Syria

Tuesday. Remember when C.I. wrote (repeatedly) about how Al Jazeera wasn't not reporting truth and how it was controlled by Qatar?

Check out Peter Lee's piece about how Al Jazeera's credibility is shot:

The main event, or what should be the main event, for Western observers of Syria is the messy implosion of Al Jazeera’s credibility. Somebody disgruntled with the diktat of channel management that the Syrian revolution (at least the SNC version of it) “must be televised” leaked some raw footage of Homs coverage and interviews staged for maximum anti-regime effect.

As’ad AbuKhalil, proprietor of the Angry Arab newsblog, hails from the atheist/Marxist/feminist quadrant and is no friend of the Bashar regime. He had this to say about recent trends in programming on Syrian state TV:

“It seems that Syrian regime had agents among the rebels; or it seems that the Syrian regime obtained a trove of video footage from Baba Amru. They have been airing them non-stop. They are quite damning. They show the correspondent or witness (for CNN or from Aljazeera) before he is on the air: and the demeanor is drastically different from the demeanor on the air and they even show contrived sounds of explosions timed for broadcast time…

“PS This is really scandalous. It shows the footage prior to Aljazeera reports: they show fake bandages applied on a child and then a person is ordered to carry a camera in his hand to make it look like a mobile footage. It shows a child being fed what to say on Aljazeera.”

Later in the day:

“This is rather explosive. You know how low Aljazeera has sunk when Syrian regime TV stations have a field day with the shoddy journalism and fabrication procedures of Aljazeera. It seems that people inside Aljazeera have leaked raw footage and pre-air reports to someone in Syrian regime TV. I am not surprised of the leak at all: I am in contact from people inside Aljazeera who are disgusted by the propaganda work of the network in the last few months. … I know how those things work and they know that I know. The footage that are being shown show staging of events of calling a civilian an “officer” in the Syrian army, of faking injuries and feeding statements to people before airtime, etc. Aljazeera seems to be writing its own professional obituary. I don’t know how it can really resurrect itself again. It is mortally wounded. I know that there are people in the network who are pained about what is happening but royal orders are royal orders in the network and no one dare to disobey. I am told that orders came down to the effect that no half-position would be tolerated and that categorical adoption of the Qatari foreign policy on Syria is a job requirement.”

Still on Syria, The Daily Star reports that 13 French military officers were captured in Syria this week. HOw did they get there? Thought this was a homegrown movement, isn't that what Barry The Liar keeps telling us? That's not all. Stratfor argues that US Special Ops are in the area.

