for now is to fight it.”
But, according to Putin, the Russian side replied, ‘Go on without is, we have [other] things to fight for.’”
At the time, more than 100 teams of U.S. analysts were scouring Iraq for snippets of electronic data that might lead to the bomb-makers and their hidden factories. But the NSA director, Gen. Keith B. Alexander, wanted more than mere snippets. He wanted everything: Every Iraqi text message, phone call and e-mail that could be vacuumed up by the agency’s powerful computers.


The spying scandal Ed Snowden blew the whistle on, has Iraq roots.  Today Glenn Greenwald (Guardian) notes "The Washington Post this morning has a long profile of Gen. Keith Alexander, director the NSA, and it highlights the crux - the heart and soul - of the NSA stories, the reason Edward Snowden sacrificed his liberty to come forward, and the obvious focal point for any responsible or half-way serious journalists covering this story."  The article by Ellen Nakashima and Joby Warrick is about a program developed by Alexander in Iraq:


At the time, more than 100 teams of U.S. analysts were scouring Iraq for snippets of electronic data that might lead to the bomb-makers and their hidden factories. But the NSA director, Gen. Keith B. Alexander, wanted more than mere snippets. He wanted everything: Every Iraqi text message, phone call and e-mail that could be vacuumed up by the agency’s powerful computers.
“Rather than look for a single needle in the haystack, his approach was, ‘Let’s collect the whole haystack,’ ” said one former senior U.S. intelligence official who tracked the plan’s implementation. “Collect it all, tag it, store it. . . . And whatever it is you want, you go searching for it.”


At Salon, Marcy Wheeler offers a critique of the Post's report:


But the headline and the first paragraphs overstate the degree to which the story is about terrorism (even assuming every Iraqi targeting US troops in 2006 was a terrorist rather than a counter-occupation force). As it notes, Alexander’s urge to “collect it all” also stems from his mandate to protect against cyberattacks and—in his other role as the head of Cybercommand—to conduct offensive attacks such as the StuxNet sabotage of Iran’s nuclear centrifuge program.
Indeed, much later the story reveals a meeting where Alexander proposed having NSA operate on banks’ networks and in their databases in search of malware that might compromise their systems. What may have once been about protecting American service members in Iraq has become an imperative to protect private companies’ property at the expense of their customers’ privacy (and taxpayer dollars). “Wow. That’s kind of wild,” one of the executives present at the meeting described the financial executives’ response to the Post.
Moreover, the Post does not prove Alexander’s maximal approach worked.



It obviously did not work.  Violence actually increased after the program was implemented and the notion that the Post and Marcy Wheeler present is also wrong.  The program was not about protecting American troops, it was about lowering violence in Iraq.  The US forces were in charge of Iraq at that time, that was their mission, to provide stability.  This program was supposed to assist the US military in their mission just as much as it was supposed to provide protection for the US troops.  The program was an utter failure.  2006 and 2007 would be the most violent years in Iraq. 


Today, Iraq is repeatedly slammed with violence.  It's gone back to 2008 levels. This evening, Alsumaria reports, a suicide bomber targeted a Musayyib mosque leaving 5 people dead and 13 injured.  Attacks on any house of worship is shocking. But so much violence is taking place these days, very little of it registers individually and reports tend to focus more on the numbers and less on specific incidents.  For example,  Xinhua notes that "the death toll over the past four days to more than 160."  Prensa Latina offers, "Attacks in the first two weeks of July in Iraq have taken the lives of more than 370 people, bringing this year death toll to 2,600 so far." Iraq Body Count counts 437 violent deaths for the month so far through Sunday.  Michael Bassin (Times of Israel) explains, "The past three months have been particularly tragic for this splintered nation, during which 2,500 have been killed, including 150 in the past four days alone. According to the London-based daily Al-Quds Al-Arabi, the United Nations warns that the country may slide into full-fledged civil war before the end of the month." Linda Gradstein (National Post) speaks with the International Crisis Group's Maria Fantappie:



“The Iraqi government is increasingly relying on the security forces to maintain control over the country,” said Maria Fantappie who studies Iraq for the International Crisis Group and lives in Baghdad.
“The Sunni population within Iraq does not feel represented within the Baghdad central government.”
Ms. Fantiappe said a reliable census has never been done, but estimates are that between 20 and 40 percent of the population are Sunni. While Prime Minister Nour al-Maliki is a Shiite, Parliament Speaker Osama Al-Nujaifi is a Sunni, and Maliki’s deputy, Roj Nuri Shawis, is Kurdish. About 17 percent of the population are Kurdish, and are fighting for a separate state in northern Iraq.
“There are more and more fears of the return of the sectarian violence because attacks have targeted both Sunnis and Shiites,” Ms. Fantiappe said. “On the social level, there is more and more mistrust among the different communities.”


