Ben Lando, Kenneth J. Theisen, drone crashes

Tuesday! Almost the weekend! :D I can't wait. But I'll settle for some sushi and be pleased with that. :D

Ben Lando (Iraq Oil Report) explains, "The four interrelated draft bills aimed at modernizing Iraq’s oil sector will likely continue their three-year limbo until after the January national elections, when a new government is formed and a new Parliament seated. The laws could end rancor between parties and allow for both short-term cash and long-term strategic development of Iraq’s only cash crop." That goes with what C.I. and Kat reported last week on the Congressional hearings they attended where Chris Hill, US Ambassador to Iraq told the House and Senate Foreign Relations Committees that there would be no movment on the draft oil laws until after the January elections -- C.I.'s reporting here and here and Kat's here. Lando outlines the draft laws in great detail.

Today the shoe thrower was released from jail. There's got to be some symetry in that happening on the day that Dems wasted the country's time (and tax payer money) in the House to vote to condemn US House Rep Joe Wilson for yelling "You lie!" during Barry O's bad speech. Richard Kerbaj (Times of London) reports, "Muntazer al-Zaidi -- who had a front tooth knocked out and his nose broken during his nine months in prison -- also said that he would name senior Iraqi government officials whom he accused of having a hand in his torture. " And that's it for me on the subject. C.I. covers it in the snapshot (which I repost at the end) and covers it at length. But click here for Peter Nicholls explaining a photo he took in Baghdad April 8, 2003. Times of London says this will be a weekly feature for them, hope so because it is interesting.

A predator crashed in Iraq today. That's a drone. The US Air Force says:

An Air Force MQ-1 Predator unmanned aircraft crashed in central Iraq at approximately 12:45 p.m. Baghdad time on Sept.14. The crash was not due to hostile fire. The crash site has been secured and there were no reports of civilian injuries or damage to civilian property. The aircraft is a medium-altitude, long-endurance, remotely-piloted aircraft. The MQ-1's primary mission is conducting armed reconnaissance. A board will be convened to investigate the incident.

C.I. just called to pass that on. (Thank you, C.I.!!!) Okay, this is from Kenneth J. Theisen's "Kangaroo Justice at Bagram:"

Most Americans have heard about the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo. But few are aware of a similar prison in Afghanistan at the Bagram military base. Detainees there have been captured or kidnapped by the U.S. from all over the world. Shortly after he took office, Obama announced that he would close Guantanamo (he has not yet done so). But instead of closing Bagram, he asked Congress for more money to expand its capacity to hold prisoners of the U.S. war of terror. His Department of Justice even went to court to fight the right of Bagram prisoners to challenge their detentions in a U.S. court earlier this year.
On Monday the Department of Defense announced that some 600 prisoners held in Bagram would have the right to challenge their detention. Is this a step forward or merely smoke and mirrors to pretend that the prisoners are being given their basic legal rights, while really denying them these rights?
Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman told reporters, “It's basically a review procedure that ensures people go in front of a panel periodically to give them the opportunity to contest their detention. It's something that we had used in Iraq to help us manage the detainee population and ultimately reduce the detainee population by ensuring that we are only holding those that are the most dangerous threats." According to Whitman the inmates would be “aided” by a uniformed "personal representative" who would "guide them through this administrative process, to help gather witness statements."
But these representatives would not be lawyers and they work for the military, not the prisoners. This is nothing more than a kangaroo procedure. In the early days of military commissions and tribunals at Gitmo a similar useless procedure was followed. Detainees were given the illusion of justice, while being held for years.

More kangaroo courts, more mock justice. Nothing changed. We're living in the third term of George W. Bush. Here's C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"

Tuesday, September 15, 2009. Chaos and violence continue, a journalist is released from prison and says he was tortured in a Baghdad press conference, Alice Fordham reports on Iraqi prison conditions, US Vice President Joe Biden makes a sneak visit to Iraq, Nouri goes "on a charm offensive," and more.

Iraqi journalist Muntadhar al-Zeidi (also spelled Muntadar al-Zaidi in some outlets) has been released from pison today in Baghdad. December 14th, Bully Boy Bush (still occupying the White House at that time) held a press conference in Baghdad with Nouri al-Maliki, prime minister and US-installed thug, where they lied and smiled and signed the treaties Bush pushed through (Strategic Framework Agreement and the treaty masquerading as a Status Of Forces Agreement.). Muntadhar was a journalist attending the press conference."This is a gift from the Iraqis. This is the farewell kiss you dog!" Muntadhar exclaimed hurling a shoe at Bush. And then, hurling a second shoe, "This is from the widows, the orphans and those who were killed in Iraq." Nouri's thugs pounced on Muntadhar and beat him up. He was then whisked away and, for weeks, denied all but one visitation with his family and attorney. In December, many in the press (including the New York Times) ran with a forced confession, presenting it as truth and asking no questions about it. He was sentenced to three years in prison but released today. ITV News (video clip) covers the release here. Alice Fordham and Richard Spencer (Telegraph of London) explain, "The three-year jail term for assaulting a foreign head of state was reduced on appeal to one year, with a three-month remission for good conduct." Martin Chulov (Guardian) states the release "was met with muted celebration in Baghdad but rapturous applause in some corners of the Arab world, where the 30-year-old television journalist is feted as a David and Goliath figure for his act of defiance." BBC describes the scene at al Baghdadiya TV (where Muntadhar works): "Arriving at the al Baghdadiya compound, a trumpeter and two drummers sounded a welcome for Mr Zaidi - and in his honour, three sheep were slaughtered live on his own channel." Richard Spencer (Telegraph of London) adds a list of gifts being offered to the reporter such as, "The Emir of Qatar has offered a godlen statue of a horse."

BBC News reports Muntadhar stated today he was tortured: "Shortly after his release from nine months in a Baghdad prison, Muntadar al-Zaidi demanded an apology - and said he would name the officials later." Ned Parker and Mohammed Arrawi (Los Angeles Times) quote him stating today, ""Here I am free and the country is still a prisoner." Marc Santora (New York Times) adds, "He claimed that he was beaten with pipes, steel cables and electric shocks while in custody. He added that he believed there were many who would like to see him dead, including unnamed American intelligence agencies." Ahmeed Rasheed, Suadad al-Salhy, Khalid al-Ansary, Tim Cocks and Samia Nakhoul (Reuters) quote his bother Uday stating, "I wish Bush could see our happineess. When President Bush looks back and turns the pages of his life, he will see the shoes of Muntazer al-Zaidi on every page." Phillippe Naughton and Richard Kerbaj (Times of London) describe the reporter, "Sporting a thick beard and wearing a sash in the colours of the Iraqi national flag around his shoulders, Mr al-Zaidi was unrepentant after his release from jail after serving nine months of a one-year sentence." McClatchy Newspapers' Sahar Issa provides a full translation of Muntadhar's remarks and this is an excerpt:

Firstly, I give my thanks and my regards to everyone who stood beside me, whether inside my country, in the Islamic world, in the free world. There has been a lot of talk about the action and about the person who took it, and about the hero and the heroic act, and the symbol and the symbolic act. But, simply, I answer: What compelled me to confront is the injustice that befell my people, and how the occupation wanted to humiliate my homeland by putting it under its boot.
And how it wanted to crush the skulls of (the homeland's) sons under its boots, whether sheikhs, women, children or men. And during the past few years, more than a million martyrs fell by the bullets of the occupation and the country is now filled with more than 5 million orphans, a million widows and hundreds of thousands of maimed. And many millions of homeless because of displacement inside and outside the country.
We used to be a nation in which the Arab would share with the Turkman and the Kurd and the Assyrian and the Sabean and the Yazid his daily bread. And the Shiite would pray with the Sunni in one line. And the Muslim would celebrate with the Christian the birthday of Christ, may peace be upon him. And despite the fact that we shared hunger under sanctions for more than 10 years, for more than a decade.
Our patience and our solidarity did not make us forget the oppression. Until we were invaded by the illusion of liberation that some had. (The occupation) divided one brother from another, one neighbor from another, and the son from his uncle. It turned our homes into neverending funeral tents. And our graveyards spread into parks and roadsides. It is a plague. It is the occupation that is killing us, that is violating the houses of worship and the sanctity of our homes and that is throwing thousands daily into makeshift prisons.
I am not a hero, and I admit that. But I have a point of view and I have a stance. It humiliated me to see my country humiliated. And to see my Baghdad burned. And my people being killed. Thousands of tragic pictures remained in my head, and this weighs on me every day and pushes me toward the righteous path, the path of confrontation, the path of rejecting injustice, deceit and duplicity. It deprived me of a good night's sleep.
Dozens, no, hundreds, of images of massacres that would turn the hair of a newborn white used to bring tears to my eyes and wound me. The scandal of Abu Ghraib. The massacre of Fallujah, Najaf, Haditha, Sadr City, Basra, Diyala, Mosul, Tal Afar, and every inch of our wounded land. In the past years, I traveled through my burning land and saw with my own eyes the pain of the victims, and hear with my own ears the screams of the bereaved and the orphans. And a feeling of shame haunted me like an ugly name because I was powerless.

Again, that is an excerpt. A small one. He outlines many things in speech including the torture he says he experienced. McClatchy's Hannah Allam notes he states "Iraqi guards tortured him with whippings and electric shocks during his nine-month detention. He was missing at least one front tooth. The focus of Zaidi's speech Tuesday wasn't on his own ordeal, however, but the death and destruction that Iraqis have experienced since the U.S.-led invasion of 2003." CNN reports (link has text and video) he's now heading to Greece, citing his brother Dhirgham al-Zaidi, "for medical treatment."

His claims of torture are not surprising and Iraq's prisons were the subject of a report on Sunday by Alice Fordham (writing for the Christian Science Monitor):

In a room thick with heat and sweat, light from a small window falls on rows of squatting prisoners and plastic bags of belongings hung from nails on every inch of the wall. The guard explains that 74 men live in this room, which is roughly 10 by 20 feet. A further 85 are usually in the corridor, he adds, while 12 are kept next to the toilet.
This is Hibhib prison on the outskirts of Baquba, the dusty, volatile capital of Diyala Province roughly 40 miles from Baghdad.
It is just one of the prisons in the province where detainees and US forces allege overcrowding, lengthy pretrial detention, and torture used to extract confessions. While the conditions here may be more severe than elsewhere in the country, Iraq's national detention system as a whole has been harshly criticized by Western human rights organizations.
A December 2008 report by the New York-based watchdog Human Rights Watch (HRW) went as far as to assert a "disturbing continuity" with Saddam Hussein-era detention. A committee set up by the Iraqi government in June is investigating abuses. But a lack of accountability and political will, say human rights workers, are serious impediments to reversing the culture of abuse cultivated under Mr. Hussein.

