"This is Happening in America" (Nat Hentoff, ICH):
While answering questions from these lively students, I wanted to find out how many of them knew about the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2012. Barack Obama signed this law, giving the president -- for the first time in American history -- the power to imprison indefinitely an American citizen "suspected" of "association" (without evidence) with terrorists. This fate comes without charge or trial.
What did these students think about that?
There was silence. Not a word. They seemed to be glued to their chairs.
Later, an explanation came from the history professor, Robert Allison, who had assigned the book to them. (Among his books: "The Boston Tea Party," "The Boston Massacre" and "American Eras: The Revolutionary Era (1754-1783).")
"You sure put the fear of God in them," he told me. That was strange because I'm a nonbeliever -- except in the Constitution.
Describing the students' state of fear, he told me that one of them startlingly asked: "Is what he said happening in America?"
Added another: "Is anybody doing anything about it?"
Unfortunately, I haven't heard of anyone in the Obama Justice Department resigning in patriotic protest against the NDAA. (Nor, as far as I know, did anyone in the George W. Bush Justice Department resign, denouncing the Patriot Act, under which the systemic contemporary disintegration of our constitutional liberties began.)
I'm sorry, Nat Hentoff, but why would students know about this? Is The Nation decrying it? No, they're trying to get Barack re-elected. Has the corporate media treated this as a serious issue? No, they're trying to get Barack re-elected.
The left is largely silent on the NDAA. There are exceptions. But that's a very small number. Also a larger amount of the small number of exceptions feel the need to call out the NDAA while also vouching for Barack's "goodness." That not only takes the sting out of any criticism it might offer, it leaves the reader feeling Mr. Goodness will surely take care of any problems all on his own -- if they can be taken care of.
In other words, Nat, great article but why don't you train that pointed finger where it belongs: On left leaders who sell out beliefs and ethics to whore for a War Hawk to piss on the Constitution?
"TV: Chewing their own cud" (Ava and C.I., The Third Estate Sunday Review):
A stronger segment was Tapper's interview with Senator John McCain. A number of topics were touched on. We'll zoom in on Iraq:
Senator John McCain: And Iraq. He keeps bragging about Iraq. Iraq is unraveling. We all know that there should have been a residual force there. And now the whole situation is unraveling. In the words of General Keene, the architect of the surge, "We won the war and are losing the peace." Thanks to the President's commitment to get completely out.
There's nothing wrong with McCain's opinion's voiced above. What's wrong is that we never get a dialogue. Jake Tapper was too quickly noting, "We're running out of time" and the segment was over. The dialogue isn't among Obama-opponents and Obama-supporters. Iraq is the issue.
We are and have always favored immediate withdrawal. But we'll agree with McCain that a residual force is needed.
Why is it needed?
It's needed because the US government won't butt the hell out of Iraq's business. It's needed because the Iraqi people voted for someone OTHER than Nouri al-Maliki in the 2010 elections but the White House and the Iranian government foisted Nouri off on them. Iraq's been in trouble ever since. Political players in Iraq have attempted to legally take on the issues including replacing Nouri and what they find is the White House repeatedly undercutting them, repeatedly making deals with one bloc to support Nouri, doing everything outside the democratic process and behind closed doors.
If Iraq is the 51st state of the United States, by all means keep the US military forces there in a large number than they are currently. (Over 700 US military personnel remain as 'trainers,' at least 200 Marines remain to protect the embassy, Special-Ops remain in Iraq doing 'counter-terrorism' work, the CIA and the FBI remain in Iraq and thousands and thousand of contractors working for the US State Dept. remain in Iraq as well.)
But if the White House can take it's big nose out of Iraq, if it can let the Iraqi people decide what's best for them? Then no military force is needed.
Why does backing Nouri mean US forces need to be on the ground? Because as Joe Biden noted in 2008, we're now taking sides in a civil war. The only thing that prevented Nouri from going hog wil on his enemies was a large US military presence. As soon as the bulk of the US military left in December, he began targeting his political enemies -- insisting Vice President Tareq al-Hashemi be arrested on terrorism, that Deputy Prime Minister Saleh al-Mutlaq be stripped of his post (for the 'crime' of telling CNN that Nouri was turning into a dictator) and that's not even counting the provincial officials he's had charged or all the academics he's run off campuses.
Nouri is out of control and the Iraqi people are attempting to bring their country back to order. That's very hard to do when the White House is offering bribes to political players if they'll support Nouri, when the White House is working overtime to marginalize Iraqiya (the political slate that came in first in the 2010 elections).
We're not upset by John McCain's statements though they are in conflict with our own opinions. Those are sincerely held beliefs by McCain. We're glad they were aired. We're just bothered that, all this time later, no other opinions can be aired and that, just as pre-2009, Iraq was discussed on the Sunday chat & chews as whether or not Bush had done the right thing, today it's discussed as whether or not Barack has done the right thing.