On the violence, NINA reports "an anti-terrorism official" was shot dead in Baghdad, an oil engineer was kidnapped in Kirkuk, a Tuz  Khurmatu bombing left nine people injured, a Mosul bombing claimed the life of 1 police officer and left a civilian injured, a Falluja bombing left three Iraqi soldiers injured,  a Mosul roadside bombing left 1 Iraqi soldier and 1 police officer injured, a Mosul suicide bombing saw the bomber take his own life and that of 1 Iraqi soldier and 1 Iraqi civilian while injuring six other people, a Tikrit mortar attack claimed 7 lives and left fifteen injured, a bombing to the west of Kirkuk claimed 2 lives and left four injured, and an "anti-terrorism officer" was shot dead in Baghdad. At least some of the victims of the Tikrit attack were present to swim in the river, Mu Xuequan (Xinhua) explains and notes, "Young men used to swim at the bank of the river in the afternoon to escape the summer temperatures which usually soar to almost 50 degrees Celsius in Iraq."  AP also notes the victims were "trying to escape the blistering summer heat by swimming."

"Editorial: The land with no protection" that is Iraq, if you're not a government official or someone fortunate enough to have your own security team:



It's 2013.  Nouri has been prime minister since 2006.
Where's the security.
And where are the heads of the security ministries?
In July 2012, Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) observed, "Shiite Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki has struggled to forge a lasting power-sharing agreement and has yet to fill key Cabinet positions, including the ministers of defense, interior and national security, while his backers have also shown signs of wobbling support."   Those ministries still have no ministers over them.  Nouri should have nominated people for the posts back in November 2010.  He didn't.  All this time later, he hasn't.  This not only spits on the Iraqi Constitution and sets a very bad precedent for future prime ministers, it does have to do with the increased violence in Iraq.
The average Iraqi has no bodyguard.  Even sadder, they have no functioning security.




Moving over to whistle-blower Bradley Manning, Monday April 5, 2010, WikiLeaks released  military video of a July 12, 2007 assault in Iraq. 12 people were killed in the assault including two Reuters journalists Namie Noor-Eldeen and Saeed Chmagh. Monday June 7, 2010, the US military announced that they had arrested Bradley Manning and he stood accused of being the leaker of the video. Leila Fadel (Washington Post) reported in August 2010 that Manning had been charged -- "two charges under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The first encompasses four counts of violating Army regulations by transferring classified information to his personal computer between November and May and adding unauthorized software to a classified computer system. The second comprises eight counts of violating federal laws governing the handling of classified information." In March, 2011, David S. Cloud (Los Angeles Times) reported that the military has added 22 additional counts to the charges including one that could be seen as "aiding the enemy" which could result in the death penalty if convicted. The Article 32 hearing took place in December. At the start of this year, there was an Article 32 hearing and, February 3rd, it was announced that the government would be moving forward with a court-martial. Bradley has yet to enter a plea. The court-martial was supposed to begin before the November 2012 election but it was postponed until after the election so that Barack wouldn't have to run on a record of his actual actions.  Independent.ie adds, "A court martial is set to be held in June at Ford Meade in Maryland, with supporters treating him as a hero, but opponents describing him as a traitor."  February 28th, Bradley admitted he leaked to WikiLeaks.  And why.


Bradley Manning:   In attempting to conduct counter-terrorism or CT and counter-insurgency COIN operations we became obsessed with capturing and killing human targets on lists and not being suspicious of and avoiding cooperation with our Host Nation partners, and ignoring the second and third order effects of accomplishing short-term goals and missions. I believe that if the general public, especially the American public, had access to the information contained within the CIDNE-I and CIDNE-A tables this could spark a domestic debate on the role of the military and our foreign policy in general as [missed word] as it related to Iraq and Afghanistan.
I also believed the detailed analysis of the data over a long period of time by different sectors of society might cause society to reevaluate the need or even the desire to even to engage in counterterrorism and counterinsurgency operations that ignore the complex dynamics of the people living in the effected environment everyday.


Think about all the people who knew -- in government and in the press -- about what Bradley exposed -- only they knew it years before and didn't feel the need to whistle-blow or report it.
Only Brad had the guts and concern to go public.  Think about all the people who have refused to call out counterinsurgency and how Brad stood up.  The Nation magazine has spent year avoiding the topic (Tom Hayden's article was an exception and speaks well of Tom, not of The Nation).  What was too much for the left institutions wasn't too much for Brad.   He took time to care and time to do something. 