US Vice President Joe Biden is in Iraq. He landed there today on an unannounced visit. Scott Wilson (Washington Post) reports of his landing, "As he emerged from his C-17 aircraft into a hot dusk about 4:50 p.m. local time, the vice president was greeted by Gen. Ray Odierno, the top U.S. commander in Iraq; U.S. Ambassador Christopher Hill; and Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari. Biden's national security adviser, Tony Blinken, and deputy secretary of State Jim Steinberg followed him through the welcome line." Karen Travers (ABC News) reports he stated he believes a referendum on the Status Of Forces Agreement will take place at some point. Edwin Chen (Bloomberg News) quotes his use of "optimistic" to describe US military leaders on Iraqi security forces abilities to increase security functions in their country and notes the top military commander in Iraq, Gen Ray Odierno, used the term "stable" to describe security in Iraq. Really? Too bad the news cycle already had an Odierno injection today. He'd just spoken to BBC News before the visit and painted a far bleaker picture: "It's important to see this through. I concern myself that people don't forget about Iraq, and what we're trying to accomplish here [. . .]" BBC: "BBC correspondent Andrew North says that Gen Odierno was choosing his words with care. But he was giving a clear message, that with the situation still fragile here, the US cannot leave Iraq early."

Karen Travers ABC news report is text but it does have video of Biden speaking in Iraq to reporters including when he declares, "I've made -- this is my third trip since we've been elected. The second trip since we've been sworn in and I'll be back -- I'll be back again. And, uh, I'm coming back to speak with the Iraq leadership." Iraqi leadership? In last Tuesday's snapshot, The Economist editorial entitled "Iraq's freedoms under threat: Could a police state return" was noted:

In any event, Mr Maliki and his friends are trying to secure as much control as they can over the levers of power in the run-up to a general election in January, all the more feverishly since a rash of big bombings in Baghdad in the past two months has badly dented his reputation as a guarantor of public safety. His government is also seeking to tighten rules to regulate political parties and independent associations (including charities), causing still more alarm. "This is not how you build a democracy," says Maysoon al-Damluji, a liberal member of parliament.

Chris Floyd (Empire Burlesque) weighs in on the editorial and notes a 2008 piece he wrote:

The 2008 post goes on to detail just some of the vast amount of information, readily available in mainstream newspapers and magazines, about the American use of death squads and "paramilitaries" to carry out "extrajudicial killings" of people accused -- by someone, somewhere, for some reason or no reason at all -- of being "terrorists" or "insurgents," or "bad guys," to use the playground parlance so favored by our high priests and their media acolytes. These killings, these "dirty squads," have been part of the occupation of Iraq since the beginning, as has the systematic use of torture and the unlawful detention of innocent people. That al-Maliki is carrying on the practices and policies of those who put him into power should come as no surprise -- not even to the Economist.



Last Thursday, Oliver August (Times of London) reported, "The Iraqi opposition accused Nouri al-Maliki, the Prime Minister, yesterday of purging the American-trained security apparatus so that he could attain quasi-dictatorial powers. Mr al-Maliki, who is facing a tough election battle, has dismissed three high-profile members of the Ministry of Interior, which oversees the fight against insurgent groups. He has also forced the resignation of the head of the intelligence service and replaced several police and army commanders in the last few weeks. The moves provoked outrage among political opponents, who worry about the rise of a new police state and accuse the Prime Minister of using the aftermath of last month's massive bomb attack in Baghdad to make a power grab." Gina Chon (Wall St. Journal) reports today that Nouri's "embarked on a charm offensive agmong Shiites in the south of the country, a crucial but fickle electorate, in his bid to hold on to power in Iraq's January parliamentary vote." The voters he is hoping to woo complain about public services including the water -- or lack of -- which lead Nouri to promise a multi-million dollar project that will provide Basra with potable water. Suddenly, that's an issue. It's funny how when Nouri hits the campaign trail he appears to 'discover' that not everyone lives in the lap of luxury he does.

On Al Jazeera's latest Inside Iraq (which began airing Friday night), the topic was the political situation in Iraq with an emphasis on what the death of Abdel Aziz al-Hakim may mean. Joining host Jassim Azzawi for the discussion were Iraqi Parliamentarians Kassim Daoud and Adnan Pachachi along with National Dialogue Front leader Saleh al-Mutlaq.

Jassim Azzawi: And now we are joined from Dubai by Kassim Daoud, the leader of the Solidarity Bloc, and from Baghdad Saleh al-Mutlaq, leader of the National Dialogue Front in Iraq and from London by Iraq's elder statesman Adnan Pachachi who is also a member of Iraq's Parliament. Gentlemen, welcome to Inside Iraq. Kassim, let me start with you. al-Maliki has refused to join the new bloc that has been created and you are a member of that bloc, the Iraqi National Alliance primarily because of the presence of Ibrahim al-Jaafari and perhaps because of Moqtada al-Sadr. Can Maliki win without your bloc?

Kassim Daoud: Well that's a very difficult question. I mean it's premature to answer the question like this to comment that the Alliance, actually, is still open to everybody. We announced it as a bloc which has to be the foundation for the national mandate or the national enterprise. We cannot say that Maliki didn't join us so far, the negotiation is still going on.

Jassim Azzawi: Kassim Daoud, it seems to me that his answer is final. He wanted to be the sole candidate to run for the premiership as well as he wanted a limitation on to Ibrahim al-Jaafari and Moqtada al-Sadr blocked. That has become amply clear.

Kassim Daoud: Well the problem before you is clear but for me since I'm an insider, actually, I'm not looking at the situation as it is. The guy having sort of a political mandate, he would like to pursue with his mandate. The Alliance would like to -- their own mandate so I cannot say the negotiation terminated. I think still we have room although the room is probably slim but I think that we cannot give such a sharp answer till we have to wait for probably too more weeks.

Jassim Azzawi: Slim indeed it is. Adnan Pachachi, as politicians with your finger on the pulse of the Iraqi body politics, how much distrust is there among the political parties?

Adnan Pachachi: Well we feel that the present government has not done its duty properly. We still have corruption, the security situation is still very fragile, incompetence in many departments of state is very clear and, of course, sectarianism still plays a very important role. And the security forces have been heavily infiltrated and they don't seem able to manage the affairs of security of the country. As you know, I personally, and many others -- from the very beginning -- of the invasion of Iraq, we were against sectarianism as a basis for political activity and that's why I joined the National Iraqis' list which has no sectarian color, which includes the people from various sects and nationalities and we feel that this is what the Iraqi people want. As it was very clear in the provincial elections some months ago.

Jassim Azzawi: Since you mentioned the Iraqi National List which is headed by the former Iraqi Prime Minister, Iyad Allawi, who if I am not mistaken, Saleh Mutlaq, you are right now in negotiations with him as well as a few other parties to create a balancing power against this Iraqi National Alliance. Can you tell us how far have you gone with this negotiation? Can we expect an announcement soon?

Saleh al-Mutlaq: Well with Dr. Allawi, we are very new to each other. We have been negotiating with each other for quite a long time and we don't see that big difference is between us actually so the possibility of having an alliance between us, which gather us, is quite high and it's probably going to be after the 8th that we're going to announce something. Anyway, we think, Mr. Jassim, there are about seventy percent of Iraqis who did not participate in the election before. Those are the people who are against the political process or they are not satisfied with this political process and they are against the existing government and the existing parties who are running the government now. We look forward to joining those people and to encourage them to participate in the election. The problem --

Jassim Azzawi: And they want leadership, Saleh Mutlaq? I understand that you are also negotiating with three, four other parties. What we have heard from the media right now, it is a question of the leadership: Who's going to head that list and whether it's going to be a collective leadership or not?

Saleh al-Mutlaq: Well I don't think we should disagree on the leadership. I think that the image that we are trying to put is that the competition is who is going to participate in saving the country? Not in leading the country at this time -- leading the country or being the prime minister or president without doing something to Iraq which is now in a very serious situation is not going to do much. What I heard from Dr. Allawi is that he's not interested in having the power if he cannot do the change in Iraq. And this is also my belief too -- that it is not a matter of having the pulse of this government, it is a matter of saving the country which is going to fall apart unless there is a group of elite people who can lead the country to a safe place. Otherwise, this country is going to be run again by the Islamists for another four years, by extremists, by sectarian people, then the country is going to face a very serious and difficult situation which is going to be even more difficult for the people to whom are going to come after those people who are going to correct the mistakes and damage which is gong to happen if the Islamists --

Jassim Azzawi: Indeed.

Saleh al-Mutlaq: -- are going to run the country for another four years.

Jassim Azzawi: Indeed, Saleh al-Mutlaq, it's gong to be a vicious circle. Since we talked about the Islamists and the leadership, let me go back to Kassim Daoud. Right now the new alliance that has been created, Ammar [C.i. note: wrong name dropped in between] al-Hakim is going to be the new leader of that alliance. He's a young man, he's the son of Abdel Aziz al-Hakim. Surely, he does have the experience in order to carry the mantle of his father?

Kassim Daoud: Well first of all let me just say some comments on Dr. Mutlaq's statement. Unfortunately he gave a figure that 70% of the Iraqis didn't participate in the elections. I'm really surprising from where he got this percent or this data.

Saleh al-Mutlaq: This is, this is the reality. Apart from the --

Kassim Daoud: Come on, come on --

Saleh al-Mutlaq: -- that has been published --

Kassim Daoud: -- Iraq announced their statistic and the United Nations [. . .] their statistics. Nothing like this at all. The participation was in the first election around 79% and in the provincial election 54% --

Jassim Azzawi: And yet you must agree, Kassim Daoud,

Kassim Daoud: -- these things.

Jassim Azzawi: -- there was a large segment, a big swarth of the Iraqis, they were disenfranchised simply because of what they have seen up to the election of 2005 and then they

Kassim Daoud: -- this is, this is a different issue.

Jassim Azzawi: -- decided to boycott the election.

Kassim Daoud: -- is a different issue. No, no, no. This is a different issue. But what did he say really --

Saleh al-Mutlaq: I'm talking about, Mr. Jassim, I am talking about the last election --

Jassim Azzawi: The provincial election.

Saleh al-Mutlaq: -- I was on the ground in many areas, the participation was 20 to 25% only and what was published --

Kassim Daoud: This is not true. The participation 54 [percent] and this is an official figure which was supported by the representative and the monitoring of the United Nations. Anyway.

Jassim Azzawi: The percentage aside, Kassim Doud, let's- let's go back to this Islamist tinge of the National Iraqi Alliance. I'm the first to recognize that there are some secular parties, very small one, in this new National Alliance and yet the Islamist tinge, so to speak, covers everybody inside it.

Kassim Daoud: Well again, Mr. Jassim, let me correct something. Regarding to Abdel Aziz al-Hakim's son, he's Ammar al-Hakim not [C.I. note: wrong name] al-Hakim, just to correct this information. Regarding to the alliance actually, yes indeed it includes many names, many secular blocs besides the Islamist and the aim of this alliance as I mentioned at the beginning that our vision, that we would want to create or establish the foundation of the bloc or National Alliance headed or leaded by a clear political mandate and this is what I wish to get over from the sectarian or sectarianims. Plus, as Dr. Pachachi said, that we are now lookng for many things. And the philosophy of the alliance, one of these alliances, that we are not anymore governed toward the -- we are governed toward the competence.