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

Tuesday, March 6, 2012. Chaos and violence continue, the US Congress learns more about how the VA asks for X and then spends X-plus without any Congressional authorization, Iraq's LGBT community is again being stalked by death squads, and more. Chair Bill Johnson: The VA clearly indicates in a letter from Secretary Gould on November 24,2010 that they automatically go to the two-step acquisition process which by definition precludes evaluation of existing lease space as an option of lease spaces for all leases greater than 20,000 feet. Does VA presume that this authorizes them to bypass the requirements of federal acquistion regulations in 38 US Section 8104B. Robert Neary: No, sir, we do not presume that we've got authority to violate title 38 or the federal acquisition regulations. This afternoon the US House Veterans Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations held a hearing. Bill Johnson is the Subcommittee Chair, Joe Donnelly is the Ranking Member. Robert Neary is the Acting Executive Director of the Office of Constructin & Facilities Management at the Department of Veterans Affairs and he was joined by the Dept's George Szwarcman (Director of Real Property Services) and Brandi Fate (Director of Capital Asset Management and Support). Robert Neary began his opening remarks before the Subcommittee with what he termed an "update" but what are more popularly known as a "correction." Robert Neary: In response to a series of questions from the Subcommittee in December 2011, VA provided an incorrect appraisal for the targeted relocated Savannah Outpatient Clinic site. Instead of referencing a 46,85 acre site, VA inadvertently referenced a 16.85 acre location. The appraiser failed to identify that the deed of sale and the tax records did not reflect the same information. Since learning of the discrepancy, VA immediately requested a revised appraisal and provided an update to the Subcommittee on March 2, 2012, acknoledging the error. VA is contracting for another certified appraiser to review the initial appraisal, and provide a determination regarding fair market value of VA's preferred site as of Spring, 2010. Finally, VA is also obtaining a new appraisal that reflects the current land value of the site. VA will review all the appraisal reports concerning the targeted parcel in Savannah in order to determine what appropriate corrective action may be warranted. I want to emphasize that VA only uses appraisers who maintain appropriate licensure and accreditation, in addition to adherence to the Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land Acquisitions, which is standard operating procedure. I would like to apologize to the Committee for the delay in uncovering the facts and provide assurance that response to future inquiries will be more thoroughly investigated. And before you think, 'At least the VA's being upfront . . .,' no, they are not. They got caught. I'm not referring to Neary himself -- I have no idea who was responsible. But Ranking Member Joe Donnelly explained what was going on: The VA sought Congressional authorization for the Savannah, Georgia clinic expansion in its FY 2009 budget submission. This authority, for a clinic with 38,900 net usable square feet at a cost of $3.2 million, was provided in October 2008. Sometime after this authorization, the VA epxanded the project by over 45% and is now seeking to lease a clinic with a maximum net usable square footage of 55,193. The VA has not notified Congress or sought additional authorization for this expanison. In addition, although this project was authorized in 2008, construction is just now going forward. Okay, let's review that. In 2008, the VA had a plan to expand the Savannah clinic and presented it to Congress while Congress was working on the 2009 budget. Congress examined the proposal and signed off on it with funding of $3.2 million. Four years later, construction is only now beginning. Construction was supposed to have already been completed and the expanded facility up and running no later than June of last year. In addition, what VA presented and Congress approved was not good enough for someone(s) who took it upon themselves to expand the plan by nearly 50% ("over 45%"). Why would you do that? Why would you turn in plans for an expansion, get approval and then double what you had planned? Because you know Congress will foot the bill. The costs will fall under "cost overruns" and Congress isn't going to default on payment to various contractors and subcontractors overseeing the work and construction workers doing the building. (Nor am I suggesting that Congress should. The fault is not on the building end, the fault's with VA management and supervision.) Most likely, Mr./Ms. X knew that the Savannah project was going to be a big one. They presented Congress with plans for only half the work needed knowing that once the project was started, it would be cost overruns and Congress wouldn't pull the plug. What they did wasn't 'creative.' What they did was most likely fraud. And if that term ("fraud") seems too strong or if someone wants to argue it's an accident. It happens too often to be an accident. Ranking Member Joe Donnelly: The clinic in Savannah is not the only project which the VA has expanded after seeking authorization. Projects in Atlanta, Georgia; Eugene, Oregon; Fayetteville, North Carolina; Grand Rapids, Michigan; Green Bay, Wisconsin and Greenville, North Carolina are all slated to be substantially larger than authorized by Congress. Sequestration is very likely this year -- meaning the 2013 Fiscal Year budget will face automatic cuts. The country has a huge deficit which is supposedly this huge concern. So why is VA being allowed -- and it's not just VA -- to get away with cost overruns? Congress needs to have an automatic policy regarding cost overruns. Again, I don't subscribe to denying payment to the various contractors and construction workers. But I do think if you have a cost overrun, you need to be responsible. And by "responsible," I mean out of job. You're supposed to have planned this. They can make an exception for inflation. They can even allow a 15% overrun not resulting in termination. But when you're project has increased over 45% by what Congress approved, you need to be out of a job. That's because you're either too incompentent to oversee a project in the first place or you're not providing the oversight needed. Either way, the taxpayer can't afford you and your mistakes. There need to be clear consequences here. We are willing (wrongly, I believe) to automatically sentence someone to prison under "three strikes and you're out" laws. But we have no law requiring that those who waste -- intentionally or due to incompetence -- taxpayer monies aren't immediately fired? It's past time for departments to start being held accountable. And it's very clear that VA and others will not hold themselves accountable so Congress needs to start providing some input. It is not fair that everyone else from a shoplifter to, yes, even a member of Congress faces some form of accountability (Congressional members can be kicked out in any election if enough voters don't feel they're doing their jobs) but those responsible for cost overruns are never disciplined, never lose a job, never lose a night's sleep. Again, you may think, 'Well it was just a mistake . . .' No, it wasn't. Back to Subcommittee Chair Johnson. Subcommitee Chair Bill Johnson: Why did the three annual lease status reports reported to Congress since 2009 continue to repeat the original authorization amounts when the VA clearly knew their efforts were not consistent with the Congressional limits. Robert Neary: Sir, I-I -- I think our current process for the past several years has been to notify the Congress -- to notify the Committees on Veterans Affairs when we, uh, are planning to enter into a lease that exceeds the, uh, uh, what was authorized by greater than 10%. And our practice is to do that after we have received market-based pricing based on our procurement. Now, in this case, significant time has passed since the original authorization. Uh. But-but that's the reason that we have not, uh, notified the Committee. We're waiting for the, uh, price proposals to receive, uh, through competition. Subcommittee Chair Bill Johnson: Okay, I'd like to point out that the Green Bay clinic is a similar scenario the FY '09 budget authority request was for 70,600 square feet, two-million-eight-thousand annual rent and $3,883,000 initial payment. Total budget authorized over 20 years was 44 -- I'm sorry, 44,043,000. As recently as the 2012 submission to Congress, the VA has indicated in the lease status report that Green Bay lease was not changed from FY '09 authorization request, however, SFOVA-101-09-RP-0200, issued 6-24-2009 was for 161,525 square feet -- 228% higher than authorized. And news reports indicate that the Green Bay lease has now been awarded. Repeating, for the 2009 budget, they claimed they were requesting for 70,600 square feet. They knew at least by June of 2009 that they were actually going to be dealing with 161,525 feet. They didn't notify Congress, they stayed silent for years. This was fraud. When you present that you need X but you actually need greater than that amount and you know that once the project's started, it will be very hard for Congress to pull the plug, then you're engaging in fraud. You're presenting false numbers -- fraudulent numbers -- to Congress because they will get approved while the whole time you're intending to spend much more. You're defrauding the taxpayer. Chair Bill Johnson: Uhm, let me ask you another question. Has the VA already paid approximately 100,000 or so for a purchase option on the land in Savannah. Robert Neary: That's correct, Mr. Chairmn. Chair Bill Johnson: Under what authority does VA purchase an option to buy real property? Robert Neary: I'd like to ask Mr. Szwarcman to answer that. George Szwarcman: . . . [Microphone not on] Oh, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Robert Neary: Okay, it's on. George Szwarcman: Okay. Uhm . . . [Clears throat] VA -- According to a decision, or an opinion by the Office of General Counsel, VA does, uh, have authority to purchase options to purchase real property. Uh, the only distinction I would make in this case is that VA is purchasing an option for -- an assignable option -- or I should say -- yeah -- purchases an option to buy that property which will be assigned to the eventual developer. So it is never really the intent of VA to acquire a piece of property such as in Savannah for VA to own. Chair Bill Johnson: Uhm, you know, I think the operative word here is to purchase an option. The red book makes it clear that agencies need a specific statutory authority to purchase an option. This is a separate authority than the authority to buy real property outright. I can refer you to that -- to the red book. A quick search of VA's authorities do not provide an authority for their action. So I'm a little bit lost with that. There's a difference between purchasing an option and purchasing property outright. Has the VA obligated itself to purchase the land? Robert Neary: Uh, no, sir, we've not. Chair Bill Johnson: And if the land is not purchased, will VA get any of that money back? Robert Neary: No, sir. Chair Bill Johnson: So that's taxpayer dollars down the drain. Robert Neary: If a decision were made not to acquire that site, then the money would be lost, yes. There is so much more from that hearing I would like to cover but there's a big story out of Iraq that will be ignored by many -- if 2009 was any indication -- and we don't ignore it here so we need to move over to Iraq now. Today the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission announced: The International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission has today received reports from Iraq of a wave of targeted killings of individuals who are perceived to be gay or lesbian. According to Iraqi human rights activists, in early February 2012, an unidentified group posted death threats against "the adulterous individuals" in the predominantly Shiite neighborhoods of Baghdad and Basra. The threats gave the individuals, whose names and ages were listed, four days to stop their behavior or else face the wrath of God, and were to be carried out by the Mujahedin. According to sources inside Iraq, as the result of this new surge of anti-gay violence close to 40 people have been kidnapped, brutally tortured and murdered. The Iraqi authorities have neither responded to this targeted violence nor have they publicly denounced it. It is widely believed that these atrocities are being committed by a group of the Shiite militia. All US aid to Iraq should immediately stop. For those who are not aware, this wave of attacks is only the latest wave. The White House should have addressed it earlier. They didn't. And now the same problem all over again. April 13, 2009, Amnesty International issued the following: Amnesty International has written to Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki expressing grave concern about a reported spate of killing of young men solely because of their sexual orientation and calling for urgent and concerted action by the government to bring those responsible to justice and to afford effective protection to the gay community in Iraq. Over the last few weeks at least 25 boys and men are reported to have been killed in Baghdad because theyw ere, or were pereceived to be, gay. The killings are said to have been carried out by armed Shi'a militamen as well as by members of the tribes and families of the victims. Certain religious leaders, especially in al-Sadr City neighbourhood, are also reported in recent weeks to have urged their followers to take action to eradicate homosexuality in Iraqi society, in terms which appear effectively to constitute at least an implicit, if not explicit, incitement to violence against members of the gay community. Three corpses of gay men are reported to have been found in al-Sadr City on 2 and 3 April 2009; two of the bodies are said to have had pieces of paper bearing the word "pervert" attached to them, suggetsting that the victims had been murdered on account of their sexual identitiy. In the letter sent to the Prime Minister Amnesty International expressed concern at the government's failure to publicly condemn the killings and ensure that they are promptly and effective investigated, and that the perpetrators are brought to justice. The letter also drew attention to reported statements by one senior police officer that appear to condone or even encourage the targeting of members of the gay community in Baghdad, in gross breach of the law and international human rights standards. Amnesty International reminded the Iraqi government that it is a fundamental principle of international human rights law, including international treaties that have been ratified by and are binding on Iraq, that "All human beings are equal in dignity and rights" and are entitled to all rights and freedom set forth in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, without distinction of any kind, such as on grounds of race, sex, religion, political, or other status, including sexual orientation and gender identity. The organization called on Prime Minister al-Maliki [to] take immediate and concrete steps to address this sitatuion, including to publicly condemn, unreservedly and in the strongest terms, all attacks on members of the gay community or others on account of their sexual, gender, ethnic or other identity, and to commit to ensuring that those responsible for such abuses are identified and brought to justice. Further, police officers or other officials who encourage, condone or acquiesce in such attacks must also be held to account and either prosecuted or disciplined and removed from office. Dropping back to the April 17, 2009 snapshot: This morning AFP is reported that signs are going up around the Sadr City neighborhood of Baghdad threatening to kill a list of people alleged to be gay. The posters are put out by the Brigades of the Righteous and AFP translates the posters as stating, "We will punish you, perverts" and "We will get you, puppies" has been scrawled on some posters -- "puppies" being slang for gay males in Iraq. The Australian carries the AFP report here. Liz Sly and Caesar Ahmed (LAT's Babylon & Beyond) report the message on the posters included, "If you don't cease your perverted acts, you will get your fair punishment." The reporters also noted that a Sadr City resident saw a poster with approximately 15 names (of people who would be killed) written on it. These posters are going up around Sadr City. Where is the United Nations condemnation? Where is the White House, where is the US State Dept? Chris Johnson (Washington Blade) notes the only member of the US Congress to condemn the targeting of Iraq's LGBT community, US House Rep Jared Polis and reports: ["] Noel Clay, a State Department spokesperson, said U.S. officials "condemn the persecution of LGBTs in Iraq," but he couldn't confirm whether the violence they're facing in Iraq is because of their sexual orientation. Clay noted that while homosexuality is against the law in Iraq, the death penalty is not the punishment for homosexual acts. ["] And yet at the start of this month the State Dept's Iraqi Desk John Fleming was telling Kilian Melloy (The Edge) that, "Homosexuality not a crime in Iraq." He was also stating that same-sex relations were of no conern to Iraqis ("immaterial"). That is laughable. Noel Clay has stated that same-sex relations have been criminalized in Iraq so unless or until the State Dept issues a public clarification, we will operate under the belief that Clay is correct. Attempts by the press to figure this out has been stonewalled. Barack Obama never called it out. Not once. In the 80s, Ronald Reagan was US President. The AIDS crisis emerged. When Reagan died in 2004, his non-response to the AIDS crisis was noted. From Allen White's "Reagan's AIDS Legacy: Silence equals death" (San Francisco Chronicle): As America remembers the life of Ronald Reagan, it must never forget his shameful abdication of leadership in the fight against AIDS. History may ultimately judge his presidency by the thousands who have and will die of AIDS. Following discovery of the first cases in 1981, it soon became clear a national health crisis was developing. But President Reagan's response was "halting and ineffective," according to his biographer Lou Cannon. Those infected initially with this mysterious disease -- all gay men -- found themselves targeted with an unprecedented level of mean-spirited hostility. A significant source of Reagan's support came from the newly identified religious right and the Moral Majority, a political-action group founded by the Rev. Jerry Falwell. AIDS became the tool, and gay men the target, for the politics of fear, hate and discrimination. Falwell said "AIDS is the wrath of God upon homosexuals." Reagan's communications director Pat Buchanan argued that AIDS is "nature's revenge on gay men." With each passing month, death and suffering increased at a frightening rate. Scientists, researchers and health care professionals at every level expressed the need for funding. The response of the Reagan administration was indifference. Even during the non-stop death pageantry, the glorification and the worship, there was still time for a small bit of reality. Barack Obama better be thinking about his legacy. His silence as Iraq's LGBT community (as well as people merely thought to be LGBT) is targeted and killed is appalling. There's no excuse for it. And history will not provide one. History's provided none for Ronald Reagan -- Barack's hero, remember? Cary Alan Johnson, the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission's Executive Director, states: Today the Government of Iraq represents a fully sovereign and democratic country. As such, it must protect all of its citizens including lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people from hate-filled violence and death at the hands of armed militias. Vigilantes who perpetuate the targeted killing of those perceived to be gay or lesbian must not be tolerated in a new Iraq. We have seen these atrocities before. In 2009 vigilantes murdered hundreds of Iraqi individuals for their perceived sexual orientation. There are no excuses for such heinous human rights violations. We demand that the Iraqi Government put a stop to the wanton persecution and killing of gay people, and that the perpetrators punished. Dan Littauer (Gay Star News) speaks with LGBT Iraqi activist Bissam who had to leave Iraq for his own safety and he states: I had a confirmed report in October 2011 from a gay young man who lives in Baghdad, his name is Haider, that al-Mehdi militia are threatening that they are coming back and they will kill gays. For some reason some of the militia men knew about him being gay because he was told they came looking for him, so he fled his home and was hiding. Last I heard from him was in late November but don't know what happened to him. Many men get kidnanpped and go missing all the time. He also reported that this has been happening to many of his friends. For those who missed the 2009 wave of attacks (not the first and not the last), the only non-LGBT program on Pacifica Radio to cover the attacks was Lila Garrets' Connect the Dots on KPFK. LA City Council member Bill Rosendahl raised the issue on her show June 1, 2009 (see that day's snapshot for the exchange -- you can contact KPFK about ordering a copy of the show; however, there is no free archive of that broadcast available any longer). In terms of big media, the leader was the Denver Post. The New York Times, despite having people over there to report on Iraq, had no real interest in the story an only filed one story after other outlets were reporting on it. Their lack of interest was not unlike the lack of interest they showed in the 80s when the AIDS crisis emerged. By their patterns of silence, they do reveal themselves. If you've forgotten or weren't around during the 2009 coverage, from the June 1, 2009 snapshot, we'll note some resources from this site and the media coverage of the targeting: This year, the targeting's been noted here first in more on the issue, you can see this snapshot, this entry and the roundtable Friday night ["Roundtable on Iraq," "Roundtabling Iraq," "the roundtable," "Iraq," "Iraq in the Kitchen," "Roundtable on Iraq," "Talking Iraq," "Iraq," "Talking Iraq roundtable" and "Iraq roundtable"] That's going back to the start of April and it is not true that the MSM has ignored it. They could do a lot more but they have covered it and where there has been no amplification is in Panhandle Media which appears to feel it's a 'niche' story to be left to the LGBT media. In April, Wisam Mohammed and Khalid al-Ansary (Reuters) and Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN), the Dallas Morning News, UPI and AFP reported on it. Michael Riley (Denver Post) covered the story and covered US House Rep Jared Polis' work on the issue (which included visiting Iraq), PDF format warning, click here for his letter to Patricia A. Butenis. Polis is quoted at his website stating, "The United States should not tolerate human rights violations of nay kind, especially by a government that Americans spend billions of taxpayer dollars each year supporting. Hopefully my trip and letters to US and Iraqi officials will help bring international attention and investigation to this terrible situation and bring an end to any such offenses." For the New York Times, Timothy Williams and Tareq Maher's "Iraq's Newly Open Gays Face Scorn and Murder" covered the topic. BBC News offered "Fears over Iraq gay killing spate." The Denver Post offered an editorial entitled "Killing of gay Iraqis shouldn't be ignored: We applaud Rep. Jared Polis for his efforts last week to shine the spotlight on the killings of homosexuals in Iraq," Nigel Morris offered "Iraqi leaders attacked over spate of homophobic murders" (Independent of London), the Telegraph of London covers the issue here. Neal Broverman (The Advocate), Jessica Green (UK's Pink News), and Doug Ireland covered it (here's one report by Ireland at GayCityNews -- he's filed more than one report), AFP reported on it again when signs went up throughout Sadr City with statements such as "We will punish you, perverts" and "We will get you, puppies" (puppies is slang for gay men in Iraq) and Liz Sly (Los Angeles Times) reported on that as well. Chris Johnson offered "Polis seeks to aid Iraqis: Says gays 'fear for their life and limb' after fact-finding trip to Baghdad" (Washington Blade), Killian Melloy (The Edge -- this is the April 2nd story that contains the State Dept stating it's not happening -- the denial) and [PDF formart warning] the April 15th "Iraq Status Report" by the US State Dept notes the killings. Amnesty International weighed in as did the International Gay and lesiban Human Rights Campaign. Jim Muir (BBC News -- text and video) reported on the targeting and the attacks. UK Gay News covered it, last week ABC News offered Mazin Faiq's "Tortured and Killed in Iraq for Being Gay" Chicago Pride and UPI covered the latest deaths last week. And AFP and Jessica Green (UK's Pink News) covered the public statement from Moqtada al-Sadr about how they needed to be "eradicated" for "depravity" and he thinks they can be 'taught' not to be gay. And if you're wondering about the administration's response? Barack never called it out. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton raised the issue and was the highest ranking official to do so publicly. While this was taking place, the State Dept spokesperson never felt the need to note it at the start of a briefing or to express sorrow or regret for the deaths -- maybe if they'd been known as Shi'ite LGBTs, the State Dept would have given a damn? And in all the press briefings, only once in 2009 was the State Dept ever asked about the issue in a press briefing. And that question? It came from the BBC. Of all the reporters in the room, day after day, killing time and telling really sad jokes, only the BBC ever felt the need to raise the issue of the killing of Iraqi LGBTs. Only the BBC. Natahsa Barsotti (Xtra.ca Blog) explains: News of the latest atrocities comes on the eve of a United Nations panel on queer rights to be held in Geneva, Switzerland, on March 7, marking the first time the UN's Human Rights Council focuses on sexual orientation and gender identity. The panel is also taking place in the midst of opposition by 56 Islamic states in the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), which refuse to acknowledge gay rights as human rights. This isn't a minor issue. This is a major issue and we're not going to ignore it. Giving the issue and news the due it requires means we don't have time for Tareq al-Hashemi and we don't have time for ExxonMobil and many other things -- including Lynne Stewart. We'll pick those up tomorrow. But this is a serious issue and too many walked away and remained silent on this in 2009. There's no excuse for it to have ever happened, there is no excuse for alleged friend of the LGBT community, 'fiercest advocate for gay rights' (or whatever Michelle Obama called him) to have been silent in 2009. He needs to understand that silence on this in an election year will be unacceptable. The media needs to understand that their silence is being followed and registered as well. iraq connect the dots with lila garrett lila garrett kpfk the los angeles times ruben vives michael riley the new york times timothy williams tareq maher the denver post bbc news nigel morris doug ireland chris johnson the washington blade kilian melloy the los angeles times liz sly jim muir abc news mazin faiq jessica green

