Friday, March 30, 2012. Chaos and violence continue,
camp cheerleaders try to find "success," Iraqis continue to suffer, US not so
quick to sell Iraq high-tech enemy, the US Congress talks military sexual traum
and military suicides, and more.
Jane Arraf (Christian Science Monitor) wants you to know that,
as Sly Stone once sang, everybody is a star, that we're all winners. Probably
Charlotte Caffey and Jane Wiedlin were closer to the truth with,
"We're all dreamers, we're all whores" ("This Town," first appears on the Go-Gos' Beauty and the Beat).
Journalists are supposed to be critical thinkers not advance men for the
company. The Arab League Summit was only a success if we're all toddlers and
everyone gets a trophy for showing up. Or if you're stupid enough to think
something's true just because a two-bit thug like Nouri al-Maliki says it
is.
There are 22 countries in the Arab League. Hamza Hendawi and Lara Jakes (AP) put the number of
Arab League leaders who attended at 10 and they pointed out that Qatar, Saudi
Arabi, Morocco and Jordan were among those who sent lower-level officials to the
summit. Patrick Martin (Globe & Mail)
explains that Sheik Hamad Bin Jassem Bin Jabr Al Thani (Prime Minister of
Qatar) declared on television that Qatar's "low level of representation" was
meant to send "a 'message' to Iraq' majority Shiites to stop what he called the
marginalization of its minority Sunnis." Yussef Hamza (The National) offers, "Iraq has looked to the summit,
the first it has hosted in a generation, to signal its emergence from years of
turmoil, American occupation and isolation. It wanted the summit to herald its
return to the Arab fold. But the large number of absentees told a different
story." That's reality.
Who's the liar pimping success? Why it's not just Nouri
al-Maliki, it's Jane Arraf and Prashant Rao's Twitter buddy, the idiot Reider Visser. A fool not qualified to discuss
legalities of the Erbil Agreement as evidenced by his dime store 'legal'
'analysis' that makes Elle Woods look, by comparison, like a legal giant along
the lines of Thurgood Marshall. And of course Jane and Prashant and the others
weren't trained in the law either so they idiotically retweet Reider's ignorance
there by multiplying it as well as endorsing it. Reider's a Nouri al-Maliki
groupie so he's hardly an impartial voice. He's also buddies with trash Nir Rosen. Though Nir's more
famous right now for turning over the names of Western reporters to the Syrian
government (that's what led to the recent charges that he was a spy), he of
course became infamous for presenting the 'legal' 'analysis' that Lara Logan
'had it coming.' Nir really wasn't qualified for anything other than blowhard
status but the Circle Jerk -- the same one that Jane and Prahsant employ on
Reider's behalf -- ensured that a man was elevated and it didn't matter that he
pisses on women or anything else. It's really past time that so-called
professional journalists started examing their own ethics. At best, Reider is
nothing but a whore for Nouri. There's no reason to treat him as impartial.
There's no reason to treat his 'legal' renderings as worth passing on.
And to make his lack of value clear, he's pronounced the
summit "a landmark achievement." (You sort of picture him panting that as he
pulls on himself for a minute and ten seconds.) (Though I may be implying more
endurance than he actually has.)
Only a whore for Nouri would pronounce the summit "a
landmark achievement." It's cute the way he and Jane Arraf and Prashant Rao and
the rest ignore the assault on the Communist Party in Baghdad this week. That
took place in Baghdad. That took place as supposedly part of 'security sweep'
on the neighborhood for the summit. 12 people were arrested and forced to sign
papers they hadn't read. And that's not news? But what a little pig and prig
named Reider Viseer thinks is supposed to carry weight?
Why?
Because like the 'professional journalists,' he ignores
what was done to the Communist Party this week. It's really interesting and
illuminating to see what gets covered and what gets ignored and, excuse the hell
out of me, but let's also point that when we spent a week here covering the
assault on Iraqi youth, Prashant, Jane and their beloved Reider couldn't be
bothered with the story.