It's never acknowledged by the hosts or the bookers that Iraq is its own country, with its own people and its own right to self-determination. Whenever you might think that view was coming up, there's always a Jake Tapper to announce, "We're running out of time."
"We're running out of time," more than anything else, explains why these programs are so bad. They're nothing but filler. And when a real issue gets touched on and could be explored, watch them immediately rush to their respective corners instead and begin issuing talking points passed off as a conversation.
I really love this article. I also love it because Ava and C.I. weren't planning to write it and only turned to the topic after Jim noted reader e-mails. So this was one of those pieces they get assigned and, even so, didn't they come out swinging? Didn't they really touch on what needed to be touched on? It's really a strong piece.
"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):
Monday,
May 7, 2012. Chaos and violence continue, Bradley Manning's case gets
more coverage (from the only radio program you can count on to supply
it), the White House has apparently bungled again meaning that the
deaths of 5 US service members will go unpunished, the Iraqi political
crisis continues with charges and counter-charges tossed around, and
more.
Starting with Bradley Manning who has a court-martial scheduled to start September 21st. Monday April 5, 2010, WikiLeaks released US military video of a July 12, 2007 assault in Iraq. 12 people were killed in the assault including two Reuters journalists Namie Noor-Eldeen and Saeed Chmagh. Monday June 7, 2010, the US military announced that they had arrested Bradley Manning and he stood accused of being the leaker of the video. Leila Fadel (Washington Post) reported
in August 2010 that Manning had been charged -- "two charges under the
Uniform Code of Military Justice. The first encompasses four counts of
violating Army regulations by transferring classified information to his
personal computer between November and May and adding unauthorized
software to a classified computer system. The second comprises eight
counts of violating federal laws governing the handling of classified
information." In March, 2011, David S. Cloud (Los Angeles Times) reported
that the military has added 22 additional counts to the charges
including one that could be seen as "aiding the enemy" which could
result in the death penalty if convicted. The Article 32 hearing took
place in December. At the start of this year, there was an Article 32
hearing and, February 3rd, it was announced that the government would be
moving forward with a court-martial. Bradley has yet to enter a plea
and has neither affirmed that he is the leaker nor denied it.
Today on WBAI, Law and Disorder Rado
was live (this is an additional broadcast -- the regular, recorded hour
long show -- with Nick Surgery discussing Common Cause's complaint
against the American Legislative Exchange Council and updates on Lynne Stewart,
May Day and more) due to WBAI being in plege drive mode and the live
broadcast spoke with journalist Kevin Gosztola about Bradley Manning.
Michael
Ratner: I want to step back and ask you, because we've been getting a
number of calls, I want to stop and ask you: Who was Bradley Manning?
You touched on it but even start with he joined the military, etc.,
etc. and some of his background and then we'll bring us up to the
current proceedings.
Kevin
Gosztola: Right. So he was born in Oklahoma. And he had a, you know,
pretty small town growing up. You know you wouldn't have thought him to
be -- He wasn't from a big city. But his family was -- he didn't have
the best family situation growing up. His father and mother did divorce
and ended up separating. He spends some time Oklahoma and then ends up
going over to the UK to live with his mother for a couple of years and
go to school in high school. Then he comes back to the United States
and he's sort of wondering aimlessly around the United States looking
for a job, something to do with his life. His father is angry at him. I
think by that time, his father knows that he is gay and that becomes a
source of tension. I also gather from different sources that he didn't
get along with his step-mother. And so his father eventually suggests,
'You should join the military, you need some stability.'
Michael Smith: Make him a man.
Kevin Gosztola: What?
Michael Ratner: Yeah and he joins the military.
Heidi Boghosian: And joking --
Kevin
Gosztola: And in the military he becomes this person who becomes an
intelligence analyst and as we've learned in the hearings that I've been
at, he didn't have a good ride in the military. It was something that
was very hard for him to handle because essentially the whole time he
was in the military he had to hide his sexual orientation.
Michael
Ratner: Now, now, Kevin, you will bring us up to eventually he's
alleged to have uploaded a bunch of documents to WikiLeaks. Can you
talk about that a little bit and then bring us up to the charges?
Kevin
Gosztola: Right. So through November 2009 to May 2010, we have all of
these alleged releases so basically anything that you know of that had
WikiLeaks in the headlines, this is the source, the alleged source right
now. So through December to January, we have the Collateral Murder
Video being released, you have War Logs files being moved over, you have
cables going, you even have a special document a WikiLeaks Threat
Report that I believe the CIA put together that was suggesting what kind
of threat the WikiLeaks organization would pose. And you've got the
Gitmo files being moved. Remember the Gitmo files were released in
April of last year. And so all of these releases that were headlines.
