Tuesday, June 15, 2021

Elizabeth Vos

Interesting article from Elizabeth Vos (MPN):


In February 1987, an anonymous phone tip was called into the Tallahassee police department reporting that six children were dirty, hungry, and acting like animals in the custody of two well-dressed men in a Tallahassee, Florida park. That phone call would kick off the Finders scandal: a series of events and multiple investigations even more bizarre than the initial report.

The trail would ultimately lead to allegations of a cult involved in ritual abuse, an international child-trafficking ring, evidence of child abuse confirmed and later denied, and ties with the CIA, which was alleged to have interfered in the case. No one was ever prosecuted in the wake of the initial 1987 investigation or a 1993 inquiry into the allegations of CIA involvement: official denials were maintained, and authorities stated that no evidence of criminal activity was ever found. However, documents that have emerged over time beg significant questions as to the validity of the official narrative.

In contrast with other historical human trafficking rings covered in the independent press, including those I have previously discussed, the Finders scandal presents as something of a phantom. This is in consequence of the lack of adult victims who have come forward, an absence of hard evidence viewable to the public, and an absence of extensive trials or convictions. Further impeding the willingness of most journalists to cover such a story were claims of ritualistic abuse that were hyped by corporate media at the time of the incident, as well as allegations of a CIA-led coverup that were less widely recognized by the legacy press.

The story is further complicated by the fact that it takes place in three basic stages: the initial 1987 investigation spread across multiple states and law enforcement agencies; a subsequent 1993 inquiry into allegations of a CIA coverup and interference in the 1987 investigation; and the emergence of Customs Service documents detailing new aspects of initial searches of Finders properties which was followed by the publication of hundreds of documents from both investigations to the FBI vault in 2019.

By initially sensationalizing the issue via the framing of the Finders as a satanic cult, the media profited from immediate shock value while permitting this very sensationalism to become the premise for dismissing other aspects of the story and Finders ties to the CIA to remain unexplored.


It's a very interesting article, go check it out.


"Iraq snapshot" (THE COMMON ILLS):

Tuesday, June 15, 2021.  The AMUF may be repealed so it's time for more fakery, Amnesty International warns about crackdowns in Kurdistan, and much more


CNN's Jeremy Herb reports

The House is voting this week on a bill to repeal the 2002 US war authorization in Iraq, with Democrats hopeful that the White House's backing will give them newfound momentum to finally revoke the nearly 20-year-old authorization.
The White House's Office of Management and Budget on Monday issued a statement supporting the House's legislation, a move that's likely to boost the prospects that the Senate will also take action to repeal the authorization for use of military force, which was passed in the months before the George W. Bush administration invaded Iraq in 2003. The House will vote on the rule for the legislation Monday evening ahead of the final vote, which is expected to occur on Thursday. The Biden administration said in a statement of administration policy Monday that it supports the House's legislation because "the United States has no ongoing military activities that rely solely on the 2002 AUMF as a domestic legal basis, and repeal of the 2002 AUMF would likely have minimal impact on current military operations."


Ted Kopan (SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE) words it this way:
 

President Biden on Monday formally endorsed a bill from Oakland Rep. Barbara Lee to repeal the bill that authorized the U.S. invasion of Iraq, marking a sea change in politics on the issue of military engagement. The East Bay Democrat’s bill to terminate the 2002 Authorization for Use of Military Force is set for a vote in the House later this week.
In a statement of administration policy, the vehicle through which presidents telegraph their position on legislation under consideration in Congress, the White House supported the bill’s passage in the House, saying it would not 
jeopardize any current military operations because none is solely based on that authorization. “Repeal of the 2002 AUMF would likely have minimal impact on current military operations,” the statement said. “Furthermore, the President is committed to working with the Congress to ensure that outdated authorizations for the use of military force are replaced with a narrow and specific framework appropriate to ensure that we can continue to protect Americans from terrorist threats.”
Lee has been at the vanguard of the movement to end what are referred to in politics as “endless wars” — military engagements by the U.S. abroad that have no clear endpoint. She was the only member of Congress to vote in 2001 against green-lighting the U.S. war on terror just days after the Sept. 11 attacks, a stand that earned her death threats at the time and respect from her colleagues in hindsight. 