I guess it's easy to judge Iraq a success when you ignore
all the people who suffer and die. I guess it's real damn easy -- real damn
easy to lie.
And to whine. I seem to remember these 'professional
journalists' and their whines about it took two hours or four hours or they
didn't have phone service wah, wah, wah. Did any of those self-obsessed fools
stop to write one damn article about the Iraqi journalists who were denied the
right to cover the summit?
Did they note that printing presses were down?
Did they mention that outlets like Dar Addustour were
basically forced into a holiday for the entire summit?
No, they didn't. But they did let you know that, golly,
they ate their breakfast and it was digesting but now it was two hours later and
their tummies were rumbling and goodness knows the bus they were on should be
moving towards food a whole lot faster.
Everyone pimping the damn lie that the summit was a
success should be ashamed of themselves. Not Reider Visser -- his kind is
immune to shame. But so-called 'professional journalists,' I don't know what
the hell you think you did this week but most of you didn't do reporting.
Not only did you ignore the threats to the Iraqi people,
you ignored the staples you usually cover. Radical cleric and online tween
advisor Moqtada al-Sadr takes questions from his followers and posts answers.
These are usually the 'quotes' of Moqtada's that you see in the press. They
love to cover this -- often forgetting to note it was written and it's an online
exchange -- but they love to cover it. Strangely, they ignored what he said
this week.
He said the US citizen that was released was a soldier.
We're talking about Randy Michael Hills. He was in the news March 17th and
18th. The most fitting headline of all the coverage went was on Jack Healy's
New York Times article: " Militans Free American No One Knew
Was Missing." Randy Michael Hills, a 59-year-old American, former US
military or current US military (take your pick) was released by forces once
attached to Moqtada al-Sadr who explained that they had held the man for nine
months (that he was held for nine months was confirmed by Victoria Nuland in a
US State Dept press briefing).
Peter Graff (Reuters) reported that
the man "was shown on telievision in a U.S. military univorm with no insignia,
flanked by two members of parliament from Sadr's movement." Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN)
reported:
Maha al-Douri, a lawmaker and a
member of the al-Sadr movement, said Michael had been in captivity for nine
months. A spokesman for the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad said officials were working
"to verify the information regarding the alleged U.S. captive."
A Pentagon
official said the Defense Department is also looking into the reports, but added
that to the best of defense officials' knowledge, no active duty military person
has been missing in Iraq.
The website of the Defense Prisoner
Of War/ Missing Personnel Office on Saturday showed three Defense Department
contractors as still missing from Operation Iraqi Freedom. Michael was not among
them.
Al Mada's coverage made clear that the Sadr brigade
considers him a soldier and states they captured a US soldier (not contractor)
and they state he took part in the 2004 attack on Najaf and Sadr City as well as
2008 attacks in southern and Central Iraq -- what is known as the Charge of the
Knights -- that begins March 25th and is a joint US-Iraq operation targeting
Moqtada's forces. And this week, Moqtada answered a question about this released
hostage and again stated he was US military, not former military, not a
contractor. He may or may not be telling the truth or he may be telling what he
thinks is the truth and be mistaken. But Moqtada al-Sadr does know the
difference between a US soldier and a contractor. It's interesting that no one
wanted to quote Moqtada this week. They usually break their necks trying to
follow Moqtada. (Moqtada was a press created 'political figure.' Had it not
been for the international press -- as well as Paul Bremer's demonization of
Moqtada throughout 2004 -- he would not be the celebrity and power player he is
today.)
There are many other stories that they ignored. I think
they were highly foolish to ignore KRG President Massoud Barzani but there's a
distaste for him among a certain element in the US press.
The summit was a failure and maybe pretending otherwise
allows some people -- including those who didn't file a thing until after the
summit -- to pretend that they weren't failures as well. But they were.