And in May, he starts to chat with a hacker Adrian Llamo allegedly -- I
mean, it's believed that he was chatting with him. And then Adrian turns
Bradley in the second day of the chats, into the feds. Adrian
continues to chat, basically looks like something that amounts to
entrapment as he continues to get Bradley to incriminate himself on
paper. Then Bradley's picked up and arrested. He's in Baghdad. He's
moved to Kuwait. And then he's moved to [Marine Corps Base] Quantico
Brig [in Virginia] after a month. And there in Quantico was where
people really started to get to know Bradley Manning because of the
outrage of how he was being treated by the military.
You can read Kevin Gosztola's writing at Firedoglake's The Dissenter. Law and Disorder Radio is 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),
Michael Ratner: And now Kevin, go to some of the charges against Bradley Manning and tell us what he's accused of.
Kevin
Gosztola: The charges basically break up to about three sets here.
The most severe charge against him is that he aided the enemy. And that
is basically an espionage charge and suggests that he had some -- that
he was actually helping al Qaeda. They've named the enemy. So for
listeners, the government has come out and said that the enemy is al
Qaeda. And he's accused of aiding indirectly. So using the WikiLeaks
website to aid al Qaeda. And there's much more to say about that charge
but to other charges, the soldier's accused of unauthorized downloading
to his computer. So downloading software that he didn't have the right
to have on his computer as an intelligence analyst. And then he's also
alleged to have brought discredit to the army and he's got several
charges, I think about 15 or 16 of the charges are actually bringing
dishonor to the military and making the military look bad by taking
certain actions that were part of the leaks, the alleged leaks.
Heidi
Boghosian: Could you talk a little bit more about that charge of
aiding al Qaeda even indirectly? I don't understand how they came up
with that.
Kevin
Gosztola: Yeah. So, I mean what's really -- what's really startling to
me as somebody who comes in and hopes to see that if you're going ot
charge a soldier with aiding the enemy, you'd be able to show that this
person had evil intent. I mean, I think it should be clear that if
you're going to make someone pay and go to jail for life without parole
essentially, that's what we're talking about, people listening should
know that this is a federal offense that comes with even the possibility
of a death penalty but the government claims they won't give that. So
let's just assume he would get life without parole. What's really
startling is that the government wrote this charge so that they didn't
have to prove that he had intent. So that's what they're trying to do
throughout the hearing, that's what they've been trying to do throughout
all the legal proceedings so far, to get away without having to show
Bradley had any intent to aid al Qaeda. So while there's nothing that
I've seen presented in court, it basically amounts to making a huge
example out of Bradley Manning so that other military soldiers would
never consider doing what Bradley is alleged to have done. You know,
taking material at his fingertips and not releasing every single piece
of information that he had but releasing key sets of documents that gave
us insight into some of the worst aspects of the Bush administration,
some of the crimes and some of the misconduct of the Bush administration
and to a little extent to the Obama administration, what had been going
on by the government.
Not having
taken money from The Nation magazine, I have no need to ever whore for
the Democratic Party, (I also understand "alleged." For example, the
documents that were leaked -- they're not alleged. The government has
admitted they're real. Without that admission, the government couldn't
sue because any judge -- even a military judge -- would toss it out if
the government wasn't admitting their documents had been released. If
the documents were fake, there might be fraud charges but the current
charges wouldn't apply.) The Obama administration's crimes are greater
than the Bush administration. Bully Boy Bush didn't oversee Iraq.
Robert Gates did. Then Secretary of Defense Robert Gates. The
Collateral Murder Video comes under Gates' watch. The incoming
administration should have known as much as what an analyst
allegedly had access to on a remote computer. And yet Barack Obama
made the decision to keep Gates as his own Secretary of Defense. (Gates
just left last summer, replaced by Leon Panetta.) When the Collateral
Murder Vido took place, General David Petraeus was the top US commander
in Iraq. When Barack was sworn in, Petraeus was then the commander of
CENTCOM. Barack then went on to put Petraeus (June 2010) in charge of
Afghanistan. He retired from the military in August and was given the
Army Distinguished Service Medal -- apparently for overseeing the deaths
of journalists in Baghdad? And Barack went on to make Petraeus the
director of the CIA.
If you're on The Nation
payroll, you can say, "Tsk, tsk, George Bush." If you're a functioning
adult living in reality, you grasp that promoting and embracing these
two and others makes Barack wore and more culpable than Bush who could
claim that it was all a surprise in 2007 that the events portrayed in
the Collateral Murder Video took place.