At the vanguard? Maybe of fake assery. She swore this, she swore that. She's a worthless fake ass. "Next year, if we're not out of Afghanistan . . ." she'd promise each year of Barack Obama's eight year presidency, she'd do something. She never did anything but flap her gums.


Bernie Sanders revealed himself to be a sheep dog to steer voters into the Democratic Party and that's bad but Barbara Less's worse. She lulls people into believing that there's real opposition to war in the party and there's none. That's why we still have US troops in Iraq and in Afghanistan. That's why the repeal is only possible at this moment because a sitting president has pronounced it unnecessary. 


It might get repealed. I don't know that it will but I don't know that that's the most pressing issue this week -- or even the most pressing issue regarding the AUMF. I'd love to see all the Democrats who claimed they were tricked or that they didn't vote for war to have a microphone shoved in their face and asked on live TV, "If you weren't voting for war, why does the AMUF need to be repealed?" 


They were voting for war. And they did so knowingly and willingly. And they did so because that's what they believed in. Senator Bob Grahm urged others in Congress -- including Hillary Clinton -- to go and look at what was being offered as evidence. They were 'too busy' to look or think, but they had plenty of time to vote to start a war that has killed over a million people -- Iraqis, US troops and support personnel, people from the United Kingdom and elsewhere.


And they've skirted responsibility and presented themselves as the victim. It's the Joe Biden playbook, after all. Insist that the mean old Bully Boy Bush tricked you. Admit that you're such a moron that the global village idiot could trick you. 


ALJAZEERA quotes US House Rep Jim McGovern:

“The idea that they have not been repealed or ended just doesn’t make any sense,” said Representative Jim McGovern, a leading Democrat.
“It’s either that we just haven’t done our due diligence, or we are not keeping a close watch on these things,” McGovern said on Monday.



You think? And it's not either/or, it's both. Congress did not do due diligence and they are not keeping a close watch on these things. They have no idea what's going on in Iraq. They don't even pretend to be interested in, for example, corruption in Iraq anymore -- this despite the fact that millions of US tax dollars continue to be handed over to the government of Iraq. There is no oversight. 

The office of the Special Investigator over reconstruction in Iraq was forced on Bully Boy Bush. Who shut it down? Donald Trump? No, Barack Obama. And he shut it down over loud objections. Maybe it was just a little too effective in highlighting waste or, maybe as two senators told me, the office embarrassed Barack by revealing that the police academy Americans spent a ton of money building was not wanted by the government of Iraq and they did not plan to use it. That went into not just a report but to testimony before the House and Senate. Barack's reaction was to shut down the office and the press reaction was to look the other way and pretend like he was about openness and transparency. 


Who's pretending these days?


Maybe the US Congress and the US media who refuse to own the amount of money wasted on an illegal war. The amount of money still being wasted.


You won't hear Babsy Lee talk about that. Just like you won't hear her defend Palestinians. The reality of Barbara Lee is far less inspiring that the media image that was long ago created. 

 

On the issue of Iraq, Amnesty International issued the following:


Arbitrary arrests and enforced disappearance of dozens in the past year 

Crackdown intensified after protests against corruption and poor public services  

‘Many of those detained were tried on fabricated charges’ - Lynn Maalouf

The authorities in the Kurdistan Region of Iraq have launched a chilling crackdown on journalists and activists in the past year amid a “growing atmosphere of fear” in the region, said Amnesty International today.

The crackdown began in March 2020, intensifying after widespread protests in August demanding an end to corruption and better public services. 

In the governorate of Duhok alone, Kurdish security forces arrested more than 100 people between March 2020 and April 2021. Most were later released but at least 30 remain in detention. 

Amnesty investigated in detail the cases of 14 people from Badinan, in Duhok governorate, who were arbitrarily arrested between March and October 2020 by Asayish (Kurdistan Regional Government security and intelligence) and Parastin forces (Kurdistan Democratic Party intelligence) in connection with their participation in protests, criticism of the local authorities or for their journalistic work. 

All of the 14 were held incommunicado for up to five months and at least six were forcibly disappeared for periods of up to three months. Eight of the detainees said they had been tortured or otherwise ill-treated during their detention. On 16 February, five were sentenced to six years in prison based on “confessions” extracted under duress.