Some of the idiots want to tell you that the number of
Arab heads of states who did not attend doesn't matter and that you should look
at the ones who attended and decided to support Iraq.
That insanity (from Reider among others) comes from
extreme whoring. It's the after effects of some sort of veneral mental disease
turning them all into some sort of modern day Oswald Alving. Clearly Reider has
not only never planned a large, successful function, he's never planned
anything. It was not the "Iraq League." It was a summit for the Arab League.
About half sent heads of state. That had little to do with Iraq and more to do
with attempting to honor the organization. It was a failure. Iraq's neighbors
are probably laughing at the turnout. They're surely laughing at the idiot
claims Nouri made and at his repeated attempts to present himself as someone who
has battled 'terrorism' and brought about 'peace.' That wasn't his only
bone-head move. Youssef Hamza (The National) observes that, "Iraq's Shiit prime
minister, Nouri Al Maliki, may have stunned his Arab guests when he told them
his government's handling of Iraq's sectarian conflict 'can be an example to
follow in other Arab Nations'."
Again, as Gulf
News pointed out, "In addition, the idea that fortified areas such as
the Green Zone can exist is also not the solution. As a matter of fact, the
very existence of such isolated and protected enclaves proves that there is much
to be done to ensure stability and peace."
To hold the disappointing summit, Baghdad had to go into
lockdown. Airline traffic had to stop. Barricades had to go back up throughout
Baghdad. A national holiday had to be declared for the week. Over 100,000
extra security forces had to be deployed. Supposedly a large amount of money
was spent on armored vehicles for these forces -- these vehicles came from
Jordan and the fact that the order was last minute and had to be rushed
significantly increased the cost. If the Parliament were to explore that,
people might question the planning and the vast cost overruns. Whether it's
half-a-billion that was spent on the summit or a billion, that was money that
has not been spent on the Iraqi people. And how the hell does that make for a
success? We're not that many months away from the regular cholera outbreaks in
Iraq. The main reason these happen every year is due to the fact that potable
water isn't readily available. (Potable water is water that is safe to drink as
is -- no boiling of the water is necessary nor purification tablets.)
UPI
reports that, "Iraq is acquiring an array of missiles and other
sophisticated systems for the 36 Lockheed Martin F-16s it's buying to build an
air force but Washington is reluctant to provide Baghdad with the most advanced
U.S. weapons." Somewhere Reider's Tweeting: "Landmark achievement" -- with
Prashant and Jane rushing to retweet. And Reider's insisting that it's an
achievement because, in 2002, the US wasn't selling Iraq F-16s!!!!!!
Al Mada noted yesterday morning that the Iraqi
public and Parliament would be judging the summit a success or not based upon
whether the leaders turned out for the summit. On that scale, it wasn't a
success. In other words, attendence needs improvement and absences hinder
progress. In addition to snubs and rebukes, Liz Sly, Aziz Alwan and Asaad
Majeed (Washington
Post) also note, "The blast at the Iranian Embassy undermined the
government's boasts that it had managed to pull off the summit without incident,
although it would have gone unheard in the conference room deep inside the vast
palace. Zebari and Elaraby both seemed surprised when asked about it by a
journalist." Not a success. Sam Dagher (Wall St. Journal) points
out, "It spent almost $1 billion on preparations that included unprecedented
security measures -- jamming cellphone networks and mobilizing 100,000
security-force members -- and rolling out a catered menu for dignitaries that
featured a dessert of 24-carat-gold-laced dates."
Putting on the dog for visitors while the people went
without?
One's left to wonder how Jane and the gang would cover
Marie Antoinette? "A success by any standards. Today, October 16, 1793, the
one-time Dauphine of France was beheaded via the guillotine . . . so that the
many admirers throughout the land might have not just a corpse to remember her
by but a corpse and a head! And La Veuve Capet looked simply gorgeous clad in a
simple white shift as she approached the guillotine clearly having followed a
strict diet in the last weeks allowing her to show off a sleaker and slimmer
figure."