It's
equally true that Bully Boy Bush hasn't commented on Bradley Manning
publicly. He could. He's no longer commander in chief. But Barack is
commander in chief. That's a Constitutional power -- Article 2, Section
2. It's a serious role. One that Barack shirks when he pronounces
Bradley guilty before Bradley's even been tried or entered a plea. As
Kat's BFF Kevin Zeese observed in April 2011 at War Is A Crime:
On
Thursday April 21, 2011 in San Francisco a group of Bradley Manning
supporters protested the prosecution of Manning at a Barack Obama
fundraising event. One of Manning's supporters was able to question the
president directly afterwards and during the conversation, Obama said on
videotape that Manning was guilty.
Can
you imagine if the Supreme Leader of Iran, Ayatollah Khamene'i,
pronounced an Iranian military whistle blower "guilty" before any trial
was held? Khamene'i is the commander-in-chief of all armed forces in
Iran, just as President Obama is the commander-in-chief of the U.S.
armed services. Would anyone in the United States think that a trial
before Iranian military officers that followed such a pronouncement
could be fair? The U.S. government would use the situation to make
propaganda points about the phony justice system in Iran.
President
Obama's pronouncement about Manning, "He broke the law," amounts to
unlawful command influence – something prohibited in military trials
because it is devastating to the military justice system. Manning will
be judged by a jury of military officers in a military court where
everyone involved follows the orders of the commander-in-chief. How are
these officers going to rule against their commander-in-chief,
especially after Manning has been tortured in solitary confinement for
almost a year? Any officer who finds Manning "not guilty" will have no
chance of advancing his career after doing so.
Article 37 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice makes undo command influence unlawful. Unlawful Command Influence has been called "the carcinoma of the military justice system" and is often described as "the mortal enemy of military justice." The importance of the command structure in the military makes command influence a threat to fair trails, i.e. "because the inherent power and influence of command are necessary and omnipresent
facets of military life, everyone involved in both unit command and in
military justice must exercise constant vigilance to protect against
command influence becoming unlawful."
After the interview was over, the Law and Disorder gang returned to the topic of one charge that's been brought against Bradley.
Michael
Ratner: The question is how he aided in the enemy and I was in court
when this happened and they asked the prosecutor how was he aiding the
enemy and they said, 'He's aiding the enemy and he did it indirectly
by giving documents to WikiLeaks which then published the documents on
WikiLeaks which are then read by al Qaeda and then they get information
about --
Michael Smith: Themselves.
Michael
Ratner: Well bascially. 'And it drums up their supporters to say how
bad the US is and all this.' And that's somehow aiding the enemy. Now
what's interesting about that charge -- and Kevin alluded to this
question of intent -- the New York Times, let's say for example, let me
give our listeners an example, they publish the documents or information
about President Bush engaging in warrantless wiretapping of people in
the United States and abroad. And, of course, that's published in the
New York Times and, of course, al Qaeda reads the New York Times, so why
couldn't you charge the New York Times with indirectly aiding the enemy
al Qaeda? It's obvious why you don't, because their intention, the New
York Times, was not to aid al Qaeda. Their intention was to bring out
the illegalities of the US system of wiretapping. Like a Bradley
Manning allegedly putting these documents to bring out the crimes of
the United States. His intention was not to aid al Qaeda.
Michael
Ratner's a legal expert and his opinions are always wroth seriously
considering. However, there's another issue with regards to his
example. The New York Times is a press outlet. Whatever your opinion
of it, it is recognized as such. The First Amendment comes into play
and, in Michael's example, the paper is reporting. Would Bradley
Manning, if he did leak the documents, be seen in the same role? Would
he be seen as leaking to the press or, WikiLeaks being a whistle blower
organization (that's how it was seen before Bradley was charged and
that's how it promoted itself), would it be something different. That's
"A." "B," I've never read the chat logs and have no plans to. They
are edited and they may or may not be genuine. But the prosecution has
read them and they know what Adrian Llamo will say at the court martial
-- trained canaries always sing the tunes they're taught. Point
being, aiding the enemy is a serious charge and it might exist currently
in an attempt to frighten Bradley and to force his hand. Or it might
be charge they plan on keeping in the court-martial. If they plan on
keeping it, I would assume they had Llamo ready to spin or they wouldn't
have lodged it to begin with. This whole area that Michael Ratner's
outlining so very well is confusing for one reason: The defense hasn't
entered a plea.
We're including Michael
Ratner's take because it's legally sound and may be correct. But
there's a great deal unknown at this point still and I'm trying to make
it clear that it's his argument, not mine. There have been a number of
e-mails expressing disappointment that I didn't use this space to defend
a service member who just got drummed out of the military. We covered
that by noting Justin Raimondo's
writing on the topic. I couldn't write on it because I'd long ago made
an argument here* -- repeatedly -- that didn't allow me to take a stand
defending that service member without being a hypocrite. So should it
turn out that Llamo testifies that in hours of chat, once Bradely
expressed that he didn't care whether this helped al Qaeda or not or
that he wanted it to, we're not painted into a corner or blindsided
because I haven't made that an issue in the arguments we've made here.