The Kurdistan authorities have used three specific laws to arrest and prosecute the activists - Law no.21 on matters of national security, a defamation law and a law on the misuse of electronics, all of which contain vague and overly-broad definitions of crimes not recognised under international law.

Lynn Maalouf, Amnesty International’s Middle East Deputy Director, said: 

“The authorities in the Kurdistan Region of Iraq have launched a chilling crackdown in their efforts to silence critics over the past year. 

“They have rounded up activists and journalists, prosecuting them on trumped-up charges in unfair trials and harassing or intimidating family members who were kept in the dark about the status of their loved ones. 

“Many of those detained were tried on fabricated charges and some of those who have been released have fled the region, amidst a growing atmosphere of fear that has even seen family members of activists, journalists and protesters threatened and harassed.

"The Kurdistan Region of Iraq authorities must end the crackdown and immediately release all of those who have been arbitrarily detained.”



On the topic of Kurdistan, MENA's Maria Fantappie weighs in with a Twitter feed:

While fighting the PKK, Turkey’s military incursions in Iraq, have major, often unnoticed, multi-layered implications for the US and NAT0. This is why: A THREAD 1/11


2/10– Unlike previous operations in Syria, these incursions attracted relatively low media attention, occurring over several months in remote areas, utilizing drones technology that enables gaining control over tough terrain, causing displacement & ecological damage.



3/10 Ankara is also gaining influence in Iraqi Kurdistan & Baghdad, leveraging on a mix of threats owing to its military superiority & incentives, winning Iraqi and Kurdish leaders’ acquiesce re: incursions in return for support in their domestic struggles.



4/10 In Iraqi Kurdistan the ops pushed PKK out of its traditional stronghold, induced Peshmerga-PKK violent incidents, leading prominent KDP figures to openly side with Ankara against PKK and leverage on Turkey’s support to get more powerful within KRI.


5/10– In Baghdad, PM Mustafa al-Kadimi have also offered Turkey nearly carte blanche on ops, prioritizing good relations with Ankara & KDP’s support to counterbalance Iran and pro-Iranian forces in national politics ahead of the elections.


6/10 Baghdad’s acquiescence and Turkey invoking national security concerns re: PKK presence in Iraq, persuaded allied nations to refrain from criticism & preserve NATO unity. Yet, operations in Iraq risk harming NATO/US strategic interests:



7/10–Turkey conducting unilateral operations while being a NATO member, places the NATO mission in Iraq— which has ambitious plans to expand— into a controversial position, inviting more criticisms and attacks from pro-Iranian forces.


8/10 Ops feed vicious trends: empower politicians betting on escalation (KDP-PKK; Iraqi gov. Vs PMF), disempower others supportive of Iraq’s sovereignty & Turkey’s peace process, making Iraq an arena to settle scores among external powers (Turkey Vs Iran; US Vs Iran).


9/10– Ops feed Turkey-Iran feud over northern Iraq that splits Iraqi forces in competing camps (PMF& pro-PKK forces Vs ISF), create opportunities for more PMF deployments, more Turkish incursions (as we saw in Sinjar) & favorable conditions for a potential resurgence of ISIS.



10/10 Attacks on PKK indirectly impacts US interests in Syria: shrink space for SDF to build strategic autonomy from PKK, corners the US into a choice between SDF &Turkey, offering the latter leverage to play US and Russia against each others in Syria and elsewhere.


11/11 The longer operations continue, the more their humanitarian, ecological and political impact may become apparent, deepening US-Turkey tensions & undermining the strategic relevance and credibility of the Atlantic Alliance. END



We'll wind down with this from MS. MAGAZINE:

Dear Common Ills,

As the country begins to reopen and summertime travel for reunions and gatherings gets underway – we hope you’ll join Ms. and bring us along with you. In our jam-packed Summer issue, we give you plenty to talk about and think about … and to enjoy! 

Join the Ms. community today and you'll get the Summer issue delivered straight to your mailbox!