Isaiah, Third, TV

Monday, Monday. And a killer headache. Let's get a laugh with Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Jim Moron."

I still can't get over that. Jim Moran's not perfect but I never thought he was a total ass until last week. If you missed that story, what happened was that there's some documentary coming out. The film has ads up in the DC subway. The ads include the tagline "Go to hell Barack." And Jim Moran starts getting all titty-baby and whining that it has to come down.

Free speech be damned, apparently.

And that's when I lost any respect for him. He should be ashamed of himself.

Okay, Dallas and the following worked on the latest at Third:

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

And here's what we came up with.

• Truest statement of the week
• Truest statement of the week II
• A note to our readers
• Editorial: Camp Ashraf
• TV: Rules Of TV
• Congress and Veterans Issues
• From The TESR Test Kitchen
• Radio highlight of the week
• Arrest him for PW [Public Whining] (Ava and C.I.)
• Bob Filner: National Distinguished Public Service...
• 100th Anniversary of Bread & Roses strike (WW)
• Candidate Jill Stein weighs in Occupy
• Highlights

Now I've got a request for regular readers. Nikita? I'm not blogging about it this week or next. No new episodes right now. And Fringe? It's wrapped up for a few weeks.

So if there's a show you like that you'd like me to note here, drop me an e-mail. If I don't like the show, I'm not going to lie. And something like Gray's Anatomy bores me, just FYI.

But if there's a show you feel like gets no respect or gets ignored, let me know about it and I'll try to pick it up for two weeks as I wait for new stuff.