[*We
have repeatedly defended the rights of service members, active duty, to
take part in protests and to speak their minds freely provided they
were not in uniform. When Adam Kokesh
was being targeted by the military, we were able to cite the difference
in his case. In uniform or not, he was taking part in street theater
and the court had recognized that as legal during Vietnam when American
service members -- active duty -- took part in street theater actions
while in fatigues or uniforms. From the Supreme Court's decision in Schacht v. United States (1970):
The
Government's argument in this case seems to imply that somehow what
these amateur actors did in Houston should not be treated as a
"theatrical production" within the meaning of 772 (f). We are unable to
follow such a suggestion. Certainly theatrical productions need not
always be performed in buildings or even on a defined area such as a
conventional stage. Nor need they be performed by professional actors or
be heavily financed or elaborately produced. Since time immemorial,
outdoor theatrical performances, often performed by amateurs, have
played an important part in the entertainment and the education of the
people of the world. Here, the record shows without dispute the
preparation and repeated presentation by amateur actors of a short play
designed to create in the audience an understanding of and opposition to
our participation in the Vietnam war. Supra, at 60 and this page. It
may be that the performances were crude and [398 U.S. 58, 62]
amateurish and perhaps unappealing, but the same thing can be said about
many theatrical performances. We cannot believe that when Congress
wrote out a special exception for theatrical productions it intended to
protect only a narrow and limited category of professionally produced
plays. 3 Of course, we need not decide here all the questions concerning
what is and what is not within the scope of 772 (f). We need only find,
as we emphatically do, that the street skit in which Schacht
participated was a "theatrical production" within the meaning of that
section.
This brings us to petitioner's complaint that giving force and effect to the last clause of 772 (f) would impose an unconstitutional restraint on his right of free speech. We agree. This clause on its face simply restricts 772 (f)'s authorization to those dramatic portrayals that do not "tend to discredit" the military, but, when this restriction is read together with 18 U.S.C. 702, it becomes clear that Congress has in effect made it a crime for an actor wearing a military uniform to say things during his performance critical of the conduct or [398 U.S. 58,63] policies of the Armed Forces. An actor, like everyone else in our country, enjoys a constitutional right to freedom of speech, including the right openly to criticize the Government during a dramatic performance. The last clause of 772 (f) denies this constitutional right to an actor who is wearing a military uniform by making it a crime for him to say things that tend to bring the military into discredit and disrepute. In the present case Schacht was free to participate in any skit at the demonstration that praised the Army, but under the final clause of 772 (f) he could be convicted of a federal offense if his portrayal attacked the Army instead of praising it. In light of our earlier finding that the skit in which Schacht participated was a "theatrical production" within the meaning of 772 (f), it follows that his conviction can be sustained only if he can be punished for speaking out against the role of our Army and our country in Vietnam. Clearly punishment for this reason would be an unconstitutional abridgment of freedom of speech. The final clause of 772 (f), which leaves Americans free to praise the war in Vietnam but can send persons like Schacht to prison for opposing it, cannot survive in a country which has the First Amendment. To preserve the constitutionality of 772 (f) that final clause must be stricken from the section.
This brings us to petitioner's complaint that giving force and effect to the last clause of 772 (f) would impose an unconstitutional restraint on his right of free speech. We agree. This clause on its face simply restricts 772 (f)'s authorization to those dramatic portrayals that do not "tend to discredit" the military, but, when this restriction is read together with 18 U.S.C. 702, it becomes clear that Congress has in effect made it a crime for an actor wearing a military uniform to say things during his performance critical of the conduct or [398 U.S. 58,63] policies of the Armed Forces. An actor, like everyone else in our country, enjoys a constitutional right to freedom of speech, including the right openly to criticize the Government during a dramatic performance. The last clause of 772 (f) denies this constitutional right to an actor who is wearing a military uniform by making it a crime for him to say things that tend to bring the military into discredit and disrepute. In the present case Schacht was free to participate in any skit at the demonstration that praised the Army, but under the final clause of 772 (f) he could be convicted of a federal offense if his portrayal attacked the Army instead of praising it. In light of our earlier finding that the skit in which Schacht participated was a "theatrical production" within the meaning of 772 (f), it follows that his conviction can be sustained only if he can be punished for speaking out against the role of our Army and our country in Vietnam. Clearly punishment for this reason would be an unconstitutional abridgment of freedom of speech. The final clause of 772 (f), which leaves Americans free to praise the war in Vietnam but can send persons like Schacht to prison for opposing it, cannot survive in a country which has the First Amendment. To preserve the constitutionality of 772 (f) that final clause must be stricken from the section.