 
Visit link
 
Inside The Summer Issue
 

Here's a glimpse at what you'll find inside the upcoming Summer issue:

  • The Equal Rights Amendment and other advancements for women’s and civil rights hinge on the battle to eliminate an anti-democratic Senate rule: the filibuster. These days, the filibuster is routinely used to block even the most mundane matters from reaching the Senate floor. What’s at stake as we consider the immediate future of feminist priorities? The answer is just about everything.

  • In a Ms. Conversation, NPR News host Renee Montagne brings us a firsthand account of the Afghan peace negotiations from two of the women at the table: Fawzia Koofi and Fatima Gailani. Afghan women are worried that after being victims of men’s wars, they will be victims of peace. Gailani describes their goal as peace negotiators like this: “Peace is not a lack of war … We don’t want a peaceful prison. We want a peaceful country that everyone is free in.”

  • The U.S. Supreme Court has just agreed to hear a case involving a Mississippi law that bans nearly all abortions after 15 weeks. The law “unquestionably violates nearly 50 years of Supreme Court precedent and is a test case to overturn Roe,” Nancy Northup of the Center for Reproductive Rights, tells Ms. “If the Court were to weaken the right to abortion, abortion would likely be banned entirely in half the country.” Plus, a review of the new book, Controlling Women: What We Must Do Now to Save Reproductive Freedom by Kathryn Kolbert and Julie F. Kay, two leading legal authorities on reproductive rights who have been preparing for this moment for decades.

  • And in an exclusive excerpt for Ms. from her new book of essays, Period. End of Sentence., Anita Diamant tells the stories of period-positive young women activists who are working to end the “curse.” 

 
Become a Ms. member today to get our Summer issue straight to your mailbox!
 

When you become a member of Ms., you get the magazine in print or on our app, or both—and you’re the first to get information alerts and event invitations from our team. When you become a member, you're supporting independent, feminist media—and becoming part of a global community of feminists who care about the issues that matter to you.

Join today to get our newest issue delivered straight to your mailbox—and fuel another year of our reporting, rebelling and truth-telling. 

 

For equality,
Signature
Kathy Spillar
Executive Editor



The following sites updated:


Monday, June 14, 2021

Court packing?

Jonathan Turley

The Supreme Court this week continued to disappoint congressional Democrats and activists with a long line of embarrassingly unanimous, nonideological rulings. After all, the court is supposedly (to use President Biden’s words) “out of whack” due to its irreconcilable ideological divisions. Indeed, the court is allegedly so dysfunctionally divided that many, including Democratic leaders, have called for sweeping changes — from packing the court with new justices to changing its voting rules or even creating an alternative court.

That is why these weeks have so frustrated those who insist the court is a hopeless case of rigid ideologues. While next week could well bring some welcomed ideological divisions, the court is not making it easy on its critics.

Liberal Justice Stephen Breyer recently chafed at the claim that the court is “conservative” and condemned the calls to pack it with a liberal majority. A liberal group, “Demand Justice,” responded with billboard ads calling for Breyer’s resignation and warned him that he was risking his legacy. However, Breyer appears undeterred in ruling with his conservative colleagues when he considers that to be appropriate.

In the latest decision, Borden v. United States, the lineup of justices was strikingly nonideological. Justice Elena Kagan wrote the opinion for Justices Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Neil Gorsuch, with a concurrence from Justice Clarence Thomas — three liberal justices and two conservatives agreeing to limit the meaning of a “violent felony” for purposes of the Armed Career Criminal Act.

Last week, the decision in Van Buren v. United States was a majority of three liberals and three conservatives. In that case, the most senior justice was Breyer; he assigned it to his conservative colleague Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who wrote for Justices Breyer, Sotomayor, Gorsuch, Kagan and Brett Kavanaugh. Although he was on the other side in Van Buren, Justice Thomas joined his liberal colleagues in Borden.

These decisions follow a litany of unanimous decisions from the court, which seems to be sending a message in the timing of the release of its opinions: The justices do not rule on cases to send messages to Congress, but they do control what cases are accepted and when those decisions are released. It is hard not to view the last few weeks as a type of judicial “harrumph” to the continuing calls for court packing. While we expect more ideological splits in a few upcoming cases, these cases reaffirm that they are not so rigid or “hopelessly divided” as Democratic leaders and other critics have suggested.