That's an excerpt of the discussion. Richard Kerbaj (Times of London) notes that Joe Biden's trip into the Green Zone today took place as the Green Zone was shelled with mortars. CNN reports, "CNN's Cal Perry said he heard four loud 'booms.' Warning alarms were sounded, and security was stepped up". Reuters adds the Baghdad mortar attack resulted in 2 Iraqis being killed and five injured ("They fell shortly after U.S. Vice President Joe Biden flew into Iraq for talks with Iraqi leaders.").

In other reported violence today . . .

Bombings?

Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Kirkuk roadside bombing which injured two police officers and one civilian. Reuters notes a Falluja roadside bombing which left three people injured and, dropping back to Monday, a Baghdad roadside bombing which injured one person.

Stabbings?

Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 1 person stabbed to death in Kirkuk.

Shootings?

Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 1 police officer wounded in a machine gun attack outside his home. Reuters drops back to Monday to note 1 Iraqi soldier shot dead in an attack on a Mosul checkpoint.

Today, David Finkel's The Good Soldiers is released -- his book about embedding with the US military in Iraq. Ann Scott Tyson (Washington Post) reports the book "provides a graphic, second-by-second description of the U.S. military's 2007 killing of two Reuters journalists" Namir Noor-Eldeen and Saeed Chmagh in Baghdad July 12, 2007. She quotes the wire agency's attorney Thomas Kim, "We continue to have questions whether or not the actions taken by the soldiers in the area that led to the deaths of the two Reuters journalists were necessary and appropriate. My goal is to understand the basic on which the military concluded that the shooting was justified." As far back as July 16, 2007, Dean Yaters (Reuters) was reporting that the wire agency was asking for a full inquiry into the killings. At the time of their deaths, the US military was asserting that they had encountered 'insurgents' and gunfire was exchanged. Ann Scott Tyson reports Finkel's article backs up the claim that 'insurgents' were present and firefights had taken place. The cameras were apparently mistaken for weapons according to Finkel's account: The gunner tracked Noor-Eldeen as he fled into a pile of trash and fired three more bursts with the cannon, killing him as he could be seen trying to stand in a cloud of dust. Chmagh was wounded and began trying to push himself up on his knees and crawl away, but could move only a few inches. The crew saw that Chmagh was alive, but initially did not shoot him because he was unarmed. However, when a van drove up and two men tried to pick up Chmagh, the crew requested permission to fire and received it. The gunner opened fire, killing Chmagh and the two men, and injuring two children who were inside the van.

Staying with US reporters, last Friday a Democracy Now! segment with Jeremy Scahill was finally aired. (It was a taped segment.) It was Iraq-related so it wasn't 'pressing'. Too bad. On that segment, Jeremy called out Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid for his silence over the death by electrocution in Iraq of one of Reid's own constituents. Las Vegas' KTNV reports that yesterday Reid suddenly became interested in the death of Adam Hermanson and wants an investigation. We highlighted Jeremy's report in The Nation last week but if you're late to the story -- or confused because there have been so many deaths by electrocution in Iraq -- click here. Today Scahill reports at The Nation on Reid's call for an investigation and notes, "In interviews with The Nation, the Hermanson family alleged that Triple Canopy initially misled them about the circumstances surrounding Adam Hermanson's death. Patricia Hermanson, Adam's mother, says she was told her son was found collapsed by his bed, not in a shower. The family also says that they were told Adam had no marks on his body only to discover later that he had wounds up and down his left arm. The Hermansons also say that a Triple Canopy representative told them a few days after Adam's death the company stripped his living quarters and removed the plumbing, water heater, electrical wiring and other equipment. If true, this could make determining the circumstances of Hermanson's death--and what role, if any, faulty wiring may have played--more difficult. Triple Canopy says it will not comment while an investigation is still pending." Staying on the subject of contractors, we'll note the opening of Sherwood Ross' "2 GOP-APPOINTED JUDGES SHAME AMERICA" (Veterans Today):The federal Appeals Court decision to toss a lawsuit claiming contractors tortured detainees in Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison is what you'd expect from a tyranny.The new ruling brushes off the charges by 212 Iraqis who said they or their late husbands were abused by U.S. personnel at Abu Ghraib. The suit charged private security firm CACI International Inc., of Arlington, Va., of crimes inside the Baghdad hellhole. But in a 2-1 ruling, the D.C. Court of Appeals said CACI "is protected by laws barring suits filed as the result of military activities during a time of war," the Associated Press reported. This opinion was written by Judge Laurence Silberman, a Reagan appointee, and supported by Judge Brett Kavanaugh, a Bush appointee. "During wartime, where a private service contractor is integrated into combatant activities over which the military retains command authority, a tort claim arising out of the contractor's engagement in such activities shall be pre-empted," Silberman wrote. If so, with about as many U.S.-led contract mercenaries as regular army involved in the Iraq conflict, this decision preposterously exempts some 150,000 fighters from legal action for any crimes they commit. It gives a shoot-to-kill pass to privateers such as Blackwater, whose operatives on one occasion are said to have gunned down 17 unarmed Iraqi civilians. "This abuse and torture of these prisoners detained during war time constituted war crimes and torture in violation of the Geneva Conventions of 1949, the U.S. War Crimes Act, the Convention against Torture, and the U.S. Federal Anti-torture Statute---felonies, punishable by death if death results as a violation thereof," said Francis Boyle, an international law authority at the University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana. "Judges Silberman and Kavanaugh have now become Accessories After the Fact to torture, war crimes and felonies in violation of United States federal law and international criminal law," Boyle asserted. (See if they are ever prosecuted!)


Finally, independent journalist David Bacon explores the intersection of labor and immigration in "Photos: Labor Camps in Hollister, Calif." (Political Affairs):The Campo Quintero (Quintero Camp) is a labor camp for farmworkers, operated by labor contractor Hope Quintero. Most of the workers living in this camp are also Mixtec, Triqui or other indigenous migrants from southern Mexico, although workers from other parts of Mexico also live here. The signs at the camp entrance say: "Drunks and scandalous people will absolutely not be admitted. Those who disobey will be thrown out of the camp." and "It is strictly prohibited to rob or take things without permission." Ramon Valadez Tadeo, a migrant from Guadalajara, shares his room with four other men, as does Jesus Ramon from Tijuana.Labor camps are gradually disappearing in California. Up through the 1960s and 70s, growers maintained camps where migrant workers could live while they were employed at the ranch. In some labor camps, single workers without families lived year around. This was especially true for Filipinos, who came from the islands as single men, and who were forbidden by antimiscegenation laws from marrying women of other nationalities and starting families.When the United Farm Workers grew strong in the 1970s and early 1980s, growers began tearing down the camps, disclaiming any responsibility for housing for the farm workers they employed. As a result, today many California farm workers sleep in cars, crowded in motels or apartments, or even under the trees.
David Bacon's latest book is Illegal People -- How Globalization Creates Migration and Criminalizes Immigrants (Beacon Press) which just won the CLR James Award. Bacon is also on KFPA's The Morning Show today (each Wednesday) discussing labor and immigration issues.

iraq
the los angeles timesned parkermohammed arrawithe new york times
marc santora
the times of london
the telegraph of londonalice fordhamahmeed rasheedsuadad al-salhykhalid al-ansarytim cockssamia nakhoul
mcclatchy newspapershannah allemsahar issabbc news
andrew north
martin chulov
abc newsjake tapperkaren travers
the wall street journalgina chon
chris floyd
oliver augustthe washington postann scott tyson
the economist
reutersdean baker
jeremy scahill
david baconsherwood ross

Isaiah, Third, Music

Monday! Starting late because I ordered triple sushi. We were eating and Elaine was already done and blogging while I was starting on my second order. She asked, "How many did you get?" Not enough. I wanted more when I was done with all three orders. :D I just love sushi. Which reminds me, the photo of the food C.I. prepared for me, I gotta get Jess or Ty to upload it from the camera. I had sushi every day for the two weeks we stayed at C.I. And C.I. fixed it. She also fixed some other Japanese dishes. She's really talented as a cook and that's a huge compliment coming from me because I was raised by a mother who is probably the best cook in the world. :D

Kat's "Kat's Korner: Get Under The Covers" went up yesterday and Elaine's already downloaded the album. I think I like their cover of John Lennon's "Gimmie Some Truth." Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "He's Going To Scare You To Death" went up yesterday too:



And Barack just dances for the lobbists. NPR's reporting (audio and text) that doctors want a public option. Which just means Barack's about to turn up the scare'omometer a bit higher to drown that news out.


Okay, let's talk Third and then I'll do some more stuff after. Dallas and the following participated in this 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),
Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix,
Mike of Mikey Likes It!,
Elaine of Like Maria Said Paz),
Trina of Trina's Kitchen,
Ruth of Ruth's Report,
Wally of The Daily Jot,
Marcia of SICKOFITRDLZ,
Stan of Oh Boy It Never Ends
and Ann of Ann's Mega Dub.

Elaine bailed after the first hour and went to sleep. When she woke up rested nearly eight hours later, we were still working on the edition so she was able to contribute to the editorial.

But it really was the most non-productive weekend ever. Nothing worked. Everything failed. We ended up doing a roundtable and Kat and Jess took notes (Ava and C.I. were working on an article) but even the roundtable sucked. (Except Betty as Jim points out in his note.)

• Truest statement of the week-- This was Ian Wilder. C.I. pushed this hard. At first there was some reluctance, honestly. But C.I. said, "Listen to it. Pay attention." And then read it again at which point everyone agreed to the point that Ty was saying we didn't need a second truest because nothing could compare with that one.
• 
  
• A note to our readers -- Jim's note. I'll add here about the post I'm doing, it looks different because I'm tired and using Mozilla instead of explorer as the browser. Using Mozilla means I don't have to do all the spacing on "here's who worked" but it also gives me those dots. Sorry.
• 
  
• Editorial: Delivering the lambs to slaughter-- I was shocked by this because it turned out so well. We were so tired. But it really did work and after the awful, nothing-is-working that came before, it was just a shock. My mom and Elaine worked on this and that may be all they worked on that got published. Check with them because I'm not sure.
• 
  
• TV: The Suckers-- This was the last thing Ava and C.I. wrote. As everything crumbled, Jim began leaning harder and harder on Ava and C.I. They wrote a great commentary that blew us all away. And that should have been it for the edition. Instead, they were drafted into doing two more. Actually, this was the second one they did. Sorry. Jim asked them to do one more and begged and pleaded. They had looked at scripts for Vampire Diaries as well as seeing the first episode so they said 'give us a minute, we'll take a walk and think about it. If we can pull something together, we will.' They do that a lot and we should as well. If they're tired during the writing edition, they'll get some fresh air. We should have done that because it might have jump started us.
• 
  
• Iraq-- Our Iraq piece. We knew we had this and, at times, feared that's all we'd be able to point to with pride. By the way, the piece above that Ava and C.I. did, "The Suckers," they're hitting hard on Iraq and the SOFA and a lot of other things. From Dona, I learned that a number of whiny little babies (including ones mentioned in the piece Ava and C.I. wrote) have e-mailed to complain. Get over it.
• 
  
• TV: The Fall Season-- This was the last piece Ava and C.I. wrote. All during the edition, Jim was telling them they should write an overview for the fall. Early on, they'd reply, we know what we're going to write. And they did. But as everything fell apart, they did a second article. Things were still falling apart and Jim pointed out that not only would a third article from them save the day, it would give it a bit of a theme. At which point I crashed. We'd already done the editorial. I just wanted to go to sleep. So I was surprised to see Jim had talked them into it. It's a strong piece. I really like it. Tony's new girlfriend had a problem with it. She bought TV Guide like they recommended but she bought Rolling Stone as well. She said she thought some of the information was coming from that. Nope, Ava and C.I. were giving you the inside dish. Which is another reason Jim wanted them to do this piece.
  