It's a damn shame the press ignored that verdict while miscovering the charges against Adam.]
In news of Iraq's legal system, US Senator Kelly Ayotte's office issued the following today:
WASHINGTON,
DC - U.S. Senator Kelly Ayotte (R-NH), a member of the Senate Armed
Services Committee, released the following statement today regarding an
Iraqi court's ruling to release Ali Mussa Daqduq - a Hezbollah member
who was transferred to Iraqi custody when U.S. forces withdrew last
December:
"This confirms my fears that
transferring Daqduq to Iraqi custody would result in his release. Daqduq
is a member of Hezbollah who served as a key liaison with Iran. He
trained Iraqi extremists who targeted U.S. troops, and he is suspected
of planning the operation in 2007 that resulted in the deaths of five
U.S. military personnel. If Daqduq is released, there is little doubt
that he'll resume terrorist activities. This case highlights the need
for a designated terrorist detention facility to detain, interrogate,
and try foreign terrorists."
In addition to
questioning senior Defense Department officials about Daqduq in Senate
Armed Services Committee hearings last year, Senator Ayotte joined 19
other Senators in sending a letter to Secretary Panetta on July 21,
2011. The letter expressed the Senators' concerns that transferring
Daqduq to Iraqi custody might result in his release and a return to
terrorist activities.
Ayote is a Republican Senator (and, according to yesterday's Meet The Press
roundtable, among those being considered as the running mate for likely
GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney). She's talking about the news
that Suadad-al Salhy, Patrick Markey and Andrew Heavens (Reuters) reported
this morning, that Iraq's 'justice' system has cleared Ali Mussa Daqdug
of all charges related to the "2007 kidnapping attack that killed five
U.S. troops." what are we talking about? This was "the Special Groups
network," US term, which later became the League of Righteous. For more
on that, refer to [PDF format warning] Marisa Cochrane's "Asaib Ahl al-Haq and the Khazali Special Groups Network"
(Institute for the Study of War). The five Americans killed? The
inability to legally punish a group of kidnappers and killers? For
context, let's fall back to the June 9, 2009 snapshot:
This morning the New York Times' Alissa J. Rubin and Michael Gordon offered "U.S. Frees Suspect in Killing of 5 G.I.'s." Martin Chulov (Guardian) covered the same story, Kim Gamel (AP) reported on it, BBC offered "Kidnap hope after Shia's handover" and Deborah Haynes contributed "Hope for British hostages in Iraq after release of Shia militant" (Times of London). The basics of the story are this. 5 British citizens have been hostages since May 29, 2007. The US military had in their custody Laith al-Khazali. He is a member of Asa'ib al-Haq. He is also accused of murdering five US troops. The US military released him and allegedly did so because his organization was not going to release any of the five British hostages until he was released. This is a big story and the US military is attempting to state this is just diplomacy, has nothing to do with the British hostages and, besides, they just released him to Iraq. Sami al-askari told the New York Times, "This is a very sensitive topic because you know the position that the Iraqi government, the U.S. and British governments, and all the governments do not accept the idea of exchanging hostages for prisoners. So we put it in another format, and we told them that if they want to participate in the political process they cannot do so while they are holding hostages. And we mentioned to the American side that they cannot join the political process and release their hostages while their leaders are behind bars or imprisoned." In other words, a prisoner was traded for hostages and they attempted to not only make the trade but to lie to people about it. At the US State Dept, the tired and bored reporters were unable to even broach the subject. Poor declawed tabbies. Pentagon reporters did press the issue and got the standard line from the department's spokesperson, Bryan Whitman, that the US handed the prisoner to Iraq, the US didn't hand him over to any organization -- terrorist or otherwise. What Iraq did, Whitman wanted the press to know, was what Iraq did. A complete lie that really insults the intelligence of the American people. CNN reminds the five US soldiers killed "were: Capt. Brian S. Freeman, 31, of Temecula, California; 1st Lt. Jacob N. Fritz, 25, of Verdon, Nebraska; Spc. Johnathan B. Chism, 22, of Gonzales, Louisiana; Pfc. Shawn P. Falter, 25, of Cortland, New York; and Pfc. Johnathon M. Millican, 20, of Trafford, Alabama." Those are the five from January 2007 that al-Khazali and his brother Qais al-Khazali are supposed to be responsible for the deaths of. Qassim Abdul-Zahra and Robert H. Reid (AP) states that Jonathan B. Chism's father Danny Chism is outraged over the release and has declared, "They freed them? The American military did? Somebody needs to answer for it."