I don't support court packing.  Here's a video of Turley speaking about this topic.



I don't believe it's the "far left" that's pushing this.  I think you could put me on the far left and I'm not pushing this nonsense.  It's a group of antsy Democrats who are pushing it and they're not far left.  They're really not even left.  They are just partisan. Loud.  Ugly.  That's what they are.

"Iraq snapshot" (THE COMMON ILLS):

Monday, June 14, 2021.  The October Revolution accomplished what few ever have and yet the media continues to undercut it -- even when supposedly praising it.


In October, Iraq is expected to hold parliamentary elections.  October is also the month that, in 2019, the October Revolution took off.  It is still active.  Neslines Institute's COUNTOURS podcast recently addressed The October Revolution.

Nick Heras: What is the greatest impact that the movement is having on decision makers in Baghdad.it has had?

Jane Arraf: Thanks, Nick. I think, you know, that we have to remember that the greatest impact  is that it's changed some f the decision makers because this is a movement that actually toppled a government.  It achieved one of the main things that it wanted to.  Now we can and will talk about how it's probably been downhill from there but there's a prime minister who came to power simply because protesters demanded the toppling of the previous prime minister and Shia religious figures concurred, they said they had lost trust in him.  So that's the main part of it.  


We'll stop her there.


It bears reminding that Jane was completely wrong about The October Movement in real time.  Jane's been covering Iraq forever.  Her 'scoops' have been miniscule.  She has broken no real news ever.  She started covering Iraq for CNN and when Saddam Hussein was in power and, as the then-head of CNN infamously revealed in his infamous column for THE NEW YORK TIMES (Eason Jordan's "The News We Kept To Ourselves"),   CNN deliberately censored and watered down its coverage in order to remain in Iraq.  It's the lesson she's taken with her, don't rock the boat.  Don't cover anything a sitting government in Iraq doesn't want covered.  It's why she's worked for so many outlets lately: She doesn't deliver.


She fails to be covering what's necessary, she uses her coverage to minimize what's going on.



That was especially clear  on October 25, 2019.  From that day's snapshot:




In this report (different from above), Jane insisted that the government was not firing on people.  Really?

This man was shooting at protesters and law enforcement during the protest, he was captured during his attempt to flee the scene,it turned out he is a traffic patrol officer in the Iraqi ministry of interior!!!!!!
 

 

 




In addition, Qassim Abdul-Zahra (AP) reports, "Iraqi police fired live shots into the air as well as rubber bullets and dozens of tear gas canisters on Friday to disperse thousands of protesters on the streets of Baghdad, sending young demonstrators running for cover and enveloping a main bridge in the capital with thick white smoke. One protester was killed and dozens were injured in the first hours of the protest, security officials said."



The cost of freedom is always high, but Iraqis have always paid it. I’m sorry for the horrible video but this is the democracy USA brought to Iraq a protester been shot in head with tear gas canisters
/>
0:09

 

 



The first one killed is said to have been hit with a tear canister.  The video above is supposed to be of that protester after he was hit.


In fairness to Jane, the use of "live shots" and "rubber bullets" may have taken place as more protesters assembled.  Her reports were both filed (the two for NPR above) as the protesters began assembling.  The bullets may have taken place after the assembling was complete and the protests were in full swing.  Yesterday, Jane Tweeted:

 Retweeted
In where my hotel has received security orders banning from staying in rooms facing river or on high floors where you can see Tahrir Square protest unfolding. Transported to Saddam’s time when entire hotel wings were blocked so we couldn’t see things.

 

 




At least two people have died as protests intensified in Iraq, with security forces using tear gas to repel demonstrators from approaching government buildings Friday, a member of the Independent High Commission for Human Rights of Iraq has told CNN. The official added that at least 95 other people were suffering from the effects of exposure to tear gas."

 

The protests have been down hill since then, Jane?


The protests have been strong and it takes a real western ass to argue otherwise.  They turn out, they show up.  This is despite a wave of assassinations targeting them.  This despite a world press that largely ignores them.  This despite their peaceful camps being burned to the ground.  This despite the pandemic that's effected Iraq the same it has the rest of the world.


But Jane grades on a curve -- a curve that's always in favor of the sitting govenrment.