• 
  
• TV: Specials-- This is the piece they planned to do. They were actually planning on writing it last week; however, Kat reviewed Cass' CD and was planning on posting it Labor Day. If they were going to review the Cass Elliot TV special the day before, Kat said she'd post her review early. So they wrote about something else that weekend and picked it up this week pairing it with a Joni Mitchell special for BBC. Again with Tony's new girlfriend. Joni Mitchell does not say in the special that the woman Ava and C.I. named is the woman who crafted her dulcimer. No, Joni doesn't. She talks about her dulcimer and gives the woman's first name. That's C.I. supplying you with the rest including a link to the woman.
  
• 
  
• 
  
• Nanci Griffith: The Complete MCA Recordings-- I worked on this with Third and I'm not sure who else did besides Third (minus Ava and C.I.), Kat, Wally, Betty and Stan. I remember Stan surprising me with a lot of good points. (Suprising me because he really knows stuff about music -- I'm talking meter and all this other stuff.) This was the first thing we wrote as a group that finally clicked. It took so long. SOOOOOOOOOOOOO long. But something finally clicked. Nanci Griffith is really talented, by the way. Just incredibly talented.
  
• 
  
• Pet Peeve (Dona)-- This was another pleasant surprise. This wasn't written or even proposed before I went to sleep. I had no idea that Dona was going to write a piece. As Jim explains in his note, it was a very last minute decision. I really like this, it made me laugh.
  
• 
  
• Highlights-- Betty, Kat, Ruth, Rebecca, Marcia, Stan, Cedric, Ann, Wally, Elaine and I wrote this.

And that was the edition. From hell.

Now something I want to put in. Betty's oldest son called tonight. He wanted to play "Court And Spark" while we were all at C.I.'s for the vacation last month. (Betty and her kids are living at C.I.'s while Betty's working in Califonria. She got a transfer that was too much money to turn down and, a smart move, because there were big layoffs in Georgia and if she'd stayed at home, she'd probably be without a job right now. So that's Betty and her kids, Jim & Dona, Ty and his boyfriend, Ava & Jess and C.I. that are living in C.I.'s house -- which is so big there are vacant bedrooms.) I think it was summer of 2006 when C.I. taught Betty's son bass. He already knew a little guitar and C.I. knew he'd be able to handle bass. And C.I. bought him some nice guitars (with Betty's permission) and he started taking lessons and just got so great. He's really something. So Joni Mitchell's played a lot at C.I.'s and so is Herbie Hancock's River (an album of Joni covers). And Betty's son wanted to play "Court And Spark" which is on the album of that name and also covered on Herbie Hancock's album.

Ava and C.I. spoke every day but stayed in California for their 'vacation.' And Betty's son didn't want to be bothering or something. I told him C.I. wouldn't be bothered and to just ask her and she'd pick up the guitar and show him. But he didn't want to be a bother (and his sister was monopolizing C.I.'s time asking C.I. to play Barbies with her).

So I mentioned that to C.I. last week, just a "Hey did he ever ask you to show him 'Court & Spark'?" and so this weekend C.I. showed him the song on guitar and when he put the phone down tonight and played it for me, I was like, "Man, you've got that one down." He really does. It's perfect.

I don't know if he's going to end up recording his own songs or what but he could be a session musician today and, thing is, he's just a kid. He's Betty's oldest but he's still so young. (Betty's young too.) But he's got Jess and C.I. showing him all this stuff and that helps. They're both guitar wizards. C.I. can also do bass and piano and who knows what else. And they'll get in C.I.'s music room and start jamming and it's really cool. Wally's learned guitar and he'll jam with them. I'll join in on seven songs on bass. All of which C.I. showed me. I can do two Stevie Nicks songs for Fleetwood Mac on bass, some White Stripes and "You're So Vain" by Carly Simon.

Wally's really, really lucky because he's on the road with Ava, C.I. and Kat every week. And they're always singing in the car. Wally was thinking about all that time and all and decided it would be smart to learn guitar and fun if he brought along one. So that's what he does and C.I. will get in the back seat while they're driving somewhere and give him all these lessons and Wally is just really something to hear. He wasn't even playing guitar this time last year. Now he not only plays great, he's got all these songs he knows by heart.

That's going to be it for me. Here's C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"