From the failed leadership of Nouri to the failed
leadership of Tony. One time British prime minister and Bush family pet, Tony
"The Poodle" Blair barged back into the news cycle. Richard Norton-Taylor (Guardian) reports that
yesterday Clare Short accused Blair of distorting reality in order to start the
Iraq War. Specifically, he lied when he asserted the French would nix any
attempt at a second resolution from the UN Security Council.
Backing up. The UN authorized weapons
inspectors to go into Iraq. The UN did not authorize the war. Many citizens of
the US and UK felt their rulers (Bully Boy Bush and Toy Poodle Tony) were
committed to and, in fact, required to get a second resolution from the UN
Security Council if war was the next step.
Clare Short was a Labour MP serving in Blair's Cabinet in the
lead up to the Iraq War. Richard Norton-Taylor reports Short told an
international tribunal yesterday that Tony Blair deliberately distorted the
French government's attitude towards a second resolution. Short states (this is
correct) that Blair maintained that the French would veto any attempt at a
second resolution. (This is correct? The second resolution was established in
the Iraq Inquiry. We pointed this out when the Inquiry completed their public
testimony. We also noted that based on the public testimony and documents, Blair
was not the passive one led by the genius Bush but, in fact, the one steering
Bush through technical waters.) From Norton-Taylor's article:
The
Foreign Office is trying to overturn a decision by Christopher Graham, the
information commissioner, to disclose records of a conversation between Tony
Blair and George Bush about the UN and the French position, days before the
invasion of Iraq in March 2003.
Disclosing that the evidence was
"fantastically important for the people of Britain and the historical record",
Short told the tribunal.
The tribunal heard that Blair
claimed that in a television interview on 10 March 2003, the French president,
Jacques Chirac, said France would veto any new UN resolution backing war. This
enabled Blair to argue before his cabinet, parliament and the British public
that the UK could go to war with no further UN backing because of French
opposition.
The tribunal heard on Thursday that what Chirac actually said
was that France would reject a new pro-war resolution at that particular moment
since the UN weapons inspectors had not been given enough time to carry out
their mission in Iraq.
In
the June 29, 2010 snapshot, we
addressed the resolution at length as a result of the British Ambassador to
France (2001 - 2007) John Holmes' testimony to the Iraq Inquiry. A second
resolution was not desired by the US or the UK. It would hem them in. Holmes
testified as to the French government's position and to being baffled that
Jeremy Greenstock was told by Blair that he could not ask the French government
what their position on UN resolutions were. This was during the exchange with
Committee Member Roderic Lyne. From that exchange, we'll note this:
Committee Member Roderic
Lyne: If the second resolution had contained a longer deadline for Iraqi
compliance, do you think that France would have considered supporting it?
Ambassador John Holmes: I
think it is possible because that's what essentially they were suggesting. They
were suggesting -- they didn't like the six tests or whatever they were called,
but they said "If you give -- if you put in a period" -- I think 120 days was
the period they wanted -- "for the inspectors to operate, so they can do their
job properly without being put against impossible deadlines, then that's
something we could contemplate", but of course, they were still wanting to say
that-that a second resolution of that kind would also not have any automatic
trigger in it. You would still need to come back at the end of that, the
Security Council would need to come back at the end of that, and take a view on
what the inspectors were saying to them. So you know, at that stage, you were
into third resolution territory. So that is a reason why we weren't particularly
attracted, perhaps, to that route, but in any case in those timescales it was
simply not available.
Both Blair and Jack Straw misled
the British people and, later, the Iraq Inquiry. This might be further
underscored if the conversation between Bush and Blair was released (that Short
was giving testimony on). Joel Shenton (Public Service) explains, "The Foreign and
Commonwealth Office (FCO) is fighting calls to release details of a 2003 phone
call between Tony Blair and George Bush which was made just seven days before
the Iraq War began."