On this week's Law and Disorder Radio,  an hour long program that airs Monday mornings at 9:00 a.m. EST on WBAI and around the country throughout the week, hosted by attorneys Heidi Boghosian, Michael S. Smith and Michael Ratner (Center for Constitutional Rights) topics addressed include Bradley Manning, Guantanamo and much more.  We'll note Brad.


Michael Ratner:  A last short update, really more of a reminder, a reminder of the trial of Bradley Manning whistle-blower, who by his own admission uploaded documents to WikiLeaks -- some 700,000 documents -- continues on trial at Fort Meade in Maryland.  We are now in the defense phase and I think it's going well.  That doesn't mean Bradley Manning will be aquitted but it means the government's case has many holes in it.  And I'll give just one example, there was this claim in the case that Osama bin Laden had on his computer or made a request for documents from WikiLeaks.  And that request and those documents are the basis for the government charging that Bradley Manning, through the medium of essentially a journalist WikiLeaks furnished documents that were then read by al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden.  That's the case for aiding the enemy, the most serious charge.  What just came out in court, is that bin Laden had actually not looked at or requested any WikiLeaks documents until Secretary of Defense [Robert] Gates publicly announced that WikiLeaks was aiding the enemy.  Apparently after Osama bin Laden saw that, that the Secretary of Defense felt that there was something that WikiLeaks was doing to help the enemy in some way, he then requested the WikiLeaks documents which, of course, led to Bradley Manning.  So that whole charge looks like a lot of smoke and mirrors.  Except who knows what the judge will do with it, it's a judge trial.  I expect the trial to go on a couple of more weeks.  Assuming there's -- I'm not going to assume anything.  But if there is a conviction on counts, they go right to the penalty phase where witnesses are brought in on Bradley Manning's character, etc.  So watch it carefully the next few weeks, look at the various writers who write on it and, in particular, if you can, if you're on the east coast, get yourself to that trial in Fort Meade.  People need to show their support for Bradley Manning.  Do it, it's not the easiest trip, but get there.  It's near the Baltimore airport, BWI, get to the trial of Bradley Manning.


Wednesday, July 10th, the defense rested in Brad's court-martial. (The segment Ratner was doing was likely taped the morning of the 10th, FYI.)   From that day's snapshot:



As for today,   Xeni Jardin (BoingBoing) reports:



Manning has not, did not, and today told the court he will not testify in his court martial.
The defense rested its case today after having called a total of ten witnesses in the trial. The last was Yochai Benkler, a Harvard professor who is the author a widely-cited paper on the role WikiLeaks plays in what he terms "the networked fourth estate." In his testimony for the defense today, he described Wikileaks as having played a legitimate role in a new world of journalism; he argued that the government's characterization of the group as an Anti-American espionage front was inaccurate."   



Adam Klasfeld (Courthouse News)  explains, "The last witness to testify for the defense, Benkler is considered an academic authority in the evolution of media in the age of the Internet, and the most widely cited scholar on WikiLeaks."  Ian Simpson (Reuters) adds of Benkler's testimony:

 WikiLeaks is "a clear distinct component of what in the history of journalism we see as high points, where journalists are able to come in and say, 'Here's a system operating in a way that is obscure to the public and now we're able to shine the light,'" said Benkler, the co-director of the Berkman Center for Internet and Society.




Brad Knickerbocker (Christian Science Monitor) observes, "The essence of Pfc. Bradley Manning’s defense in his military court martial is that, yes, he released a trove of classified data to the controversial whistle-blower organization WikiLeaks, but that information did not seriously harm US national security – and it certainly did not aid the enemy in the war on terrorism."  RT notes, "The soldier’s court-martial is now recessed until next week, at which point government prosecutors plan to offer a rebuttal. Col. Denise Lind, the presiding military judge in the case, also is expected to weigh in next week on the defense’s recent request that the government acquit Pfc.
Manning on four of the more than 20 counts he has been charged with, including aiding the enemy."


 Xeni Jardin (BoingBoing) reported this morning:
 

Court will be called into session at 3pm ET. After the judge, Col. Denise Lind, rules on the possibility of a government rebuttal to the defense's case, we can expect motions to dismiss and closing arguments to be presented. Then Judge Lind will deliberate for an unknown period of hours or days. Then, a verdict, to be followed by a sentencing phase.
I traveled to the trial last week, and blogged about it here.