Monday, September 14, 2009. Chaos andence continue, Barack finds a new apologist, the US military announces another death, Nouri fails to disclose income, a contractor is killed in Iraq, Chris Hill 'forgot' a few things when testifying to Congress, and more. As the world watches, a surprisig member of the Cult of St. Barack emerges. Jonathan Adams (Christian Science Monitor) reports a new tape, allegedly from alleged 9-11 ringleader Osama bin Laden has been released, maintains that US President Barack Obama has made George W. Bush's Iraq and Afghanistan Wars his own because Barack is "powerless" and, apparently, controlled by a some nefarious, worldwide Jewish lobby. Oooooh. He so scary. And so original. I mean, no one's ever attempted to allege a Jewish conspiracy before, right? No one ever mistook him for a brain but, even for him, this is something. The president of the United States is one of the most powerful positions in the world. In the last 100 years, it's pretty much been the most powerful position in the world. Whether Barack Obama uses the power wisely, poorly or not at all remains to be seen but he's not some lowly backbencher in the British Parliament. Claiming otherwise is as insane as insisting there's some international world conspiracy. Insane's really doesn't capture it. It's beyond insane, it's hate-riddled. It's a hatred for others that makes you insist there's some Jewish cabal and it's a hatred for others that makes you insist someon's preventing Barack Obama -- a grown man with a mind of his own -- from doing exactly what he wants to. Osama bin Laden's so insane, he should get his own Pacifica Radio program. From the Firehouse Studio. James Carroll (Boston Globe) writes of Barack's Wednesday speech: "The elephants in the congressional chamber last week were not the scowling Republicans, but Iraq and Afghanistan, neither of which was mentioned. [. . .] In Iraq, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki is headed toward his own dubious election, coming in January, as his Shiite coalition crumbles, Sunnis openly sympathize with insurgents, and Kurdish alienation adds to the decentralized chaos. Meanwhile, Iraqi security forces are overwhelmed by renewed violence and the US determination to keep the three blocs together in one nation is overseen by Vice President Joe Biden, who spent the two years of his presidential campaign passionately denouncing the idea." Today the Defense Department announced Duane A. Thornsbury died in Baghdad on Saturday from "injuries sustained during a vehicle roll-over." Like so many service members' deaths, DoD adds, "The circumstances surrounding the incident are under investigation." If you look for the Multi-National Force announcement, you'll be looking in vain. They never announced the death -- the most important duty they are tasked with is announcing the deaths, DoD is responsible for putting a name to the fallen after families have been notified. They made five announcements on Saturday and two on Sunday but the death just wasn't important enough for them. The announcement brings the number of US service members killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war to 4344. Maria St. Louis-Sanchez (Colorado Springs Gazette) reports Duane Thornsbury was no his third deployment to Iraq and had previously served there in 2003 and 2007. Jessika Lewis (State Journal) adds that he "enlisted in the U.S. Army Reserves back in April 1996 and came onto active duty service in September 2002". In the United States on Sunday there was a memorial service for seven soldiers who died September 17, 2008. From the September 18th snapshot: Turning to Iraq, last night CNN reported that a helicopter has crashed in Iraq claiming the lives of 5 US service members. Sameer N. Yacoub (AP) said the death toll is "seven U.S. soldiers" and cites M-NF as the source. M-NF updated it today announcing: "Seven U.S. Soldiers were killed when a CH-47 Chinook crashed about 100 km west of Basra at approximately 12:01 a.m. Thursday. The Chinook was part of a four-aircraft aerial convoy flying from Kuwait to Balad. The seven Soldiers were the only ones onboard the Chinook at the time of the crash. A British Quick Reaction Force team was dispatched from Basra to assist at the site. A road convoy in the vicinity was also diverted to the scene. The names of the deceased are being withheld pending notification of next of kin and official release by the Department of Defense The incident is under investigation, however enemy activity is not suspected." The Washington Post notes, "There was no word on the cause of the crash or whether hostile fire was involved." Camilla Hall and Michael Heath (Bloomberg News) report that the military is now publicly stating that this should be considered "an accident" on their 'initial' information but that the US military added, "At this time we are uncertain of the cause, but hostile fire has been ruled out." Sudarsan Raghavan (Washington Post) observes, "In total, that means 11 U.S. service members have died since Sunday for non-combat-related reasons" while noting the helicopter crash itself "was the deadliest U.S. helicopter accident in Iraq since Aug. 22 of last year, when a Black Hawk helicopter crashed in the northern part of the country, killing 14 U.S. soldiers." Joseph Giordono (Stars & Stripes) notes, "The AP reported that an aide to U.S. Rep. Mary Fallin, R-Okla., said four Texans and three from Oklahoma were among the seven National Guardsmen killed in [the helicopter crash[ . . . Fallin's spokesman Alex Weintz says the four Texans killed were soldiers from the Texas National Guard." ICCC lists 4168 as the number of US service members killed since the start of the illegal war with 17 for the month thus far. The seven who died in the September 2008 helicopter crash were Corry A. Edwards, Robert Vallejo II, Anthony Luke Mason, Brady J. Rudolf, Julio Ordonez, Daniel Eshbaugh and Michael E. Thompson. Chris Vaughn (Fort Worth Star-Telegram via Houston Chronicle) reports on yesterday's Texas ceremony, "Under a constant and soaking rain, the last of their remains were buried in a single battleship-gray casket at the top of a hill in the Dallas-Fort Worth National Cemetery, a fitting end, some said, because of their close relationship while alive." Jeffrey Weiss (Dallas Morning News) explains of the Army National Guard's 2-149 General Support Aviation Battalion's ceremony, "Ten weeks after their tour of Iraq formally ended, they assembled to celebrate their successes and surivavl -- and to mourn seven members of the unite who died in a helicopter crash weeks after arriving in Iraq. [. . .] More than 500 people -- family, freinds, comrades and fellow citizens -- braved Sunday's downpour for a brief graveside service at Dallas-Fort Worth National Cemetery then gathered for a set of prayers inside a hangar at the National Guard base where the unit is headquartered." Yesterday's ceremony for the seven who died in the helicopter crash took place on the same day a US helicopter came under fire in Mosul. Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports "the U.S. military returned fire killing one insurgent. The police responded to the situation and engaged the insurgents in a fire fight killing two more insurgents and captured another. Two policemen were killed during this confrontation." In other reported violence . . . Bombings? Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad roadside bombing which injured three people (including one police officer), another Baghdad roadside bombing which injured one person, a Baquba car bombing whcih wounded four people (two Iraqi service members), a Baquba roadside bombing which killed 1 man and injured his son, a Mosul roadside bombing which claimed the life of 1 police officer and left seven more wounded and another Mosul roadside bombing which claimed the life of 1 woman and wounded her daughter. Shootings? Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports an armed attack on an Iraqi military checkpoint which resulted in the death of 1 Iraqi soldier. Reuters notes a Jurf al-Sakhar home invasion in which the family of a police officer were ordered to leave the home, the police officer was shot dead and the house was set on fire and they drop back to last night to note an attack on a Jurf al-Sakhar police checkpoint which resulted in the death of 1 police officer and two more being injured. Kidnappings? Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a woman studying at the Institute of Technology in Kirkuk was kidnapped yesterday. The Jurf al-Sakhar home invasion today recalls another assault on a police officer's home yesterday. Mohammed Al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reported a home invasion in which four members of a family were killed (assailants used silencers) and David Rising (AP) added the home belonged to a police officer (Sgt Omed Abdul-Hamid) who was not home and his wife and three kids were killed "execution-style" in their sleep. Ned Parker and Ali Windawi (Los Angeles Times) explain the children were ages 2, 4 and 6 and quote the father stating, "I was astonished when I found my family, my wife and three children were killed while they were in their bed. Oh my God, may you take revenge on the killers . . . What is the guilt of my son Mohammed and he is an infant! What is the guilt of my small daughters?" The four deaths were among the 22 reported Sunday (26 people were reported injured). Yesterday, at The Third Estate Sunday Review, we noted the reported deaths for last week were 136 (230 reported wouned) ("On Sunday, there were 24 reported deaths and 7 reported wounded, Monday 26 dead and 44 wounded, Tuesday 27 dead and 42 wounded, Wednesday 13 dead and 38 wounded, Thursday 31 dead and 75 wounded, Friday 4 dead and 7 wounded and Saturday 11 dead and 27 wounded."). In Iraq, politicians are supposed to disclose all income. Despite that requirement, few do. The following positions have not made their financial disclosures (from 2006 through today, no disclosure): President, both Vice Presidents, Prime Minister, both Deputy Prime Ministers, Speaker of Parliament, Second Deputy of the Speaker, Minister of the Interior, Minister of Defense, Minister of Finance, Minister of Planning and the Governor of the Iraqi Central Bank. All have ignored the law demanding disclosures. An Iraqi correspondent for McClatchy reports on the failure to disclose and also explains, "The 2008 report of the Iraqi integrity commission, the governmental anti-corruption watchdog body, said that corruption cases totaling $1.3 billion were pardoned, and most of it came from the Iraqi ministry of defense. The $1.3 billion is the value of only 11% of the corruption cases that were pardoned in 2008 -- the others didn't have a dollar value given -- and the number of defendants involved in corruption cases who were pardoned in 2008 is 2,772 defendants." Nouri al-Maliki would be the prime minister who has refused to report his income. Last week, US Ambassador to Iraq Chris Hill testified to Congress (see Thursday's snapshot here, Friday's here and Kat's post here). Appearing Thursday afternoon before the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee, Hill faced questions from the Committee Chair John Kerry. John Kerry: Mr. Ambassador, Syria and Iraq had indicated a willingness to try to cooperate on the borders and deal with the foreign fighter issue which is very much in our interest and we've been pushing that on both sides. But the bombings on August 19th have now seen, you know sort of an explosion between the two countries, they've pulled their ambassadors and uh traded recriminations so where do we stand on that? What if anything can be done to end that? Will Turkish mediation make a difference? Is that the thing that we should be advocating at this point? And what do you think is the process for getting back to the place that we'd hoped to be. Chris Hill: Well, I uh think we would like to see Iraq and uh Syria have a good relationship and it was rather ironic that on August 18th -- that is one day before the bombing -- Prime Minister [Nouri al-] Maliki was in Damascus and they signed a number of economic agreements. Uh, obviously, things are -- things are in a difficult state and things are frankly on hold right now through this uh, through this uh down turn n the relationship. The Iraqis are very concerned about the fact that some senior Ba'athist leaders went and found refuge in Syria and remain in Syria. And the Iraqis have understandably called for their return to-to Iraq. That issue needs to be, frankly, needs to be worked through. No, he doesn't know the meaning of "irony," nor does he know how to tell the truth. There was nothing "ironic" about Nouri's visit to Damascus and, in fact, his actions in Damascus were exactly his actions following August 18th. What Chris Hill couldn't get honest about, David Ignatius (Washington Post) explained yesterday: An example of the tricky regional dynamic is Syria. The Obama administration has been working carefully to rebuild U.S.-Syrian relations. Representatives of Central Command made two visits to Damascus this summer to discuss security cooperation on Iraq. This led to a tentative agreement that U.S. and Syrian military representatives would meet Aug. 20 on the Iraq-Syria border. U.S. officials proposed including Iraq, as well. Not so fast, protested Maliki. He warned Chris Hill, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, that policing Iraq's border was an issue for Iraq, not America. When Maliki visited Damascus on Aug. 18, he told President Bashar al-Assad that he opposed the Syrian-American plan to discuss Iraqi security and would boycott the Aug. 20 session. Maliki also demanded that Assad turn over Baathist leaders who were living in Syria. Assad refused, saying that these Baathists had opposed Saddam Hussein's regime and posed no threat. The Maliki-Assad summit meeting "was a failure," says one Arab official. US tax payers paid for Chris Hill to return to the US and appear before Congress. They paid Congress' electricity bill for the lights and air conditioning as Hill tesitified. It would have been a lot more productive and a lot less expensive if they'd just hired a limo to bring David Ignatius to Congress and let him testify. August 18th, Nouri was blustering and threatening Syria. He's continued to do so. AFP reports that Nouri plans to send a delegation to Turkey tomorrow with alleged evidence of Syria's involvement in the August 19th bombings. Turkey rules Syria? No. But Nouri's gotten no where with bullying Syria and now he wants to run to a third-party like a little tattle-tale. Tattle-tales are usually cowards and Nouri is a coward. He's one of the exiles the US installed. Nouri fled Iraq like a little coward many, many years ago. He was part of the group calling for the US to invade and, after they did, 'brave' Nouri put a little concealer over the yellow streak down his back and tip-toed back into Iraq. Chris Hill explained to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that Nouri considers himself an expert on Syria because he hid out there for 18 years. AP reports that Nouri is actually demanding that Syria hand over 179 people. Though he lives to bully Syria, Nouri won't lift a finger to stop the targeting of Iraq's LGBT community. The criminals Nouri claims to be unable to find are part of a major report by Afif Sarhan and Jason Burke (The Observer): Sitting on the floor, wearing traditional Islamic clothes and holding an old notebook, Abu Hamizi, 22, spends at least six hours a day searching internet chatrooms linked to gay websites. He is not looking for new friends, but for victims. "It is the easiest way to find those people who are destroying Islam and who want to dirty the reputation we took centuries to build up," he said. When he finds them, Hamizi arranges for them to be attacked and sometimes killed. Hamizi, a computer science graduate, is at the cutting edge of a new wave of violence against gay men in Iraq. Made up of hardline extremists, Hamizi's group and others like it are believed to be responsible for the deaths of more than 130 gay Iraqi men since the beginning of the year alone. The deputy leader of the group, which is based in Baghdad, explained its campaign using a stream of homophobic invective. "Animals deserve more pity than the dirty people who practise such sexual depraved acts," he told the Observer. "We make sure they know why they are being held and give them the chance to ask God's forgiveness before they are killed." Over the weekend Nouri did get some news to please him. Khalid al-Ansary, Tim Cocks and Matthew Jones (Reuters) report that Nouri's cabinet "approved a draft law paving the way for national elections" which would allow voters to select individual candidates and "not just parties" -- a major gift to Nouri who has been excluded from the new (and largest) Shi'ite coalition. Meanwhile, AP reported yesterday that KBR contractor Lucas Vinson was shot dead on Camp Speicher (US base in Iraq) and a US soldier stands accused of the shooting. Tim Cocks and Ralph Boulton (Reuters) added the unnamed US soldier has been arrested in the shooting. ". . . in Iraq the bombings continue, the electricity is still out a lot of the time, most of the millions of refugees have yet to return, the internally displaced remain internally displaced, and the political equation is very much up in the air." That's David Finkel, author of the new book The Good Soldiers, from an online discussion at the Washington Post website today. Here's one exchange: Boston: In reading your heartwrenching story about 2-16 and the death of Joshua Reeves, I am saddened by the juxtaposition of that story (and thousands more like it) with the detached and seemingly breezy decision by Cheney/Rumsfeld/Bush to pursue war in Iraq in the days and months after 9-11 (as chronicled by other Post writers' books), using that American tragedy as an opportunity to initiate this war of choice. That being said, and given the reality of our presence in Iraq, what factors will historians look at to determine if the surge was successful strategically instead of putting a temporary band-aid on an inevitable civil war at great cost of lives and treasure to the US and lack of strategic flexibility in Afghanistan during this time? David Finkel: Thanks for this comment and question, Boston. I wish I knew the answer. Did the surge work? Was it the addition of troops that seems to have made a difference? Was it the fact that most neighborhoods had been pretty well cleansed by the time the surge began? Was it the effort, especially in the Sunni areas west of Baghdad, by Iraqis who turned against al-Qaeda? In eastern Baghdad, was it the cease fire announced by Muqtada al-Sadr? Some day, I hope, historians will be able to tease all this apart. What I can tell you from what I saw between April 2007 and April 2008 is that a lot of soldiers went there believing they would be the difference and by the end -- when everything collapsed around them in the worst week of war they endured -- a lot of them didn't think that at all. The Good Soldiers is released tomorrow and you can read an excerpt of it right now at the Washington Post. While Finkel attempts to report some of what he saw, David M. Tafuri (Business Week) is whoring to the point that you find yourself longing for a vice raid. Tafuri tries to convince people to hop the plane and head off to Iraq with Doing business in Iraq does not have to be scary. In July, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki visited the U.S., and part of his mission was to convince American companies to invest in his country. He made the case that security has improved substantially. By any measure, he is correct. By any measure, Nouri is wrong. By any measure he was wrong in July, by all measures he is wrong today and someone might want to purchase a subscription to a daily paper for Tafuri but then we'd still have to find someone to read it to him. August was the deadliest month for Iraqis in the last 13 months. Tafuri should be ashamed but business whores are very good at burying their shame and turning it into violence aimed at others. Independent journalist David Bacon reviews a new book, Solidarity Divided co-written by Fernando Gapasin, at Monthly Review: Through the 1980s I was a union organizer and activist in our Bay Area labor anti-apartheid committee. As we picketed ships carrying South African cargo, and recruited city workers to support the African National Congress (then called a terrorist organization by both the U.S. and South Africa), I looked at South African unions with great admiration. The South African Congress of Trade Unions, banned in the 1950s, had found ways to organize African and Colored workers underground, to support a liberation struggle in a broad political alliance. Heroic SACTU leaders like Vuysile Mini gave their lives on the scaffold for freedom. Then, as apartheid tottered and eventually fell, SACTU unions became the nucleus of a new federation, the Congress of South African Trade Unions. With roots in that liberation war, it declared socialism as its goal, and still does today. COSATU unions prize rank-and-file control over their elected leaders, and engage members in long and thorough discussions of the country's development plans. The labor federation has the most sophisticated political strategy of any union in the world today - balanceing a leading role in the tripartite alliance that governs South Africa with independence of program and action, even striking to force policies that put the needs of workers before the neoliberal demands of the World Bank. Jacob Zuma owes his election as president of South Africa today to South African labor. As an organizer during the same period I worked with many others to force our own labor movement to recognize that organizing new members and changing our politics was necessary for survival at home. If we could double our size (at least), I thought, we'd have more power, while the streetheat generated by the intense conflict organizing creates would set the stage for political transformation. Needless to say, that transformation process turned out to be much more complicated than I expected. David Bacon's latest book is Illegal People -- How Globalization Creates Migration and Criminalizes Immigrants (Beacon Press) which just won the CLR James Award. Bacon is also on KFPA's The Morning Show today (each Wednesday) discussing labor and immigration issues. the common illsthe third estate sunday reviewlike maria said pazkats kornersex and politics and screeds and attitudetrinas kitchenthe daily jotcedrics big mixmikey likes itthomas friedman is a great manruths reportsickofitradlzoh boy it never endsthe world today just nutsiraq iraq the christian science monitor james carroll cnn the washington post sudarsan raghavan mcclatchy newspapers camilla hall nicholas spangler chris vaughn fort worth star-telegram sahar issa the los angeles times ned parker david ignatius david bacon kpfa the morning show

But, but Joe Wilson was wrong, right?

Weekend! Finally! :D As soon as I get this up, I eat sushi. California roll! :D So I'll be rushing.

But I'm looking around online and am confused.

Wait. Before I get to that, this morning, as part of the 9-11 memorial in NYC, Carly Simon and her son Ben and daughter Sally (Taylor for both) performed "Let the River Run" and the link takes you to the YouTube video so check that out.


Okay, now help me out. Everyone's been laughing at US House Rep Joe Wilson, the Republican who yelled "You lie!" at Barack during the speech when Barry O insistead that undocumented workers wouldn't get any insurance benefits under his 'plan'. Okay, if that's the case, if Joe Wilson was such an idiot, why is the Senate working so hard to re-write the section he was talking about?

This is from AP:

Critics note that there are no enforcement mechanisms, or language on how to verify whether or not someone is in this country legally.
"Without a verification requirement it's essentially like posting a 55-mph speed limit and not having any highway patrol on the road," said Ira Mehlman, spokesman for the Federation for American Immigration Reform.
Democrats in two House committees defeated amendments that would have required verification of legal status. Many Democrats contend that such measures create barriers to legal residents getting the health coverage they need.


And this is from James Oliphant, David G. Savage and Teresa Watanabe (Los Angeles Times):

(There is one major exception to rules preventing benefits for illegal immigrants. The government requires hospitals to provide care for emergency patients in severe pain, and Medicaid will pay for poor patients regardless of their immigration status.)
Second, the government, beginning in 2013, will subsidize insurance, including private policies, for those low- and middle-income Americans who do not qualify for Medicaid. These subsidies are referred to as "affordability credits" in the House bill.
"Nothing in this subtitle shall allow federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States," the bill says.
In July, Democrats rejected a Republican-sponsored amendment that would have required buyers of this subsidized insurance to supply official documents to prove they are legal residents.

But Barack said there was nothing in it and everyone's laughed at Joe Wilson so why does the Senate need to be working on 'removing' anything?

It appears Joe Wilson had some points that were accurate or close to it.

For the record, undocumented workers? I would cover them. I would also ease the path to citizenship tremendously. They do so much in this country in terms of jobs that others wouldn't take. They do so much in this country in terms of keeping the dream of anyone can achieve alive. They do so much for this country period.

Joe Wilson and I would disagree on immigrants and every other issue under the sun.

But let me repeat, it appears he had something right or was close to the truth. Otherwise, the Senate wouldn't have had to work so hard today, now would they?

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

Friday, September 11, 2009. Chaos and violence continue, a prison riot at Abu Ghraib, Iraqi soldiers are shot dead, a new appeal for Camp Ashraf, can President Obama bypass the Senate on agreements with Iraq, and more.


On the second hour of NPR's The Diane Rehm Show today, Iraq was discussed. Steve Roberts filled in for Diane Rehm (who tripped a few Thursdays ago and expects to be back on Monday's program and will be on Saturday's Weekend Edition speaking with Scott Simon) and spoke with panelists Karen DeYoung (Washington Post), Abderrahim Foukara (Al Jazeera) and Susan Glasser (Foreign Policy).

Steve Roberts: Karen, next door [to Iran], Iraq continues, almost every week we have to talk about it. This week in Iraq, a blast in the northern provinces, 25 or so people killed. This is an area of-of a lot of ethnic strife, Kurds, Turkmens, Arabs. What do we know about the security situation in-in Iraq and the potential for widening civil strife there?

Karen DeYoung: It's interesting that as these -- as these things have happened and there have been several big explosions, certainly starting from the August 19th suicide attack against the Foreign Ministry in Baghdad, the Americans have gone out of their way in each instance to say, "Gosh this is too bad but we don't think it's a return to sectarian strife. We think things are proceeding as they should, we are leaving on schedule, if not before we are scheduled to leave." And you saw Ambassador Chris Hill, the US ambassador to Baghdad, was on Capital Hill yesterday testifying in the Senate and in the House and saying, "Look, you know" essentially saying, "this is growing pains. The Iraqis have to learn how to deal with these things themselves and they will learn by doing it."

Steve Roberts: I'm Steve Roberts and you're listening to The Diane Rehm Show. But in his (Hill's) testimony, the subtext clearly was drawing a very clear distinction between Iraq and Afghanistan. They continually say Iraq is-is not vital to national security in just -- in the way that Afghanistan remains.

Karen DeYoung: Well he was saying Look we have an ongoing interest in a partnership with Iraq. Iraq will -- You know we have this Strategic Framework Agreement that-that has levels of economic cooperation, cultural cooperation and some ongoing military cooperation, certainly in terms of training and-and other kinds of assistance. But that we are not -- we think in terms of the insurgency, that's Iraq's problem now and we're leaving it for them to deal with." Obviously, they still have problems in the north and that is the primary concern both on a military level, an economic level and a governance level The difficulties between the Kurds in the north and the -- and the Arabs and the Shi'ite-led government in Baghdad.

Let's use Karen's remarks to jump back to that hearing already covered in yesterday's snapshot. Last night, Kat shared her thoughts on the hearing and she also noted that I didn't do transcript format to cover as much of the two hearings as possible. Today we're going to zoom in on a few specific moments from the Senate Foreign Affairs hearing. First up, a few e-mails wonder if John Kerry was clear that Hill should summarize? Kerry is the chair of the committee and he was very clear in his instructions and Hill agreed to do what was asked and then went on to ignore what was requested of him.

Chris Hill: Thank you very much, uh Chairman Kerry, I would like to uhm -- I have a statement which I would like to --

John Kerry: We'll put the full statement in the record as if read in full and if you'd summarize that would give us more time to have a good dialogue. Thanks.

Chris Hill: Very good.

Is that not clear? Does any adult have trouble following what Kerry requested? Hill responded "Very good" and nodded. So presumably he understood what he was asked to do. He was asked to summarize his statement. The next words out of his mouth were, "Chairman Kerry, Senator Lugar, Members of . . ." and you can [PDF format warning] click here for the written statement he prepared ahead of time and you will see -- surprise, surprise, as Carol Burnett's Eunice used to say -- it starts the same way. In fact, 14 pages will be read word for word with the exception of when Hill loses his place. 14 pages. At which point, he will finally notice Kerry's displeasure and begin summarizing the last five pages. He will take approximately 11 minutes with the bulk of it (10 minutes) being spent reading word-for-word before he rushes to sum up the last five pages in one minute.

John Kerry: Mr. Ambassador, you also talked about the issue of reform in Iraq and, you know, we've been sitting on this committee listening to this talk I mean I can remember Secretary [Condi] Rice down in the lower building, lower room of the Dirksen, testifying to us in January three or four years ago saying the oil law's almost done, we're moving forward on this and that, etc, etc. We are at least three or four years later now and still those contentious issues remain contentious. Share with us, I mean, it seems those may be the explosion point also in the absence of an American presence. Would you lend your view on that and on the prospect of actually resolving these --

Chris Hill: Well first of all, I'd like to say that I think getting the economy there operating -- namely getting oil uh starting to-to-to be pumped out of the ground -- is essential to the future of that country and, frankly, we cannot be uh funding uh things that should be funded by the Iraqis and would be funded if they - if they were able to move on the oil sector. Uh with regard to the hydrocarbons law, I went out there with the expectation that we would move on that but I know -- you know -- it was held up -- it's been held up for three or four years. I have really worked that issue. We have tried to break it down, find out where the real differences are between the Kurdish government and the uh Iraqi government. It's a complex piece of legislation actually involving four separate pieces of legislation having to do with revenue sharing, having to do with institution building, uh having to do with uh how the ministry would operate and I think realistically speaking it will probably not get done before the January elections. So our concern has been we cannot have Iraq's future held up or-or simply held hostage to this one piece of legislation. Therefore we were pleased that the Iraqis did move ahead with the beginning of something they hadn't done for decades and decades and that is begin the process of-of bidding oil fields to foreign concerns. They didn't do it during Saddam, they didn't even do it pre-Saddam. So they have begun that. They began it in June. One of the --

John Kerry: That's all well and good but if all those revenues, if all those revenues are piling up in even greater amounts without some distribution mechanism --

Chris Hill: Well there is a distribution mechanism the 17% is basically -- is agreed to by all sides. So even when the -- when they -- on the Kurdish Regional Government when they were able to export some oil with an agreement with Baghdad, they did it under the provision of seven -- seventeen percent. So I think these things can-can be properly distributed. The issue is in the -- I won't say "long run" but certainly in the medium run they're going to need this law because the issues go to things like infrastructure. Iraq's oil sector is very much in trouble with very aging infrastructure. They have to have agreements no how they're going to pay for Is that the responsibility of local authorities? There are other issues having to do with the uh southern part of-of Iraq and there own regional concerns So I think they can deal with some of the key elements but it would be better if they dealt with the hydrocarbon law. I'm giving you my sense of the situation and I don't think we're going to get there before January. And therefore we really want to focus on getting them to bid out these fields because British-Petroleum in there is a good development.