While Labour
continues to be stained by the shame Blair brought to them (and Gordon Brown as
well), the member they expelled just had a surprise victory. Eddie Buckle and Robert Hutton
(Bloomberg News)
report that George Galloway won 56% of the vote and was re-elected despite
predictions that he would lose. ITV offers an overview of his career here. Anindya Bhattacharyya (Great Britian's Socialist Worker) explains, "George Galloway has
pulled off a spectacular political comeback by winning Thursday's Bradford West
parliamentary by-election by a landslide." Nicholas Watt (Guardian) reports:
Ed Miliband was facing renewed criticism of his leadership of the
Labour party after George
Galloway swept back into parliament,
achieving one of the greatest byelection upsets in recent
history.
As Miliband said he would
learn the lessons from the defeat in Bradford West, the shadow public health
minister, Diane
Abbott, said Labour had underestimated
the popularity of Galloway and the Iraq war remained "unforgotten and
unforgiven".
Now we're dropping back to Wednesday afternoon to note
military sexual assault and suicides. The Senate Armed Services Subcommittee on
Personnel was hearing about various programs the Pentagon was working on to
address the needs of their uniformed and civilian personnel. We'll note this
exchange between Senator Richard Blumenthal and Acting Under Secretary of
Defense for Personnel and Readiness Jo Ann Rooney.
Senator Richard Blumenthal:
[. . .] I want to focus on one though that may not be directly related to the
budget, I know the budget consumes a lot of time, but you've discussed in your
testimony, Secretary Rooney, the issue of sexual assault which I know troubles
you and the Secretary greatly, a great concern to you and there's a zero
tolerance policy, it's a leadership issue. You say in your testimony that the
estimates now are about 19,000 sexual assaults a year which is down from the
estimate of 34,000 in 2006. Are you suggesting that the rates are numbers of
sexual assaults has been reduced over the last six years.
Secretary Jo Ann Rooney: Sir,
the way we get to that number is that we look at the number of reported sexual
assaults as a percentage of the overall force and then actually multiply it. The
number appears to come down but quite frankly, as you indicated, our concern is
that there are any. And 19,000 is 19,000 too many or whatever the exact number
is because, again, that was extrapolated from actual reported numbers. So while
we believe that the attention being focused, the programs being put in place
and, frankly, the leadership taking this on as such a critical area to be able
to address because it goes right to the heart of what our military believes in
terms of their work and their respect for each other, that that number will come
down but we realize we have a lot of work to do.
Senator Richard Blumenthal:
But it may not have come down in the last six years. Obviously, you're objective
is to make it come down. But I'm just asking whether you have confidence in that
number because, quite honestly, I'm not sure that I do.
Secretary Jo Ann Rooney: I
believe that number indicates that we have a substantial problem yet. But,
again, it's not a specific number. It's extrapolated from those reports we have.
Senator Richard Blumenthal:
Of the defendants who reported and in those incidents 3,192 in FY '11, what
percentage faced court-martial?
Secretary Jo Ann Rooney: Sir,
I'll take that question for the record and get back to you on the
specific.
Senator Richard Blumenthal:
The information I have is fewer than 21% and I was going to ask you
--
Secretary Jo Ann Rooney: That
percentage is correct.
Senator Richard Blumenthal:
What is the reason that they are not brought to court-martial?
Secretary Jo Ann Rooney:
Often, sir, it's many of the same challenges that we see on the civilian side
which is, in order to go through the court-martial, obviously we need to be able
to get the evidence and make sure that our folks are trained to be able to
prosecute those particular cases. Those are specific areas we are working on now
-- to make sure people are trained in the specific areas of how to be able to
not only get that evidence but be able to present that forward. And that's often
the road block.
Senator Richard Blumenthal:
So you're upgrading the procedures for collection of evidence. And what about
retention of evidence?
Secretary Jo Ann Rooney: Uh,
yes, sir. We actually are retaining the evidence at this point -- if it's an
unrestricted report, for fifty years.