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

Monday, March 5, 2012. Chaos and violence continue, Eric Holder declares the president of the United States contemplating killing you qualifies as "due process," Haditha tries to recover from today's assault, Iraqi youths into EMO (or suspected being into) find their names on death lists, and more. Saturday night on NBC's The Firm (airing new episodes in the second hour of prime time and featuring Juliette Lewis delivering an amazing performance in the role of Tammy -- played by Holly Hunter in the film) a military officer heard his son shot while the two were on the phone. He needed Mitch (Josh Lucas) and Ray (Callum Keith Rennie) to help him find out what happened to his son. They quickly figure out that they're dealing with an assassination ordered by the White House. Ray: This kill list, an actual list created by the feds? Mitch: Approved by the White House, enemies of the state who are pre-approved for assassination. Ray: Pre-approved? Mitch: If US agents or military come across names on that list they are authorized to kill -- no due, process nothing. Ray: Okay, I understand that on a battlefield but Rashad's an American on US soil. Mitch: We've killed people on this list before, even US citizens, but never here in the US. Ava and I noted the dialogue at Third. As the episode(written by Lukas Reiter and Jonathan Shapiro) progresses, the government tries to stonewall the FISA court. Mitch wants to know when it became acceptable to kill US citizens on US soil and when the discussion on that took place? Today Jason Ditz (Antiwar.com) reports the disturbing news that US Attorney General Eric Holder, speaking at Northwestern University, declared that such assassinations were "legal and constitutional" and that Barack Obama -- or apparently any other US president to come -- making the decision to assassinate equaled "due process." No, it doesn't. Some will quibble and say that Holder was speaking of overseas (which doesn't make it any more legal) but if he's declaring that it can happen anywhere -- anywhere includes the United States. Nathan Freed Wessler (ACLU Blog of Rights) weighs in: In remarks delivered at the Northwestern University School of Law today, Attorney General Eric Holder provided the Obama Administration's most detailed public description yet of the legal authority under which it believes it can carry out targeted killings, including of U.S. citizens abroad. Unfortunately, the remarks still amounted to a broad defense of the government's claimed expansive authority to conduct targeted killings far from a battlefield, without judicial review of its legal justifications or evidence, either before or after a killing. The remarks also mischaracterized the debate over the need for judicial review of targeted killing decisions Echoing statements made by Defense Department general counsel Jeh Johnson last month, Holder claimed that "some have argued that the President is required to get permission from a federal court before taking action against a United States citizen" (our emphasis), and argued that courts should not get involved in the "real-time decisions" to deploy lethal force. But Holder is constructing a straw man argument here. We are not aware of anyone who has argued that judicial review before a targeted killing is always required, or that courts should exercise real-time oversight over lethal operations. Rather, in a lawsuit we filed with the Center for Constitutional Rights in 2010 on behalf of the father of Anwar al-Awlaki (who was placed on a government kill list in 2009 and died in a joint CIA/military drone strike in fall 2011), we asked the court to set standards describing when the government could constitutionally use lethal force against a U.S. citizen away from an active battlefield. We also asked the court to order the government to reveal the criteria it used to place al-Awlaki on so-called "kill lists." And we made clear to the court that we were not asking it to intervene in real-time decision-making by the Executive Branch. The court dismissed our lawsuit on the grounds that it raised "political questions," and held that the judiciary had no role to play in deciding the legal criteria pursuant to which the executive branch could take the life of one of its own citizens. As Holder's speech demonstrates, though, judicial oversight is critically important given the breathtaking authority the government has claimed. Holder acknowledged that all U.S. citizens, including those accused of being terrorists, have a right to due process under the Constitution, but he argued that the Executive Branch, alone, should determine whether the due process requirement is satisfied when the government claims law of war or self-defense authority to kill. In a system of constitutional checks and balances, that simply cannot be the case. Courts must have a role in determining whether the government's authority to kill its own citizens is legal and whether a decision to kill complies with the Constitution. Otherwise, the government can wield the power to take life with impunity. We should not trust any president -- whether this one or the next -- to make such momentous decisions fully insulated from judicial review. As the Supreme Court has admonished, "a state of war is not a blank check for the President when it comes to the rights of the Nation's citizens." Josh Lucas plays an attorney (Mitch McDeere) on The Firm, Nathan Freed Wessler is a real attorney and we'll stay with real attorneys to note that on this week's Law and Disorder Radio -- a weekly hour long program that airs Monday mornings at 9:00 a.m. EST on WBAI and around the country throughout the week, hosted by attorneys Heidi Boghosian, Michael S. Smith and Michael Ratner (Center for Constitutional Rights). Among the topics they explore this week is a potential secret indictment against Julian Assange of WikiLeaks. Excerpt. Michael Ratner: But what brings us really and brings me particularly to focus on these documents is the Center for Constitutional Rights and myself are advisors to Julian Assanfe and WikiLeaks, legal advisors. And we've been particular advisors about the Bradley Manning trial [. . .] So in these documents, these Stratfor documents, there's one document from Fred Burton who is the vice president, former US official, a counter-terrorism official, that says, "We have a sealed indictment on Julian Assange. Keep this private." He did this in January 2011, just over a year ago. And, of course, WikiLeaks is analyzing documents and sees this document and says, "What's this? Is this true? Is this valid?" And, of course, until we see it and know it, we don't know that it's 100% valid, but what Fred Burton has done in the past has been very reliable. And he's very well connected. So, for example, in another e-mail he says, within 10 days after the raid that killed Osama bin Laden, he said, "I can get the documents that were seized in that house from Osama bin laden." So these guys have very close connections with US intelligence. Other parts of these documents, in addition to this claim that there's an indictment, where they talk about Julian Assange, they talk about Julian Assange as a high tech terrorist, that's what Fred Burton says, and that we have to bring him down the way that we bring down al Qaeda. Heidi Boghosian: No. Michael Ratner: That's what they say. Heidi Boghosian: No. Michael Ratner: And the way we're going to do it, we're going to jail him wherever we can, we're going to cut off all his finances and, of course, that's exactly what happened. They cut off Master Card contributions to WikiLeaks, they cut off Visa donations to WikiLeaks, they cut off pay pal to WikiLeaks, and they're obviously going after them any way they can. So there's a lot of accuracy in this. But, lookit, from my point of view, the fact that there might be, or it looks like there is, a sealed indictment against Julian Assange is just incredible to me. I mean, first of all, it would be, I think it's the first time in US history that a US journalist has actually been indicted for publishing classified documents that he himself didn't have access to as a classified person. SO that's the first thing. The second thing that's amazing, the secrecy. If he's been indicted, it's by a secret grand jury sitting in Alexandria [Virginia], it's a secret indictment and it's secret to me, one of his -- Heidi Boghosian: Attorneys, legal advisors. Michael Ratner: -- legal counsel, legal advisors, right. It's secret to Julian Assange, it's secret to WikiLeaks, but it's apparently not secret to a private security company that's like a back door for the US spy agencies. Heidi Boghosian: Michael, how often are secret indictments brought and under what circumstance? Michael Ratner: The normal case of a secret indictment is when a person is not in custody and they're afraid, if a person gets news of a secret indictment, they'll flee. Now, of course, Julian Assange is in custody. I mean, he sort of is in custody. He has a [monitoring] bracelet on, he's under court -- Heidi Boghosian: He's under house arrest. Michael Ratner: He's under house arrest essentially in the UK -- not house arrest exactly, but he has to go back to his house every day at six o'clock [p.m.], he could meet people for lunch or something -- Heidi Boghosian: He's under supervision. Michael Ratner: And he has a bracelet that he can't get off. So the normal case would be when a person -- not really Julian Assange -- but when a person doesn't really know about it and then they do it in the sealed way so the person doesn't flee. Now I think in this case, it may be -- Heidi Boghosian: I was going to say, could this be because he's enjoyed such broad support, especially in the online communities? That the government, with their private arm, is afraid that there would be such a tremendous outcry and more support? And perhaps more 'hacktivism,' as they say? Michael Ratner: There's certainly going to be hacktivism as a result of this. I actually think the explanation may be differnent. Two things. One, let's hope it's not really an indictment and that the government isn't so crazy, Obama isn't so crazy -- and Holder, aren't so crazy to make their legacy to be the execution of a person I consider to have exposed -- along with Bradley Manning if it's true that he was the source -- Heidi Boghosian: Murder. Michael Ratner: Murder. Serious War Crimes. Thousands of deaths in Iraq. The Collateral Murder video of the Reuters people being killed. So these people have done an amazing, an amazing piece of work. And the idea -- Heidi Boghosian: A public service. Michael Ratner: A public service. And the idea, of course -- I mean this is what happens to whistle blowers. They first get -- You know the government in power or charge, Obama and Holder, go after them -- Heidi Boghsian: Retaliation. Michael Ratner: Right. And eventually they're seen as what they really are, which are people who have played the crucial role in trying to change society in a positive direction. Last week, the Center for Constitutional Rights weighed in on the possible secret indictement: A sealed indictment against Julian Assange would underscore the very thing Wikileaks has been fighting against: abuses the government commits in an environment of secrecy and expansive, reflexive calls for "national security." From the shocking, inhumane treatment of Bradley Manning, to secret grand jury proceedings, to Stratfor's apparent knowledge of the existence of a sealed indictment before either Mr. Assange or the American public had such knowledge, the government's conduct in this case reveals why more transparency, not more secrecy, is essential. This would also mark perhaps the first time a journalist has been prosecuted for allegedly receiving and publishing "classified" documents. Indicting Julian Assange would represent a dramatic assault on the First Amendment, journalists, and the public's right to know. Rather than promoting transparency as promised, the Obama administration has aggressively pursued whistleblowers and dissenters, launching Espionage Act prosecutions twice as many times as all previous administrations in the last century combined. Attorney General Eric Holder should rethink this dangerous course. Instead of pursuing Julian Assange, Mr. Holder should investigate the serious crimes and abuse of government authority exposed by Wikileaks. From shredding democracy in the US to the apparently failed 'democracy' 'experiment' of Iraq, early this morning in Iraq, police forces were attacked in Haditha. Jane Arraf (Al Jazeera) reports, "This was obviously a very well-planned attack. It began when gunmen, dozens of them according to police sources, commandeered and stole SWAT vehicles. The SWAT teams are part of the counterterrorism forces. They drove around the city, dressed as SWAT members, in black-and-blue univorms. As they were stopped at a checkpoint, they opened fire." Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) notes one of the assailants was killed in the attacks and that they used "at least 14 black USVs". Jack Healy (New York Times) reports that there were approximately 40 assailants and that they wore police uniforms and used vehicles which were like or were similar (or actually were) police vehicles and that they passed through police checkpoints by claiming "they had arrest warrants for criminal suspects." David Blair (Telegraph of London) adds, "The nine officers on duty, who appear to have been taken in by this deception, were then disarmed and shot dead." AFP states that, in addition to the "stolen army vehicles," they had others dispersed throughout the city in civilian cars and that police Col Mohammed Shauffeur and Captain Khaled Mohammed Sayil's homes were attacked with both men kidnapped and three bodyguards killed. Later Shauffer's corpse turned up in with "gunshots to the head." Bassim al-Anbari (AFP) quotes police Lt Col Owaid Khalaf who states, "More than 50 gunment altogheter started attacking checkpoints all over the town." Fadhel al-Badrani (Reuters) reports, "Three policemen survived the attacks with wounds and were being treated at Haditha hospital. A medical source at Haditha hospital confirmed the hospital received 27 bodies of slain victims and was treating three wounded." BBC News reports both Col Mohammed Shauffeur and Captain Khaled Mohammed Sayil corpses were discovered ("shot dead") shortly after they were kidnapped, "According to the Associated Press news agency, an al-Qaeda flag was raised at one of the checkpoints that was hit." NPR, in their hourly news updates, notes that "reportedly" the flag was raised. AP really milks the "al Qaeda" -- notice it's not "al Qaeda in Iraq" and, turns out, they're yet again wrong. Why do they lie? Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) explains, "During the clashes, the attackers raised the black flags of Islamic State of Iraq -- an umbrella group which includes al Qaeda in Iraq." Sam Dagher (Wall St. Journal) offers, "The Islamic State of Iraq, which has claimed responsibility for a string of recent bombings, across the country appears to be stepping up efforts to eliminate all those who played a prominent role in the anti-al Qaeda Awakening movement launched by the U.S. military at the height of its presence in Iraq five years ago." Alsumaria TV notes that, using "machine guns and grenades" the assailants carried out the attacks and quotes an unnamed "source in operational command of Anbar province" stating that "the gunmen took control of the majority of the checkpoints in the judiciary." The Herald Sun states, "Shauffeur's body was found in a Haditha marketplace and Sayil was discovered in an alleyway, blindfolded with fatal gunshots to the head." Alsumaria explains that there is a vehicle and pedistrian ban in Haditha currently as a result of the attacks. France's Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued the following statement: France utterly condemns the attacks perpetrated this morning northwest of Baghdad against the security forces which led to the death of 26 police officers. It extends its condolences to the Iraqi people and the families of the victims and expresses its solidarity with the Iraqi authorities in their fight against terrorism. In this context, France reaffirms that the Iraqi leaders must be able to work together in order to respond to the challenges posed by the violence and to meet the expectations of the Iraqi people. France stands alongside Iraq and reaffirms its full support for the Iraqi institutions in their efforts to promote stability and security. At the US State Dept (link is text and video) today, spokesperson Victoria Nuland declared, "Well, first of all, with regards to the attacks in Haditha today, we condemn the attack on Iraqi police forces in Haditha that killed at least 35 officers and wounded others. These attacks are again a blatant attempt by extremists to undermine the progress that Iraq is trying to make." Xinhua adds, "Later in the day, Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, the Commander in Chief of Iraqi Armed Forces, sacked Anbar's provincial operations chief Lieutenant General Abdul-Aziz al-Obeidi from his post, and ordered the appointment of Lieutenant General Tariq al-Azzawi instead after the deadly attacks in Haditha." RTT notes, "A Sunni heartland and a former stronghold of insurgents, Anbar has been peaceful since a suicide-bomber targeted a bank in Haditha a year ago." In addition to the above, Alsumaria also notes a Mosul home invasion in which a soldier was shot dead in his own home. There's enough violence, by the way, that Reuters might -- MIGHT -- get off their lazy butts and do a "Factbox" on violence today -- something they've avoided for about a week now (despite the continued violence). Alsumaria adds that a Kirkuk roadside bomb apparently targeted Judge Assem Omar who emerged without any injuries; however, his driver was wounded. In addition, they note that the corpse of Baquba fuel station worker Ali Hussein was discovered dumped by the side of the road and he apparently died from the gun shots to the head and chest and that this follows the discovery yesterday of the corpse of a young man who was executed by a Baquba 'firing squad' made up of gang members. The violence never ends and maybe it never ends because security is never the focus of the Baghdad-based government. Dropping back to February 13th: By the way, why is Iraq suffering from so much violence? Because the police are idiots. There's no other conclusion when you read this Al Rafidayn article. The greatest threat to Iraqis, the Baghdad police believe, is Emo kids. Yes, Emo has made it to Iraq. And there is no concept or understanding of it on the part of the police who are connecting it to Satanism, to same-sex sex, and a hundred other things including autism. Autism has been a very popular 'cause' in Iraq so far this month. Last week, numerous stories at numerous outlets insisted that cigarette smoking by the mother causes children to born autistic. (No, it doesn't. Nor does Emo cause autism.) Of course, these anti-smoking pieces only began appearing after the government voted to ban smoking in public places. Autism is not caused by smoking, it's not caused by Emo. For those late to the party on Emo, it's a type of music, early Dashboard Confessional (Chris Carrabba's "Screaming Infidelities" remains a benchmark for the genre), My Chemical Romance, it's a fashion which includes long bangs covering an eye or both, it's many things. Here's a little tip for the Baghdad police, Emo is a solid genre of music and, most importantly, Emo could take root in Iraq. Iraq could be the MidEast center for Emo music. It has all that's needed, all the elements. Instead of trying to stamp it out, the government should be realizing that this could be a calling card for the country and part of a revitalization of the Iraqi cultural scene. Today, the attack on Emo youth or suspected Emo youth in Iraq continues. Wael Grace (Al Mada) reports that those with longish hair, suspected of being Emo are being threatened and killed. Grace notes that there are lists of Emo youth (or accused of being Emo youth) publicly displayed in Sadr City, Shula and Kadhimiya with the promise that, one by one, each will be killed. An unnamed official in the Sadr City municipal court states that people have, on their cell phones, the names of young people to "liquidate" because they are Emo. This is beyond insanity and what happens when the US government turns a country over to thugs. Back in August, Kadhim al-Attabi (Deutsche Presse-Agentur) reported on the emerging Emo scene in Iraq: Emo people prefer to express their emotions through unusual means that some people find disturbing. Yet, for Fadiya, it is more of a style. 'For a month now, I have been immersed in the emo world, after I have seen it spread among my colleagues, who were wearing very distinctive costumes, bags and accessories,' she said. 'I do not care about the dark beliefs people usually link to emo. I like fashion and changed all my clothes to follow the emo style,' she said. 'Now I have huge amounts of accessories to go with every outfit, which is why I feel different and my family and friends are very impressed,' added Fadiya. Fadiya is not the only one who likes to just pick what she likes from the emo concept. A Facebook group called 'Emo boys and girls in Iraq' says that 'most people (have) common perception of emo as someone who is very emotional. Some people just consider emo to be a sense of style. 'Our group is about music, fashion, life issues, whatever you want ... as long as you don't insult anybody.' al-Attabi noted that, at that point, it seemed as if there wouldn't be the panic in Iraq the way alarmists had freaked out in Egypt two years prior. Turns out it's worse than a panic. And last week, Metality UAE reported metal heads are caught up in the crackdown due to confusion over what EMO is: The government is currently running a crackdown on EMO's, but classifying them as wearing clothing/piercings that are usually associated with metal and metalheads. In a post by the Iraq Ministry of the interior, they state that the way to detect an EMO is that: "they wear strange clothes and tight and the graphics like skulls, and use the tools of school in the form of skulls, and put the earrings in their noses and their tongues and other manifestations of the exotic." (for the entire Ministry statement, click here.) Sources (who we will not name for their security) say that the Iraq government is also on the cusp of passing a law that will make wearing metal band t-shirts or ones with symbols usually related to metal and playing metal music illegal. Monday, February 20th, Veterans for Ron Paul staged a DC rally and march. We noted it in the February 21st snapshot. Cincinnati's WXIX news team spoke with Adam Kokesh (link is video) about the events. Tricia Macke: Well it was the veterans march you probably heard nothing about. 320 active duty military and military veterans marched in DC Presidents' Day. So why no coverage? Plus, what about the issues these vets are drawing attention to? How big of an issue have active duty suicides become in the US military? Ben has the Reality Check you won't see anywhere else. Ben Swann: Well, in all, about 2,000 people were part of this march. 320 were active duty members of the military and military veterans marching, they say, to bring attention to the fact that presidential candidate Ron Paul is the choice of troops. That based on the fact that Congressman Paul has raised more money from active duty military than all the other presidential candidates combined including President Obama. The man who organized the event, internet host Adam Kokesh who himself is a former Marine Corps Reservist and served in Iraq Adam Kokesh: We had over 300 marching in formation to the White Houe, we did an about face, a symbolic repudiation of our president's foreign policy and his current military policy. Ben Swann: For a moment, we're just going to let some of this video play so you can see the scene for yourself and, tell me this, if this event were held protesting President Bush a few years ago, you don't think ABC, CBS and MSNBC would have all been there? What about if this were in support of any other Republican candidate other than Ron Paul? Just watch. [Adam Kokesh marches and calls out "President" as the marchers call out "Paul!"] Ben Swann: But, again, no media coverage at all. The march, though, was about more than just foreign policy. As part of this march, these veterans held a special flag folding ceremony. Adam Kokesh: We held a flag folding ceremony and held a hand salute to that flag for as many seconds as troops have committed suicide since Barack Obama was declared commander-in-chief. Ben Swann: But there is a very important issue at hand here. According to the departing Vice Chief of Staff of the Army [Gen Peter Chiarelli], 164 active-duty army, national guard and reserve troops took their own lives in 2011 -- compare that with 159 in 2010 and 162 in 2009. The increase occurred even as the army has expanded suicide prevention efforts -- including drug and alcohol counseling. There's been a steady rise in army suicides that began in 2004, one year after the start of the Iraq War. So how do army suicide rates compare to civilian rates? Well take a look. Army suicide rates have been higher than civilian rates since 2008 when there were nearly 20 suicides per 100,000 in the army compared with close to 18 suicides per 100,000 in a civilian population. But look at the numbers in this chart. It shows how the increase in active duty soldier suicides has risen since 2004. In 2004, just over 9 suicides per 100,000 people, 24 in 2011 for active-duty military. Can't give you an answer for why the number of suicides is increasing so dramatically. But Kokesh and the men and women who chose to march on Presidents' Day believe they know exactly what's going on. Adam Kokesh: But I think if the American people knew that the foreign policy that the troops are being asked to carry out was leading them to kill themselves in record number, we'd see a much more heated demand for change in our foreign policy, we'd have the American people paying much more attention to what's going on in our name and we'd have a lot more of them demanding that Ron Paul be our next commander in chief. Ben Swann: So here's what you need to know. As soldiers are retuning from Iraq and Afghanistan, we have an increasing number of men and women who are suffering from PTSD -- Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder -- or from Traumatic Brain Injuries. Those are emotional wounds, they can lead to extreme violence to themselves or their families when those soldiers return home. As a country, we're very good at saying that we support our troops. But we need to be a country that is better about listening to those troops when they come home, not simply listening to the politicians who are telling us what's best. And that is Reality Check. On the topic of the rally and videos, click here for Adam Kokesh speaking at the February 20th Veterans for Ron Paul action. US House Rep Ron Paul is running for president, he is the anti-war candidate with some comparing his run to that of Eugene McCarthy (though I'm not remembering McCarthy's anti-war stance resulting in his being tarred an "isolationist"). Adam is among many who have endorsed Ron Paul and Ron Paul has received more donations from active duty US troops than any other politician running for the GOP presidential nomination and he's also received more money from active duty troops than has Barack Obama. Here's a sample of Adam's speech: Adam Kokesh: Dear President Obama, I am writing to you as just one veteran, just one man. But today you may see that I am joined by many more. We gather before you in support of Ron Paul and not because we think he would merely be a better administrator of government than you, but because we believe your policies to be fundamentally immoral. We are here demanding peacefully, orderly change at the ballot box. We are gathered here today as active duty service members and veterans exercising the right to self-expression that we have all risked our lives to protect -- something you've never done in uniform. The military you command has made attempts to silence us -- not just in the existing codes and regulations intended to suppress dissent in the ranks but also in direct orders that your officers have issued to the troops who would be with us today, who would speak out against the status quo, who would challenge the man, who would speak a desperately needed truth to a desperately delusional power. Do not think for one second that you can silence this voice. Do not dare whisper the command to silence this voice. Do not deny that Ron Paul is the choice of the troops. You are not wanted as, you are not respected as and you are not fit to be the commander in chief of this great [force? -- applause and cheers are too loud for me to make out his next words]. iraq antiwar.com jason ditz wbai law and disorder radio michael s. smith heidi boghosian michael ratner jane arraf the wall street journal sam dagher cnn mohammed tawfeeq the new york times jack healy afp iol news fadhel al-badrani bbc news npr the associated press alsumaria tv the telegraph of london adrian blomfield the washington post dan morse aziz alwan reuters kareem raheem al jazeera al mada wael grace adam kokesh