John Kerry: Mr. Ambassador, Syria and Iraq had indicated a willingness to try to cooperate on the borders and deal with the foreign fighter issue which is very much in our interest and we've been pushing that on both sides. But the bombings on August 19th have now seen, you know sort of an explosion between the two countries, they've pulled their ambassadors and uh traded recriminations so where do we stand on that? What if anything can be done to end that? Will Turkish mediation make a difference? Is that the thing that we should be advocating at this point? And what do you think is the process for getting back to the place that we'd hoped to be.

Chris Hill: Well, I uh think we would like to see Iraq and uh Syria have a good relationship and it was rather ironic that on August 18th -- that is one day before the bombing -- Prime Minister [Nouri al-] Maliki was in Damascus and they signed a number of economic agreements. Uh, obviously, things are -- things are in a difficult state and things are frankly on hold right now through this uh, through this uh down turn n the relationship. The Iraqis are very concerned about the fact that some senior Ba'athist leaders went and found refuge in Syria and remain in Syria. And the Iraqis have understandably called for their return to-to Iraq. That issue needs to be, frankly, needs to be worked through.

We'll stop on that section -- and note British Petroleum is not "in there" on its own, it formed a partnership with China National Petroleum Corporation. On the subject of Iraq and Syria, Muhanad Mohammed, Khalid al-Ansary, Tim Cocks and Elizabeth Fullerton (Reuters) report Nouri's spokesmodel Ali al-Dabbagh declared today, "It is premature to talk about the return of the ambassadors before Iraq sees seriousness from the Syrian side and the political will to implement the demands of Iraqis." Today's exchange is only the latest volley. Syria continues to demand proof before extraditing anyone.


We'll pick back up on yesterday's Senate Foreign Affairs Committee with Senator Russ Feingold.

Senator Russ Feingold: I'm extremely pleased that we finally have a time table for ending our involvement in the war in Iraq. While I'm concerned that the redeployment is not being done as promptly as it should be, this will allow us to refocus on the global threat posed by al Qaeda. I remain convinced that foreign occupations are usually not a good strategy for combatting a global terrorist network. We need to find ways to relentlessly pursue al Qaeda while simelutaneously developing longterm partnerships with legitimate local actors and doing so through civilian diplomatic and development efforts that do not involve a massive military footprint. And now as we transition out of Iraq it is extremely important that we focus on making this an orderly withdraw and doing everything we can through diplomatic means to help promote the political reconciliation needed to bring lasting peace to Iraq. As to some questions, Ambassador, how do the Iraqi people feel about the redeployment of all US troops by the end of 2011 as required by the bi-lateral agreement? Is there any danger that any indication that we're backing away from that committment strong opposition.
Chris Hill: I think the-the dates of uh December 2011, uh August 2010, these were agreed with the Iraqi government and uh at the end of 2008. Uh I think any uh any uh indication that we were not prepared to live with these dates would be very poorly received by the -- by the Iraqi people. And indeed we saw this in the uh in the movement out of the cities June 30, 2009. Rememer we tried to discuss that in terms of nuances and the uh Iraqi media, the Iraqi public got concerned that somehow we were looking for ways not to accomplish that and we did exactly what we said we would do which is we pulled our people from the cities and I think it really has established a resevoir of trust that when you uh have an agreement with the -- with the Americans, you can take it to the bank. So I think uh it's very important to-to live up to these agreements and I think the Iraqi people, even though they do have great concerns about the security, I think they-they want to be responsible for their -- see their country responsible for their own security. As I said earlier, this will be -- these will be difficult moments ahead but uh these are -- these will be nonetheless Iraqi moments to handle and I think they will -- they will deal with this. We are dealing with uh very -- some very competent people, very intelligent people and they will know what to do.

Russ Feingold: Thank you for that answer. The Iraqi government intends to hold a nation-wide referendum on the bi-lateral Status Of Forces Agreement and while there's been a lot of speculation about how this could impact a redeployment timetable, I'd like to also point out that both the Iraqi Parliament and the Iraqi people will have had a chance to vote on the agreement even though the US Senate has not. Can you assure us that any potential modifications to the Security Agreement will be submitted to the Senate for ratification?

Chris Hill: Uh, the issue of Senate ratification goes beyond my write but I will certainly take that question to the State Department and get you an official answer on that. I can give you my personal opinion on that.

Russ Feingold: Would you please?

Chris Hill: -- that you would not want to be changing this uh we would not engage in changing this security agreement without uh considerable consultation but as for the actual relationship between the Senate and the executive [branch] on this, I'd like to defer to our lawyers at the State Department.

First, Omar Fadhil al-Nidawi and Austin Bay (Wall St. Journal) report, "It's clear that Iraqi air defense forces will not be ready to handle the mission by 2011. Currently, the Iraqi Air Force is a creature of turbo-prop planes and helicopters. A squadron of high performance aircraft flown by Iraqi crack pilots is an expensive goal that might sortie over Baghdad by 2016 at best, though the Iraqi Ministry of Defense quietly estimates that 2018, or 2020, is more probable."

Could the White House extend the US presence beyong 2011 and would it require Senate approval to do so? "Yes" to the first and "no" to the second. Russ Feingold isn't suddenly interested in this issue. He was among those vocally decrying attempts to circumvent the Constitution by bypassing the Senate to form a treaty with Iraq. That was the Bush White House. Let's drop back to the April 10, 2008 snapshot where another Senate Foreign Relations committee hearing was covered:

Senator Russ Feingold wanted to know if there were "any conditions that the Iraq government must meet?" No, that thought never occurred to the White House. "Given the fact that the Maliki government doesn't represent a true colation," Feingold asked, "won't this agreement [make it appear] we are taking sides in the civil war especially when most Iraqi Parliamentarians have called for the withdrawal of troops?" The two witnesses [David Satterfield (US State Department) and Mary Beth Long (US Defense Dept)] didn't appear to have heard that fact before. Feingold repeated and asked, "Are you not concerned at all that the majority of the Iraqi Parliament has called for withdrawal" Satterfield feels the US and the agreement "will enjoy broad popular support" in Iraq. Satterfield kept saying the agreement wasn't binding. And Feingold pointed out, "The agreement will not bind the Congress either, if the Congress were to" pass a law overriding it which seemed to confuse Satterfield requiring that Feingold again point that out and ask him if "Congress passed a clear law overriding the agreement, would the law override the agreement." Satterfield felt the White House "would have to look carefully at it at the time" because "it would propose difficult questions for us."

"I would suggest," Feingold responded, "your difficulties are with the nature of our Constitution. If we pass a law overiding it . . . that's the law." The treaty and the efforts to bypass the Senate's advise & consent role was something that bothered senators on both sides of the aisle.

Feingold objected as did many Dems and, in the Senate, several Republicans. Barack Obama objected as well. Until he won the election. Then objections began vanishing. Now he operates under Bush's SOFA as opposed to doing any of the things he promised on the campaign trail. Can the White House extend US involvement in Iraq?

Yes.

It was one of the two signers of the document. It can put forward a new agreement or can add years to the same agreement.

Yes.

Does it need Senate approval to do so?

"No" would now appear to be the answer. Precedent would most likely apply here were the matter to go before the Supreme Court. The Court will sometimes provide a check on the Executive Branch; however, it generally looks for any way out of such a ruling. (The Court has no officers that enforce decisions -- among the reasons it tends to avoid stand-offs with the Executive Branch.) Allowing George W. Bush to put forward a treaty and refusing to overturn it when Barack was sworn in as president would most likely allow a wary Court to say a limited and limiting precedent --- applying solely to this SOFA document with Iraq -- was set by Bush's objections and the continuation of them under President Barack Obama. So Barack could bypass the Senate -- as Bush did -- in creating a new agreement or extending the current one. It's an issue Feingold always takes seriously. You'll note his chief online cheerleader, The Progressive's Matthew Rothschild, 'forgets' to document Feingold's line of questioning yesterday.

Meanwhile Fadhel al-Badrani, Suadad al-Salhy, Missy Ryan and Philippa Fletcher (Reuters) reported this morning that a riot has broken out at Abu Ghraib prison and someone has started a fire. BBC News adds that US helicopters and Iraqi troops were sent to the prison and: "Some Iraqi media said there had been fatalities, but [US] Master Sgt [Nicholas] Conner said the Iraqi authorities reported that three guards and three inmates had been injured." AFP quotes an unnamed prison officer stating, "A fire was declared on Friday afternoon following clashes between prisoners and wardens carrying out a search for banned substances and weapons." AP reports that a group of lawmakers met with prisoners to negotiate and cite Zeinab alKinani stating the bulk of the prisoners returned to the cells after given a promise that a committee would be created to explore prisoner amnesty. RTT states, 'One prisoner was killed and many others injured". Elsewhere, Wathiq Ibrahim and Tim Cocks (Reuters) report, were attacked at a Safara military checkpoint with 5 being shot dead.

In other reported violence . . .

Bombings?

Reuters notes a Riyadh bombing which claimed 2 lives.

Shootings?

Reuters notes a Kirkuk shooting that injured one person, 1 person shot dead in Hawija and, dropping back to yesterday, six people were left wounded in a Kirkuk shooting.

The violence has immediate effects in terms of deaths and wounded. It also has impacts that often aren't noted. Jane Arraf (Christian Science Montior) reports that Black Wednesday (the August 19th bombings targeting the Foreign Ministry and Finance Ministry primarily) also did damage to the Iraq Museum:"Showcases, windows, even the office of the director of excavations was damaged," says museum director Amira Eidan, interviewed on the sidelines of a Tourism Ministry conference on antiquities. She says it could be several years before the renowned institution can be opened to the public. "Is it the time to reopen the museum and show these treasures?" she asks. "After improving the security situation, then we can think about reopening."You may be thinking, "Reopen? I thought the museum opened in Februrary." They certainly did try to spin it that way but, check Feb. 23rd snapshot, it wasn't an opening, it was a ceremony for Nouri, dignitaries and, most of all, reporters. Back then, the Los Angeles Times' Babylon & Beyond blog was one of the few to offer reality, "As for when the rest of Iraq will be able to see the museum, that's unclear. Iraqi guards Monday afternoon told journalists it would be a couple of months." And it never opened.