Senator Richard Blumenthal:
And are you making efforts to speed the process? In one instance that has been
reported to me -- and I can get you the name and perhaps you can give me more
details -- there was a three year gap -- and, by the way, I'm very familiar with
the defense in the civilian area since I was -- [Attorney General of the state
of Connecticut from 1990 through 2010]
Secretary Jo Ann Rooney: I
know you are, sir.
Senator Richard Blumenthal:
-- involved in it so this is by no means to say you should use it as a model
necessarily. But I know the military sets its own standards for what excellence
is and you have your own goals. But that three year gap, as you know, makes
evidence, even if it's collected -- that is the eye witness testimony that, if
provided, may prove more difficult to get [three years after when memories are
less fresh] and I just wonder what steps are being taken to make sure that these
cases are brought to court-martial -- brought, in effect, to trial -- more
quickly?
Secretary Jo Ann Rooney:
Actually, we're working directly with the services on this and the Joint Chiefs
[of Staff] have been actively involved in looking at how do we not only
streamline the actual court process but also streamline from the point of
reporting to -- we have such things in place now, as you know, as expedited
transfers -- so all through the process making sure that we are able to protect
due process, if you will, for the accused. But move that through the system from
the first report through. So that's something that we're actually engaged right
now with the services to do.
Senator Richard Blumenthal:
Do you have numbers as to the median or average length of time it's taken and
what percentage involves eventual findings of guilt, culpability? And also what
the eventual penalities are in those cases?
Secretary Jo Ann Rooney: Sir,
we do have those numbers but if I could take that for the record and give them
to you as opposed to trying to get them from memory. But we do have them. I have
seen them, sir.
Senator Richard Blumenthal: I
would appreciate that.
Secretary Jo Ann Rooney: We
will.
Senator Richard Blumenthal:
And do you also -- Can you also provide percentages as to what numbers -- in
what rate you give defendants the option of a discharge or a resignation in lieu
of court-martial?
Secretary Jo Ann Rooney: I
can get the information as to what the eventual resolution was. As to whether
that was a negotiated plea or something in that regard, that will be a little
harder. But I can certainly tell you Article 15 and various section
penalties.
Senator Richard Blumenthal:
And finally on this subject, can you tell me when [Defense] Secretary [Leon]
Panetta is going to be releasing the recommendations? He's going to be having
both administrative and legislative. Do you know?
Secretary Jo Ann Rooney:
Actually, we've been working on the possible legislative proposals as recently
as today. So I'm expecting those to be coming up soon and then, within the next
three to six months, we'll also have some additional ways forward on specific
recommendations coming out from the services as well as follow-up on the ones we
mentioned -- the expedited transfer and the document retention.
Senator Richard Blumenthal:
Thank you. On the issue, and you raise it in your testimony, concerning
suicides, can you talk a little bit about what steps are being taken to address
this issue?
Secretary Jo Ann Rooney:
Absolutely. And you're right that the numbers right now -- despite many of our
efforts -- have not shown a significant decrease. But what we have done in fact
is -- taken the task force that had their report forward, one of their
recommendations was to create a specific suicide office which we have done in
the last few months. And the purpose of that office is not to create yet another
layer but it's to look across all the services and actually be the conduit for
what are our best practices, where are we missing some opportunities, getting
rid of some of the redundancies. So that has, at this point, a temporary staff.
But in the fiscal '13 budget, we have the full appropriations we're requesting
on that to have that staff stand up. In addition to that, we're working directly
with the services in each of their component areas to see what practices they
have in place. The next thing, and I think you've seen it also from the medical
side, we're embedding behavioral health not only within the units but also
making it available to the families through a number of our family programs.
And, again, we're continuing to monitor what has been the outreach and where
have we seen some successes or not, as it were. So those are the steps at this
point with many more coming forward. And, also, collecting data has been a big
challenge that we've had. Contemporaneous data. So we're working closely with
the VA, in particular, at this point to share information not only from the DoD
side but also what the VA is getting. We're doing a lot of joint work with them.
So we're getting data that is between thirty and sixty days old as opposed to a
year or two -- which is what we had been getting because that's the way states
are gathering it -- and sharing that information and trying to trend directly
with the VA. So those are some of the ideas.
Etan gets the last word:
Groups Urge U.S. Not to Sell Attack Helicopters to IndonesiaContact: John M. Miller,
+1-718-596-7668; mobile: +1-917-690-
4391, john@etan.org
Ed McWilliams, +1-575-648-2078,
edmcw@msn.comMarch 30, 2012 - Ninety organizations today urged the U.S.
government and Congress not to provide deadly attack helicopters to Indonesia.
Indonesia
from the United States.
The groups warned that the helicopters
will escalate conflicts in Indonesia, especially in the rebellious region of
West Papua: "Providing these
helicopters would pose a
direct threat to Papuan civilians."
The Indonesian military (TNI) regularly conducts "sweep
operations,"
involving attacks on villages
where innocent villagers are forced from their homes. The groups write that
"Papuan civilians either flee the attacks to neighboring villages or into the
surrounding forests where many die or face starvation, cut off from access to
their gardens, shelter, and medical care."
Sweep operations are now
underway in the Central Highlands region of West Papua.
The letter was organized by the
U.S.-based East Timor and Indonesia Action Network
(ETAN) and the West Papua Advocacy Team and signed by human
rights, religious,
indigenous rights, disarmament and other organizations
based in 14 countries.
Signers
include: Faith-based Network on West Papua, Fellowship of Reconciliation, Peace
Action, International Lawyers for West Papua, Land
Is Life, KontrS (Indonesia),
and Pax Christi Australia. A complete list of
and is armed with high caliber chain guns and equipped to fire
missiles.
ETAN was formed in 1991.
It celebrated its 20th anniversary this December
10, advocates for democracy,
justice and human rights for Timor-Leste and Indonesia. See ETAN's web site:
http://www.etan.org
Text of
letter.
As organizations concerned about human rights in Indonesia
and West Papua, we are writing to urge the U.S. government
and Congress not to allow the sale of AH-64 Apache attack
helicopters to the Indonesian military (TNI). Providing these helicopters would
pose a direct threat to Papuan civilians,
who have been the target of deadly TNI assaults for many
years.The sale of this weapons system to the TNI --
notwithstanding its long record
of disregard for civilian
casualties, corruption, human rights violations and impunity in East Timor, Aceh
and elsewhere -- would only increase the
suffering of the Papuan
population.
Indonesia's Deputy
Minister of Defense Sjafrie Sjamsoeddin
Apache helicopter from the
United States.
The heavily-armed
AH-64 is a highly lethal weapon
which can be used to
escalate conflict within
Indonesia and in West Papua. These aircraft will substantially augment the TNI's
capacity to prosecute its "sweep operations"
in West Papua and thereby,
almost certainly lead to increased suffering
among the civilian
populations long victimized by such operations.
TNI "sweep operations," including several now underway in the
Central
Highlands region of West
Papua, involve attacks on villages. Homes are destroyed, along with churches and
public buildings. These assaults,
purportedly to eliminate the
poorly armed Papuan armed resistance, force innocent villagers from their homes.
Papuan civilians either flee the attacks
to neighboring villages or
into the surrounding forests where many die or
face starvation, cut off
from access to their gardens, shelter, and medical
care.
The AH-64 is
designed for air to ground attack. It can operate day or night
and is armed with high
caliber chain guns . It is also equipped to fire
missiles.
Congress must be notified of major
weapons sales. We urge Congress to
oppose the sale of these
helicopters.etanetanetanetanetanetanetanetanetanetanetanetan
Read about
ETAN's 20 years of work for for human rights,
| 