Fringe (Peter walks out on Olivia)

It's the weekend. Am I going to switch from Friday to Saturday? Probably so that I can grab Fringe or Nikita. I blog about those shows. I grabbed Nikita this year, knowing it was on Fridays. Fringe move to Fridays last year. Now there's no way to blog on both on Monday and, more importantly, I really can't get too far behind.

How come? Fox and the CW both are destroying their audiences by refusing to allow you to stream a new episode until 7 days AFTER it airs. So I'm covering the online schedule which is already 7 days behind.

So I probably will try to grab a Saturday instead of a Friday to knock out at least one of the shows. At Hulu right now, you can stream this episode of Fringe.

Remember my hypothesis last week? That Peter was really the Peter we'd always known (yes, we know that) and that the reality he was living in, Earth3, was our reality, the one we knew him in from the first two seasons?

I really think that's what's going on.

On the latest episode, we learned quickly that Olivia3 and Nina3 weren't what they seemed. Olivia was Olivia. However, Nina3 is Nina4 or someone else. She's the evil Nina. The one that Walter and Lincoln spoke to who was acting innocent was the innocent Nina. We found that out when Nina was 'tortured' to get Olivia to activate her powers. Olivia didn't feel a connection to the Nina. She didn't want her tortured but she couldn't light up some light bulbs (the test they wanted her to complete) because there was no connection. She thought it was the drugs (or said so) and asked Nina to give her a memory, insisting she couldn't remember a lot of things clearly.

Meanwhile innocent Nina wants an attorney. I can't believe this. I thought "1" and "2" and "3" would make it less confusing. Now it's even more confusing.

So Peter and Walter and Astrid are trying to find Olivia. Peter and Lincoln find a camera in Olivia's apartment. Then they're trying to get images from an old disc when a Watcher shows up and he's been shot. And then? He's dying. Peter gets Walter to hook him up to a machine so he can enter the Watcher's mind.

There he learns that Olivia2 (the red head who crossed over and pretended to be Olivia) got pregnant with his son Henry (we knew that already, we saw that but he didn't). And that the child died when Peter was erased from allt he timelines. We learned that our Olivia was supposed to have had the child.

The Watcher shows him that and Peter thinks it's 'his' Olivia but I'm saying that his Olivia is the Olivia he's with. That's the real Olivia, the one we got to know in season one.

So evil Nina's trying to figure out what Olivia couldn't light the light bulbs on the panel? Olivia tells her it really has only worked when Peter was around. Evil Nina stages a 'I'm in pain' moment to get pulled out. And then she tells the bad guy what she learned.

The Watcher tells Peter he needs to go home. Peter keeps talking when he needs to shut the f**k up. It's like in that movie In The Spirit when Marlo Thomas tells Elaine May, "No, don't interpret!" May's saying that she saw a flashlight and Marlo's saying, "No, you saw a light."

So Peter's trying to interpret when he should be listening.

I think the Watcher was telling him he was home. As well as go home because the bad guy's going to kidnap you and take you to Olivia.

Which is what happens, he goes home and is kidnapped.

A screen rises on the wall in the room Olivia's in. She sees Nina supposedly locked up to some device. And she sees the bad guy. And she sees Peter with some henchman holding a knife to his throat. The bad guy says they have the room Olivia's in bugged and that's how they knew she needed Peter.

Make the lights light and Peter will be fine.

Olivia concentrates and one light after another goes on and then she goes after the main electricity. Nina starts asking what are you doing? Olivia tells her that she's a fake and Olivia knew from the made up memory Nina told her.

Olivia starts causing sparks killing one the henchmen bystanders. Nina, the bad guy and 1 henchman go running off.

Olivia comes into the room and grabs Peter. She's so glad to see him.

Evil guy and Nina and henchman are in the hallway where evil guy has set up this transporter thing to get them to another reality.

And Evil guy sends henchman back for Olivia and Peter, to distract them.

Olivia's gone into a seizure and Peter's trying to help him when henchman shows up. He and Peter get into a serious fight. Then, just as Olivia struggles to stand, aims a gun and yells FREEZE, Peter wins the fight.

They go running after the Evil Guy. He tells Nina to cross over and Nina makes it. Then Olivia pulls her gun on him and tells him to freeze. He ignores her and she shoots him, right through the throat. No great blood loss.

He says it's a benefit of being put back together atomically.

Then he leaves.

Peter calls for paramedics for Olivia. And then he tells her he has to find his Olivia (I say taht's his Olivia) and that it's wrong for him to mislead her.

He's going home, he says.

The paramedics have pulled up. The last of the episode is Olivia looking at Peter and saying, "Okay, Peter I'm in love with you and I just can't turn that off. I'm in love with you." And Peter walks off.

It was a really good episode and I'm serious, I believe this is Peter's Olivia.

Why didn't she remember right away? Have we forgotten when he got into the machine on the last episode last season it was erasing Peter from all the earths.

And remember, that's how the season started this year (well, back in the fall). And we were clear that we were on our earth with our Olivia and the second earth with the bad Olivia (the red head).

Then two or three episodes in, Peter surfaces in the lake and he's convinced he has to get home when the reality is that he's always been home. That's the mistake he's making and he pulled us in with him.

He's always been home. But he was erased from the timelines. That's my argument anyway.