Attempts are being made to close a camp in Iraq. Camp Ashraf is made up of Iranian dissidents belonging to the MEK who were given sanctuary by Saddam Hussein and have remained in Iraq for decades. Following the US invasion, the US military provided security for them and the US government labeled them "protected persons" under Geneva. Though Nouri 'promised' he wouldn't move against Camp Ashraf, but July 28th he launched an assault. Bill Bowder (UK's Church Times) reports, "The Archbishop of Canterbury has written to the United States Ambassador in London to add his voice to protests outside the US embassy." Today Amnesty International released the following:

Amnesty International has written to the Iraqi prime minister Nuri al-Maliki expressing its deep concern about killings and other abuses committed by Iraqi security forces at Camp Ashraf this summer.
On 28-29 July a large number of Iraqi security personnel seized control of Camp Ashraf in Iraq's Diyala province, north of Baghdad, a settlement that has been home to some 3,400 Iranian exiles for over 20 years. At least nine camp residents were shot dead and others sustained serious injuries during the storming of the camp, during which vehicles were driven into crowds of protesting residents and live ammunition used, apparently without adequate justification. Since July, 36 camp residents have been held without charge or trial.
In response, fears for the thousands of Iranian nationals - many with a long history of political opposition to the government of neighbouring Iran - have been raised by numerous supporters around the world. There have been protests around the world, including a long-running vigil and hunger strike outside the US embassy in London. Protestors say the withdrawal of US forces to military bases in Iraq earlier this year has left Camp Ashraf residents newly vulnerable to Iraqi security forces, a concern shared by Amnesty.
Amnesty International UK Director Kate Allen said:
'There are numerous reports - including shocking images - of the Iraq security forces using what appears to be grossly excessive force in their seizure of Camp Ashraf and this must be properly investigated. So must reports that detainees have been abused in detention
'The fear now is that Iraq may force Camp Ashraf residents to return to Iran, where they could face imprisonment or torture. No vulnerable residents of Camp Ashraf must face this fate.'
Amnesty has made clear to both the Iraqi and US governments that it strongly opposes any forcible returns, either of those at Camp Ashraf or of other Iranian nationals who currently reside in Iraq having left Iran for political reasons or to escape persecution. In its letter to prime minister al-Maliki, Amnesty urges him to immediately establish a full and independent investigation into the methods used by Iraqi security forces during the Camp Ashraf operation, making its findings public as soon as possible. Amnesty also urged him to ensure that members of the security forces and other officials found responsible for using excessive force and of committing serious human rights violations are immediately suspended from duty and promptly brought to justice.
Meanwhile Amnesty has expressed particular concern over the fate of the 36 detained men, not least as there are allegations that they have been beaten and otherwise ill-treated. They are currently held at a police station in al-Khalis - a town some 15 miles from Camp Ashraf -- where they are reported to be in poor health and to be maintaining a hunger strike in protest at their detention and ill-treatment.
On 24 August an Iraqi investigative judge ordered the release of the 36 on the grounds that they had no charges to answer, but local police refused to release them, in breach of Iraqi law. A public prosecutor in Baquba, Diyala province, is then reported to have appealed against the investigative judge's release order, apparently as a means of justifying their continued detention, and the appeal is now awaiting determination by the Court of Cassation.
In its letter Amnesty urged the Iraq prime minister to intervene and ensure that the 36 detainees are released immediately and unconditionally unless they are to face recognisably criminal charges and brought to trial fairly and promptly. Amnesty also urged Mr al-Maliki to order an investigation into the failure by police at al-Khalis to comply with the judge's order for the release of the 36 and to ensure that any police officers responsible for unlawful detentions are held to account.


John Hughes (Deseret News) adds, "An Iraqi judge ruled that the 36 dissidents, who went on a hunger strike in captivity, should be released. But Iraqi Interior Ministry officials, using new tactics, have argued that the dissidents entered the country illegally and should be expelled -- obviously to Iran. If this tactic is successful, it could be applied to the 3,400 or so PMOI members remaining in Camp Ashraf." So the Iraqi court rules that prisoners should be released and the Iraqi government decides they don't have to listen. Maybe from the US. After all the US military grabbed Reuters reporter Ibrahim Jassim in September 2008 and refuse to release him. In November 2008, Iraqi courts decided Ibrahim should be set free but the US ignored the court order and has continued to imprison Ibrahim.

At On The Wilderside, Ian Wilder calls out United for Pathetic and Juvenile and CodeStink for "trotting out Tom Hayden as an anti-war spoeksperson. Hello? Everyone forget that Hayden told everyone to vote for the pro-war Obama. [. . .] How about Hayden sign a petition saying he will never vote for (or promote) a pro-war candidate?" It's actually worse than Ian writes. Tom-Tom didn't just tell people to vote for Barack, Tom-Tom ridiculed those who didn't. For example, Tom-Tom gave an interview to the Rocky Mountain News where he mocked and sneered at Chris Hedges because Hedges would not support Barack (Chris Hedges supported Ralph Nader). It wasn't just Tom Hayden telling people to vote for Barack, he also attacked those who voted for Ralph or Cynthia McKinney. Tom's a total tool and that's why he has the blood of Palestinians on his hands. (His one late-in-life column admitting guilt did not absolve him.) Ian Wilder's point is very clear: He's a Green and he's stating that the two organizations asking for Green support picked the wrong person to 'reach out' with due to Tom's behaivor. As always Carl Davidson shows up and Kimberly Wilder attempts to explain what Ian was doing. Kimberly's wasting her time. Carl knew what Ian was doing, Carl didn't care. It's the same crap Carl pulls with Paul Street. Carl insists that UPFJ endorses no candidates -- he apparently missed the UPFJ homepage in November. Or, more likely, it didn't register because The Old Whore Carl was a Barack supporter -- he was, in fact, sending out e-mails in 2007 stating "we" need to support Barack because of Barack's 'radical' roots. (Carl was among those whispering Barack was a Socialist or a Communist to drum up support for Barack in the very juvenile game of telephone that had the fringes rooting for Barry O early on.) [As I have stated here repeatedly beginning in 2007 when Carl and others spread those false rumors, Barack is a Corporatist War Hawk, he is not a Socialist, he is not a Communist.] We'll note Ian's response to Carl in full:

I am speaking for myself as an individual Green, and as a peace activist who was [. . .] against the Afghan War since the first day we started bombing.
I am tired of supporting organizations that don't support me. How about supposed anti-war organizations stop sending messages out from Democrats who support a pro-war President? How about they stop going underground every time a Democrat runs for President?
UPFJ and Code Pink have not been friends. They have wanted Green Party bodies and dollars, but not our voices. We will not stop these wars until the peace movement is ready to directly confront the politicians, Democrat and Republican. And that includes confronting them on the campaign trail and in the voting booth.

Caro of Make Them Accountable notes the analysis of ObamaInsuranceCompanyCare by Chris Floyd (Empire Burlesque): "But of course there will be no reform, and there was never going to be. Obama is going to 'reform' America's broken health care system the same way he has 'reformed' the War on Terror and 'reformed' Wall Street: by taking the existing policies and making them even worse."

Today is the anniversary of 9-11. We'll note it by including this from international law professor Francis A. Boyle "O'Reilly and the Law of the Jungle" (ZNet):

On the morning of 13 September 2001, that is 48 hours after the terrible tragedies in New York and Washington , D.C. on September 11th, I received telephone call from a producer at Fox Television Network News in New York City . He asked me to go onto The O'Reilly Factor TV program live that evening in order to debate Bill O'Reilly on the question of war versus peace. O'Reilly would argue for the United States going to war in reaction to the terrorist attacks on 11 September, and I would argue for a peaceful resolution of this matter.
Up until then I had deliberately declined numerous requests for interviews about the terrible events of September 11 and what should be done about them because it was not clear to me precisely what was going on. But unfortunately The O'Reilly Factor had the Number One ranking in TV viewership for any news media talk program in America . I felt very strongly as a matter of principle that at least one person from the American Peace Movement had to go onto that program and argue the case directly to the American people that the United States of America must not go to war despite the terrible tragedy that had been inflicted upon us all.

I had debated O'Reilly before so I was fully aware of the type of abuse to expect from him. So for the next few hours I negotiated with O'Reilly through his producer as to the terms and conditions of my appearance and our debate, which they agreed to. At the time I did not realize that O'Reilly was setting me up to be fired as he would next successfully do to Professor Sami Al-Arian soon after debating me.

After our debate had concluded, I returned from the campus television studio to my office in order to shut the computer down, and then go home for what little remained of the evening. When I arrived in my office, I found that my voice mail message system had been flooded with mean, nasty, vicious complaints and threats. The same was true for my e-mail in-box. I deleted all these messages as best I could, and then finally went home to watch the rest of O'Reilly's 9/11 coverage that evening on Fox with my wife. By then he was replaying selected segments of our debate and asking for hostile commentaries from Newt Gingrich and Jeane Kirkpatrick. We turned off the TV in disgust when O'Reilly publicly accused me of being an Al Qaeda supporter. My understanding was that Fox then continued to rebroadcast a tape of this outright character assassination upon me for the rest of the night.

Click here to read the rest. Music notes, Tuesday, October 27th, Carly Simon's latest album, Never Been Gone, is released. Carly's recording two new compositions and doing new arrangements (mainly acoustic) of previous songs including her Academy Award winning, Golden Globe winning and Grammy winning "Let The River Run" -- she's made the new version available as a free download currently. TV notes. NOW on PBS begins airing on most PBS stations tonight:In rural Rwanda, the simple and time-tested idea of medical house calls is not only improving the health of the community, but stimulating its economy as well.This week, NOW travels to the village of Rwinkwavu to meet the Rwandan doctors, nurses and villagers who are teaming up with Boston-based Partners in Health and the Rwandan government to deliver medicine and medical counseling door-to-door. Would such an innovation work in America?In the capital of Kigali, NOW's David Brancaccio sits down with Rwandan President Paul Kagame to talk about international aid and Kagame's ultimate vision for a healthy, financially-independent Rwanda.Washington Week also begins airing tonight on many PBS stations and sitting around the table with Gwen tonight are Charlie Babington (AP), Peter Baker (New York Times), Joan Biskupic (USA Today) and Doyle McManus (Los Angeles Times). Remember that there is a web bonus each week that you can grab on podcast (video -- they also have audio podcast but it doesn't include the bonus) or wait for Monday morning when the bonus is available at the website. Also, a PBS friend asks that I note that they didn't just redesign their website at Washington Week, they added many new elements. One sidebar is on the right and it contains links to the latest writing by Washington Week regulars such as CBS and Slate's John Dickerson's article on health care at Slate. Meanwhile Bonnie Erbe will sit down with four women to discuss the week's events on PBS' To The Contrary. Check local listings, on many stations, it begins airing tonight. Online, they address the announcement that Diane Sawyer will begin anchoring ABC's World News Tonight next year. And turning to broadcast TV, Sunday CBS' 60 Minutes offers:
President Obama Steve Kroft interviews the president at an important time in his presidency.
Big Teddy His son, Ted Kennedy, Jr., and the editor/publisher he collaborated closely with on his memoir, Jonathan Karp, reflect on the life and legacy of the late Sen. Ted Kennedy. Lesley Stahl reports.
Guiding Light Morley Safer interviews the actors and writers behind broadcasting's longest running drama, "Guiding Light," as they celebrate the soap opera's incredible run and discuss its cancellation after 72 years.
60 Minutes Sunday, Sept. 13, at 7 p.m. ET/PT.


iraq
nprthe diane rehm showsteve robertsthe wall street journalomar fadhil al-nidawiaustin baythe christian science monitorjane arraf
amnesty international
carly simon
bbc news60 minutescbs newspbsto the contrarybonnie erbenow on pbs
kats korner