If what's taking place right now is outrageous, let's remember the outrage should have been present in 2009. Jonathan B. Chism was correct, somebody did need to answer for that but no one ever did. Possibly that's why today's events are taking place. Without outrage, the White House was lulled into believing no one was watching. And that it didn't matter as a result. December 16, 2011, Liz Sly and Peter Finn (Washington Post) reported on the US handing Ali Musa Daqduq over to the Iraqis:
He was transferred to Iraqi custody after the Obama administration "sought and received assurances that he will be tried for his crimes," according to Tommy Vietor, spokesman for the National Security Council in Washington.
Jack Healy and Charlie Savage (New York Times) report, "Although military officials said he confessed freely and that his interrogation had not included any harsh techniques, his statements to American military interrogators would probably be deemed inadmissible in Iraqi court. But the Obama administration had hoped that he would instead face charges of illegally entering Iraq, a crime that could result in a 10-year prison sentence." 5 Americans who were in Iraq because the government ordered them there get killed and Barack thinks a "a 10-year prison sentence" for enterting the country without a visa is justice? Maybe next the White House will push for a drunk and disorderly and get held in the tank until he sobers up?
This morning the New York Times' Alissa J. Rubin and Michael Gordon offered "U.S. Frees Suspect in Killing of 5 G.I.'s." Martin Chulov (Guardian) covered the same story, Kim Gamel (AP) reported on it, BBC offered "Kidnap hope after Shia's handover" and Deborah Haynes contributed "Hope for British hostages in Iraq after release of Shia militant" (Times of London). The basics of the story are this. 5 British citizens have been hostages since May 29, 2007. The US military had in their custody Laith al-Khazali. He is a member of Asa'ib al-Haq. He is also accused of murdering five US troops. The US military released him and allegedly did so because his organization was not going to release any of the five British hostages until he was released. This is a big story and the US military is attempting to state this is just diplomacy, has nothing to do with the British hostages and, besides, they just released him to Iraq. Sami al-askari told the New York Times, "This is a very sensitive topic because you know the position that the Iraqi government, the U.S. and British governments, and all the governments do not accept the idea of exchanging hostages for prisoners. So we put it in another format, and we told them that if they want to participate in the political process they cannot do so while they are holding hostages. And we mentioned to the American side that they cannot join the political process and release their hostages while their leaders are behind bars or imprisoned." In other words, a prisoner was traded for hostages and they attempted to not only make the trade but to lie to people about it. At the US State Dept, the tired and bored reporters were unable to even broach the subject. Poor declawed tabbies. Pentagon reporters did press the issue and got the standard line from the department's spokesperson, Bryan Whitman, that the US handed the prisoner to Iraq, the US didn't hand him over to any organization -- terrorist or otherwise. What Iraq did, Whitman wanted the press to know, was what Iraq did. A complete lie that really insults the intelligence of the American people. CNN reminds the five US soldiers killed "were: Capt. Brian S. Freeman, 31, of Temecula, California; 1st Lt. Jacob N. Fritz, 25, of Verdon, Nebraska; Spc. Johnathan B. Chism, 22, of Gonzales, Louisiana; Pfc. Shawn P. Falter, 25, of Cortland, New York; and Pfc. Johnathon M. Millican, 20, of Trafford, Alabama." Those are the five from January 2007 that al-Khazali and his brother Qais al-Khazali are supposed to be responsible for the deaths of. Qassim Abdul-Zahra and Robert H. Reid (AP) states that Jonathan B. Chism's father Danny Chism is outraged over the release and has declared, "They freed them? The American military did? Somebody needs to answer for it."
If what's taking place right now is outrageous, let's remember the outrage should have been present in 2009. Jonathan B. Chism was correct, somebody did need to answer for that but no one ever did. Possibly that's why today's events are taking place. Without outrage, the White House was lulled into believing no one was watching. And that it didn't matter as a result. December 16, 2011, Liz Sly and Peter Finn (Washington Post) reported on the US handing Ali Musa Daqduq over to the Iraqis:
He was transferred to Iraqi custody after the Obama administration "sought and received assurances that he will be tried for his crimes," according to Tommy Vietor, spokesman for the National Security Council in Washington.
Jack Healy and Charlie Savage (New York Times) report, "Although military officials said he confessed freely and that his interrogation had not included any harsh techniques, his statements to American military interrogators would probably be deemed inadmissible in Iraqi court. But the Obama administration had hoped that he would instead face charges of illegally entering Iraq, a crime that could result in a 10-year prison sentence." 5 Americans who were in Iraq because the government ordered them there get killed and Barack thinks a "a 10-year prison sentence" for enterting the country without a visa is justice? Maybe next the White House will push for a drunk and disorderly and get held in the tank until he sobers up?