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

March 2, 2012. Chaos and violence continue, protesters continue to be attacked in Iraq, protesters continue to protest in Iraq, monthly totals for February's violence are out, the White House hosts a veterans dinner, and more. Yesterday snapshot noted Wednesday's Senate Veterans Affairs Committee hearing where the VA appeared as witnesses. Senator Patty Murray is the Chair of the Committee, Richard Burr is the Ranking Member. The topic was the White House's budget request for VA in Fiscal Year 2013. Many topics were raised in relation to the budget. We'll note this exchange initiated by the former Chair of the Senate Veterans Affairs Commitee, Senator Daniel Akaka. Senator Daniel Akaka: General Shinseki, as you know, we often face challenges in treating our veterans who live in many rural and remote areas. This is especially true in places like Alaska and Hawaii where you just can't get to some places by jumping in a car and driving there. I know you're working on an MOU [Memorandum Of Understanding] with the Indians to find solutions to help provide services to our Native American veterans and I commend you and all of you involved in these efforts. Mr. Secretary can I get your commitment to possible ways of working with the Native Hawaiian health care systems and the Native American veterans systems that provide services for Native Hawaiian veterans who live in many of the rural parts of the state of Hawaii. Secretary Eric Shinseki: Senator, you have my assurance that, uh, we will do our utmost to provide for any of our veterans wherever they live -- the most rural and remote areas, the same access and quality to health care and services as we provide to someone living in a more urban area. There is a challenge to that but we are not insensitive to that challenge and we're working hard to provide VA provided services and where we can't to make arrangements -- if quality services exist in those areas marking arrangements for veterans to be able to participate in those local opportunities. We are, I think you know, working and have been for some time on signing an MOU with Indian Health Service so that wherever they have facilities and we have vested interests that a veteran -- an eligible veteran -- going to an Indian Health Service facility will be covered by VA's payments. We're in stages of trying to bring that MOU to conclusion. We intend to do that. And where tribes approach us prior to the signing of the MOU and want to establish, from Tribal Nation with VA, a direct relationship because they have a medical facility and would like us to provide the same coverage, we're willing to do that. But that would be on a case-by-case basis. Senator Daniel Akaka: Thank you. Secretary Shinseki, staffing shortages continue to be a problem although there's been some progress. But some clinics are seeing staffing levels below 50% causing excessive waiting time for veterans that need care. I understand this is an issue you've been working on. As you know the number of veterans needing services is growing yearly and it shows that you have been making progress. Can you provide an update on the Department's progress to address staffing levels? Dr. Robert Petzel: Uh, Mr. Secretary, thank you; Senator Akaka, thank you for the question. The -- uh -- We've addressed mental -- We've talked about mental health earlier and the efforts we're making to try and assess whether there's adequate staffing there. I think you're probably talking about primary care, which is our largest out patient clinic operation. We treat 5 -- 4.2 million veterans in our primary care system and it accounts for the lion's share of our budget expenditures. We assessed staffing three years ago when we began to implement a Patient Aligned Care team or PAC program and have done it again recently. And we're finding that we're now able to bring up the support staffing and the physician staffing to reasonable levels associated with the standards around the country. I would like to take off record -- offline -- any information you have about specific places where there's a 50% vacancy rate. I'm not aware that we have this around the country. So I would be delighted to meet and talk with your staff and find out where these areas might be so that we can address them specifically. Senator Daniel Akaka: My time has expired but, Secretary Shinseki, as we face budget constraints, we must all work to improve our efficiency and redouble efforts to look for ways to get the most from our budgeted resources. My question to you is can you talk about any steps you are taking to improve the acquisition process at VA and any efficiencies you've been able to realize in this area? Secretary Eric Shinseki: Senator, I would tell you that, uh, we have been working for several years now on restructuring our acquisition business practices. Three years ago, acquisition was spread throughout the organization. Now it's consolidated in two centers. One comes directly under Dr. Petzel and that's where all medical acquistions -- gloves, masks, aprons -- we ought to be able to leverage that into a bulk purchase and get a good price on those kinds of things. For everything we have an Office of Acqusition, Logistics and Construction and we have a director who heads both offices then come up to my level to the deputy secretary as part of our monthly oversight review process. When I think of veterans in "rural" areas, I think of them in southern states or in Michigan which is densley populated in and around Detroit but much more sparsely populated throughout the rest of the state. I also think of Alaska, Montana and other states. I never consider Hawaii rural but of course it is. "Remote and rural" really drives that home. Senator Akaka's word choice really drove the point home. He also asked about staffing and a community member (Troy) had asked if the empty medical positions at VA were raised by any senator when discussing the budget on Wednesday? Ranking Member Richard Burr raised that issue. Ranking Member Richard Burr: Since the Chair just asked about mental health, let me just ask if my information is correct. In December, VA polled their facilities and they found that there were 15,000 open mental health positions. Is that accurate? Dr. Petzel? Secretary Eric Shinseki: Let me turn to Dr. Petzel. Dr. Robert Petzel: Uh, could you repeat that number, Senator Burr. Ranking Member Richard Burr: In December of 2011, the VA polled their facilites and found there were 15,000 mental health slots that were unfilled meaning -- Dr. Robert Petzel: Our of 20,500, that's true. There were many important questions raised in the hearing. On Iraqi violence, Mohammad Akef Jamal (Gulf News) raises an interesting one today about the February 23rd attacks across Iraq, "The spokesman of the Ministry of Interior announced that the ministry possesses grave and important information regarding the blasts. He then proceeded to threaten all those who have carried out the terrorist operations -- but if the ministry was truly in possession of information, why are the culprits still at large? " Don't expect it to get answered anytime soon but it is an important question. AKE's John Drake appeared Wedensday on New Zealand's Radio Live (link is audio) to dicuss the ongoing violence. Excerpt: James Coleman: John Drake is an Iraq intelligence analyst at AKE Intelligence -- an organization offering research and analysis on security risks around the globe. He joins us from London. John, good evening to you. John Drake: Good evening and good morning. James Coleman: So Baghdad is the focus of much of the violence. What has triggered the increase in aggression in the capitol? John Drake: Well it's the focal point of all the main political organizations in Iraq. It's the seat of government, it's where a lot of the Iraqi and international media are based. So by conducting attacks in Baghdad, it often gives the militant groups additional attention, it raises the profile of their activies. It generates an audience for whatever political agenda they're trying to push. That's one of the main reasons. It's also, wherever you get a large amount of people in a large urban area that is often where you will get the great concentration of violence. Larger cities tend to see more crimes. It's often very similar when it comes to terrorism as well. James Coleman :Mosul's been unusually quiet. Is there any indications that militants are looking elsewhere? John Drake: That could be the case. Mosul is normally one of the most violent parts of the country. Over the course of last year, it saw an average of about one to two attacks a day. Over the last few weeks, it's been down to about two or three attacks a week. Now while the Iraqi authorities did indicate this was maybe due to some of their recent counter-insurgency operations in the city, the operations that they've been initiating haven't been more intense than normal and they haven't really been netting more militants than normal either. So there are two concerns. One is that militants may be looking across the border to Syria. They may be crossing the border to sell weaponry or even equipment and medicine or anything that they could put on the black market to raise finances for their operation. They may also be sending fighter across the border into Syria to engage in unrest and revolution there. They may be trying to infilitrate the main opposition organizations to Syrian President Basher Assad. They may be responsible for conducting some of the recent terrorist attacks in the country. However after the attacks -- the series of attacks in central Iraq a few days ago, it's obvious that they haven't all gone across the border. There's still a lot of them still in Iraq and looking to conduct attacks in the center of the country. Staying with violence, AGI reports 2 Baghdad bombings resulted in 6 deaths and ten people injured today while Mohammed Ameer and Peter Graff (Reuters) report that Iraqi governmental ministries have released the February death toll figures asserting that 151 people died in February. They note these official numbers may be low and that "[o]ther sources, such as Iraq Body Count, a group which compiles data from media reports, give higher figures." So let's look at how many we noticed the media reporting. February 1st 2 were reported dead and eleven injured; February 2nd 4 were reported dead and one injured; February 3rd 3 were reported dead and eight injured; February 4th 5 were reported dead and three injured; February 5th 1 was reported dead and 5 injured; February 6th 1 was reported dead and twenty-two injured; February 7th 4 were reported dead and sixteen injured; February 8th no reported deaths; February 9th 2 were reported dead 3 injured; February 10th 1 death was reported (we don't include the border clashes with Turkey when we do these counts); February 11th none reported dead or wounded; February 12th 2 were reported dead and twelve injured; February 13th 3 were reported dead and seven injured; February 14th 9 were reported dead and twenty-seven injured; February 15th 4 were reported death and four injured; February 16th 1 was reported dead and eight injured; February 17th 5 were reported dead and one injured; February 18th no one was reported dead and none injured, February 19th 40 and thirty-three; February 20th zero were reported dead or wounded; February 21st zero were reported dead or wounded; February 22nd zero were reported dead or wounded; February 23rd 70 were reported dead [well over] a hundred wounded [these were the bombs across Iraq and once the wounded reached 100 the press largely stopped counting]; February 24th 1 dead and three injured; February 25th zero were reported dead or wounded; February 26th 2 were reported dead and seven injured; February 27th one person was reported wounded; February 28th 8 were reported dead, twelve injured; and February 29th 11 were reported dead and twenty-six injured. Check my math, that should be 175 dead and 329 injured. That's just the ones we noted and I surely missed many. In addition, not all deaths are covered by the media -- true throughout the war and only more so now. Okay, let's go to John Drake's figures. John Drake ‏ @johnfdrake Reply Retweet Favorite · Open At least 18 people were killed and 48 injured in #Iraq violence last week. John Drake ‏ @johnfdrake Reply Retweet Favorite · Open At least 19 people were killed and 55 injured in #Iraq violence last week. John Drake ‏ @johnfdrake Reply Retweet Favorite · Open At least 45 people were killed and 74 injured in #Iraq violence last week. John Drake ‏ @johnfdrake Reply Retweet Favorite · Open At least 53 people were killed and 245 injured in #Iraq violence last week. His totals are 135 dead and 422 injured. Iraq Body Count probably keeps the best records of those monitoring deaths covered by the media and they counted 248 civilian deaths in Iraq for the month of February. Zooming in on violence to violence against protesters. Mahmoud al-Hassani al-Sarkh is a religious leader whose offices were attacked around February 19th when Grand Ayatollah al-Sistani's were being attacked. Nasiriyah News Network reports that approximately 100 Sarkhi supporters protested yesterday in Nasiriyah as they called for his office to be reopened. Hassan Sahlani (Nasiriyah News Network) adds that a delegation from the protesters met with the governor and the province's police chief.Violence also took place today in Nasiriyah. While Thursday's demonstration went well Alsumaria TV reports when the same supporters of religious authority Mahmoud al-Hassani Sarkhi demonstrated in public today, they were run off by riot police using water hoses. And sadly, if that's all that happened, it may have been the least response to protesters by any portion of the Iraqi government. February 25, 2011 was when Iraqi youths began their nationwide Friday protests -- joining with other groups to demand basic services (potable water, electricity, etc), jobs, the release of the 'disappeared,' the end of government corruption and more. A year later, the demonstrators attempted to gather again in Baghdad on Friday the 24th (see that day's snapshot) and Saturday the 25th (click here). Yesterday Human Rights Watch released "Iraq: Intimidation at Anniversary Protests; Beatings, Detentions in Kurdistan; Blocked Access in Baghdad." In the KRG, demonstrators gathered on February 17th and they numbered in excess of 250. They report to Human Rights Watch that they were beaten, threatened and intimidated. Journalist attempting to cover the December 17th action were also attacked: "They confiscated the camera of Rahman Gharib, coordinator for the local press freedom