Offering further on this topic (which is what Michael Ratner was addressing on Law & Disorder), David T. Cook (Christian Science Monitor) reports that the prosecution and the defense argued before the judge regarding what charges should be dropped (defense) and which should be kept (prosecution), "The defense team, which rested its case last week, also argues that some of the information Manning leaked was already publicly available. In its new motion, the defense contends that the prosecution has not presented incriminating evidence on the seven charges, and therefore Manning should be acquitted."  On the issue of charges,  Amnesty International issued the following Friday:

The U.S. government should immediately drop the most serious charges against Pvt. Bradley Manning, Amnesty International said today after the conclusion of all testimony in the case.
“We’ve now seen the evidence presented by both sides, and it’s abundantly clear that the charge of ‘aiding the enemy’ has no basis.  The government should withdraw that charge,” said Widney Brown senior director for international law and policy at Amnesty International.
Manning’s lawyers asked the judge to dismiss these and other charges in a motion filed over the weekend.
“The prosecution should also take a long, hard look at its entire case and move to drop all other charges that aren’t supported by the evidence presented,” said Widney Brown.
Last week, prosecutors withdrew a charge that Manning had leaked intelligence to a “classified enemy”.
To prove the charge that Manning has “aided the enemy,” the U.S. government has to establish that he gave potentially damaging intelligence information to an enemy, and that he did so knowingly, with what presiding judge Col. Denise Lind called “a general evil intent”.
The prosecution has struggled throughout the trial to make a convincing case for this charge. Its own witnesses repeatedly told the court that they found no evidence that Manning was sympathetic towards al Qaeda or other terrorist groups, that he had never expressed disloyalty to his country, that they had no evidence that he had ties to any government other than his own, and that they had no reason to believe he had ever collected money for the information he disclosed.
Instead, government witnesses testified, for example, that Manning was involved in the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender community and is on “on the extreme Democratic side” in political terms.
“The government’s case for ‘aiding the enemy’ is ludicrous, and that’s not surprising,” said Widney Brown. “What’s surprising is that the prosecutors in this case, who have a duty to act in the interest of justice, have pushed a theory that making information available on the internet -- whether through Wikileaks, in a personal blog posting, or on the website of The New York Times -- can amount to ‘aiding the enemy.’”
In fact, at times it appeared that the prosecutors were putting Wikileaks, rather than Manning, on trial.  The charges against Manning do not include conspiracy with Wikileaks or any other actor, so the relevance of this aspect of the prosecution’s case was not clear.
The government faced challenges in proving lesser charges as well. He’s charged, among other offences, with the use of unauthorised software and other alleged violations of similar operating procedures. But one special agent testifying for the prosecution told the court that at least one of the programmes Manning was accused of illegally adding to his computer was in fact used by everyone in Manning’s intelligence cell. Other software used by Manning was not expressly prohibited by commanders, the court heard.


Ron Jacobs (CounterPunch) has a piece on the peace movement's slow death in the US:


First and foremost, the closeness of some members of the larger coalition, UFPJ, to the Democratic Party essentially insured that anti-imperialist elements within the antiwar movement would ultimately be marginalized. Although ANSWER’s analysis was (and is) more consistently anti-imperialist, it has its own problems, especially in its appeal to many in the antiwar left and its tendency to avoid talking about the excesses of authoritarian leaders like Saddam Hussein. In my opinion, it is virtually impossible to oppose the machinery of US imperialism without an anti-imperialist understanding of the US role in the world. Any other approach limits the success and the goals of any antiwar movement. This is exactly what happened. The presence of the Democratic Party in the antiwar movement and its ability to siphon off so many activists into various politician and single-issue campaigns pretty much guaranteed the election of a Democrat in 2008; a Democrat who would tone down the US wars while maintaining Washington’s quest for world domination.
Another manifestation of the drawbacks in being so closely aligned with a major political party (Democrats) is that once that party is in power, any movement associated with it is almost certain to fizzle out. As Debra Sweet of World Can’t Wait wrote in an email, “The crowning blow to the mass movement against the wars was that the Bush regime was driven out — by a mass movement created from the top to support a president whose mission was to save the system, restore US credibility internationally, speak the language of multiculturalism, while essentially carrying out the program of empire as commander in chief.” Barack Obama is the current face of this charade.
From the moment the US invaded Afghanistan, the opposition to that action has been muted. Besides the anti-imperialists of the left and right most people in the US have at the least, tacitly supported the endeavor. Once again, the fact that it was not opposed by most of the US antiwar movement until late in the game is evidence of where the lack of an anti-imperialist understanding can lead. The US presence in Afghanistan, beginning at the very latest in the 1970s with US support of the anti-Soviet mujahedin, was never about freedom for the Afghan people or about capturing Osama bin Laden. It was always about extending the US presence into the region. So is the ongoing support for the regimes in Pakistan, no matter how repressive and anti-democratic they may be.









 





 law and disorder radio
michael s. smith
heidi boghosian
michael ratner