Kitabat reports that Nouri caved to pressure from Tehran and that's why he was released. It's also noted that a number of US Senators were asking the White House not to turn Daqduq over to Iraq but to move him to Guantanamo or another facility. However, the White House insisted that they knew best and they had these assurances.
They knew 'best' in backing Nouri for a second term as well, right? The political crisis continues in Iraq. Kitabat reports
that Moqtada al-Sadr's boc announced yesterday that it has six people
in mind to replace Nouri al-Maliki as prime minister if he's unable to
take the necessary steps to resolve the crisis. Al Mada reports
that the threat to withdraw confidence in Nouri is coming from Moqtada
al-Sadr, Speaker of Parliament Osama al-Nujaifi, KRG President Massoud
Barzani and Iraqiya leader Ayad Allawi. Nouri is stewing in a mess of
his own making. Abdul Rahman al-Rashid (Gulf News) observes:
It
is obvious that Al-Maliki would go to extremes to remain in his
position. He is accused of manipulating the election committee, which
should be an independent body, and of arresting his opponents on serious
charges. He relieved his top ministers and took hold of all the high
sovereign positions for himself and his party, although he had agreed
with the other political parties on a fair distribution of portfolios.
He needed their support, because he did not win the majority that would
have enabled him to form the government.
Al-Maliki
went too far in his conflicts -- to a degree of threatening the
country's unity. He wanted to coerce the Kurdish leadership and make
them succumb to his authority. He also allied with the Iranians so as to
obtain the support of the supreme Iranian religious leader in the
elections. He also provided finances to the regime of Bashar Al-Assad
against the popular uprising in Syria. Al-Maliki has backed the militias
of Hezbollah and is now threatening Turkey.
Marina Ottaway and Danial Kaysi's [PDF format warning] "The State Of Iraq" (Carnegie Endowment for International Peace) reviewed events and noted:
Within
days of the official ceremonies marking the end of the U.S. mission in
Iraq, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki moved to indict Vice President
Tariq al-Hashemi on terrorism charges and sought to remove Deputy Prime
Minister Saleh al-Mutlaq from his position, triggering a major political
crisis that fully revealed Iraq as an unstable, undemocractic country
governed by raw competition for power and barely affected by
institutional arrangements. Large-scale violence immediately flared up
again, with a series of terrorist attacks against mostly Shi'i targets
reminiscent of the worst days of 2006.
But there is
more to the crisis than an escalation of violence. The tenuous
political agreement among parties and factions reached at the end of
2010 has collapsed. The government of national unity has stopped
functioning, and provinces that want to become regions with autonomous
power comparable to Kurdistan's are putting increasing pressure on the
central government. Unless a new political agreement is reached soon,
Iraq may plunge into civil war or split apart.
The agreement was the Erbil Agreement. March 7, 2010, Iraq held parliamentary elections. Ayad Allawi's Iraqiya came in first ahead of Nouri's State of Law. Nouri refused to give up the post of prime minister. What followed were eight months of political stalemate. The White House and the Iranian government were backing Nouri so he knew he could dig in his heels and did just that. Finally, in November, the US-brokered Erbil Agreement was reached. Nouri could have a second term as prime minister provided he made concessions on other issues.
Nouri used the agreement to get his second term and then trashed the agreement refusing to honor it. Until last week, he and his supporters had taken to (wrongly) calling the agreement unconstitutional. And though the KRG, Iraqiya and Moqtada al-Sadr have been calling for the Erbil Agreement to be fully implemented since summer 2011, it took last week for State of Law to finally discover that themselves loved the Erbil Agreement. Needless to say, the sudden attraction to the deal is seen as mere lip service.
State of Law meanwhile sees the distraction as the way to go. Alsumaria reports MP Yassin Majid is stating, 'Dictator, who's the dictator?' as he makes a point to assert that since Massoud Barzani has ruled the Kurdistan region for twenty years, he's the dictator, not Nouri. Majid accompanied Nouri to DC in December and, along with being a member of State of Law, Majid is also the attorney of record for State of Law. Those details didn't make the story. But another thing that didn't make the story is that Massoud Barzani hasn't ruled the KRG for 20 years. The position of prime minister was created in 2003 -- Barzani has been prime minister since 2003. Secondly, prior to 2003, the Kurdistan region was divided into two areas with the KDP (Barzani's party) in charge of one section (Barzani in charge) and with the PUK (Iraqi president Jalal Talabani's party) in charge of the other region.
Alsumaria reports that Moqtada al-Sadr's bloc is stating the Nouri has until May 17th to implement the Erbil Agreement. State of Law's response? What do they always do? Try to distract by pointing at something else. Aswat al-Iraq reported yesterday that "State of Law MP Ameen Hadi disclosed that the visit" to Erbil two Saturdays ago by Moqtada "was without the consent of the National Alliance."