group Metro Center to Defend Journalists, and beat him on the head and leg after he took some photographs, Gharib and witnesses told Human Rights Watch. The Metro Center has documented numerous abuses against Kurdish journalists, including more than 200 cases of attacks and harassment during the protests in Sulaimaniya between February and May, 2011." In Baghdad, a number of methods were used to suppress turnout. From the report: Members of several protest groups told Human Rights Watch that they attempted to demonstrate in Tahrir Square on February 25, the anniversary of Baghdad's 2011 "Day of Anger," when thousands gathered in the square to protest widespread corruption and demand greater civil and political rights. During nationwide demonstrations on that day a year earlier, security forces killed at least 12 protesters across the country and injured more than 100. Human Rights Watch also saw Baghdad security forces beat unarmed journalists and protesters, smashing cameras and confiscating memory cards. On February 25, 2012, security forces in Baghdad again attempted to stop protesters from reaching Tahrir Square, though with different methods. Several demonstrators told Human Rights Watch that security forces blocked many roads approaching Tahrir Square, at times saying the roads were blocked because a car bomb that had gone off in the vicinity, although protesters said local merchants reported hearing no explosions and Iraqi authorities released no specific information to the media. Security forces told also told protesters walking toward Tahrir Square that they had intelligence indicating that "many terrorists" were in the square and 11 bombs had been placed in the area, and that security forces "could not guarantee the safety of protesters." Human Rights Watch witnessed security forces using similar explanations to prevent journalists and protesters from going to Tahrir Square many times between March and December 2011. Some of the protesters who reached Tahrir Square said they did not enter the square because the show of force by security forces frightened them. According to observers, the forces numbered between 600 and 1,000 armed personnel in and around Tahrir Square, with more amassed on side streets. As protesters approached the multiple checkpoints surrounding Tahrir Square set up that morning, security forces informed them that they had a long list of protesters whom they had orders to arrest and that they would check this list against the identification cards of anyone wishing to pass through. A young activist who did not want his name used for fear of government reprisal told Human Rights Watch that one smiling soldier told him and other protesters, "We may have your name. Why don't you step forward and see if you get arrested?" Another activist said that an officer told protesters that even people with names "similar" to those on the list would be arrested. "From the way he said it, I thought he might arrest me no matter what my name was, so we left," he said. One demonstrator, who said he was intimidated and did not try to pass the police checkpoints, said: "I just stood monitoring, outside Tahrir Square. No one at all was allowed to take photos or use their phones. There were so many members of the army; they were standing every half meter in the square with their sticks." Please note the above took place on Saturday -- days prior to Tim Arango's frothing at the mouth in the New York Times about how groovy Nouri was and beloved and authoritarian measures are so popular! nonsense. And Tim Arango and the New York Times? They didn't report on any of the above. Iraqi reporters were trying to cover the Baghdad demonstration and Human Rights Watch notes that: Journalists told Human Rights Watch that security forces prevented them from covering the demonstration by not allowing them to enter the square with photographic equipment, voice recorders, mobile phones, and even pens. One Iraqi news agency reported that security forces briefly detained journalists for "violating the rules of demonstration, entering banned areas and trying to provoke the public." Human Rights Watch has observed security forces interfering with journalists at work at more than 20 demonstrations at Tahrir Square during the past year. Iraq's constitution guarantees "freedom of assembly and peaceful demonstration."As a state party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Iraq is obligated to protect the rights to life and security of the person, and the rights to freedom of expression, association, and peaceful assembly. In May, the Council of Ministers approved a draft "Law on the Freedom of Expression of Opinion, Assembly, and Peaceful Demonstration," which authorizes officials to restrict freedom of assembly to protect "the public interest" and in the interest of "general order or public morals," vague criteria that the law does not define further. The draft law is awaiting approval by parliament. Dan Murphy (Christian Science Monitor) reminds: Iraq's Constitution formally guarantees the rights of free speech and assembly, but in practice it's generally ignored. The Committee to Protect Journalists rated Iraq the worst country in its "impunity index" for last year, which measures how a national legal system does, or does not, protect reporters. Five reporters were killed across the country in 2011 and 150 have been killed there since 2003. Last year, 26 journalists were detained by the authorities for their work. The CPJ says that there has not yet been a conviction in any of those cases. In spite of the attacks and threats, Jane Arraf (Al Jazeera, Christian Science Monitor) Tweets that protests took place in Baghdad today: jane arraf ‏ @janearraf Reply Retweet Favorite · Open #Iraq ex civil servants gathering in rain in #Baghdad's Tahrir Square demanding jobs back - far more riot police - what are they afraid of? From the current occupation to a potential new one, on this week's. Black Agenda Radio, hosted by Glen Ford and Nellie Bailey, (airs each Monday at 4:00 pm EST on the Progressive Radio Network), Glen Ford discussed Syria with international law expert Francis A. Boyle. Excerpt. Glen Ford: The US and its allies insist that Syria doesn't have the right to protect itself. Now about one-third of the deaths in this internal conflict have already been Syrian soldiers and policemen. Clearly, it is an armed conflict. Francis A. Boyle: Obviously. My guess is like what happened in Libya there was a spontaneous protest and demonstrations by people living there against the Assad government. That doesn't surprise me at all. But it was quickly hijacked and has been used as a pretext to promote an attempt to overthrow the Assad government and, if that doesn't work, to produce civil was in Syria that would neutralize Syria and its long standing refusal to succumb to Israel's demands and the Zionist demands that they effectively give up the Golan Heights. And also to crack Syria up into its ethnic components, which it does have along the lines of what they've already done to Afghanistan, Iraq, Yugoslavia and Libya as well. So the same thing could very easily happen to Syria and it would simply serve the interests of Israel, the United States, France -- the former colonial power there. It's a joke and a fraud to say that France is the least bit interested in human rights in Syria. And also Turkey -- the other former colonial power in Syria. And, again, it's a joke and a fraud to say that Turkey's the least bit interested in human rights in Syria -- especially after what's it's done to its -- what it's still doing to its own Kurdish people in Turkey itself and also in northern Iraq. So you really can't take these colonial-imperial powers seriously when they shed crocodile tears for human rights. Glen Ford: France is demanding a humanitarian corridor in Syria. But of course we remember that NATO rejected the idea of a humanitarian corridor in Libya when the African Union proposed one. Francis A. Boyle: Look at the proposal by the African Union which is the appropriate regional organization, set up under Chapter 8 of the United Nations Charter to deal with Africa. And they had a very comprehensive peace proposal there for Libya and it was completely brushed aside and indeed stymied at the Security Council and in the General Assembly. So the colonial-imperial powers in NATO and the United States paid absolutely no attention to the African Union. This is all eyewash that they're concerned about human rights. Have any of them lifted one finger at all to help the Palestinians? Especially the 1.5 million Palestinians now who are being subjected to slow motion genocide in Gaza? Of course not. So it's just preposterous. This is all propaganda here in the United States that I don't think really deceives anybody over there in the region about what's really going on. Glen Ford: It seems to many of us that Syria has been forced to battle block by block in certain cities lest the West declare some area, some city, some border area, some sliver of land in Syria to be a kind of liberated territory that must be protected by the West. Francis A. Boyle: Well they did the same thing in Libya in Benghazi, right? Remember Reagan tried to do the same thing in Nicaragua with the Contras and set up some kind of free zone and a liberated government that could then ask for military intervention? That is correct. So this is pretty much par for the course for these colonial-imperial powers. Right. Glen Ford: So as an expert on international law, is Syria within its rights to defend its control over all of its territory? Francis A. Boyle: Well I'm not justifying any human rights violations by Syria -- one way or the other. But certainly it seems to me that what is going on here is an organized attempt to overthrow the legitimate government of Syria that is being coordinated by the United States, France, Turkey, Qatar -- a dictatorship -- and by Saudi Arabia -- another dictatorship. And it appears support coming from Israel and Iraq and other forces under the control of Western intelligence agencies such as al Qaeda. For example, last week the Financial Times reported that all of these al Qaeda fighters -- after they did the dirty work in Libya are now moving over to mobilize against Syria. Also they are mobilizing now in Jordan, as we speak. The government does have a right to keep itself in power. You know, who gives Obama the right to say that the government in Syria should step down? None. But they don't really care. There has been no effort made at all by the United States, any of these imperial powers or by the United Nations or by the League of Arab States to achieve a peaceful resolution of this dispute as required by the terms of the United Nations Charter under Chapter Six -- which is what they should have done before moving to Chapter Seven enforcement measures. No effort at all has been made to produce a peaceful resolution of this matter and that's exactly what happened in Libya -- no effort at all was made. So I think that indicates just an absence of good faith at and, at this point, they have no intention of a peaceful resolution of this dispute. Their objective, their intention is to overthrow the Assad government, put in a stooge puppet if possible that will be under the control of the United States, France and at the end of the day sign some type of bogus peace treaty with Israel that will give them the control of the Golan Heights. In the US, 2012 is an election year. Your vote is your vote, you own it, no one else does. Who you vote for or whether you vote is your business. (I've noted that I most likely will not be voting in 2012 after my 2008 mishap where I mistook a voting booth for a margarita machine -- just joking about the frozen margarita machine but serious about I will most likely not vote for president in 2012.) Among the many candidates -- hopefully, many candidates, we need more choices, not less -- we'll be the Democratic Party's presidential nominee, the current office holder, President Barack Obama. Last night, he hosted a number of veterans at the White House. This is Colleen Curtis' write up from the White House and I was asked to note it and it does fall under Iraq so we will (Curtis' write up also includes video of Barack's speech if you use the link): President Obama, First Lady Michelle Obama, Vice President Joe Biden and Dr Jill Biden tonight welcomed a group of true American heroes to the White House. "A Nation's Gratitude: Honoring those who served in Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation New Dawn" was a formal dinner that paid tribute to our Iraq veterans and marked the end of the war. More than 100 service members and their guests were in attendance, and the invitees included men and women in uniform from all ranks, each U.S. state and territory, and every branch of the Armed Forces. Together, they represented the million American troops who served in Iraq, and they also represented what Vice President Joe Biden called the finest generation of warriors in all of history. In his remarks, the President welcomed the veterans home, praised their bravery and dedication to their mission, and thanked them on behalf of more than 300 million Americans: Tonight, what we can do is convey what you've meant to the rest of us. Because through the dust and the din and the fog of war, the glory of your service always shone through. In your noble example, we see the virtues and the values that sustain America, that keep this country great. You taught us about duty. Blessed to live in the land of the free, you could have opted for an easier path. But you know that freedom is not free. And so you volunteered and you stepped forward, and you raised your hand and you took an oath -- to protect and defend; to serve a cause greater than yourself, knowing, in a time of war, you could be sent into harm's way. You taught us about resolve. Invasion turned to insurgency and then sectarian strife. But you persevered, tour after tour, year after year. Indeed, we're mindful that even as we gather here, Iraq veterans continue to risk their lives in Afghanistan, and our prayers are with them all tonight. In one of our nation's longest wars, you wrote one of the most extraordinary chapters in American military history. Now the Iraqi people have a chance to forge their own destiny, and every one of you who served there can take pride in knowing you gave the Iraqis this opportunity; that you succeeded in your mission. iraq reuters mohammed ameer peter graff alsumaria tv al mada al sabaah human rights watch nasiriyah news network hassan sahlani jane arraf

the christian science monitor
dan murphy

black agenda radio
glen ford
nellie bailey