But even Jane has to admit tha they toppled a government.  They did that but you really wouldn't grasp that if you followed the world press.  It got very little attention.


They overhtrew the government and did so without resorting to bullets or bombs.


And that's huge.  


Unless you are a western journalist.  


How many millions and millions of dollars did the US government spend -- not their dollars, it was the taxpayers' money -- to overthrow Saddam Hussein?  How many Iraqis and Americans had to die in order to overthrow Saddam Hussein?


But The October Revolution overthrew the prime minister of Iraq and did so without resorting to bombs or bullets.  


 Let's move over to another topic that we've been covering for months -- one also largely ignored by the western media.  




This is from 


Thousands of internally displaced people (IDPs) in Iraq are worried they will be forced to leave their camp in the northern Nineveh province, which hosts nearly 2,400 families, rights groups and refugees have told Al Jazeera.

Tens of thousands of Iraqis took shelter in refugee camps in Nineveh province, forced from their homes by the war against the ISIL (ISIS) armed group. ISIL was defeated in 2017 nearly three years after it took over large swaths of Iraq and neighbouring Syria.Most of the camps in the province have since been shut down but Jedaa Camp, about 65 kilometres (40 miles) south of Mosul city, still hosts refugees who are afraid to go back to their homes because of the security situation.

“Authorities are telling each family in the camp to leave. They’re pressuring us to fill security clearance and compensation papers that we would need after we leave the camp,” Wedad Ahmed, 53, told Al Jazeera from the Jedaa Camp.

“I have four children and my mother-in-law with me in the tent. My husband died in a mortar attack three years ago,” she said, adding that she has nowhere to go.

Activists and aid groups on the ground, who wished to remain anonymous, said on Monday that the Ministry of Displacement and Migration had instructed the camp mukhtars – men who often serve as heads of their communities – to inform all families from Tal Abta, al-Mahalabiya and al-Jaban districts to depart immediately.


The above?  Real issues.  Sadly, we have to talk now about a distraction, someone who lies and lies and covers for imperialism.



"F**ck, Aaron Mate!" snarls Ana Kasparian.



Someone should have put that cur on a leash long ago.  I'm going to repeat, JACOBIN needs to remove her from their podcast.  Yes, f-Aaron Mate is from a TYT 'performance.'  But she's too hateful, she's too abrasive and she shouldn't be pat of JACOBIN.  We haven't noted them once since her attack on Katie Halper and, as we noted then, she crossed a line.  She carried out that attack on a JACOBIN platform and it didn't belong there.  She is a cur.  SHe really should be pulled from all media.  But at the very least, JACOBIN should pull her from their site.


Mad Maddie's best friend should stick to Mad Maddie and she and Albright can give one another clitoral orgasms until the end of time while laughing about the dead Iraqis.  But she doesn't need to be on JACOBIN.  She cheapens JACOBIN and they don't need a podcast host who prevents them from gaining new listeners.  They don't need it.  They never need it?  


Her praise for Madeline Albright, her scraping and bowing to a War Criminal should have had her pulled from JACOBIN all by itself.


She's trash.  She's a liar who attacks.  TYT is a joke.  But let's watch JACOBIN ride down the toilet with her because they don't have the brains to protect their own brand.  


JACOBIN, the world is watching you. There may be a few idiotic Americans stupid enough to tolerate your association with Ana.  But the global world will not.  She's too cozy to too many War Criminals, she's an apoligist and a liar for empire.  And the world won't forget it.  More to the point, these people will spend their lives educating even the most unaware American on reality.  And when that happens, JACOBIN's attachment to their own personal Judy Miller will not be forgotten or forgiven.  She's tanked your brand.


I made very clear that she did not belong at JACOBIN after her attack on Katie Halper and that I was done with JACOBIN while they were associated with her.  As a result, I've heard from various left outfits and they may not have the guts to say so publicly but they're as appalled by JACOBIN's association with Ana as I am.


JACOBIN's destroying themselves.  It's past time for them to cut Ana loose.  It's not like she'll be unemployed.  She'll stil have her TYT job.  ANd I'm sure she'll continue to be paid to make nice and play footsie with War Criminals like Mad Maddie Albright.


The following sites updated: